31–40 of 218 posts
Regulators should pay attention to MEV and order flows on decentralized exchanges. Some blockchains are not permissionless to write to (proof of stake). As such, they are ripe for front running and forced liquidations of retail users.
Similarly, most public blockchain-based financial products are a disaster for financial privacy; the exceptions are a handful of emerging privacy-focused blockchain finance alternatives, and these are a gift to money-launderers. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. The existing, centralized electronic payment systems are a disaster for financial privacy, and it'll only get worse with CBDCs. If you try to make so…
>If you try to make something private, then you're helping money launderers, criminals and pedophiles. But you can't just hand wave concerns regarding money laundering and other criminality away. If you want to, you should just say "these things don't matter that much", but don't just avoid them entirely. >Lastly, we reserve the right to manipulate the money supply. It's enough for you to know that we are experts and…
I'm not, I'm pointing out the rhetorical techniques being used to delegitimize people who try to create privacy tools.
You mean to say that we live in a democracy. We elect our representatives, and they pick who runs these institutions.
It's a pernicious myth that there is some meaningful democratic oversight over monetary policy. Central banks are privately owned and/or structured in such a way as to not be beholden to political pressure (for the somewhat justifiable reason that politicians are even worse at managing monetary policy).
> Similarly, most public blockchain-based financial products are a disaster for financial privacy; the exceptions are a handful of emerging privacy-focused blockchain finance alternatives, and these are a gift to money-launderers. Is this arguing both for and against the need for financial privacy at the same time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd would say none of the technologies listed even closely approach the impact of social technologies such as rule of law, democracy, etc. If your fellow citizens in aggregate really don't like what you do and want to stop you, the will eventually find a way. You want a society that does not police where money flows - which is a big change and there is no evidence that broadly people like to open the taps on things l…
Nobody likes homelessness. How is democracy going at putting an end to it? The list of similar examples is endless; democracies are forced to put up with a lot of stuff that nobody likes when everything that is tried turns out not to work. Democracy is a very powerful technology, no argument there. But it can't overcome technical realities. It is better at adjusting to them and giving up when the cost gets too high.
> Similarly, most public blockchain-based financial products are a disaster for financial privacy; the exceptions are a handful of emerging privacy-focused blockchain finance alternatives, and these are a gift to money-launderers. Is this arguing both for and against the need for financial privacy at the same time?
> Is this arguing both for and against the need for financial privacy at the same time? No. It's a perfectly reasonable position to take. I want my transactions to be private to the world but it's reasonable that law enforcement has a method to investigate criminal behavior.
If law enforcement has a method to investigate your behavior, its not private. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Either you enjoy privacy (and so do criminals) or criminals do not (and neither do you).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're making a mistake in thinking that monetary policy is somehow democratic and that there is some kind of meaningful oversight over it. Central Banks are privately owned and by design are meant to be "independent" of politics (otherwise politicians would use the money printer to continuously to buy votes, destroying the currency in the process). There is no real oversight over central banks and nobody (outside of…
Beyond the Fed, which other large central banks are privately owned? The Bank of England has only been independent for a pretty short time, for example, so central bank independence is a fairly new concept that could change again - because it is a political decision, not a law of nature.
The US fed is by far the most important Central Bank due to dollar being the global reserve currency.
Source: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-European-Central-Bank-privately...
EDIT: The ECB is owned by member-states's banks, some of which are privately owned.
In any case, private ownership is only one issue, the other is that central banks are designed to have very little oversight.
Saying that "we can change the laws" doesn't change that. It's not always easy or possible to change laws. When is the USA going to repeal the 2nd amendment?
From: https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1531920908696358912 Today the global community of technologists sent a letter to Congress urging them to resist the crypto industry’s lobbying influence. The letter was signed by some of the most respected scholars and technologists in our field. And now we need your help. Crypto fraud is spiraling out of control. So-called "web3" is not going great. Regulators are paralyzed a…
Similarly, most public blockchain-based financial products are a disaster for financial privacy; the exceptions are a handful of emerging privacy-focused blockchain finance alternatives, and these are a gift to money-launderers. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. The existing, centralized electronic payment systems are a disaster for financial privacy, and it'll only get worse with CBDCs. If you try to make so…
>If you try to make something private, then you're helping money launderers, criminals and pedophiles. But you can't just hand wave concerns regarding money laundering and other criminality away. If you want to, you should just say "these things don't matter that much", but don't just avoid them entirely. >Lastly, we reserve the right to manipulate the money supply. It's enough for you to know that we are experts and…
I think it's important to expand on the above because the above terms are tame. They give an impression of individual small time criminals.
It's North Korea, Russia, dictators and despots across the world, the cartels, organized criminals. Large scale Tax avoiders, human traffickers, drug traffickers, weapon smugglers. It's the organized big money criminals, both high and low class that fund the worst aspects of humanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> move to a society that operates closer to what you want This doesn't work. All countries are pressured to adopt the same compliance and framework. OECD, IMF, WEF, and other world organizations will successfully force same reforms everywhere.
What is your evidence that in aggregate citizens want what you want/dislike the current state? If that is not the case, you cannot claim that "countries are pressured".
They offer money, but with strings attached. Either the country conforms or it doesn’t get the money.