Will banks use privacy coins ?

[Fenix]

Now, on the contrary, we see an attack by states on coins with a high level of anonymity and confidentiality. Some states are simply banning them, while others are gradually making their circulation more difficult. Therefore, the risk for owners of such coins is constantly growing. And since banks are practically part of the state system, it is absolutely impossible for the banking system to use such coins.

[Callisto]

I am thinking about this.
Step 1 - banks discover blockchain - Checked.
Step 2 - banks integrate blockchain internally - Checked.
Step 3 - customers will have digital wallets from banks -  Not there yet.
Step 4 - banks integrate privacy coins internally.
Step 5 - customers will have privacy coins in their digital wallets from banks

Confidentiality and banks are two different concepts. I don’t think that they will focus on confidentiality, I think they are simply doing all these actions in order to somehow compete with cryptocurrencies or counteract them. Although it may simply be in words, it will not be in reality.

[bitterguy28]

I am thinking about this.
Step 1 - banks discover blockchain - Checked.
Step 2 - banks integrate blockchain internally - Checked.
Step 3 - customers will have digital wallets from banks -  Not there yet.
Step 4 - banks integrate privacy coins internally.
Step 5 - customers will have privacy coins in their digital wallets from banks

It has been on the list for long now yet some considered but generally not still happening , but I love that Idea of costumers having digital wallets from banks so they will be added to being cashless living though there is credit and debit cards yet not like digital wallets that is also functions as online direct paying.

Now, on the contrary, we see an attack by states on coins with a high level of anonymity and confidentiality. Some states are simply banning them, while others are gradually making their circulation more difficult. Therefore, the risk for owners of such coins is constantly growing. And since banks are practically part of the state system, it is absolutely impossible for the banking system to use such coins.

sorry but what kind of risks are those? i am an owner of coins and have been using for years though lucky for us because we have not  banning crypto in use here in my country.

[Carbitcoin]

If banks do not follow the current trend, then this business will be doomed to failure. They have no other choice. Although the banking system today is taking an active part in helping the government control the cryptocurrency market and users.

[Geey]

As a matter of facts, banks are already in fear about a strong competition on the Blockchain technology. I think the earlier the banking sectors introduce the Blockchain into their system, the better survive eminent competition. Some bank has started introducing Bitcoin to their customers in the US and gradually they may begin the developments of their Blockchain in near future.

banks are currently thinking about how in the future this bank will still be used by everyone, therefore banks are now introducing bitcoin to their customers so that the bank company does not fall even if the bank has a relationship with bitcoin in the future the bank will progress and many people will still use it... more and more Day by day the world will progress and technology will also advance faster and it will be easier for everyone to carry out transactions just by opening their cellphone or computer, they can make transactions quickly and easily.

[Pandu Gleen]

It seems that in the future this will be used to prevent theft or use a lock code that only we understand.  Due to the increasing need for organization in the future, coins in the future will be intended to protect stored assets or money.

[Pandu Gleen]

The possibility of banks using these coins can be applied, by calling for security in transactions.  In my opinion, this is something that can be discussed for the convenience of bank shareholders.

[TopT3ns]

The possibility of banks using these coins can be applied, by calling for security in transactions.  In my opinion, this is something that can be discussed for the convenience of bank shareholders.

However, when banks start using their own coins for alternative payments or other transactions, they must first obtain permission for use by the government because, so far, only a few countries can implement this and not all countries can use their own coins for existing bank purposes.

[taufik123]

The possibility of banks using these coins can be applied, by calling for security in transactions.  In my opinion, this is something that can be discussed for the convenience of bank shareholders.

However, when banks start using their own coins for alternative payments or other transactions, they must first obtain permission for use by the government because, so far, only a few countries can implement this and not all countries can use their own coins for existing bank purposes.

Ultimately it depends on how the coin is built, if the coin is built on a crypto platform it requires a lot of permissions because we all know crypto has never been approved as legal tender in some countries.

But if the coin is only built on Fiat and affiliated with fiat, it becomes a coin like the E-Wallet that has been widely circulated.
Coins are only used for internal payment purposes and cannot be withdrawn or made into other payments.

[DrBeer]

Probably not.
The reason is banal - any anonymity, or rather non-transparency of money flows, is a "violation" for the state. The banking system strictly complies with the regulatory norms of central banks, and cannot afford such violations, as it is essentially tantamount to revocation of the banking license. In today's world, even the "last aplot of anonymity of money" - Swiss Banks, actually canceled this "feature". And the culprits of all this are ... the people themselves! Because we tend to use GOOD solutions for bad things. I think in the modern world this trend (deanonymization) will gain strength

[Freemind]

Probably not.
The reason is banal - any anonymity, or rather non-transparency of money flows, is a "violation" for the state. The banking system strictly complies with the regulatory norms of central banks, and cannot afford such violations, as it is essentially tantamount to revocation of the banking license. In today's world, even the "last aplot of anonymity of money" - Swiss Banks, actually canceled this "feature". And the culprits of all this are ... the people themselves! Because we tend to use GOOD solutions for bad things. I think in the modern world this trend (deanonymization) will gain strength

If we look back at recent history, we can see many examples where banks have done (and continue to do) what they want, because they know it will not have major consequences or problems with states or governments. How many banks have protected money from traffickers (of all kinds) or laundered those fortunes?. There are many examples, and this has not only happened in Swiss or European banks, it has happened anywhere in the world. And what have been the consequences? At most, the resignation of some intermediate position, they have never wanted to reach the top.

