>  there is an unsupportable leap being made here

You think that because you're misinterpreting me. I'm in no way claiming that any solvent company can prove it, I'm simply claiming that any company can prove that they have bitcoin reserves to cover bitcoins promised as account balances. 

> Banks (lending institutions) do not operate under any such pretense

You seem to be saying that banks are under no legal obligation to serve cash on demand to customers. While you might be right, again you're misinterpreting me. Banks do in fact make claims to their customers that they'll be able to get cash out of their account on demand. They're called demand deposit accounts for a reason. And certainly customers expect to be able to withdraw their cash on demand. 

> With a 100% of investment cash hoard, there is zero lending and zero return

I did say "pretend" did I not?

> “relate to” is a far cry from 100% “reserve”

Indeed. Again, you seem to be misunderstanding me. You're putting the words "100% reserve" in my mouth, when I never said any such thing. Proof of 80%/50%/20% reserves is still useful if that's the clear expectation for the customer/client. 

> Nonsense is English for “doesn’t make sense”

Literally, sure. But in actual use it carries a dismissive and rude connotation. 
 

On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 7:55 AM Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:

> On Jul 7, 2021, at 01:20, Billy Tetrud via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> But people can certainly pull their money out of companies that can't show solvency.

As I pointed out previously there is an unsupportable leap being made here between a vault (money warehouse) and any company (including a bank).

A company cannot possibly show that it has all of the money that every person has invested into it. At times a solvent company may even have zero cash. It is also not possible for a company provide cryptographic proof of its many necessarily non-crypto assets and liabilities. What is presumed here is a community-verified sort of crypto balance sheet, with no considerations of risk - a central aspect of business.

As I said, if you want a vault, you can just use your own wallet. Solvency does not in any way imply 100% cash balance of the amounts invested. Raising money under such terms is pointless for both company and investors (the owners of the company).

> > Nonsense, any business can fail, regardless of temporal cash reserves.
>
> I agree that any business can fail. But a bank that pretends it can serve cash on demand is not a normal business,

Banks (lending institutions) do not operate under any such pretense. US banks require 7 day time deposits for all interest bearing accounts (read your depositor agreement), and it should be clear that your uninsured balance is at risk. Banks are investment funds, not money warehouses (in Rothbard’s terminology).

With a 100% of investment cash hoard, there is zero lending and zero return. This is true for all business.

> and cash reserves absolutely relate to their ability to survive as a bank.

“relate to” is a far cry from 100% “reserve”. At 100% reserve an investment fund would most certainly fail. At 20% it would fail. Money markets (banks without a reserve requirement) don’t break the buck, compete effectively with banks with reserve requirements (required by the taxpayer who is insuring deposits and providing discount credit), and maintain around 10% reserve. This is consistent with a world of people with time preference that creates around a 10% interest rate (return on investment).

> Its honestly confusing to me how you could think otherwise.

It’s confusing to me how anyone would put money into a business and expect (even want) it to sit there.

> Also, calling my thoughts "nonsense" is rude, please check yourself, Eric.

Check myself? Nonsense is English for “doesn’t make sense”. It’s not an insult.

e