[fiatjaf]

If one, this would be open.

The current banking system doesn't suck because people are greedy or bankers are bad people. It sucks because it is closed and no one can join.

(If you're tempted to say: "no, anyone can join, they just have to fulfill the regulations blablabla", then this is your answer.)

[stagas]

There are local communities around the world that run their own credit lines for exchange of goods outside of the banking system, so it's not that Offset is enabling something that isn't happening already. Maybe the software is more convenient but is it any more different? I'm trying to understand. My question is what's preventing few people accumulating trust and credit lines and eventually becoming bankers for this system? Everybody needs bread, but those that sell bread don't need javascript applications, so there has to be a middle man even in this system for me to buy bread. The current banking system exists because it has established credit lines with goods that are almost impossible to acquire without a middleman, like petroleum, electricity, infrastructure.

[rjmunro]

> My question is what's preventing few people accumulating trust and credit lines and eventually becoming bankers for this system?

The way I understood it nothing is preventing people doing that. Quite the opposite, in fact. That's the whole idea. That's what is supposed to happen. The difference is that the barrier to entry for those people is essentially nothing, rather than having to start an actual bank, which will encourage local competition, keeping fees low.

[thinkloop]

> My question is what's preventing few people accumulating trust and credit lines and eventually becoming bankers for this system?

That would be great, it would be more credit for everyone and wouldn't take away anyone else's credit - and if they start misbehaving they can be quickly replaced.

[notduncansmith]

> It sucks because it is closed and no one can join.

Playing the devil’s advocate, limiting the number of bankers may make it easier* to regulate their behavior as a whole, because there are fewer of them to monitor/investigate. Predatory or exclusionary lending can be difficult to detect and curb already: increasing the number of actors to regulate may make it near-impossible. What are your thoughts on protecting borrowers in a web-scale marketplace of lenders?

* independent of other variables, such as the ability of the wealthy to influence policy in their favor

[stagas]

Exactly, nothing is stopping few individuals from becoming mafia. Eventually a secondary system needs to be established to regulate those guys at gunpoint, then voila, you've got current society.

[Nursie]

> "no, anyone can join, they just have to fulfill the regulations blablabla", then this is your answer.

Banking regulations are hard won protections for the consumer or investor applied after years of misadventure and (usually) large-scale fraud. They aren't perfect but the idea that it would be great to just throw those out so anyone can start being a bank is one of the crazier things I've heard recently.

[johnrgrace]

Anytime a business or person let's their customer pay after work has been done there is an extension of credit. The trade credit system is massive and anyone can join.