YOU CAN STOP THIS. “Bitcoin Put in Highest Risk Category in Bank Capital Plan” This is the highest banking committee in the world, and they are attempting to make it virtually impossible for banks to hold Bitcoin. Link in first comment to post a public comment to them. Be polite. This is a big deal.


View Reddit by Jethroe1View Source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings


  1. Bitcoin lost close to 50% of its value in a month. That is the definition of High Risk.

    Bitcoin has value but you need to be realistic about what it is and the huge amount of volatility risk involved with it.

  2. This will hurt banks more than bitcoin in the long run. Bitcoin didnt need any banks until now and it wont need them in the future. the only ones missing out will be the banks, which will have less profit from being part in the game.

  3. No need for Banks to be part of Bitcoin, but an interesting analogy emerges : By saying they have to hold the right amount of Fiat for their Bitcoin, its a bit reminiscent of when the Gold Standard was upheld. Now they have to uphold our Digital Gold. Enter the Bitcoin Standard. Interesting.

  4. Have fun staying poor. Financial institutions were the entities pushing for a bifurcated network of green and clean coins anyway. We are better off growing slower without them.

  5. I think many are not getting this. I don’t care jackshit about banks. I just want Bitcoin to have all the breathing room with capital access it needs to kick ass. Here is my response…

    Banks will be missing out, but what I think you have got wrong here is that ADOPTION of Bitcoin will be slowed if this passes. Think of it like using the Swift system to restrict use of US dollars for a certain country or actor.

    My goal is worldwide adoption of Bitcoin, and then, the Bitcoin Standard with Bitcoin as the basis of all sound money systems. That does not mean I embrace banks. It does mean I want to USE banks to get to my goal.

    Please write a quick note.

  6. Honestly people shouldn’t be complaining about Bitcoin having this regulation, they should be complaining that fiat money isn’t regulated like this. By using a bank to store your money, you trust them they can provide you with your money when YOU request it. Well thanks to fractional reserve system, that isn’t always the case and in certain scenarios they could basically tell you “Sorry, you can’t take out YOUR money because we don’t have enough stored to fund the withdrawal.” Ironically thanks to this Bitcoin would be a safer way to store your money at Banks should the above scenario ever arise since they would be required to actually store the amount required to fund everyone should everyone decide to take their money back out.

  7. This is no different when PayPal and Ebay first came out. The banks shut it down until it got so much traction that they had no choice but to adopt it. They will do the same thing here when they see other countries embracing it. America hates missing out on shit.

  8. I think that this might actually be good news. Right now it’s not an asset at all for them. It has to start off as highest risk, and then it will slowly climb to replace US treasuries as the safest… “pristine collateral” as Raoul Pal says.

    Right now banks have too much cash and don’t have anywhere to put it with any kind of return because they are afraid to lend. They actually NEED bitcoin.

  9. Investing in a revolutionary emerging technology is risky…which is why the reward profile is so great. Its not that Bitcoin should be labelled less risky but fiat should be illuminated as guaranteed risk which, of course, would never happen.

  10. Dear Sirs,

    I object strongly to your misguided attempts to place restrictive capital requirements on commercial banks based on the false assumption that Bitcoin may go to zero value.

    Bitcoin has been through numerous cycles that prove it’s resilience and anti-fragility. Additionally, the Bitcoin network has value, both in dollar volume, but in transactional ability for under, and no-banked populations. These populations need access to some form of value retention, and transactional capability, which Bitcoin provides through the Lightning network, and Strike. Your attempts to hinder the market through restrictive capital controls has the potential to harm many while providing little justification.

    I strongly encourage the Basel Committee to reevaluate it’s approach to Bitcoin, and understand that this new, nascent monetary good is not going away, and thus the future for commercial banks lies in their ability to adopt to this reality, and not try to hinder it.

  11. It’s not that bad, actually. It firstly means banks, which are highly regulated, can buy bitcoins. It therefore means it is a valuable assets for the regulators, even if a risky one. And it is. I often read in this subreddit “do not invest more than you are comfortable to lose”, well this is what Basel regulations is saying, essentially.

What do you think?

Cannot say no to free crypto

Dfinity’s ICP Falls Another 10%