4 ms·

This is an example of what happens when a field is over-regulated. You have these obtuse solutions working around a problem that is only hard because of lawyer

This is an example of what happens when a field is over-regulated. You have these obtuse solutions working around a problem that is only hard because of lawyers and 500 regulations to "protect investors". People were able to hack together exchanges for crypto-coins. The only thing that stands in the way of doing this for private stock/tiny companies is excessive regulation. I'm not saying we want the whole crypto experience of exchanges blowing up overnight, but what we have now is clearly not right either.

eridius 7y ago
What about BancList indicates that the field is over-regulated
- saagarjha 7y ago
  The fact that it's called "BancList"?
  - eridius 7y ago
    That just indicates that it's regulated. Where's the "over" part? Personally, it sounds like a rather good idea to have regulation over who's allowed to use the word "bank", given the assumptions that the general public will make about anything with "bank" in the name.
    - mdpopescu 7y ago
      What stops the general public from making the same assumptions about anything with "banc" in the name?
      - eridius 7y ago
        Probably the same thing that stops them from assuming that anything with "spank" in the name is a reputable financial institution.
  - laughinghan 7y ago
    In one system, thousands of people are scammed out of millions of dollars every year. In the other system, a company that is not a bank was forced to avoid the word "bank" in their name. This sounds like two reasons the second system is better, to me at least?
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    Can't see much of an issue with random businesses not being able to call themselves "Bank" personally.
  - microwavecamera 7y ago
    Would you also agree that any random company should be able to label themselves a hospital, pharmacy or university? If not, then there's your answer.
rmah 7y ago
Many people would argue that the financial industry is not regulated enough. People were able to hack together exchanges for crypto-coins. The only thing that stands in the way of doing this for private stock/tiny companies is excessive regulation. Crypto exchanges are examples of how to create a financial system that lacks security (both the technical and financial kinds) and trust. It's an example of how NOT to do things. Crypto exchanges act as broker, exchange, clearinghouse, depository and trustee. And do none of these very well. In the regulated world, exchanges do not hold your assets. There is nothing "on deposit". Your broker (who holds your cash assets instead) is insured. Brokers don't even typically hold your securities, they just track your positions. The security assets themselves are held at depository institutions. Etc, etc. This system is not by accident. It was developed through a long history of trial and error to minimize the impact of fraud, abuse, bankruptcies, etc. I'll be the first to recognize that most financial regulators have been very slow to adopt to the crypto world. That's because so many crypto tokens are either not securities or quasi securities and thus defy easy classification. Thus some old rules don't really apply well. They're also paranoid about money laundering, which doesn't help. The software aspects of setting up exchanges are challenging but ultimately not the hard part. I guess my point is that just because something is easy to do doesn't mean it should be done.
GordonS 7y ago
> People were able to hack together exchanges for crypto-coins Come on now, crypto exchanges are absolutely now a good example to use here - how many millions has been lost through exchanges getting hacked?!

eridius 7y ago

What about BancList indicates that the field is over-regulated

saagarjha 7y ago
The fact that it's called "BancList"?
- eridius 7y ago
  That just indicates that it's regulated. Where's the "over" part? Personally, it sounds like a rather good idea to have regulation over who's allowed to use the word "bank", given the assumptions that the general public will make about anything with "bank" in the name.
  - mdpopescu 7y ago
    What stops the general public from making the same assumptions about anything with "banc" in the name?
    - eridius 7y ago
      Probably the same thing that stops them from assuming that anything with "spank" in the name is a reputable financial institution.
- laughinghan 7y ago
  In one system, thousands of people are scammed out of millions of dollars every year. In the other system, a company that is not a bank was forced to avoid the word "bank" in their name. This sounds like two reasons the second system is better, to me at least?
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Can't see much of an issue with random businesses not being able to call themselves "Bank" personally.
- microwavecamera 7y ago
  Would you also agree that any random company should be able to label themselves a hospital, pharmacy or university? If not, then there's your answer.

rmah 7y ago

Many people would argue that the financial industry is not regulated enough. People were able to hack together exchanges for crypto-coins. The only thing that stands in the way of doing this for private stock/tiny companies is excessive regulation. Crypto exchanges are examples of how to create a financial system that lacks security (both the technical and financial kinds) and trust. It's an example of how NOT to do things. Crypto exchanges act as broker, exchange, clearinghouse, depository and trustee. And do none of these very well. In the regulated world, exchanges do not hold your assets. There is nothing "on deposit". Your broker (who holds your cash assets instead) is insured. Brokers don't even typically hold your securities, they just track your positions. The security assets themselves are held at depository institutions. Etc, etc. This system is not by accident. It was developed through a long history of trial and error to minimize the impact of fraud, abuse, bankruptcies, etc. I'll be the first to recognize that most financial regulators have been very slow to adopt to the crypto world. That's because so many crypto tokens are either not securities or quasi securities and thus defy easy classification. Thus some old rules don't really apply well. They're also paranoid about money laundering, which doesn't help. The software aspects of setting up exchanges are challenging but ultimately not the hard part. I guess my point is that just because something is easy to do doesn't mean it should be done.

GordonS 7y ago

> People were able to hack together exchanges for crypto-coins Come on now, crypto exchanges are absolutely now a good example to use here - how many millions has been lost through exchanges getting hacked?!