Share the post "Why Miftah Ismail Did Not Answer Web Three Point Zero Question"
The Answer is Yes and No
Yes they will operate banking services, probably through a partnership with either an established bank or the best of the start ups. The reason they wont become a bank (established themselves) is due to the regulation that’s involved. Google and specifically Apple want to own the front end experience, due to the marketing opportunity, and the potential to deepen the relationship with the customer. We cannot imagine both companies wanting to clear money and manage accounting based reporting. The real player that could make the biggest impact is Amazon. With links to a market place, and now in our home due to echo, they have huge reach. We see two possibilities in the next 2 years. Either a bank will be bought and staff retained, or as stated a partnership with a bank. Either way the tech giants will start to own more and more front end banking services until banking becomes invisible to us.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…. I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
-Thomas Jefferson
Why do you say that social media is a free ecosystem? It is not “free” you just don’t pay with money and they all sell your data. The big corporate attached to these social platforms are the true Internet trolls! There are definitely a lot of complexities when it comes to banking and these tech companies taking over. This would obviously create disturbances with privacy issues, in which Americans value privacy heavily. Also, it would promote monopolies in many facets. This destroys the idea of fair markets and competitive, capitalistic ideology. We are truly unsure about this without getting into more depth but all in all, we believe that would be a horrible move for the tech companies and we also believe it would be a horrible move for citizens. Internationally, this could be effective.
Modus Operandi
First, they would have to be granted a banking license. Secondly, they would have to be regulated the way a bank is regulated. In a less regulated market though it could happen. Large technology companies as those mentioned upto this stage of the article will likely be better served to own a bank holding company, or partner with one that can carry the regulatory and infrastructure burdens while allowing the tech firms to expand services through their existing channels without the unnecessary weight of additional regulatory expertise. This can be compared to companies either owning their own property or leasing from a specialized company that owns and manages properties. If ownership is in your capital structure interest, then do it, but if it isn’t, let someone else own it so you can put your capital into what you’re good at. If Nuon is a bank, we are sure Google already is.
Time to bring back Glass-Steagall
Isn’t Microsoft vested in the same “technologies”? Interesting to see that a LinkedIn Editor would leave them out of the whole scheme of things, especially following Microsoft’s acquisition of LinkedIn. Perhaps a way of making Amazon/Facebook/Google “too big to fail”??…smells to high hell!! Commercial banks are not supposed to be high-risk ventures; they are supposed to manage other people’s money very conservatively. It is with this understanding that the government agrees to pick up the tab should they fail. Investment banks, on the other hand, have traditionally managed rich people’s money — people who can take bigger risks in order to get bigger returns… oligarchic deep state writ large… what a disgrace…
Wiki: Glass-Steagall Act
