241–250 of 282 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cryptocurrency markets have absolutely nothing to do with forex markets and the suggestion that they share commonalities or should be compared together is both deceptive, ignorant, and perpetuates a volume of misinformation
Come on, you can't think of ONE commonality between forex markets and crypto markets? Thats just being intentionally obtuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stablecoins are effectively digital money laundering tools. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Reserve#Criminal_inves... Why bother using a convoluted blockchain stablecoin rube goldberg machine where you need to jump though several hoops just to use it, when you could use a service like venmo, square, stripe, etc? What use case would justify the need for a stable coin if not for evading the law?
Cross-border payments is one. BTC was a cheaper and more convenient alternative to Western Union before the tx fees skyrocketed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exchanges of the types prohibited by existing securities laws are not prohibited merely because they haven't proven to be socially beneficial, but because they have proven to be massively harmful. The idea that cryptocurrency as a subject of trading changes that in any way is a claim which requires some substantial basis before it would warrant an exception to the general rules written into law.
There is absolutely no proof that it's "massively harmful". It's impossible to quantify all of the positive and negative effects of any type of exchange, let alone to "prove" the effects are net harmful. >>the general rules written into law. I'm arguing against the principle that we should ban anything not proven to be socially beneficial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Libertarians can still form their own exchanges where they are free to be continuously swindled and conned. Would all of this not also remove the ability to create those 'free exchanges'?
Backroom poker games and people sharing copyrighted music they didn’t pay for are still a thing so most likely no. You will still have the ability to start an anonymous exchange, it just wont necessarily be legal in all countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no massaging. The potentially illegality of many cryptoasset platforms has always been clear to everyone who wasn't in denial. They're trying to race ahead of law enforcement. Kind-of like Uber, but the SEC is a lot harder to plow through than local traffic enforcement. I, for one, welcome our PonziCoin-banning overlords.
>>I, for one, welcome our PonziCoin-banning overlords. That's a pretty totalitarian outlook. You're not content with not using cryptocurrency yourself. You want to prevent everyone else, with punitive measures, from using it too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe this is simply an unclear subject - "it" refers to the article, not my comment. I will admit I initially took offence, though, because I rather like tptacek.
Lik-ed. :) Sorry, I'm a coin skeptic.
If you start badmouthing Canadians, though, different story bub ;-)
Thank you
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm personally very keen on "coin-mediated" finance. However, that doesn't mean I'm stupid enough to believe I can flout securities law without consequences. A public offering is still a public offering when you couch it behind a token, no matter how cleverly constructed your whitepaper. If the SEC was going to come down like a ton of bricks they would have done so already. I could be wrong, but their actions seem to…
I think reasonable people can disagree about the likelihood of upcoming enforcement actions. The only place where I feel entitled to get shouty about things is when people suggest that it's clear what the SEC is going to do next. I think it's easy to make a case that it's anything but clear. I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable proclaiming with any certainty that Bitcoin or Ethereum or even ICOs were definitely goi…
I'm using quotes because that's code for unsophisticated investors, the very group the SEC is supposed to protect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the concept of accredited investor needs to go away though. Why should only the super rich be able to invest in risky ventures? Why do I see so many on the left supporting these regulations that only favour the super rich? I'm not just talking about crypto-currencies but any venture really, since the internet at least, anyone with an internet connection should be free to invest as they want. I'm personally no…
>I think the concept of accredited investor needs to go away though. Why should only the super rich be able to invest in risky ventures? Because they can afford to take the hit if the investment fails.