| There are two separate things here: one is the ability to manage your own assets, the other the ability to enter in a contract. I am talking about only the first one. The problems with banks is that they are intermediaries between you and your money. > Try to get a loan in crypto with 80% collateral and then we can talk First: a mortgage is overcollaterized. A bank will take the whole house from you if you default, not just what is due. They are taking your downpayment and effectively keeping control over the property. Second: that is not even the point. The point is that a bank will not give you a mortgage even if you are good for it. Why, because they don't have proper systems in place to assess risk? Yeah, sure, undercollaterized loans require a system that both parties can agree on and that can solved in case of breach of aggreement. IOW, it is not a trustless system. So it would not happen on the blockchain. But you know what could happen on the blockchain? I could make a loan with someone I know using the current institutions, add that to my funds to get a overcollaterized loan and then I still don't need a bank. To go back to my first comment on this thread, adoption of crypto does not imply an all-or-nothing approach. I can be a "web3 enthusiast" and still make use of the current institutions when they suit me. It's the increased optionality that interests me. |
Uh, no. They are required by law to sell the property at a balance between timeliness and recovery of owed monies. And they are required to return to the mortgagee funds in excess of what was owed.