11 ms·

Isn’t the whole point of crypto-based currencies is to develop a system that has no need to be regulated by a government agency or any single entity at all? If

Isn’t the whole point of crypto-based currencies is to develop a system that has no need to be regulated by a government agency or any single entity at all? If this is about protecting the consumer, perhaps the consumer shouldn’t be meddling in a space that is still being developed where there are big risk factors at this point in time. Or maybe I just dont get it.

dmd 9y ago
You can't just unilaterally decide that laws don't apply to you.
- atwebb 9y ago
  Uber and AirBnb seemed to make out alright in the end (or middle as it may be).
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    You can add “* unless you’re rich enough” caveat if you like, but it doesn’t change the general rule.
    - ameliaquining 9y ago
      They weren't that rich when they started doing it.
- tzahola 9y ago
  I can, if said laws cannot be enforced. Thaf’s the whole premise of cryptocurrencies. Not that they don’t need to be regulated, but that they cannot be regulated.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > they cannot be regulated People say this as if laws and rules didn’t work in the days of cash transactions.
    - tormeh 9y ago
      Well, it doesn't work for cash transactions, so there's that. To clarify, with cash it's an honor system dependent on social norms. In most countries in the world it's failing badly, hence the term "black economy".
  - xiphias 9y ago
    This is true for real decentralized currencies, but ICO scams are far from that. They need heavy marketing from real people, couldn't be done by an anonymous person.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - jgh 9y ago
    What? The entire ledger is publicly visible. If the government can figure out your public key they can see every transaction you've ever made.
    - wickawic 9y ago
      And "figure out" includes "imprison until you tell us" unfortunately.
      - jgh 9y ago
        Sure that's an option, but they could also do it the old fashioned way and have you buy something off them ;) At least if you get caught up buying something you shouldn't with cash they don't also get your transaction history.
  - vec 9y ago
    https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ I don't know why I have to keep explaining this, but cryptocurrencies can and will be regulated using exactly the same mechanism that basically everything else is. The government makes some rules, asks you politely but firmly to follow them, observes carefully to see if and when you break them, and then beats you with a (usually, but not always, metaphorical) rubber hose until you choose to comply. Nothing about crypto interferes with this process, even theoretically.
    - perl4ever 9y ago
      In my opinion that cartoon is possibly unrealistic. I think many people might fail to recall a password correctly while drugged and being hit with a wrench. I suspect I would.
  - bastawhiz 9y ago
    > if said laws cannot be enforced Sorry, what? ICOs and other scammy behaviors _are entirely public_. A company visible to the public comes along and starts selling "coins"/"securities". How exactly is it that this can't be regulated? Just because it's crypto doesn't make it unregulatable, these are people in the real world doing bad things--not some opaque UUID in a digital ledger somewhere. And let's suppose someone came up with a way of selling these coins anonymously online in a secure way. Guess what! Nobody would buy them, because why would you buy securities from an anonymous online source that could just as easily be a 13 year old writing the modern remake of the 1994 hit film _Blank Check_? That's inherently the issue here. It's not a matter of sending money/value/currency/whatever anonymously. These are companies that are coming out in front of the public in the real world, talking a big crypto game, then disappearing into the void with millions of real dollars. Or perhaps not disappearing, and providing no value to the people that bought into the scheme (contrary to the advertising they used). Or any number of other things that the SEC would have something to say about. Just because it's "crypto" doesn't mean that its intersection with the real world is free from scrutiny and the rules of the governments of our real world.
pathseeker 9y ago
There is a difference between what the crypto community needs vs what the government thinks it needs. One of the goals of crypto is lack of regulation like you identified, but that doesn't mean the government doesn't want to regulate it any less. There are all sorts of industries that would be ecstatic if avoiding regulation was as simple as opting out.
0003 9y ago
If you are a public company, then you signed up for SEC regulation...
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > If you are a public company, then you signed up for SEC regulation If you are under American jurisdiction, you signed up for SEC regulation. Private American companies, offshore companies selling securities to Americans and perhaps even foreign overseas individuals transacting for securities in U.S. dollars are each, to varying degrees, under U.S. jurisdiction.
