3 ms·
I'll point out the obvious, just to get the discussion going: it's reasonable to suspect that the motivation is not consumer protection but subversion of techno
by jMyles 9y ago
I'll point out the obvious, just to get the discussion going: it's reasonable to suspect that the motivation is not consumer protection but subversion of technology which presents a challenge to the FIRE economy, which has a tragic stranglehold on NY (my home state).
How will we know the difference? What will we do if indeed it's the latter?
- occamrazor 9y agoWhat is FIRE?
- ebryce 9y agoThe NY AG has actually been fairly aggressive in the past few months in investigating and reaching record settlements with financial institutions.
- lallysingh 9y agoAnd finance firms look at the crypto markets as both potential opportunities for themselves and ways to make the stock market look safe in comparison for their own customers
- Sangermaine 9y ago> it's reasonable to suspect that the motivation is not consumer protection but subversion of technology which presents a challenge to the FIRE economy No, it isn't. It's only reasonable within the tiny fantasy world of True Believers where the whole world is conspiring to keep the glory of cryptocurrency down. This is the exact same action that would be taken against any other unauthorized, unregistered securities trading. Not to mention an area which has become infamously rife with scams and fraud. Schneiderman especially has a sterling reputation with regard to pushing against the great financial powers and investigating crimes in that area.
- cycrutchfield 9y ago>the tiny fantasy world of True Believers Let's not give them the benefit of the doubt here. They're shills. They have a vested financial interest in twisting logic and reason to convince the world that a secret cabal of bureaucrats and bankers are conspiring against this particular technology. This is the primary problem with discussing anything crypto-related online. In a technical discussion about the merits of Linux and free software, you can be reasonably sure that whomever you are engaging with does not have a financial interest in pushing their particular stance. It seems like in any crypto-related discussion, it is impossible to find honest, impartial debate.
- jMyles 9y ago> Let's not give them the benefit of the doubt here. They're shills. Excuse me - are you addressing me with this comment? My identity is not secret. My contributions to open source software (and to higher education in New York State) are reasonably well known. Are you seriously directly calling me a shill right now? Is this the level of discussion that we've reached on HN now? FWIW, I think my comments have been pretty moderate. I don't see anything that is even vaguely construable as shilling. Nor am I positioned with anywhere near the resources to make shilling worthwhile. Rather than a shill, I am a long-time NY activist who has deep problems with the way my government has interacted with nearly every facet of the (largely toxic) financial industry in my state. I don't think that concerns regarding the underlying motivation of the AG's office are ever unreasonable to raise, and certainly not here.
- s73v3r_ 9y agoHow is that reasonable to suspect in the slightest?