[rdm_blackhole]

Is it because you trust the banks to keep your money safe? Have a look at what happened in 2013 in Cyprus where they did a bail-in with their customer's money to "save" a bank that was too big to fail.

I am with parent on this one.

[bildung]

What happened in Cyprus in 2013? Private banks in a tax haven had rich people from other countries speculating on foreign markets (US housing, among others), hoping to gain above-market returns by doing so. That speculation went sour, resulting in insolvent banks. Those banks also had regular and smaller deposits from local residents, though. In order to protect those people, Cyprus decided to not absorb the speculative losses of those rich people. Instead, the private speculative losses stayed private, which is essentially what a haircut above €100k did.

Now imagine that same situation, but with Facebook at the helm. Either Facebook is in risk of insolvency, or private speculation with zuckbucks going south. Do you think Facebook will just go bancrupt in order to protect the zuckbuck owners? Or will they more probably recreate Cyprus, but way worse for the zuckbuck holders?

[gridlockd]

In other words, you agree with the parent on the facts. People lost their money, but presumably "it serves them right" cause they were rich and tried to dodge taxes - which is totally besides the point.

As for this new cryptocurrency, it's designed not to go insolvent, because it is more or less fully backed with actual currency/bonds. It has nothing to do with Facebook's financials.

By contrast, besides insurance for a modest amount, a bank deposit is only "backed" mostly by securities and loans years into the future, most of which can go bad in a crisis.

[bildung]

> In other words, you agree with the parent on the facts. People lost their money, but presumably "it serves them right" cause they were rich and tried to dodge taxes - which is totally besides the point.

People willfully risked risked their capital to target above-average returns. That didn't work out, which, when looked at from a distance, is perfectly fine - other market participants made better decisions, end of story. What isn't perfectly fine is people then trying to socialize their losses afterwards. You can't have a cake and eat it, too.

[randomvectors]

We're not arguing about the safety and viability of banks. Instead, we're directly comparing the safety and viability of banks vs Facebook. If you think that Facebook comes out on top in that comparison, either you really haven't been paying attention, or we fundamentally disagree about what safety and viability mean.

[gridlockd]

Do you have any actual arguments?