  - reaperducer 9y ago
    Since the subject of this thread is potential regulation by American regulators, it is presumed that we're talking about American companies unless otherwise stated. I don't think anyone has intimated that the U.S. S.E.C. is going to investigate blockchain speculators around the world.
kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
You are free to develop your own crypto-currency and do whatever but this isn't about that. What the chairman is talking about are publicly traded companies suddenly turning to claiming blockchain-based pivots without substantial evidence to believe that they are being sincere and truthful. This is almost a pump-and-dump scheme in just slightly different clothing.
- nxsynonym 9y ago
  There's no almost about it. It is blatant manipulation.
simias 9y ago
Saying "this has no need to be regulated by a government" doesn't magically make it true.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
> If this is about protecting the consumer, perhaps the consumer shouldn’t be meddling in a space that is still being developed where there are big risk factors at this point in time. Or maybe I just dont get it. You assume consumers don't have needs and are immune to incentives, and also that people running the coins are perfectly honest, and it would never cross their mind to architect incentives in such a way, as to predictably exploit those consumers. Also, what 'dmd wrote.
chx 9y ago
This is the end of an excellent tweetstorm by Sarah Jeong (so you can feed it into Spooler and read it as a single blog post) https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/953713433530089472 https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/953713433530089472 but I would like to quote one: > All of this has gone too far!!!!! It was fine when you paranoid dorks were out there scamming each other, please leave the normies alone!!!!!!!!!!! I also copied this all into https://pastebin.com/e8vXE5Vi https://pastebin.com/e8vXE5Vi This is what the SEC is saying too with different words.
- StavrosK 9y ago
  What a disrespectful tweet. If this were about a minority group, there'd be outrage.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > If this were about a minority group, there'd be outrage People don't get a say on which race or gender (edit: sex) they're born as. That's partly why race and gender are protected classes. "People who own Bitcoin" isn't a protected class.
    - StavrosK 9y ago
      You consider "paranoid dorks" and "people who own Bitcoin" to be the same set? Even then, would you consider something like "you fatasses need to shut up and leave us normal people alone" fine?
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        You're really going to double down on this argument?
        sillysaurus3 9y ago
        May I suggest thinking about what he's saying? Sure, it might feel upsetting. But is it true? It seems true. And that has merit. But so does your side of it. So it's a balance.
mywittyname 9y ago
> perhaps the consumer shouldn’t be meddling in a space that is still being developed And perhaps companies shouldn't look like they are defrauding investors when there are big risk factors involved.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pintxo 9y ago
But this is neither about crypto-based currencies nor it it (really) about the block-chain. It is about fraud, the SECs comment is a warning to publicly traded companies who consider to increase their stock valuation by claiming to work on stuff which (other) people (falsely?) believe to be a game changer while they are not (really) working on it or there is no reason to believe they could actually pull it off.
reaperducer 9y ago
>perhaps the consumer shouldn’t be meddling in a space that is still being developed where there are big risk factors at this point in time. The issue isn't consumers meddling in blockchain currency. It's about consumers being dragged into blockchain speculation without their knowledge. Grandma puts her retirement savings into some big, safe company. The suddenly the company goes from being an electric utility to being a blockchain speculator and goes bankrupt, wiping out her savings without her even having a chance to get out.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- perl4ever 9y ago
  Vanguard is supposedly getting into blockchain technology to manage the indexes for their funds...[1] I have seriously wondered whether I should consider avoiding them. Not just because blockchain=bad, but because I was thinking about how their commitment to minimizing costs could backfire someday, if not immediately. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vanguard-group-blockchain/vanguard-looks-to-blockchain-for-index-data-idUSKBN1E61HR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vanguard-group-blockchain...
sova 9y ago
Regulation is typically unhelpful to the market, as it incurs unfair overhead. Blockchain based things can work in a decentralized way relying entirely on the protocol. Still, a blockchain without a community or developer group tweaking the protocol as time goes on is not a tenable solution. There is still a guiding hand but it is very slight, very gentle, and only used to keep things on course.