Banks and governments have always done what they wanted, it would not seem strange to me if they used privacy coins. Transparency laws are for others, the people.

[DrBeer]

Probably not.
The reason is banal - any anonymity, or rather non-transparency of money flows, is a "violation" for the state. The banking system strictly complies with the regulatory norms of central banks, and cannot afford such violations, as it is essentially tantamount to revocation of the banking license. In today's world, even the "last aplot of anonymity of money" - Swiss Banks, actually canceled this "feature". And the culprits of all this are ... the people themselves! Because we tend to use GOOD solutions for bad things. I think in the modern world this trend (deanonymization) will gain strength

If we look back at recent history, we can see many examples where banks have done (and continue to do) what they want, because they know it will not have major consequences or problems with states or governments. How many banks have protected money from traffickers (of all kinds) or laundered those fortunes?. There are many examples, and this has not only happened in Swiss or European banks, it has happened anywhere in the world. And what have been the consequences? At most, the resignation of some intermediate position, they have never wanted to reach the top.

Banks and governments have always done what they wanted, it would not seem strange to me if they used privacy coins. Transparency laws are for others, the people.

It's silly to deny that banks, not infrequently, do very bad things.
I can't speak for all banks in the world, but two examples are enough for me:
- In my country, Ukraine, the banking sector was restructured in 2014 -2018. The reason is banal - high corruption, illegal schemes, and other things that the corrupt government has created. At first, the banks and their "patrons" tried to "solve the issue" at the highest level, but were rejected. It came to sabotage of the banking sector, which could have a very negative impact on the whole country. An example is the forced nationalization of the major bank PrivatBank. Its owner, after the schemes of embezzlement of millions of dollars from the state were revealed, began to threaten that "tomorrow he would stop the work of the bank", which meant millions of pension accounts and tens of millions of accounts of citizens. In the morning, the bank was handed over to the state, and the owner was put on trial.
- Switzerland, after dialogs with FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), decided not to bring the situation to a conflict and started to fulfill their demands. This was a smart move, otherwise we would have heard about the closure of many Swiss banks.

[Jaephoenix]

From my experience and views of the crypto market and government regulations, it is highly unlikely that a government would allow banks that they are controlling to trade or be involved in any privacy coins or tokens. Hell, many exchanges like Binance are even delisting them

[Freemind]

It's silly to deny that banks, not infrequently, do very bad things.
I can't speak for all banks in the world, but two examples are enough for me:
- In my country, Ukraine, the banking sector was restructured in 2014 -2018. The reason is banal - high corruption, illegal schemes, and other things that the corrupt government has created. At first, the banks and their "patrons" tried to "solve the issue" at the highest level, but were rejected. It came to sabotage of the banking sector, which could have a very negative impact on the whole country. An example is the forced nationalization of the major bank PrivatBank. Its owner, after the schemes of embezzlement of millions of dollars from the state were revealed, began to threaten that "tomorrow he would stop the work of the bank", which meant millions of pension accounts and tens of millions of accounts of citizens. In the morning, the bank was handed over to the state, and the owner was put on trial.
- Switzerland, after dialogs with FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), decided not to bring the situation to a conflict and started to fulfill their demands. This was a smart move, otherwise we would have heard about the closure of many Swiss banks.

Unfortunately that doesn't happen only in your country. In my country, Spain, the situation is very similar or simply the same. Many banks (Santander, Banesto and others) have sold products to clients as investments that over time have proven to be scams. And what happened? Nothing... At most, some really cheap fine and some small sentence that hasn't even sent anyone to prison. Even so, the banks continue with their bad practices, with governments and political parties as accomplices, because they know that they go unpunished and that they will always find some legal way to not really pay for the crime they have committed.

I also believe, although I do not have recent data, that these practices are carried out in all banks in the world.

[kent47400]

I don't understand why banks have to use privacy coins?
In fact, for Fiat alone, banks have opened their eyes wide if it is an asset that is visible to the public.
There is no need for banks to create Privacy coins, just cryptocurrency that has Privacy coins because I am sure that Banks do not need Privacy coins.
In terms of use alone, how could that happen? because everyone in the general public has different assessments, especially when it comes to regulations from various banks throughout the world.