5 ms·

>> Users can trade the tokens anonymously 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from anywhere, unhindered by capital controls, “know your client” rules imposed on

>> Users can trade the tokens anonymously 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from anywhere, unhindered by capital controls, “know your client” rules imposed on broker-dealers, and other frictions of the traditional financial system. > These are certainly new innovations and features, be they good or bad. That's saying a car with its seat belts removed has an "innovative new feature." The usual word for that situation is "regression."

aewct 5y ago
There's no benefit to the user to having no seatbelts. There's a huge benefit to having open markets at all times. The usual phrase for your argument is "false analogy."
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > There's no benefit to the user to having no seatbelts. There's a huge benefit to having open markets at all times. I quoted the full sentence, but I was mainly referring to: >> unhindered by capital controls, “know your client” rules imposed on broker-dealers, and other frictions of the traditional financial system While you can always find some little exceptions, most financial regulation has actually has good reason to exist and solves actual problems (though maybe not your problems, as in burglary laws do not solve burglars' problems). It's not much of a "feature" to do away with them, since then you just invite the re-emergence of problems that have already been solved or mitigated.
- whoaisme 5y ago
  There are no benefits to you. There are plenty of benefits to me. Let the market decide? Probably not. It's easy to accuse people of logical fallacies while somehow you're the sole arbitrator to what is and isn't good for users.
- toast0 5y ago
  > There's no benefit to the user to having no seatbelts. No seatbelts means it's easier to get out of the vehicle (if you planned to or not). Some seatbelts are uncomfortable. Seatbelts add to the materials and assembly cost of the vehicle, and add weight to the vehicle which increases fuel usage and wear on the tires and suspension and road. Maybe they wrinkle your clothes? Installing retrofit seatbelts on a vehicle without them can be difficult and the result may be really uncomfortable. Very ocassionally, it might be preferable to be flung from a vehicle rather than retained in a vehicle during a colission, although that would have to be a pretty specific set of circumstances, because being flung from a vehicle results in a lot of undesirable injury. Not having seatbelts has minor benefits. All of them are outweighed by the benefits of seatbelts in my opinion (and I think there's broad consensus) but claiming there's no benefit to not having them or that there's no cost to having them is silly.
sjtindell 5y ago
Would you have said the same when we moved from measuring stock prices in increments of dubloons to decimals? Where does all this HN hostility come from, I thought this crypto stuff would mesh so well with the Silicon Valley mindset. Trading should be instant, totally free, in any increment you choose, across borders! That’s the kind of mentality we apply to so much else in tech right? Is this really a bunch of hackers defending oppressive government regulations written by lobbyists for oligopolies? Since when does Silicon Valley defend the old ways?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >measuring stock prices in increments of dubloons to decimals? "dubloons"? Stock prices used to be in binary fractions. Barely over 20 years ago. Obviously moving to decimals is going backwards, how many people program with BCD these days?
  - sjtindell 5y ago
    Pricing stocks used to be done in fractions with 16 as the denominator because Spanish traders some 400 years ago quoted prices in fractions of Spanish Gold Doubloons. Obviously decimals are superior, they allow much more accurate price discovery. What are you referring to?
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      Mostly they were quoted in 8ths. Might have something to do with the Spanish dollar being called "Real de a ocho" or "pieces of eight". Also, I think it was silver based, not gold. Doesn't "silver dollar" in old books ring a bell? I'm guessing you got your information from here: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/why-nyse-switch-fractions-to-decimals/ https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/why-nyse-switch-fra... It's poorly written and misleading, if not technically false. "even before the decimal conversion, some ECNs permitted their customers to enter orders in penny and subpenny increments or their equivalents (e.g., in increments as small as 1/256 of a dollar)" ...from https://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/34-44568.htm https://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/34-44568.htm It appears that 8ths were the official minimum until mid 1997, which must be why I don't remember smaller fractions being very common. I feel like maybe it was mostly penny stocks that traded in smaller fractions? The following mentions stocks trading in 32nds: https://money.cnn.com/2000/03/24/investing/q_decimals/ https://money.cnn.com/2000/03/24/investing/q_decimals/
bpodgursky 5y ago
"capital controls" only don't seem like a big deal because you presumably live under a government which you trust, which allows allows cross-border money flows, and which has a relatively stable currency. For much or most of the world, that isn't true.
- retrac 5y ago
  Hacker News is generally lucky to be a community of extremely well-organized and put-together people, often with a bit of social clout and wealth. I've noticed on many threads an obliviousness to the fact you've pointed out. Even In the USA or EU, a significant proportion of people do not have access to something like buying some Apple stock legitimately. Just think of all the people who use those extortionate "cash apps" and payday loan services. Why not just use a bank? The same reason they're not going to be buying Apple stock the proper way. Most obviously, perhaps no bank account, or no ID. They may not have legal status in the country they live in. They may owe child support. Or tens of thousands of unpaid fines for criminal convictions. Or they have a garnishment against them. Or banks simply won't open an account for them because of bad credit. So on and so on, reasons legitimate, and not, for not engaging with the formal financial system. This adds up to something like 5 - 20% of Americans depending how you set your threshold. To those people, both cryptocurrencies and possibly-scam crypto-investments are attractive because they offer something otherwise not available.
- rurp 5y ago
  Oh I see, so you are saying that these crypto assets are primarily traded in the third world?

