4 ms·

> This currency could satisfy public policy goals, such as (i) financial inclusion, and (ii) security and consumer protection; and to provide what the private s

> This currency could satisfy public policy goals, such as (i) financial inclusion, and (ii) security and consumer protection; and to provide what the private sector cannot: (iii) privacy in payments. If financial inclusion and privacy in payments were actual public policy goals, cryptocurrencies would be a lot less attractive. In reality, the real public policy goals are: 1) Financial exclusion: using denial of access to the state run financial system as a political, law enforcement, social control and tax collection tool. 3) "Know your customer" and "anti-money laundering" (AML/KYC) rules that remove privacy in payments to make it easier to use the state run financial system as described in 1). These regulations in practice exclude the the poorer people in society - the people Lagarde like means when she says "financial inclusion" - that can't meet requirements like "proof of address" and can't meet the minimal balance / month fee requirements that have come about from these AML/KYC regs.

fro0116 8y ago
I don't disagree with your points around the public policy goals of currency, but suggesting that minimal balance / monthly fee requirements come from AML/KYC regulations is quite the stretch. I'd wager those come from greed, pure and simple. The banks charge those fees because they can. If we got rid of AML/KYC regulations and reduced the banks' costs around regulatory compliance, do you think the banks will pass the savings onto customers or pocket the difference? I know where I'm putting my bet.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > If we got rid of AML/KYC regulations and reduced the banks' costs around regulatory compliance, do you think the banks will pass the savings onto customers or pocket the difference? The existing banks, on their own? Surely not. But complicated and expensive regulations like that are the main reason we don't have more, smaller banks, and they would be happy to gain customers by charging lower fees. Then the existing banks would have to compete and do the same.
erikpukinskis 8y ago
We need two things to operate productively without the State: Cryptocurrency is one. It does the job of the mint. The second piece, is we need a set of contracts that allow us to never take ownership of assets anymore. Instead of "here's a dollar, please may I have a taco", we'll say "please may I have a taco, here are my contracts" and the chef will ask the computer, "are this one's contracts aligned enough that I give them a taco?" There will be times you need to create revenue, which will be taxable, but it won't be the default. I'm not talking about tax evasion here. I'm talking about operating in a way that human activity can't be modeled as a transfer of assets. Essentially widening your friends and family circle to temporarily include arbitrary individuals.

fro0116 8y ago

I don't disagree with your points around the public policy goals of currency, but suggesting that minimal balance / monthly fee requirements come from AML/KYC regulations is quite the stretch. I'd wager those come from greed, pure and simple. The banks charge those fees because they can. If we got rid of AML/KYC regulations and reduced the banks' costs around regulatory compliance, do you think the banks will pass the savings onto customers or pocket the difference? I know where I'm putting my bet.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> If we got rid of AML/KYC regulations and reduced the banks' costs around regulatory compliance, do you think the banks will pass the savings onto customers or pocket the difference? The existing banks, on their own? Surely not. But complicated and expensive regulations like that are the main reason we don't have more, smaller banks, and they would be happy to gain customers by charging lower fees. Then the existing banks would have to compete and do the same.

erikpukinskis 8y ago

We need two things to operate productively without the State: Cryptocurrency is one. It does the job of the mint. The second piece, is we need a set of contracts that allow us to never take ownership of assets anymore. Instead of "here's a dollar, please may I have a taco", we'll say "please may I have a taco, here are my contracts" and the chef will ask the computer, "are this one's contracts aligned enough that I give them a taco?" There will be times you need to create revenue, which will be taxable, but it won't be the default. I'm not talking about tax evasion here. I'm talking about operating in a way that human activity can't be modeled as a transfer of assets. Essentially widening your friends and family circle to temporarily include arbitrary individuals.