Will the big banks ever get with the times?

AngusMcFilth

Personally, I think the whole idea of 'banks' - at least as a provider of current accounts - is an outdated concept, and eventually current accounts will only be used by a niche part of the population.


We are not there yet, but I predict in 10 - 20 years time cryptocurrencies will take over the functions that have been traditionally performed by bank current accounts - e.g. holding funds, payment processing, etc. Two main reasons for this:
1. As time goes on, there will be more and more technical failures and fraud attacks at banks, preventing people from accessing their money. It is not unlikely that one day there will be a failure so significant that people will lose confidence in the banking system. This is exacerbated by the fact that people are more reliant on their bank now than in any time in history. A major failure across a number of banks, or with a payment provider like Visa, could result in riots and anarchy - sounds extreme, but becomes understandable when you realise that a lot of people do not have much (if any) cash on them at any one time, and their card functioning could be the one thing that decides whether they eat or not. Cryptocurrency does not completely insulate against this (it is still susceptible to power or network failures) but, unlike centralised banking, there is no single point of failure in the network.
2. Similar to the above, a lot of people do not realise this, but banks have enormous power over whether people can use their services. Wasn't really a problem in the past, when banking was a choice, but now access to banking facilities is almost as necessary as a water or electricity supply in the modern age. As cash gets less and less common, and eventually harder to get, people will be at the mercy of their banks. There is nothing stopping a bank (or government) from putting a 'money laundering' flag on your account, locking you out of your account, even if you weren't actually laundering money. In fact, the law requires that the banks do not disclose the reasons why they put such a flag on your account. Same thing with payment cards - when you use one, you are effectively asking the bank permission to spend your money. The bank is at complete liberty to say 'no' - even if you have the available funds. The way that crypto is designed makes this type of central control impossible.


Remember, 30 years ago no-one had heard of the internet, and now it is almost impossible to imagine modern life without it.

eDicky

If any card of mine is used to make a purchase or withdrawal I want to be notified instantly, in case it wasn't me doing it.

I also want to be able to 'switch off' the card when I won't be using it, so there's not even the possibility of it being used by someone to tap my account.

All the 'Fintechs' provide these with their apps. If I can selectively switch off certain card functions, such as online purchase, ATM use, magstripe etc, as included in the security features of Starling Bank and Revolut, I'm even happier.

These things obviously being possible, and assuming that they could help prevent a lot of fraud, from my perspective when the 'big banks' provide them they will be starting to 'get with the times'.

ValiantSon

AngusMcFilth wrote: »

Personally, I think the whole idea of 'banks' - at least as a provider of current accounts - is an outdated concept, and eventually current accounts will only be used by a niche part of the population.


We are not there yet, but I predict in 10 - 20 years time cryptocurrencies will take over the functions that have been traditionally performed by bank current accounts - e.g. holding funds, payment processing, etc. Two main reasons for this:
1. As time goes on, there will be more and more technical failures and fraud attacks at banks, preventing people from accessing their money. It is not unlikely that one day there will be a failure so significant that people will lose confidence in the banking system. This is exacerbated by the fact that people are more reliant on their bank now than in any time in history. A major failure across a number of banks, or with a payment provider like Visa, could result in riots and anarchy - sounds extreme, but becomes understandable when you realise that a lot of people do not have much (if any) cash on them at any one time, and their card functioning could be the one thing that decides whether they eat or not. Cryptocurrency does not completely insulate against this (it is still susceptible to power or network failures) but, unlike centralised banking, there is no single point of failure in the network.
2. Similar to the above, a lot of people do not realise this, but banks have enormous power over whether people can use their services. Wasn't really a problem in the past, when banking was a choice, but now access to banking facilities is almost as necessary as a water or electricity supply in the modern age. As cash gets less and less common, and eventually harder to get, people will be at the mercy of their banks. There is nothing stopping a bank (or government) from putting a 'money laundering' flag on your account, locking you out of your account, even if you weren't actually laundering money. In fact, the law requires that the banks do not disclose the reasons why they put such a flag on your account. Same thing with payment cards - when you use one, you are effectively asking the bank permission to spend your money. The bank is at complete liberty to say 'no' - even if you have the available funds. The way that crypto is designed makes this type of central control impossible.


Remember, 30 years ago no-one had heard of the internet, and now it is almost impossible to imagine modern life without it.

Would you like to buy a tinfoil hat?

pafpcg

AngusMcFilth wrote: »

Remember, 30 years ago no-one had heard of the internet

I wish folks on this thread would stop claiming things as facts rather than opinion or guesses. Not only had I heard of the "internet" thirty years ago, I'd been using it! In fact, I started with a British Library-funded prototype packet-switching network linked to ARPANET over forty years ago (1975/6). And the Queen wasn't far behind me - she sent her first e-mail from RSRE in 1976.

Skippy13

JuicyJesus wrote: »

I want cheques gone too, they're a fraud magnet and basically pointless in this day and age, but while people insist on using them or wanting them the existing banks rather have to take them. It's a bit silly to criticise them on that basis given that they wanted to phase them out by 2013 but had to back down after everyone started screaming about how elderly people are too stupid to use cards or Direct Debits.

What a horrible post, calling the elderly stupid just because they don't agree with your opinions. And card purchases are so secure aren't they?

My husband is a self employed handyman and he doesn't accept card payments (he's not stupid BTW, he just hasn't had the call for them). How do you suggest he's paid? Cash isn't always practical and some people don't have internet banking so a cheque suits them.

takman

Skippy13 wrote: »

What a horrible post, calling the elderly stupid just because they don't agree with your opinions. And card purchases are so secure aren't they?

I don't think JuicyJesus was actually saying elderly people are stupid they were saying that's basically what the campaign to keep cheques was insinuating.

My grandmother (who is almost 90) uses Direct Debits to pay her bills and prefers paying by Debit Card for most purchases as she doesn't like to carry/withdraw too much cash. She also does most of her banking via telephone and rarely uses a branch.
So i also think the campaign was a bit insulting to old people when being over a certain age does not mean you can't use Debit Card's and Direct Debits.

Skippy13 wrote: »

My husband is a self employed handyman and he doesn't accept card payments (he's not stupid BTW, he just hasn't had the call for them). How do you suggest he's paid? Cash isn't always practical and some people don't have internet banking so a cheque suits them.

He would simply have to get a card reader if cheques were phased out.

I'm always surprised when self employed people like to receive cheques; there is no guarantee that they will get the money which is why most businesses stopped accepting them when cheque guarantee cards were phased out.

RandomUser923759

Notifications.
No pending.
Account opened and usable within minutes
Pin change, freeze card etc in app
Categorising of spend
Less charges, foreign currency spend etc

To name a few things...

ColdIron

Skippy13 wrote: »

My husband is a self employed handyman and he doesn't accept card payments (he's not stupid BTW, he just hasn't had the call for them). How do you suggest he's paid? Cash isn't always practical and some people don't have internet banking so a cheque suits them.

He should keep up with the times

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwBk8nLEG2k

RandomUser923759

To give more context. Last week I opened monzo and NatWest.

With NatWest I’ve been lumbered with payment restrictions. Had to go into branch with ID and was in there for over an hour. Card reader is only sent if ordered and I can’t transfer my money back to Lloyd’s except for 250 a day after 4 day grace period.

Monzo opened in minutes - card arrived in two days and fully functional - no fuss.

Skippy13

ColdIron wrote: »

He should keep up with the times

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwBk8nLEG2k

No point if no one wants to pay him by card!:D