I could go and found a bitcoin bank in which anyone can open an account. The catch? The bank runs a single wallet to back all accounts. The only promise made by the bank is that if you deposit X bitcoins, you'll get X bitcoins back when you request to withdraw them. I'll also allow you instant transfers between the accounts. They are off the blockchain, managed only in the bank's database, so these transactions can be arbitrarily fast.
If the wallet accumulates enough bitcoins so that it exceeds the normal volume of deposits and withdrawals, I'll take the rest and put them to work. Maybe buy shares in companies or so. I'll keep the earnings of these investments. If I make a loss, I'll have to recover the loss somehow. That's the risk I take.
At that point, I'd have created virtual bitcoins in the market. And who would be stopping me?
In some future crypto-based world, exchanges can be fully audited on a blockchain. Using technologies like Plasma you can even have a cryptographic guarantee that you'll be able to get your money back out, even though the exchange itself runs on a fast central database. The sort of crypto bank you're describing would have a hard time competing with that.
Consumers will use it because they already use banks without 100% reserves such as Bank of America, HSBC, any current bank in the banking system...
- New cryptocurrencies (possibly built on smart contract platforms) could replicate some features of the banking system
- Some loans could be based on deposits instead of new money creation (i.e. the naive view of how banks work)
- Easier creation of equity instruments based on crypto tokens could substitute for debt financing
One thing that fascinates me about all this is the ease of experimenting with new ideas. I don't know where we'll end up, but I'm optimistic that this messy process will end up advancing civilization.
In the scenario that you outlined, its probable that the reserve would much higher than the current 1-3%, which would lead to risk being more directly held by the bank making the loans and the depositors of that bank. And the argument goes that this might lead to more skin in the game and probably less reckless behaviour. Also, in such a system interest rates would be set by the market, based on the amounts of savings in the economy and the demand for loans.
I don't see how a Bitcoin bank as outlined above can be regulated to have a reserve requirement either. Arguably, this offers even less protection than a traditional bank, due to the inability of the public sphere to regulate it. And still, as long as a Bitcoin bank is perceived as sufficiently trustworthy based on past behavior, people would use it.
Next, I don't share your view that interest rates being set by the market is a good thing. Economies were far more fragile and volatile back when they were backed by bullion. The vast majority of people who have income from labor comparable to their net worth prefer that their net worth not fluctuate so much that they may not consistently maintain their standard of living, and this is helped by a steady interest rate. A rational agent prefers this unless their net worth greatly eclipses their ability to obtain wealth from other forms of capital.
> I don't see how a Bitcoin bank as outlined above can be regulated to have a reserve requirement either. Arguably, this offers even less protection than a traditional bank, due to the inability of the public sphere to regulate it. And still, as long as a Bitcoin bank is perceived as sufficiently trustworthy based on past behavior, people would use it.
The reserve requirement is something set through the political process so is independent of the properties of the money, so that can go either way both in a fiat or cryptocurrency system. The difference with cryptocurrencies is that you don't have as much need to store them in a bank. One reason to loan them to the bank is to get some kind of return on the money. In this situation reckless behaviour might be driven out faster, just like in the hedgefund industry.
> Next, I don't share your view that interest rates being set by the market is a good thing. Economies were far more fragile and volatile back when they were backed by bullion. The vast majority of people who have income from labor comparable to their net worth prefer that their net worth not fluctuate so much that they may not consistently maintain their standard of living, and this is helped by a steady interest rate. A rational agent prefers this unless their net worth greatly eclipses their ability to obtain wealth from other forms of capital.
Since I get most of my income from labour, I can tell you that I would prefer to have a slight deflation in prices every year and maintain my purchasing power, without having to go through all kind of hoops and loops to invest my money in bonds, stocks and other risky things.
As to old economies being backed by bullion, I tend to agree there. Bullion can be a poor monetary base due to its lack of divisibility. But there were probably more things that lead to fragile economies than the fact that money was backed by bullion.
Of course, there are problems with limited money supply systems. How would governments finance wars? You would have to finance things through taxation which is very unpopular.
And why would there be more pressure to adjust risky behaviour? Because people would take their money out of banks that exhibit that behaviour, which would re-inforce behaviour that has the right ratio of risk/return. This does not happen now because banks don't need almost any deposits to make profit.
This risk adjustment already happens in financial sectors that have skin in the game. For example, if a hedge fund looses money, sooner or later people will take their money out of it.