In the United States, individual bank accounts are insured by the government to $250k per account. The overall risk profile is extremely low, regardless of whether a bank collapses or is subject to a security breach. The general assumption is that it would require the US government to collapse for your checking account to vanish, in which case you'd probably have larger problems to worry about.
replyIf you live in Argentina, I sympathize and I take your point.
>In the United States, individual bank accounts are insured by the government to $250k per account.
reply>The general assumption is that it would require the US government to collapse for your checking account to vanish, in which case you'd probably have larger problems to worry about.
See USSR-Russia transition in 1990-1992 for example.
Accounts didn't vanish, but all people's money where used to cover the deficit
Alas, (effectively) government deposit insurance encourages a lot of risk taking by banks. Which then begets more regulation.
replyPeople who essentially want government guarantees for their money should just buy government bonds.
> encourages a lot of risk taking by banks. Which then begets more regulation.
replyNot with simple account deposits, no
Basel rules are still a thing
Hence my "Which then begets more regulation."
replyCustomers stop monitoring their bank, when deposits are insured.
deleted
replyTo be fair, it's not even playing ground, security-wise. There is no mechanisim by which a bank can be compromised this quickly and completely, much more of the transfer process is permissioned.
replyCrypto 'banks' need orders of magnitude more security and it's not a trivial problem.