Crypto doesn't seem much different from other technologies facing regulation - there seems to be a tendency to fit square pegs (new technologies) in round holes (existing regulatory frameworks), hence the worries that regulators will mess things up.
Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
51–60 of 100 posts
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#52I don't understand this push for regulation of cryptocurrencies. Just let the mathematics govern. It'll either work on its own, or as people lose their money to trickery and/or carelessness, there will be less and less to regulate as people stop participating.
That's a rather heartless take. You could make the same argument regarding the need to protect any vulnerable members of society. Say, people who are immunocompromised during a global pandemic. Oh wait...
It's never just pure mathematics. You always have a human layer on top, and that means that there is an attack surface for self-interested people to take advantage of others. The purpose of regulation is to minimize the damage those people can do.
I suppose in a future where all the humans are extinct, and monolithic AI's rule the planet, your comment would hold more water.
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, I'm pretty sure banks loose in the hundreds of billions per year to fraud... and it's all heavily regulated.
And customers who experience a loss are made whole through EFTA [2] and Reg. E [1] (if transfer related), with banks eating any costs unrecoverable after pursuing those who perpetrated the theft. Does Coinbase reimburse you if lose your crypto due to fraud [3] [4]? If not, clearly regulation is warranted if they put themselves forth as a custodian and exchange. This doesn't happen in centralized finance, and everyone…
So you respond with the user experience and say its a limitation of the whole concept
Fascinating…
Confidence in the banking system via state insurance was added retroactively
Don’t pretend that came organically, the banks thought it would be fun too
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#54Here's a more informative New York Times article on the topic with a paywall that is easier to bypass: https://archive.md/Dy3oG
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 believe value is transferred to the government by inflation similar to a tax, not actually lost.
This depends on the cause of the inflation. If an asset loses value because it becomes less scarce then no value is lost. Inflation can happen for other reasons to.
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#56I think this is wrong, but once Tether implodes, it will erase a huge amount of value and the ecosystem will take years to recover.
Can you elaborate on this further? I seem the market cap of Tether being quite tiny compared to BTC and ETH. Also Solana is nearly as large and will probably be much larger than Tether in a few months.
read the bloomberg article on tether and try to understand what that means. It's fair to say that there's a huge scam going on in the whole cryptomarket. If you're in the crypto-bubble everyone just keeps dancing, because "look at me, I made another 10k today and get 20% on my staked coins", but like with every scam the music will stop and many people will lose all their IOUs which they believed were worth thousands.
Link: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-10-07/crypto-my...
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#57Anyone with access to the article know if there are reasons stated or just a blanket statement to generate press?
IMO this NYT article is more informative: https://archive.md/Dy3oG
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
And customers who experience a loss are made whole through EFTA [2] and Reg. E [1] (if transfer related), with banks eating any costs unrecoverable after pursuing those who perpetrated the theft. Does Coinbase reimburse you if lose your crypto due to fraud [3] [4]? If not, clearly regulation is warranted if they put themselves forth as a custodian and exchange. This doesn't happen in centralized finance, and everyone…
Those are only certain types of fraud. There are others that are not covered. For instance, someone stole my wife's credit card information and bought nearly $3k worth of stuff from various stores. The company refused to cover it. Apparently once your loss exceeds a certain amount, they suddenly become much less willing. If someone somehow lost 11.6M due to credit card fraud, I seriously doubt they'd get their money…
[deleted]
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#59The SEC has already proven that they can't keep up with crypto. I don't think crypto will survive if it becomes regulated. While there is a lot of manipulation happening in crypto, there is a lot of organic grassroots efforts as well for people that value privacy and true decentralization. I can only imagine how quickly they'd work to destroy both of those things and target cryptocurrency that promotes those ideals.…
It is probably impossible to regulate Crypto altogether, as it is merely a term with no sound definition.
Regulations would probably also hit, eg., in-game economies, that are essentially the same as crypto economies, just them being controlled by a central agent.
Essentially it would mean a ban on ... platform?
Re: Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
And customers who experience a loss are made whole through EFTA [2] and Reg. E [1] (if transfer related), with banks eating any costs unrecoverable after pursuing those who perpetrated the theft. Does Coinbase reimburse you if lose your crypto due to fraud [3] [4]? If not, clearly regulation is warranted if they put themselves forth as a custodian and exchange. This doesn't happen in centralized finance, and everyone…
So you respond with the user experience and say its a limitation of the whole concept Fascinating… Confidence in the banking system via state insurance was added retroactively Don’t pretend that came organically, the banks thought it would be fun too
The vast majority of the value proposition of crypto is that it operates outside of legal and regulatory frameworks. It doesn't settle faster than instant payments (which, in many countries, are usually much cheaper or free and have settlement targets of I want to be open minded and am really trying hard to "stay curious" in this technology domain. Please share any points I would've missed about the benefits of crypto, besides the ability to evade government controls around value transfer or storage and that there is no ability to reverse fraudulent transfers (to the benefit of billions of dollars in theft). I will readily admit it has benefits for folks in places like Venezuela, Turkey, or anywhere else with bad faith fiscal and monetary policy, but not the world as a whole. I know of people in Venezuela who are attempting to operate outside of the dysfunctional financial system, and they use Zelle [1]!