3 ms·
The burden of proof is on the new product, not the current society. I don't think he needs "data and deep analysis", that work needs to be done by the people tr
by wincy 9y ago
The burden of proof is on the new product, not the current society. I don't think he needs "data and deep analysis", that work needs to be done by the people trying to convince you cryptocurrencies are the future.
When the status quo is disrupted, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that it's a passing fad or won't work out. A product or asset, especially a radical step like cryptocurrencies, succeeding and being valuable is the exception, not the rule.
There's a reason accredited investors exist, because they're expected to know better.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoSociety shouldn't ban everything that hasn't proven to be socially beneficial.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 9y agoExchanges 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.
- CryptoPunk 9y agoThere 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.
- yownie 9y agoNot to mention the authorities have a dearth of existing legislation under which to already prosecute bad actors in the crypto space. Ponzi schemes, fake ICO's and outright theft and extortion are already thoroughly addressed by existing legislation / property law. Summarily banning the thing you fine inconvenient to investigate is just lazy regulation, at best.
- oreo81 9y agoHow is it massively harmful?
- Karunamon 9y agoThe burden of proof is on the new product, not the current society Why do you think that's how it works? Society is not a formal debate, and its members should be able to question any aspect of it at any time for any reason, whether or not they think they have a better idea. The entire concept of "burden of proof" is out the window here since many of its mores do not exist for rational reasons!