Tag: mark emlick private equity

  • BANK OF CENTRAL BANKS WANTS TO STOP CREATION OF CRYPTO

    BANK OF CENTRAL BANKS WANTS TO STOP CREATION OF CRYPTO

    3 min read

    When Is The Right Time To Invest In Crypto?

    The rise of Bitcoin and the blockchain industry has been accompanied by criticism, just like any other emerging tech sector. Such criticism was heard during the dawn of the internet, and despite it, the internet is still alive and well today. Industry experts have offered different hot takes on the nature of cryptocurrency in general, calling it everything from a bubble to a Ponzi scheme.

    The latest well-known figure to criticize the cryptocurrency industry, however, is AgustĂ­n Carstens, head of the Bank for International Settlements, also known as the central bank for all central banks.

    BANK OF CENTRAL BANKS WANTS TO STOP CREATION OF CRYPTO

    According to Carstens in a recent interview, young people should stop trying to create money in the form of cryptocurrency.

    The Bank for International Settlements’ opinion on cryptocurrency may not gain any traction within the community because things have been improving for cryptocurrency. Banks and large corporations have been warming up to blockchain, the underpinning technology of most cryptocurrencies.

    Corporations like IBM have developed enterprise platforms and partnered with cryptocurrency platforms like Stellar to provide blockchain-based payment solutions. Several significant partnerships have also been made between cryptocurrency platforms and banks. Even with the fear of fraud and theft, banks realize that there is profit to be made from the industry and if their customers decide to trade, they may have no choice but to cooperate.

    During the interview, Agustín Carstens was asked if cryptocurrencies can be described as money. He replied by explicitly stating that cryptocurrencies are not money, rather they are a type of asset that can be invested in. By Carstens’ description, these digital assets can’t assume the functionality of money in the economy due to the way they are created.

    Mostly, cryptocurrencies are produced by a group of people who have either been appointed, elected or allowed to secure the network and receive new cryptocurrency in the form of block rewards. The most incentivized people in a cryptocurrency community are its miners. They make a profit when they create new assets and, in turn, deliver the needed security for the network.

    Carstens has stated that this is a bad model for money and simply does not maximize its usefulness. Money is supposed to be a great store of value, means of payment and unit of account. However, so far, digital assets like cryptocurrency have proven to fail badly at all three things.

    As for the hype surrounding the industry at the moment, mostly due to the peak prices achieved by major cryptocurrencies in 2017, Carstens believes that it is only happening as a result of the knowledge that a lot of money can be made on cryptocurrencies in a short period. He also called crypto assets a Ponzi scheme, bubble and environmental disaster due to the infrastructure needed to keep some of their networks running securely.

    Carstens alluded to the fact that he is sure that cryptocurrency will not have a happy ending. He compared digital assets to the renowned National Bank electronic payment system of Switzerland saying that cryptocurrencies may never exhibit that level of efficiency and trust.

    Central banks, on the other hand, have exhibited that level of trust, which is built on several years of efficient service, a level which Carstens is sure that digital asset networks will never achieve. This is why he believes that young people should be more focused on innovation and creative solutions to problems instead of trying to re-invent money.

    This is not the first time that Carstens has openly criticized Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency industry. In fact, he gave a talk on the topic at the Goethe University in Germany in early 2018, stating that central banks must work hard to stop the rise of cryptocurrency. This would ensure that the technology does not meddle with the finance industry and affect the financial stability of various world economies.

    He also spoke about the difficulties associated with working with Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT) in central banks, including the lack of efficiency, the expensive costs, and the slow speeds. Prior to this, Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, expressed his own opinion on cryptocurrencies calling them risky assets. He also stated that the European Central Bank is continuously working to identify threats and dangers that cryptocurrency may pose so that they are mitigated before any harm can be done.

    In addition to this, Carstens based the enthusiasm within the cryptocurrency industry on speculative mania and their use for illegal transactions. According to the BIS head, authorities are getting closer to finding ways to control and prevent the risks associated with digital asset use, stating that it is alarming that several banks have come up with bitcoin ATM’s where BTC can easily be bought or sold, an easy alternative to a Bitcoin exchange.

    As long as the most prominent use case for cryptocurrencies lies in illegal payments, central banks cannot merge the technology with that of the banking sector, to avoid financial disaster. This is similar to the opinion shared by the U.S. Secret Service concerning the provision of regulations for cryptocurrencies, especially those that provide anonymity to users. These coins are usually misused for illegal transactions and present issues when tracing such payments.

    The BIS has taken this stance on the industry for a long time. In February 2018, they highlighted issues with the scalability model of cryptocurrencies, stating that those with more users and a more extensive network are more likely to break down before others. Again, the bank warned the public to avoid making any risky decisions concerning their investments within the space.

    According to the BIS annual report, due to the fragility, lack of stability and lack of scalability, trust can easily disappear from the network and its capabilities. Such networks are also subject to regular congestion as they grow larger. One example is the Ethereum network congestion that occurred subsequent to the launch of Cryptokitties. Other issues addressed include transaction fees and limits.

