4 ms·

For my part, the wording in #1 looks especially flimsy. What the hell does "nominal" mean? Is "nominal" measured against some absolute dollar value, or against

For my part, the wording in #1 looks especially flimsy. What the hell does "nominal" mean? Is "nominal" measured against some absolute dollar value, or against the scope of the task/services rendered? It's not hard to imagine some massive smart contract transactions that would require a lot of resources to perform, but which wouldn't otherwise have any financial purpose. Would those be deemed too costly, not nominally cheap enough, for this act? I also wonder about the meaning of "non financial" here. What would this mean for a coin like ETH? ETH does not aspire to be anything more than grease for the Ethereum network. Nonetheless, it's now traded on exchanges for BTC, USD, etc. Does its rising value in trade mark it as "financial" for the purposes of this act, in every ETH transaction on the Ethereum network, even though it's not directly intended for financial purposes?

djrogers 10y ago
It's vague on purpose, as vagueness gives the appointed bureaucrats more power in their rule-making processes. Strict, detailed laws don't give them any extra leeway to make rules that favor rent-seekers and friends.
- jdavis703 10y ago
  On the flip-side flexible rules allow for regulatory agencies to adapt and respond to changing conditions without having to wait on a legislative body to get around to updating its rules.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    In other words, it turns those agencies into legislative bodies.
    - akiselev 10y ago
      No, it makes them into regulatory bodies. Would you really trust Congress to legislate the minute details of FDA clinical trials or EPA pollution regulations? How about transportation safety codes or allocation of NSF/NIH funding for basic research? This is a fundamental feature of most modern democratic bureaucracies: the power of regulators flows directly from the legislature which sets the goals and scope of each agency but it is up to the individuals in each organization, who have spent most of their lives in the relevant fields gaining direct experience, to decide on the specific implementation of the legislators' vision.
- __jal 10y ago
  That's one view. Another is that strict, detailed laws without human judgement inevitably creates absurd results. Law doesn't work without room for judgement. Enforce rules designed for toy models of reality[1] and people won't respect the law, but rather fear the lash. Of course, a certain type of person likes that, but (presumably) those who want to live in democracies don't. [1] I'd love to believe that someday, certain economists would figure this out, too.
will_brown 10y ago
>What the hell does "nominal" mean? Off the top of my head, I think the Federal Law for Money Transmitter Business (MTB) carves out businesses for up to $100/day so unless a company is registered as a MTB I think that would be the daily cap.

djrogers 10y ago

It's vague on purpose, as vagueness gives the appointed bureaucrats more power in their rule-making processes. Strict, detailed laws don't give them any extra leeway to make rules that favor rent-seekers and friends.

jdavis703 10y ago
On the flip-side flexible rules allow for regulatory agencies to adapt and respond to changing conditions without having to wait on a legislative body to get around to updating its rules.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  In other words, it turns those agencies into legislative bodies.
  - akiselev 10y ago
    No, it makes them into regulatory bodies. Would you really trust Congress to legislate the minute details of FDA clinical trials or EPA pollution regulations? How about transportation safety codes or allocation of NSF/NIH funding for basic research? This is a fundamental feature of most modern democratic bureaucracies: the power of regulators flows directly from the legislature which sets the goals and scope of each agency but it is up to the individuals in each organization, who have spent most of their lives in the relevant fields gaining direct experience, to decide on the specific implementation of the legislators' vision.
__jal 10y ago
That's one view. Another is that strict, detailed laws without human judgement inevitably creates absurd results. Law doesn't work without room for judgement. Enforce rules designed for toy models of reality[1] and people won't respect the law, but rather fear the lash. Of course, a certain type of person likes that, but (presumably) those who want to live in democracies don't. [1] I'd love to believe that someday, certain economists would figure this out, too.

will_brown 10y ago

>What the hell does "nominal" mean? Off the top of my head, I think the Federal Law for Money Transmitter Business (MTB) carves out businesses for up to $100/day so unless a company is registered as a MTB I think that would be the daily cap.