Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy • Hacker News Board

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#61

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Jun 07, 2022, 2:01 PM UTC

tatertots1234 wrote: post #59

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> imagine this argument being applied to End-to-End Encryption There's a stark line between encrypted communication and encrypted money. If someone can't see the difference between those bits they shouldn't be handling other peoples' money.

This line is drawn by society. At one point we did not see the need for E2EE or peer-to-peer file sharing, and now some of us do. At one point we did not see the need for privacy preserving digital currencies and peer-to-peer transactional systems, and now some of us do.

> we did not see the need for privacy preserving digital currencies and peer-to-peer transactional systems, and now some of us do

Fair enough. I think it's time for those who do to make their case. We've run the experiment. The downsides are documented and tangible. There should be a way to thread the needle whereby the downsides can be limited without strangling all of the upside.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#62

Post by toomuchtodo » Tue, Jun 07, 2022, 2:06 PM UTC

generationP wrote: post #58

> Finally, blockchain technologies facilitate few, if any, real-economy uses. On the other hand, the underlying crypto-assets have been the vehicle for unsound and highly volatile speculative investment schemes that are being actively promoted to retail investors who may be unable to understand their nature and risk. Other significant externalities include threats to national security through money laundering and ran…

More Venezuelans used Zelle with dollars than crypto. I was able to donate dollars without issue directly to the Ukrainian government.

Crypto proponents trot out these edge suboptimal use cases as excuses to allow an entire global Ponzi scheme to continue, when the discussion should be “what mechanisms can be provided to support refugee value protection and transferring value to friendly nations under attack using existing fiat rails and the laws that protect users of them?” That’s not hard to do using existing systems, but crypto proponents are so wrapped up in the thought of their digital assets rapidly declining in value that it isn’t an option to them. “Crypto must be the way.” when the evidence is clear it is not.

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2020/06/16/venezuela-is-a-t...

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#63

Post by lern_too_spel » Tue, Jun 07, 2022, 2:06 PM UTC

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #55

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> imagine this argument being applied to End-to-End Encryption There's a stark line between encrypted communication and encrypted money. If someone can't see the difference between those bits they shouldn't be handling other peoples' money.

Unless you are in the United States and your money is going to a super PAC, union, or other association. Then your transmission of funds is free speech and covered by the first amendment. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Super PACs have to report how they spend their money and where they got it from. As long as they don't communicate with a campaign, how they spend it is free speech. This is very different from not reporting where you spend your money or where you got it from.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#64

Post by tatertots1234 » Tue, Jun 07, 2022, 2:09 PM UTC

thawaya3113 wrote: post #53

tatertots1234 wrote: post #37

The letter has some good and bad. Good because it advocates for more regulation and consumer protection, and points out some obvious concerns with crypto like energy expenditure in proof of work. Bad because the letter misrepresents the technology and paints privacy as a purely criminal behavior, and suggests the entire technology sector is useless. > Similarly, most public blockchain-based financial products are a d…

E2E privacy has a lot of uses. Crypto has none. It’s just an enabler and hotbed of a variety of scams. Any use it may have can only possibly reveal itself after the crypto asset bubble/scams die. So even if you’re a crypto enthusiast, you should be in favor of this whole disastrous phase for crypto ending so you can try again and actually make it useful this time. Since crypto has become a completely speculation driv…

Your post is so perfectly in line with the blanket dismissal and absolutist attitude of the letter that you could pass as one of the authors.

Crypto has its uses. Crypto also has lots of scams. Crypto bubble popping will not destroy the scams; these are endemic to any semi decentralized system, see email spam and robocalls. We can do much more to regulate, moderate, and improve the tech for better consumer protection and usability, which is one thing the letter calls for.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#65

Post by searchableguy » Tue, Jun 07, 2022, 2:10 PM UTC

generationP wrote: post #58

> Finally, blockchain technologies facilitate few, if any, real-economy uses. On the other hand, the underlying crypto-assets have been the vehicle for unsound and highly volatile speculative investment schemes that are being actively promoted to retail investors who may be unable to understand their nature and risk. Other significant externalities include threats to national security through money laundering and ran…

Financial inclusion tech letter: https://www.financialinclusion.tech/

Support from activists and people in corrupt, poor, and developing countries.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#66

Post by andybp85 » Tue, Jun 07, 2022, 2:12 PM UTC

bitcoin_anon wrote: post #34

Serious question for those of you who want to regulate Bitcoin out of existence: What do you propose to do with those of us who, despite your attestations of its uselessness, have deemed it useful and purchased it with our hard earned money? For example, MSTR has ~$4 billion in Bitcoin on its balance sheet. It purchased it on the free market for reasons that were valid to it. However, you disagree and want to step in…

If a law gets made saying what MSTR is doing is illegal and they keep doing it, I'm pretty sure what to do involves the police, SEC, etc. Why would one think it's anyone else's problem?