dmd 9y ago

You can't just unilaterally decide that laws don't apply to you.

atwebb 9y ago
Uber and AirBnb seemed to make out alright in the end (or middle as it may be).
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  You can add “* unless you’re rich enough” caveat if you like, but it doesn’t change the general rule.
  - ameliaquining 9y ago
    They weren't that rich when they started doing it.
tzahola 9y ago
I can, if said laws cannot be enforced. Thaf’s the whole premise of cryptocurrencies. Not that they don’t need to be regulated, but that they cannot be regulated.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > they cannot be regulated People say this as if laws and rules didn’t work in the days of cash transactions.
  - tormeh 9y ago
    Well, it doesn't work for cash transactions, so there's that. To clarify, with cash it's an honor system dependent on social norms. In most countries in the world it's failing badly, hence the term "black economy".
- xiphias 9y ago
  This is true for real decentralized currencies, but ICO scams are far from that. They need heavy marketing from real people, couldn't be done by an anonymous person.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jgh 9y ago
  What? The entire ledger is publicly visible. If the government can figure out your public key they can see every transaction you've ever made.
  - wickawic 9y ago
    And "figure out" includes "imprison until you tell us" unfortunately.
    - jgh 9y ago
      Sure that's an option, but they could also do it the old fashioned way and have you buy something off them ;) At least if you get caught up buying something you shouldn't with cash they don't also get your transaction history.
- vec 9y ago
  https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/ I don't know why I have to keep explaining this, but cryptocurrencies can and will be regulated using exactly the same mechanism that basically everything else is. The government makes some rules, asks you politely but firmly to follow them, observes carefully to see if and when you break them, and then beats you with a (usually, but not always, metaphorical) rubber hose until you choose to comply. Nothing about crypto interferes with this process, even theoretically.
  - perl4ever 9y ago
    In my opinion that cartoon is possibly unrealistic. I think many people might fail to recall a password correctly while drugged and being hit with a wrench. I suspect I would.
- bastawhiz 9y ago
  > if said laws cannot be enforced Sorry, what? ICOs and other scammy behaviors _are entirely public_. A company visible to the public comes along and starts selling "coins"/"securities". How exactly is it that this can't be regulated? Just because it's crypto doesn't make it unregulatable, these are people in the real world doing bad things--not some opaque UUID in a digital ledger somewhere. And let's suppose someone came up with a way of selling these coins anonymously online in a secure way. Guess what! Nobody would buy them, because why would you buy securities from an anonymous online source that could just as easily be a 13 year old writing the modern remake of the 1994 hit film _Blank Check_? That's inherently the issue here. It's not a matter of sending money/value/currency/whatever anonymously. These are companies that are coming out in front of the public in the real world, talking a big crypto game, then disappearing into the void with millions of real dollars. Or perhaps not disappearing, and providing no value to the people that bought into the scheme (contrary to the advertising they used). Or any number of other things that the SEC would have something to say about. Just because it's "crypto" doesn't mean that its intersection with the real world is free from scrutiny and the rules of the governments of our real world.

pathseeker 9y ago

There is a difference between what the crypto community needs vs what the government thinks it needs. One of the goals of crypto is lack of regulation like you identified, but that doesn't mean the government doesn't want to regulate it any less. There are all sorts of industries that would be ecstatic if avoiding regulation was as simple as opting out.

0003 9y ago

If you are a public company, then you signed up for SEC regulation...

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> If you are a public company, then you signed up for SEC regulation If you are under American jurisdiction, you signed up for SEC regulation. Private American companies, offshore companies selling securities to Americans and perhaps even foreign overseas individuals transacting for securities in U.S. dollars are each, to varying degrees, under U.S. jurisdiction.
- reaperducer 9y ago
  Since the subject of this thread is potential regulation by American regulators, it is presumed that we're talking about American companies unless otherwise stated. I don't think anyone has intimated that the U.S. S.E.C. is going to investigate blockchain speculators around the world.

