Not your keys, not your coins.

It is time we all realize the disadvantage of using a centralized platform to hold our assets, it does not make any difference that you are having bitcoin and yet holding it on a centralized exchange, you can still fall in the place of those that are affected in Paraguay in this manner or any other related one.

Wish you to embrace decentralization, adopt Bitcoin, and see it as the reason why we can have our financial freedom away from the centralized authorities that have always been in charge of our money; anything that belongs to us must be in our possession, and we must be able to have control over it. This is why Bitcoin is the answer to many questions about financial challenges with centralized authorities.

In my country if any bank go insolvent, the central bank will compensate the bank users by paying them their money if the bank is legally registered with the central bank but the issue is that there will be a delay before paying the customers. That said does not mean I have my money in bank, most of my money are in bitcoin because I want complete control of my crypto.

Bitcoin can achieve what you are saying but some people are having the bitcoin on centralized exchanges which is not different from the banks which are also centralized. The best are self-custody wallets.

There are limits to the compensation in every country, US, EU , whatever, same in this case, there is no country on this planet that has unlimited deposit guarantees, in your case is $1,300 so about 30 times less than what Paraguayans will receive



Weird, everything is peaceful here, maybe because I'm not all covered in tinfoil?

This is why governments and banks want to eliminate cash. They’re doing it like the frog that’s boiled alive little by little—not by banning it, but by encouraging the use of digital payment methods and placing limits and obstacles on the use of cash.

When people used cash—or in countries where it’s still used, like Paraguay—bank runs can occur, meaning people rush to the bank to get bills that the bank doesn’t actually have because they’re busy creating digital money out of thin air everywhere with the debt system. The more money they create, the more interest—which is money that doesn't actually exist—has to be paid, and that can only end in bankruptcy or in an endless cycle where more and more money is created, leading to more and more inflation (money is worth less and less).

Even if you eliminate paper currency, banks could still run into problems—if depositors order massive transfers of their money to other banks, for example—but you don’t see images of people standing in line, and it’s something the authorities can handle behind the scenes since it’s all just numbers with no real backing.

My concern is what causes insolvency that makes a bank unable to pay its debts when banks carry out transactions every working day, except on holidays. Does this mean that a bank can still go bankrupt despite handling daily deposits and withdrawals? What exactly leads to such a situation?

The Central Bank of Paraguay taking over the bank will it mean compensation to account holders or the stand will they lose their money?. I will wait for the CBP to make an official statement about what happens to their adult citizens who had money in Ueno Bank.

Reasons why many idiots won't take this advice seriously...

1. It's Paraguay not my country.
2. It's just one bank, my own bank is different.
3. Since the beginning of time, only few banks have gone bankruptcy.
4. It's very rare that this will happen.

One bank down, many more still working, like a friend once told me when a bank folded up in my city, he said we hardly hear about banks going out of business but it's a very common thing with the Blockchain.

How did I won him? It's not Bitcoin.

You have 100 BTC and all your money in the bank is blocked, is everything okay? Yes, if you can go to the store and buy what you need and pay with Bitcoin - or if you have a way to sell Bitcoin for fiat without that transaction involving your bank. Having Bitcoins unfortunately does not mean being completely safe from what is happening around us.

The same thing in my country, when a bank goes bankrupt then there is a guarantee of max compensation of 2 billion IDR or equivalent to $110k for the current USD exchange rate, but I did not read the exact rules of how the claim process is clearly taking a long time.

A few years ago there was a bank collapse, fortunately it was not a big bank.
Saving a lot of money in the bank is no different like crypto exchanges, fortunately some exchanges do not go bankrupt.

For me now it is clear, it is not going to save a lot of money on those platforms that do not have at all, especially when holding bitcoin then in a non-custodial wallet is at least not bad.

I think this is exactly the kind of situation Satoshi wanted to solve it because of bitcoin as the whole game of bitcoin is to control of humans on there money without the need of a banks or any third party . I see majority of people still did not use bitcoin the way it needed they buy bitcoin doing DCA in it but still there fund is in exchange which is not a good idea because you are still dependent on a third party. Any ways be your own bank that is what Bitcoin is all about.

Isn't it better that you're in this category than having everything trapped in the bank during this kind of moment?
This takeover left many people Bankrupt. This isn't even much of a problem since you can use DEX or even CEXs to liquidate as much quantity as you want while the remaining coins stays safely in your cold storage or HW.
What you described is a better problem, in fact a good one for that matter since liquidating bitcoin isn't that difficult and not all banks would be blocked at the same time, so you can always receive fiat in the available one.
When your funds is out of reach it becomes a real problem. Self-custody is non-negotiable.