They can already borrow money created out of thin air from the Fed and loan it out several times. They don't need to risk their brand and business on a highly volatile, experimental tech.

That's the nicest thing I probably have to say about crypto.

what if they all have in house crypto currencies just waiting to go live once the market stabilizes?

They care much more about the blockchain technology, but they would never willingly abandon all the fiat currencies of the world. Crypto-currencies still have a long way to go as a payment system, especially when I can swipe a credit card most places and get a percentage of cash back.

>>1329577
the fed doesn't create money only the treasury can do that...

>>1330347
IBM does!
Or, at least did.
And probably could again if there were any point.

>>1330371
The fed does create money when it buys debt on the open market with money that never previously existed.

>>1329561
kek
i like you OP
lets start a crypto called "pinga"
"yo send 5 pingas my way for 12 grams"
"pinga for pinga special today"

>>1329561

Japan's biggest bank is already on it

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/japans-biggest-bank-confirms-digital-currency-tests/

>>1329561

It has already started. Jump on the train before it is too late

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/40-global-banks-run-blockchain-tests-from-multiple-vendors/

The thing about crypto is it offers (in theory) a permissionless, neutral value transfer network. Banks are neither politically neutral nor do they want to transfer control of their payment networks to unknowns.
There is a niche (rather large imo) for what crypto offers, but banks can just use distributed databases in a closed system to do their business and retain control.
My inferrence: blockchain is a temporary hype in bankland but they will find no added value. They will however lose market share to crypto in the value transfer business.

>>1330410
Que bola spicker

I thought microsoft was going behind ethereum