In a stunning surprise move the head of regulatory body announces he is in favour of more regulation!
Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
41–50 of 100 posts
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#42It is difficult to get a crypto proponent to understand something, when their crypto wealth depends on them not understanding it. EDIT: If you steal my gold or other metal store of value, I can pursue you in court and recover my loss (either the actual materials lost or fiat value). If you steal my single named security, I can pursue you in court and recover my loss (or the clearinghouse will reverse the transaction)…
How much value has been lost to inflation this year? Why is that acceptable but coding errors are not? I am not a crypto-currency enthusiast but I remember the Bitcoin whitepaper arguing against centralized currency. So it was critical of the Federal Reserve. I think people should be allowed to choose. If they don't want regulation then fine.
I don't think that's how the western world works. If someone or something doesn't want regulation then we look the other way. Crypto became so big that we now have to protect investors that doesn't know what they're doing. Overall we have to reduce scams, increase trust and liability
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#43Edited headline:
Guy In Charge Of Regulation Says Regulation Is Good
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#44I think this is wrong, but once Tether implodes, it will erase a huge amount of value and the ecosystem will take years to recover.
[deleted]
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think unregulated in this case means crypto market in general is prone to pump and dump schemes and other market manipulation without legal repercussions
It's more interesting to me why we have a seemingly obvious belief that pump and dump schemes (which are effectively a sort of coordinated social phenomenon rather than a material movement) should be regulated. Begs the question: what is the "point" of the financial system, considered as a kind of bounded game, and why is that interesting to the state as an institution?
I'm no political philosopher, but I'd say, for example, the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution says the government's purpose is to “promote the general welfare." Phenomena like bank runs harm the general welfare, so the government has an interest in preventing or mitigating them.
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's being protected if I'm fully aware of the risks? I feel like education is much more valuable than dictating what is "too risky" for an individual investor. But agreed, what you've described is the most-likely outcome.
The rest of the population is protected. It's problematic to have both the disillusioned scammed and scammers running around with freshly acquired capital to do more harm to other people.
The rest of the population should be made aware of the risks before participating
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#47Isn't the entire appeal of crypto is that it's not regulated? Why the hell would I want it if it's controlled just like a fiat currency. That means it's susceptible to idiotic government decisions right? The only reason our regulatory masters every say this shit is because they want a piece of the pie for themselves. You see it in every industry where they're not getting a cut.... oh gambling very very bad! Regulate…
> That means it's susceptible to idiotic government decisions right?
That's the point. I'm not sure why people think that crypto is just going to be allowed to exist outside of government control. Of course government is going to want to get their hands in it. And while the technology might be resistant to that, there are still other things the government can do, just like they do with fiat, to gain control of crypto. For example, putting you in jail I you don't do what they want. Exactly like they do with taxes in the US.
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#48Isn't the entire appeal of crypto is that it's not regulated? Why the hell would I want it if it's controlled just like a fiat currency. That means it's susceptible to idiotic government decisions right? The only reason our regulatory masters every say this shit is because they want a piece of the pie for themselves. You see it in every industry where they're not getting a cut.... oh gambling very very bad! Regulate…
I would bet the explosion in cryptocurrency values over the past 5 years has been more from "everyday people" who care less about the philosophical underpinnings of cryptocurrencies and more about investing the best performing asset of the past few decades. so when they start getting scammed and raising ire about it, of course regulators will step in - that's their job
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#49This indeed seems reasonable in the eyes of the contemporary understood society, which is only a couple of hundreds years old anyways.
A counter argument could be that Crypto is regulation.
Crypto economies encode all sorts of incentive structures to promote an inhibit various behaviors of its users.
The only difference is that these regulations are not governed by the elected government but by algorithms.
And yes, some modern networks have included mechanisms for handling financial stability. Eg. the Maker coin that have a lever for shutting everything down in case of an emergency.
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fun fact but the gov basically stole gold from ppl b4 in the good ole USA. They made it illegal to hold - if you were caught having gold it was a 10k fine. PPL were forced to go to their banks and sell their gold at a loss. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102#:~:text=E... . That article uses the term hoarding but don't be fooled they made holding any relevant amount of gold for investment illegal. You…
Is this comment somehow related to the one you replied to?
Yes. Root comment states that government regulation protects wealth by giving examples of several situations in which a government regulation protects wealth. Root-1 comment gives an example of government regulation destroying wealth, by giving a concrete example involving an asset class referenced in root comment.
I would say that the two comments together point towards a complex relationship between governments and the wealth of it’s citizens.