just spent time looking at neo-banks and honestly the whole thing feels backwards. the pitch basically comes down to: "people need someone else to manage their money because they'll mess up, so let us (a bank or some organization) be the safety net when things go wrong."
compare that to actually owning your assets outright. no middleman deciding if your transaction is "suspicious." no waiting for permission. no depending on some institution to bail you out when you need access to your own funds. the difference is pretty stark when you see it laid out like that.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
12 Likes
Reward
12
2
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
liquiditea_sipper
· 56m ago
In simple terms, it's just changing skins to continue playing people for suckers. True freedom is self-custody, don't get brainwashed.
View OriginalReply0
ChainWallflower
· 12-21 14:44
To be honest, I’m tired of the bank's "help you manage your money" rhetoric; they just want you to trust them.
The real feeling of freedom is having the key in your own hands, without needing to look at anyone else's expression.
The bank's "safety net" is just a shackle; should we be grateful to them? Wake up, everyone.
Once you truly manage your own Holdings, there’s no going back; it's refreshing without an intermediary.
The comparison is obvious; why let someone else control you?
However, most people don’t actually want this kind of freedom; they are used to having someone as an accomplice to fall back on.
On-chain is what truly belongs to you; everything else is an excuse.
The banks are still using the old tricks, just scaring you into thinking you’ll mess things up.
Managing assets on your own indeed requires responsibility, but the value of freedom is worth it.
just spent time looking at neo-banks and honestly the whole thing feels backwards. the pitch basically comes down to: "people need someone else to manage their money because they'll mess up, so let us (a bank or some organization) be the safety net when things go wrong."
compare that to actually owning your assets outright. no middleman deciding if your transaction is "suspicious." no waiting for permission. no depending on some institution to bail you out when you need access to your own funds. the difference is pretty stark when you see it laid out like that.