eru

Hence my "Which then begets more regulation."

Customers stop monitoring their bank, when deposits are insured.

The latter, maybe? The former, I'm not so sure. However we don't have many examples of competent organisations trying to enact genocide to compare against. (Fortunately.)

Well, being in the EU makes it a lot easier to trade with the EU.

However I broadly agree otherwise.

> Which country got rich with the EU?

Poland and the other new members in the East, probably?

> I’m sure Nazi Germany had many extraordinarily capable technocratic leaders [...]

Actually, not. They had a few left-over from when Germany had a functioning state, but the Nazis were overall fairly incompetent at actually running the country.

What makes you think Singaporean politicians don't have to deal with voters?

International observers have never found flaw with Singapore's elections, have they?

> but I didn't realise it was so strong on corruption.

That's literally a core part of the brand, isn't it?

Compare also how the various pirate parties have done around the world.

Alas, (effectively) government deposit insurance encourages a lot of risk taking by banks. Which then begets more regulation.

People who essentially want government guarantees for their money should just buy government bonds.

How are all bitcoins legally questionable?

One that you freshly mined seems fairly pristine.

Not a bad place to start, yes.

However, BIS and Basel III (and the previous Basels) are just what's currently in force for most of the world. I suspect most people would be better served by more of an historical overview. But it also depends on what one is interested in.

Btw, backing and promises of redemption are two different things.

Deposits at a regular bank aren't backed by fiat. The bank promises to pay you back in fiat, but they don't keep dollar bills in a vault. The promise is backed with all the bank's assets. Ideally, they have a think equity cushion, so that even if the assets take a hit, the promises don't.

> Is this not exactly why banks have to deposit X amount outside their doors?

Sorry, what do you mean?

Basically, the historical origins of different bank regulations are quite complicated and also differ from place to place, and they were often put in place by (political) coalitions of people who already had not one single motivation but a whole spectrum of them.

And then in addition to historical reasons, you also need to ask why things are still in place. Inertia is one answer, but it's not the only one.

> This is why banks are regulated, [...]

No, it's not. At least not historically.

Your point has nothing to do with fiat.

It applies equally well to a fiduciary coin with a promise that 1 gcoin = 1g of gold or whatever.