Liquidity is one last real threat of centralised systems, in Argentine banks froze accounts and introduced capital controls consequently of these debt crisis, Spanish banks in changed their small print to permit them to block withdrawals over a specific amount and Cypriot banks briefly froze customer accounts and used as much as 10% of individual's savings to help pay off the National Debt block chain software.
As Jacob Kirkegaard, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics told the New York Times on the Cyrpiot example, "What the deal reflects is that becoming an unsecured as well as secured depositor in euro area banks is never as safe because it used to be." In a decentralised system payment takes place with no bank facilitating and authorising the transaction, payments only being validated by the network where you can find sufficient funds, there being no third party to prevent a transaction, misappropriate it or devalue the quantity one holds blockchain technology.
A decentralised monetary network ensures that, by sitting outside the evermore connected current financial infrastructure it's possible to mitigate the risks of being element of it when things go wrong. The 3 main risks of a centralised monetary system that have been highlighted consequently of the 2008 financial crisis are credit, liquidity and operational failure. In the US alone since 2008 there were 504 bank failures as a result of insolvency, there being 157 in 2010 alone. Typically such a collapse does not jeopardize account holder's savings as a result of federal/national backing and insurance for the very first few hundred thousand dollars/pounds, the banks assets usually being absorbed by another financial institution however the impact of the collapse may cause uncertainty and short-term difficulties with accessing funds. Since a decentralised system like the Bitcoin network isn't influenced by a bank to facilitate the transfer of funds between 2 parties but alternatively relies on its tens of thousands of users to authorise transactions it is more resilient to such failures, it having as much backups as you can find members of the network to make certain transactions remain authorised in the event of just one member of the network'collapsing blockchain database '.
A bank will not need to fail however to effect on savers, operational I.T. failures such as the ones that recently stopped RBS and Lloyds'customers accessing their accounts for weeks can effect on one's power to withdraw savings, these being a result of a 30-40 year old legacy I.T. infrastructure that is groaning under the stress of keeping up with the growth of customer spending and a lack of investment in general. A decentralised system isn't reliant on this type of infrastructure, it instead being on the basis of the combined processing power of its tens of thousands of users which ensures the ability to scale up as necessary, a fault in virtually any part of the system not causing the network to grind to a halt.