    FINAL THOUGHTS

    Many have argued that banks make money and are taking a hypocritical stand by telling others not to. The warning by Carstens will most likely not be taken seriously in light of the continuous flood of investors into the cryptocurrency space. Despite the volatility within the industry, cryptocurrency has come to be recognized as a way to invest and make a lot of money. As a result, demand for digital assets has increased over time and will continue to lead to an increase in supply, not the opposite scenario that Carstens is proposing.

    Despite the bold statements by Carstens, the cryptocurrency industry has seen improvement in the number of projects, investors and the amount of money raised through crowdfunding. Apart from the statements that tell young people to stop trying to make money, he raised some relevant points including the insecurity and expenses associated with running such networks. Another problem lies in the lack of stringent regulations within the industry to govern its many investment and trade practices.

    Carstens continues to be outspoken about the Bank of International Settlements lack of support for cryptocurrency as a whole. Other experts in various financial and technological fields also continue to show mixed opinions on the subject.

    However, the recurring themes are rooted in regulation, theft, illegal activities and profits. Hopefully, cryptocurrency will get to a middle ground that makes security provision for users, regulators, like central banks and even law enforcement, easier.

    The original article was published https://www.markemlickprivateequity.com/

    Risk Disclosure (read carefully!)

  • MONZO, REVOLUT AND OTHER CHALLENGER BANKS ARE SHAKING UP THE INDUSTRY

    MONZO, REVOLUT AND OTHER CHALLENGER BANKS ARE SHAKING UP THE INDUSTRY

    MONZO, REVOLUT AND OTHER CHALLENGER BANKS ARE SHAKING UP THE INDUSTRY
    Digital technology has transformed the established ways of doing business across industries – and banking is no exception. New start ups are challenging traditional service providers with a more personalised and innovative service. Traditional banks have been slow to adapt but they haven’t – yet – lost too much of their business.

    Challenger banks like Starling, Monzo, Revolut, Atom and Tandem are all digital banks without high street branches. They are more flexible, quicker to adapt to user needs, more user friendly and more personal than traditional banks. Their biggest advantage is that they have started fresh with a digital offering and the use of the latest technology available. Traditional banks, meanwhile, are typically slower to respond to market demands and keep up-to-date with technological developments.
    In contrast, challenger banks are able to incorporate new products much more quickly and with less friction through their platform business model, which can easily connect customers with new products developed by third parties. This greatly increases customer choice.

    For instance, the account opening procedure is a lot easier and quicker with challenger banks, often only involving taking a picture of your ID and a video of yourself. Plus, they offer novel features such as making recommendations based on your transaction data for saving money, making payments to nearby friends via bluetooth, or even blocking gambling transactions from customer accounts.

    They can also be better at security and preventing fraudulent behaviour thanks to their more intelligent analytic capabilities. Monzo, for example, recently noticed a data breach of the ticketing platform Ticketmaster and took action to replace all cards that had used Ticketmaster, without waiting to receive customer requests.

    The trend of these new providers has been accelerated by recent regulatory changes in the UK (Open banking) and across Europe (PSD2). Taking effect in early 2018, these reforms force banks to share their customers’ data with third parties that can provide financial services if their customers request this. The change aims to boost competition and also challenges the powerful position of the traditional banks in the market by forcing them to share customers with new players.

    What most challenger banks have in common is their ability to offer lower fees to their customers due to their lean set up and lower cost structure. Challenger banks (and fintech start ups in general) capitalise on the perception that they are looking after the customers’ best interests, rather than doing what is best or most profitable for themselves (at least not in the short term).

    But this benefit to the customer makes it difficult to make profits. This is the norm for most UK challenger banks, as their focus is on accelerated growth and winning over new customers, while trying to work out their business model and how they will turn profits in the long term. Revolut marked itself out as an exception when it reported breaking even in December 2017.

    TRUST ISSUES

    Part of the issue is that, although challenger banks bring obvious benefits to users, we do not see a large number of customers leaving their traditional banks for these new players. While challenger banks increase their customer base and market presence, the number of customers using these banks as their main bank and having their payroll registered to them is low.

    The main reason for this is trust. Trust is of paramount importance when it comes to where customers put their money, and here established banks seem to have the upper hand. The common view is that even though the customers do not trust traditional banks for giving them the best deals, they trust these banks for keeping their money safe.

    The system failures that new players might face can also cause hesitation among potential customers and make gaining their trust more difficult. For instance, some app-only banks ran into problems recently due to issues with one of their technology suppliers, resulting in some reduced services. This suggests there’s promise, but also challenges.

    The overall picture we see so far in our research into challenger banks is that people stick with their traditional banks for keeping their savings and salaries and prefer making frequent, small payments into their challenger bank accounts to use in their daily lives.

    The pessimists say that the challengers will not necessarily win out. Although they are growing their users every day, they will not be able to grow beyond a certain size and will need to be acquired by established players. On the other hand, stats show that millennials are much more willing to switch financial providers in order to get better, more customized services.

    Plus, despite the uncertainty around the future of challenger banks, there are hints – including new regulations and tech firms getting into financial services – that show there will be no return to banking as we have known it.

    Read more HERE

    This article was originally posted on https://www.markemlickprivateequity.com/