The person you're replying to isn't arguing for people to be using "Jim's shady internet bank" or a random buddys bank, they are discussing the ability of current trusted actors to act as custodians and insurers for cryptocurrency-wallets, hiding the scary and difficult aspects of cryptocurrency, while operating on top of an open-source, trust-less, publicly auditable, open base-layer like a blockchain.
They are saying it's possible to regard cryptocurrency as a base-layer for economic transactions, and that without it it's basically not possible today to leave the traditional banking world behind if one wants to maintain a digital presence. Don't you think it should be? Why should an individual be forced to have someone else be custodian for their wealth?
Cryptocurrencies also aren't really finished yet, there are a lot of improvements to be made before it is possible to replace the existing financial infrastructure and maintain its scale.
It’s been 14 years. When will they be “finished”? What does that look like? What are the goals?
It seems to me like the original goals failed (take over the world, everyone use Bitcoin like cash) and so the goalpost moving began (sidechains, PoW “soon”, NFTs, etc).
I’ve seen nothing of value produced out of 14 years if hype. Only wasted resources and what seems to be an accidental Ponzi scheme.
> nobody wants to run their own bank
It sure looks like A LOT of people do. The real question is why are you so mad about it?
Nobody wants to run their own bank, which ALSO means nobody wants to use Jim’s shady internet bank or their buddy’s bank or their mom’s bank or or or…
Like, nobody in crypto seems to think for one second about how the world actually works or what people not brainwashed by crypto might want.
It’s a tech that has thoroughly, definitively lost the argument. It’s as clear a dead end as the metaverse, or pivots to video (let alone Meta/FB’s pivot to video)