aewct 5y ago

There's no benefit to the user to having no seatbelts. There's a huge benefit to having open markets at all times. The usual phrase for your argument is "false analogy."

tablespoon 5y ago
> There's no benefit to the user to having no seatbelts. There's a huge benefit to having open markets at all times. I quoted the full sentence, but I was mainly referring to: >> unhindered by capital controls, “know your client” rules imposed on broker-dealers, and other frictions of the traditional financial system While you can always find some little exceptions, most financial regulation has actually has good reason to exist and solves actual problems (though maybe not your problems, as in burglary laws do not solve burglars' problems). It's not much of a "feature" to do away with them, since then you just invite the re-emergence of problems that have already been solved or mitigated.
whoaisme 5y ago
There are no benefits to you. There are plenty of benefits to me. Let the market decide? Probably not. It's easy to accuse people of logical fallacies while somehow you're the sole arbitrator to what is and isn't good for users.
toast0 5y ago
> There's no benefit to the user to having no seatbelts. No seatbelts means it's easier to get out of the vehicle (if you planned to or not). Some seatbelts are uncomfortable. Seatbelts add to the materials and assembly cost of the vehicle, and add weight to the vehicle which increases fuel usage and wear on the tires and suspension and road. Maybe they wrinkle your clothes? Installing retrofit seatbelts on a vehicle without them can be difficult and the result may be really uncomfortable. Very ocassionally, it might be preferable to be flung from a vehicle rather than retained in a vehicle during a colission, although that would have to be a pretty specific set of circumstances, because being flung from a vehicle results in a lot of undesirable injury. Not having seatbelts has minor benefits. All of them are outweighed by the benefits of seatbelts in my opinion (and I think there's broad consensus) but claiming there's no benefit to not having them or that there's no cost to having them is silly.

sjtindell 5y ago

Would you have said the same when we moved from measuring stock prices in increments of dubloons to decimals? Where does all this HN hostility come from, I thought this crypto stuff would mesh so well with the Silicon Valley mindset. Trading should be instant, totally free, in any increment you choose, across borders! That’s the kind of mentality we apply to so much else in tech right? Is this really a bunch of hackers defending oppressive government regulations written by lobbyists for oligopolies? Since when does Silicon Valley defend the old ways?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
perl4ever 5y ago
>measuring stock prices in increments of dubloons to decimals? "dubloons"? Stock prices used to be in binary fractions. Barely over 20 years ago. Obviously moving to decimals is going backwards, how many people program with BCD these days?
- sjtindell 5y ago
  Pricing stocks used to be done in fractions with 16 as the denominator because Spanish traders some 400 years ago quoted prices in fractions of Spanish Gold Doubloons. Obviously decimals are superior, they allow much more accurate price discovery. What are you referring to?
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    Mostly they were quoted in 8ths. Might have something to do with the Spanish dollar being called "Real de a ocho" or "pieces of eight". Also, I think it was silver based, not gold. Doesn't "silver dollar" in old books ring a bell? I'm guessing you got your information from here: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/why-nyse-switch-fractions-to-decimals/ https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/why-nyse-switch-fra... It's poorly written and misleading, if not technically false. "even before the decimal conversion, some ECNs permitted their customers to enter orders in penny and subpenny increments or their equivalents (e.g., in increments as small as 1/256 of a dollar)" ...from https://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/34-44568.htm https://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/34-44568.htm It appears that 8ths were the official minimum until mid 1997, which must be why I don't remember smaller fractions being very common. I feel like maybe it was mostly penny stocks that traded in smaller fractions? The following mentions stocks trading in 32nds: https://money.cnn.com/2000/03/24/investing/q_decimals/ https://money.cnn.com/2000/03/24/investing/q_decimals/

bpodgursky 5y ago

"capital controls" only don't seem like a big deal because you presumably live under a government which you trust, which allows allows cross-border money flows, and which has a relatively stable currency. For much or most of the world, that isn't true.

retrac 5y ago
Hacker News is generally lucky to be a community of extremely well-organized and put-together people, often with a bit of social clout and wealth. I've noticed on many threads an obliviousness to the fact you've pointed out. Even In the USA or EU, a significant proportion of people do not have access to something like buying some Apple stock legitimately. Just think of all the people who use those extortionate "cash apps" and payday loan services. Why not just use a bank? The same reason they're not going to be buying Apple stock the proper way. Most obviously, perhaps no bank account, or no ID. They may not have legal status in the country they live in. They may owe child support. Or tens of thousands of unpaid fines for criminal convictions. Or they have a garnishment against them. Or banks simply won't open an account for them because of bad credit. So on and so on, reasons legitimate, and not, for not engaging with the formal financial system. This adds up to something like 5 - 20% of Americans depending how you set your threshold. To those people, both cryptocurrencies and possibly-scam crypto-investments are attractive because they offer something otherwise not available.
rurp 5y ago
Oh I see, so you are saying that these crypto assets are primarily traded in the third world?