> The expert consensus on the 2008 bank bailouts is that they had to be done Of a carefully curated set of worse choices, such as "A: Sit back and watch the ba

> The expert consensus on the 2008 bank bailouts is that they had to be done Of a carefully curated set of worse choices, such as "A: Sit back and watch the banks keep going.", sure. There are a ton of ways the bailout could have been done that don't involve giving money to the same people who screwed up before. For instance, let those banks fail but insure the individual depositors (trickle-down to insuring individual holders of MBS-backed retirement funds, etc.) and recapitalize a new set of banks. > because letting them fail would've turned the recession into another Great Depression Yes, letting all banks fail would. But there's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water. > It means the right way to avoid the moral hazard would have been to better regulate the banks and never have let them get "too big to fail" in the first place. Yes, we should try to regulate, but there'll always be new loopholes so we need to stop rewarding the bad actors when, not if, they find a new scam. > [Smart contract]. They're always going to end up in situations like this, because they involve the affairs of messy, imperfect humans. And yet your solution is to add another layer of humans? > The correct answer to the DAO mess was never to get into it in the first place. Like buying Enron. But not all companies are scams and not all smart-contracts will be ineptly written.