Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You are oversimplifying their argument. People are suggesting that people use more than one bank or make a service that involves using more than one bank not necessarily infinite banks. It isn't necessary to choose between zero risk and existential risk. You can with only modest effort achieve moderate risk.


the math is still the same though, just different degrees. If we (as tax payers) are ok with insuring 3 accounts (as an example) x 250k each, why are we not ok with insuring 1 account for 750k?


Because you're spreading the risk of bank failure across many banks, which honestly is probably good for everyone....


Someone with 3 250k accounts is liable to need a bailout on 1 of 3 costing less money.


Yes but now you have 3 times as many accounts that need to be bailed out.

Instead of 3 people holding 1 account each at 1 bank with 750k, now I have 3 people holding 250k at 3 banks. Per bank it’s still 750k.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: