Is Lawsky A Liar?

[Bungeebones]

In this article by the NY Times it brings up some serious issues with their proposed regulations and it is important top find out who is behind the gross inaccuracies and whether this statement is attributable to Mr Lawsky or not ...

As capital protection, these companies would have to hold the same amount of virtual currency as they owed to their customers. But unlike banks, which are also subject to capital requirements, these companies would be allowed to hold some of it in virtual currency.

Anyone one in Mr Lawsky's position certainly knows that banks don't hold the same amount of money as is owed their customers but actually only a smaller and smaller fraction. The whole banking system is a system known as fractional reserve banking with banks holding only in the single digits worth of what they owe their customers.

So, if the article is accurate about the facts of the proposal and IF the facts are attributable to Mr Lawsky and, together with the obvious point that anyone in Mr Lawsky's position would be totally aware that today's banking system is a fractional reserve system then would there be any other possible conclusion about him as what the title asserts?

And if that is what he is then how can he be trusted with any of the rest of the proposals he has made no matter how innoculous they might appear?

 

[muh_roads]

Thank god for 50-state competition.

Did they say anything about tumblers in the draft? Lawsky really hates the coinjoin tech.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

In this article by the NY Times it brings up some serious issues with their proposed regulations and it is important top find out who is behind the gross inaccuracies and whether this statement is attributable to Mr Lawsky or not ...



Anyone one in Mr Lawsky's position certainly knows that banks don't hold the same amount of money as is owed their customers but actually only a smaller and smaller fraction. The whole banking system is a system known as fractional reserve banking with banks holding only in the single digits worth of what they owe their customers.

So, if the article is accurate about the facts of the proposal and IF the facts are attributable to Mr Lawsky and, together with the obvious point that anyone in Mr Lawsky's position would be totally aware that today's banking system is a fractional reserve system then would there be any other possible conclusion about him as what the title asserts?

And if that is what he is then how can he be trusted with any of the rest of the proposals he has made no matter how innoculous they might appear?

It says banks are "also subject to capital requirements." It doesn't say anything about the amount of reserves, it just says there are capital requirements, which is true.

 

[Bungeebones]

It says banks are "also subject to capital requirements." It doesn't say anything about the amount of reserves, it just says there are capital requirements, which is true.

You can't be serious? Banks have to keep less than 5% in reserve! Compared to the 100% that they are making Bitcoin companies maintain the bank's "reserves" don't amount to any more than a dry bean fart.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You can't be serious? Banks have to keep less than 5% in reserve! Compared to the 100% that they are making Bitcoin companies maintain the bank's "reserves" don't amount to any more than a dry bean fart.

All I'm saying is that the statement is not false. That's it. Why wouldn't I be serious? This has nothing to do with my political ideology. It's simply not a false statement.

Banks have capital requirements. There are laws regulating how much capital a bank is supposed to have. Whether or not it's enough is irrelevant.