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago

You are free to develop your own crypto-currency and do whatever but this isn't about that. What the chairman is talking about are publicly traded companies suddenly turning to claiming blockchain-based pivots without substantial evidence to believe that they are being sincere and truthful. This is almost a pump-and-dump scheme in just slightly different clothing.

nxsynonym 9y ago
There's no almost about it. It is blatant manipulation.

simias 9y ago

Saying "this has no need to be regulated by a government" doesn't magically make it true.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> If this is about protecting the consumer, perhaps the consumer shouldn’t be meddling in a space that is still being developed where there are big risk factors at this point in time. Or maybe I just dont get it. You assume consumers don't have needs and are immune to incentives, and also that people running the coins are perfectly honest, and it would never cross their mind to architect incentives in such a way, as to predictably exploit those consumers. Also, what 'dmd wrote.

chx 9y ago

This is the end of an excellent tweetstorm by Sarah Jeong (so you can feed it into Spooler and read it as a single blog post) https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/953713433530089472 https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/953713433530089472 but I would like to quote one: > All of this has gone too far!!!!! It was fine when you paranoid dorks were out there scamming each other, please leave the normies alone!!!!!!!!!!! I also copied this all into https://pastebin.com/e8vXE5Vi https://pastebin.com/e8vXE5Vi This is what the SEC is saying too with different words.

StavrosK 9y ago
What a disrespectful tweet. If this were about a minority group, there'd be outrage.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > If this were about a minority group, there'd be outrage People don't get a say on which race or gender (edit: sex) they're born as. That's partly why race and gender are protected classes. "People who own Bitcoin" isn't a protected class.
  - StavrosK 9y ago
    You consider "paranoid dorks" and "people who own Bitcoin" to be the same set? Even then, would you consider something like "you fatasses need to shut up and leave us normal people alone" fine?
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      You're really going to double down on this argument?
      - sillysaurus3 9y ago
        May I suggest thinking about what he's saying? Sure, it might feel upsetting. But is it true? It seems true. And that has merit. But so does your side of it. So it's a balance.

mywittyname 9y ago

> perhaps the consumer shouldn’t be meddling in a space that is still being developed And perhaps companies shouldn't look like they are defrauding investors when there are big risk factors involved.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

pintxo 9y ago

But this is neither about crypto-based currencies nor it it (really) about the block-chain. It is about fraud, the SECs comment is a warning to publicly traded companies who consider to increase their stock valuation by claiming to work on stuff which (other) people (falsely?) believe to be a game changer while they are not (really) working on it or there is no reason to believe they could actually pull it off.

reaperducer 9y ago

>perhaps the consumer shouldn’t be meddling in a space that is still being developed where there are big risk factors at this point in time. The issue isn't consumers meddling in blockchain currency. It's about consumers being dragged into blockchain speculation without their knowledge. Grandma puts her retirement savings into some big, safe company. The suddenly the company goes from being an electric utility to being a blockchain speculator and goes bankrupt, wiping out her savings without her even having a chance to get out.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
perl4ever 9y ago
Vanguard is supposedly getting into blockchain technology to manage the indexes for their funds...[1] I have seriously wondered whether I should consider avoiding them. Not just because blockchain=bad, but because I was thinking about how their commitment to minimizing costs could backfire someday, if not immediately. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vanguard-group-blockchain/vanguard-looks-to-blockchain-for-index-data-idUSKBN1E61HR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vanguard-group-blockchain...

sova 9y ago

Regulation is typically unhelpful to the market, as it incurs unfair overhead. Blockchain based things can work in a decentralized way relying entirely on the protocol. Still, a blockchain without a community or developer group tweaking the protocol as time goes on is not a tenable solution. There is still a guiding hand but it is very slight, very gentle, and only used to keep things on course.