• David Gerard
    cake
    OPA
    link
    English
    111 months ago

    So basically, Signature and Silvergate did. Their problem was not crypto directly, but crypto customers - they had billions in deposits which didn’t stay in the bank, the customers kept withdrawing huge amounts at short notice like it was their own money or something. Neither bank could quite cover the deposits at such short notice, and eventually they just died. Both were kept working in that time. Silicon Valley Bank went down soon after in the same way, except the hot money depositors were VCs and startups.

    • Peter Willemsen
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      That’s a very nice explanation, thanks! Also nice to interact with people on Lemmy! I was curious, “withdrawing huge amounts at short notice like it was their own money or something”, if that’s what you can do with it, isn’t that exactly what it is, your money?

      • David Gerard
        cake
        OPA
        link
        English
        110 months ago

        well, precisely. Banks expected depositors would keep their money in the bank. This turned out to be incorrect when interest rates went up.

        • Peter Willemsen
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I see, I misread it then. Slightly off-topic, but I just realized you are the one who wrote the Attack of the 50 foot blockchain and now I feel I’m in the precense of a legend. I’m going to buy your book, because I’m genuinly interested in an in-depth perspective by someone who is anti-crypto. I’m not anti-crypto, but I like to keep an open mind!