> Then the bank could make money by providing services to their customers.
Which services? And those services would need to be something that I can only provide by being your depositor (otherwise I'll get beaten by someone who provides those services without the added burden of holding and securing your physical money.
You've basically designed a system that increases the costs of being a bank, and eliminates the main source of profit, and hand-waived over how to close that gap.
I suspect it's simply unprofitable to run a bank in the model you've provided. I suspect the only way to make that system work is by saying "banking is a public good, it's OK if it runs at a loss" and making it a gov't provided service. I don't really see a path to private banks existing in the model you outlined.
That's a very good point. I think services could include things like financial management, checking, sending/receiving fees, etc.
You're right, in this model it wouldn't be nearly as profitable to be a bank as it is now. Potentially, it could be a "public good" provided by the government, or it could be like a lot of the brokerages who provide investment services and charge a commission on top.
Also, you're right it would be very hard for banks to be anywhere near as profitable as they are now if assets are backed 1:1.
But in some sense, banking is already viewed as a public good since the FDIC is backing all of the bank deposits. So at the moment we kind of have a weird hybrid situation where banks are kind of pseudo-private, but also backed by the government.
CBDC maybe? Let everyone have an account at central bank, then allow transactions to and from that account. No need to involve bank, have whole system paid by government as public service.
Then you could have banks handle the process of matching lenders to depositors. With varying systems...
Which services? And those services would need to be something that I can only provide by being your depositor (otherwise I'll get beaten by someone who provides those services without the added burden of holding and securing your physical money.
You've basically designed a system that increases the costs of being a bank, and eliminates the main source of profit, and hand-waived over how to close that gap.
I suspect it's simply unprofitable to run a bank in the model you've provided. I suspect the only way to make that system work is by saying "banking is a public good, it's OK if it runs at a loss" and making it a gov't provided service. I don't really see a path to private banks existing in the model you outlined.