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#67

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Jun 07, 2022, 2:13 PM UTC

searchableguy wrote: post #65

generationP wrote: post #58

> Finally, blockchain technologies facilitate few, if any, real-economy uses. On the other hand, the underlying crypto-assets have been the vehicle for unsound and highly volatile speculative investment schemes that are being actively promoted to retail investors who may be unable to understand their nature and risk. Other significant externalities include threats to national security through money laundering and ran…

Financial inclusion tech letter: https://www.financialinclusion.tech/ Support from activists and people in corrupt, poor, and developing countries.

> Signatures from activists, people in corrupt, poor, and developing countries

Speaking purely from a political perspective, this is a terrible argument. You're addressing the U.S. Congress. The letter this comment thread attaches to lists harms crypto brings on Americans. Your letter lists benefits accruing to non-Americans.

If I were a lobbyist for the original letter's writers, I'd line these two up and end my case. Benevolence has its place. But it's a strange bedfellow to financial deregulation.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#68

Post by arrosenberg » Tue, Jun 07, 2022, 2:16 PM UTC

bitcoin_anon wrote: post #34

Serious question for those of you who want to regulate Bitcoin out of existence: What do you propose to do with those of us who, despite your attestations of its uselessness, have deemed it useful and purchased it with our hard earned money? For example, MSTR has ~$4 billion in Bitcoin on its balance sheet. It purchased it on the free market for reasons that were valid to it. However, you disagree and want to step in…

They bought a highly speculative vehicle knowing that eventual government intervention was a risk. I feel sort of bad for the little guys who get wiped out thinking it actually had value, the big funds who institutionally should know the risks can eat cake.

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#69

Post by notinfuriated » Tue, Jun 07, 2022, 2:21 PM UTC

bitcoin_anon wrote: post #34

Serious question for those of you who want to regulate Bitcoin out of existence: What do you propose to do with those of us who, despite your attestations of its uselessness, have deemed it useful and purchased it with our hard earned money? For example, MSTR has ~$4 billion in Bitcoin on its balance sheet. It purchased it on the free market for reasons that were valid to it. However, you disagree and want to step in…

> What do you propose to do with those of us who...

Not my problem. It's your life and your money. And of course you know that not everyone who has purchased it has deemed it "useful" beyond the use of hodling until you sell to someone else for more money. I've used BTC myself, to buy drugs 10 years ago. Sadly, it seemed more useful then than it is now.

Anyway, I don't think anything should be done to dramatically affect Bitcoin directly, but there probably should be something done about people taking advantage of the shitcoin market. It's far too easy to make your own crypto and rugpull a bunch of people. I'm quite disgusted with it and with American society's slow cultural procession toward becoming gambling addicts, which is most likely not a coincidence (although, I won't blame crypto for it entirely).

(And no, it's not now nor ever was the same with trading public securities, which have financial statements whose format and structure are regulated by the government.)

Re: Letter in Support of Responsible Fintech Policy

#70

Post by paulgb » Tue, Jun 07, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

ccuqui wrote: post #54

Sorry to say, but the petition won´t make any difference. The reason is simple: the problem is not technical, but political. Governments, worldwide, have clear goals: to become more powerful, omniscient and perpetual in power, and the basis for this is the money they hold. Crypto currencies attack precisely the money part and consequently affect the other objectives. The currency digitization movement is global (e-do…

> Governments, worldwide, have clear goals: to become more powerful, omniscient and perpetual in power

I think it's a mistake to treat governments (especially the elected government(s) like this letter targets) as a singular, rational entity. Instead they are a collection of individual (let's generously assume) rational actors whose career goals are often at odds with each other. These career goals depend on the support of the electorate, which is why petitions can work.