[hevalon]

I will only partially agree with you; mainly because indeed, that's what they're pitching crypto as - To be your own bank. But practically, most blockchains are replacing the inter-banking networks (like SWIFT) rather than the banks themselves, as you still need centralised entrypoints.

To save some comments; Yes, they do have the potentials to create their own closed-circle economic ecosystems, but for the retail banking services to work (eg overdrafts, mortgages etc) you will end-up with centralised players as these kind of services need to be backed by wealth (it's not a tech-issue).

[xur17]

2 of the biggest benefits I see are:

- leveling the playing field with an open interface that anyone can build on top of

- allowing true ownership of assets

[sbeller]

> - allowing true ownership of assets

What is ownership and how is it true? This is philosophically on the deep end, as the evil powers can seize your wallet just as easily and you may have no (legal) recourse, https://xkcd.com/538/

Seriously if I own a traditional asset within the current legal system (e.g. stocks, bonds, real estate), "the system" can help me protect and enforce my ownership rights, if you're in good social standing. In crypto "the system" cannot help you as much.

However if you are in bad social standing, the system can seize the wallet or the stocks easily.

[nicholasbraker]

Actually they are still blockchains in their own ecosystem. The only one who bridges blockchains between old and new ledgers is Quant including replacing SWIFT.