Crypto unlikely to survive as investment if unregulated, SEC chairman says

Post by spiderice » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

frockington1 wrote: post #72

spiderice wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It'd be hard to do in the US as its not a tax. The 5th amendment is pretty clear stating "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.", Now that crypto is main stream the backlash would be immense and citizens have the 2nd amendment (in some states) to back it up.

Post by nuclx » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:16 PM UTC

thess24 wrote: post #74

jstx1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also Solana One financially questionable scheme at a time please.

Whats wrong with Solana? I don't know much about it at all, just curious

Post by toomuchtodo » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

vmception wrote: post #84

toomuchtodo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 crypt…

Lets focus on one topic instead of a hodgepodge of unrelated reasons why you dont have confidence in this system Banks state backed insurance came retroactively and it took decades for people to feel confidence in that system and is one of several factors in why the customer experience has things you like. You can still find a sliver of society that doesn't trust banks. That confidence and transaction reversibility i…

Post by kapp_in_life » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

danielvaughn wrote: post #37

toomuchtodo wrote: post #21

Earlier 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…

Post by Nav_Panel » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

e9 wrote: post #80

Nav_Panel wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

To play fair we need some rules to the game. You can’t punch in a face during the basketball game and once someone starts doing it all the time then most would stop playing at that point and go play another game.