costac

Of course it matters. If banks bare the cost, they have to pass it on to their customers by raising rates. If the public pays for it, the government and central bank will end up printing money --one way or another -- to pay depositors.

And all this mind you only IF people move a substantial amount of their lira deposits to the new product AND the lira depreciates more than the rate on the underlying lira deposit account (only then are savers eligible for the kicker rate).

So far, savers have moved around 10b liras into this product, out of a total 4.3 trillion lira of deposits.

You're telling me banks raised rates because of that marginal shift? And even though, I repeat, they don't have to pay for it?

Independent is very different from second order.

And, yes I know interest on loans increased substantially but that has nothing to do with the new saving product and everything to do with the meltdown in the lira that preceded.

Edit: And in any case why would banks raise loan rates if they don't have to bear the cost of the new product?

Borrowing costs increased independently of the new savings product. They were rising well before it was announced and increased further because the market priced in a higher level of inflation following the sharp depreciation.

The higher rate on deposits that the new saving scheme offers doesn't increase funding costs for banks in anyway. The Treasury literally pays the depositors the extra yield, not the banks.

> Everybody knows the new savings scheme he introduced is essentially increasing interest rates.

This is not true. Raising interest rates would mean raising the cost of funding for the banking system. Under the new saving scheme, since the Treasury pays depositors the extra yield, the cost for banks remains unchanged. As does the marginal cost of borrowing from the central bank.

The new saving scheme is a free dollar call sold by the country's Treasury to depositors. And it will pay it out by printing money.

I want to thank everyone for their comments. I'm a long-time and avid Hacker News reader and this was my first real post I guess. The community here is really solid and is largely what got me hooked on programming.

All your responses -- from don't give up on web dev totally because it can open doors, to try embedded software (I hadn't even heard of the term until today) -- have given me so much to think about.

Thanks again, and I know what I'm getting myself for Christmas. An Arduino.

> what if the neighbors collude and vote that you failed to improve the park despite having done what was specified. The contract could further specify that some neutral third party acts as an arbiter in that case.

If there's anything that shows that Web3.0, smart contracts and so on are a bad solution in search of a non-existent problem, it's this.

The ``problem'' is apparently that we don't trust each other and our institutions. The ``solution'' is to create a protocol for trust-less commitments. The bug is that the protocol ultimately relies on the fact that we trust each other and our institutions.

Can Web. 3.0 remove some friction from the system? Maybe. Enough to revolutionize it? Highly doubt it.