"The whole point of Cryptocurrency is that you don't need a bank."

“They whole point of Cryptocurrency is that you don’t need a bank.”

This statement by @jreighley seems to get at the heart of everything. Its why SAFE and why SAFE led to SAFEcoin, and why the global banking industry is trying to preempt with its own r3cev formulated crypto currency.

Neoliberal economist Milton Friedman in his musings on how to get rid of the FED (acting reserve global central bank and BIS etc.) said all that was needed was a pre agreed upon, programed rate of inflation- maybe 3%. That in essence predictability was the essence and it could get rid of central banker pontification and power. Crypto curriency provides this means hence jreighly’s comment and bankers attempts to create a global currency they control so we can’t cut the cord on their power- which is the greatest in the world.right now (and long term) the power to control the money supply.

Friedman said this in an econ talk library interview.

Get SAFE going but realize the coin is really no longer optional or auxilery but central, because it seems we’ve reached a point with the centralization and scale if banker power where there is no freedom without freedom from bankers.


The whole point of cryptocurrency is that you don’t need taxes, nor bank.


Since we don’t need the bank (banker) we don’t need the ultimate heart of capitalism either or ultimate capitalist. We end up with network-ism or something new assuming we can resist banker’s efforts against being automated out.

1 Like

Crypto-currency can replace banks, as it can function as currency, but it cannot replace taxes unless it can function as a government (which it can’t).

So, people who want a government will still need to pay taxes to fund it, but if crypto-currency becomes widely used, people won’t need a bank.

government can simply create money, rather than collect taxes

…you know, instead of the banks creating money and charging compound interest

1 Like

This seems to be a discussion about all cryptocurrencies in general, don’t you think this should be in “off-topic” @Warren?

I guess that would be an option if it were a government issued crypto-currency, but the government wouldn’t have an option to create money if people were using an independent crypto-currency like Bitcoin.

If a government was dependent on creating money rather than taxing, it would be devaluing the money through inflation, which will be an effective tax on everyone who holds the currency. This would be a big disincentive to hold that currency, which may lead to its complete failure.

Banks do create money, but it is destroyed when loans are repaid. Money created for government spending would not ever be destroyed, so would be highly inflationary (though in the context of a government operating from tax revenues, this could be done carefully as a form of QE).

I suppose you meant deficit spending, and perhaps you should have added that it wouldn’t ever be destroyed for the simple reason that it can’t ever be repaid without destroying the currency.
If you elaborated on these 2 points the recommendation to “carefully” orchestrate a Ponzi probably wouldn’t quite fit in to that sentence.

I agree with the title, but concerning SafeCoin it is still a secondary goal. The primary goal of SafeCoin is growing and sustaining the SAFE network (which is a requirement for this secondary goal anyway).


In this context, I’m not sure deficit would be the correct term either, as revenue isn’t required. Maybe ‘inflationary’ spending would be an appropriate term, as it’s directly inflating the money supply?

Yes, destruction of the newly created currency would be required to undo the inflationary effect, which would not be popular!

My comment in brackets was unhelpfully out of context - I was thinking about things like ‘positive money’, where in the context of a government as they operate usually (tax revenues etc), new money could be created and spent by the government as a form of QE (edited to hopefully clarify this).

1 Like

Yes, if they financed the debt by “printing” Safecoin which is what appears to be the case from the context.
(I thought of them issuing Safecoin-denominated bonds, a crypto-equivalent of what they do today; well they do the both…)

1 Like

I think its directly related to SAFE and its reason for being and for the existence of the SAFE coin.

@chrisfostertv “eliminate forced retirment taxes that lack investment” I can’t stand that idea because with an investment component its theft and forced gambling. You could elminate the yax but retirement must still be a right and funded before all else. Working old people to death is the kind of thing that should end up with Fergish’s loaded cocked gun to the head of the wealthy.

Automation is getting rid of jobs and living wages, I like it when it gets rid if rent seekers claimes to capital as well but in this struggle to put each other out of work retirement voluntary or otherwise has to be a central concern even to keep the peace.

um, this is not off-topic?

1 Like

Its in topic in the thread. There is a social component. There is a bigger picture. Be careful with moderation as censorship.

Your founder is a pretty liberal guy from what I can tell. There is no reason to cave to people from the right whining behind the scenes, even if they are otherwise good contributors.

This incessant bit about tax evasion should get more scrutiny, a lot more. As much as some don’t want to pay taxes there is another larger group of people with no security suffering under getting paid far too little. What good is the project if it will turn into something to re-enforce elitism?
I know that’s the opposite of the intent behind the project.

1 Like

There is a significant difference between SAFE the technology, and SAFE the messiah.

If you believe SAFE is the messiah, then everything is relevant.

But then again the topic of “is this off topic” is off topic… Sooner or later the snake will realize it is eating it’s own tail.


The safecoin category is the place to talk about safecoin.

1 Like

And SAFE coin is an evolving cryptocurrency not existing in a vacuum. Can it eliminate banking? Is it adequate if it doesn’t? Does it represent a different approach? Linear thinking isn’t always a good thing.

Too many mods even if its a tough job. A lowest common denominator of mod peeves makes for a ruined community. Its not supervision or management. The people in the forum are not designated inferiors. This isn’t the idiocy of employee evaluation. We should be able to vote to retain mods. I am happy with Happybeing and to a lessor extent polpolrene, but not the others at the moment save for those that are almost never heard from. Light touch is needed. With important exceptions: it makes me cringe might not be the proper threshold for mod activity.

@Warren thanks for the compliment. Rather than discuss this here, I think the best place is on the meta thread you started so we can discuss these issues and get views from across the community. You can always link back to this for reference.

1 Like