5 ms·

The counter-argument is that DeFi allows for different, better regulation. The blockchain isn't going to take public money to bail itself out and give itself fa

The counter-argument is that DeFi allows for different, better regulation. The blockchain isn't going to take public money to bail itself out and give itself fat bonuses off the backs of the public, unlike some participants who, let's not forget, did so perfectly legally. There needs to be some way for the public at large to show preference for regulatory regimes. Voting isn't as effective as it used to be; which smart contracts I interact with seems like a decent alternative.

pavlov 5y ago
> "DeFi allows for different, better regulation. The blockchain isn't going to take public money to bail itself out and give itself fat bonuses" The stakeholders who control the blockchain will give themselves every crypto holder's money if their interests are threatened in any way. Has everyone forgotten about the 2016 Ethereum DAO scandal?
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  Are you referring to the time someone stole a bunch of money without violating the terms of a smart contract and most of a community moved to a fork where the theft was reversed? If so, I remember it quite vividly - not sure how it supports your claim though. Ethereum classic is still around, and a decent number of purists still use it. I don't share their convictions, but I'm glad they have the option.
  - pavlov 5y ago
    ”… stole a bunch of money without violating the terms of a smart contract” — so, didn’t steal the money? Or are you admitting a smart contract isn’t any kind of contract at all? Glad “the community” stepped up to prevent smart contracts from being credible. Though I’m not sure why this community is a preferable regulator to the ones we have for actual money. Since cryptoinvestments are also bound by real-world law, you now have two regulators: the real one and the “community” that transfers cryptomoney to itself when it wants.
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      They used the contract in a way no one who wrote or entered into it intended. When a contract isn't serving the people bound to it there's typically the option to rewrite it when all parties agree. The only party that disagreed was the Eth classic community, and they still have a coin and codebase with contracts credible by your unusually high standards. The only thing they lost was investor sentiment. If those standards prove to be advantageous for a group to operate under, they'll gain ground over time. That's the beauty of crypto - people can decide the protocols and community they prefer in real time, and vote with their money accordingly.
lottin 5y ago
How on earth do you suggest that we use smart contracts (i.e. a computer program) to show preference for regulatory regimes?
- SuoDuanDao 5y ago
  Use the ones whose financial rules appeal to you.
  - lottin 5y ago
    We are talking about regulation. Regulation is a set of rules concerning capital requirements, consumer protection, etc. that apply to all market participants. Even if such a set of rules could be implemented as a "smart contract" (a computer program), a smart contract only has authority over the specific assets it controls. It's powerless to enforce a regulatory regime. So, to say that a regulatory regime can be replaced with smart contracts is basically a crackpot idea.
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      First they ignore you Then they laugh at you...
      - lottin 5y ago
        And then they win? Seriously, you need to think about this more carefully. You're basically arguing that everybody should make their own rules, and disregard everybody else's rules, which is kind of antithetical to the whole concept of civilisation...
        SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        I'm arguing that people should have a say in the rules they live under. That's kind of fundamental to the whole concept of democracy. A regional entity can't really have full control over its monetary system unless it's a 'nobody goes in or out' fortress like North Korea. In which case, it's of course difficult to have a democracy in anything but name! So to talk about the rules of local politics as if they can contain the monetary system through which they trade with others doesn't seem to me like the product of careful thought either. The US was sort of in that position because it was the global hegemon, but that should hardly be thought of as the historical norm.

pavlov 5y ago

> "DeFi allows for different, better regulation. The blockchain isn't going to take public money to bail itself out and give itself fat bonuses" The stakeholders who control the blockchain will give themselves every crypto holder's money if their interests are threatened in any way. Has everyone forgotten about the 2016 Ethereum DAO scandal?

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
Are you referring to the time someone stole a bunch of money without violating the terms of a smart contract and most of a community moved to a fork where the theft was reversed? If so, I remember it quite vividly - not sure how it supports your claim though. Ethereum classic is still around, and a decent number of purists still use it. I don't share their convictions, but I'm glad they have the option.
- pavlov 5y ago
  ”… stole a bunch of money without violating the terms of a smart contract” — so, didn’t steal the money? Or are you admitting a smart contract isn’t any kind of contract at all? Glad “the community” stepped up to prevent smart contracts from being credible. Though I’m not sure why this community is a preferable regulator to the ones we have for actual money. Since cryptoinvestments are also bound by real-world law, you now have two regulators: the real one and the “community” that transfers cryptomoney to itself when it wants.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    They used the contract in a way no one who wrote or entered into it intended. When a contract isn't serving the people bound to it there's typically the option to rewrite it when all parties agree. The only party that disagreed was the Eth classic community, and they still have a coin and codebase with contracts credible by your unusually high standards. The only thing they lost was investor sentiment. If those standards prove to be advantageous for a group to operate under, they'll gain ground over time. That's the beauty of crypto - people can decide the protocols and community they prefer in real time, and vote with their money accordingly.

lottin 5y ago

How on earth do you suggest that we use smart contracts (i.e. a computer program) to show preference for regulatory regimes?

SuoDuanDao 5y ago
Use the ones whose financial rules appeal to you.
- lottin 5y ago
  We are talking about regulation. Regulation is a set of rules concerning capital requirements, consumer protection, etc. that apply to all market participants. Even if such a set of rules could be implemented as a "smart contract" (a computer program), a smart contract only has authority over the specific assets it controls. It's powerless to enforce a regulatory regime. So, to say that a regulatory regime can be replaced with smart contracts is basically a crackpot idea.
  - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
    First they ignore you Then they laugh at you...
    - lottin 5y ago
      And then they win? Seriously, you need to think about this more carefully. You're basically arguing that everybody should make their own rules, and disregard everybody else's rules, which is kind of antithetical to the whole concept of civilisation...
      - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        I'm arguing that people should have a say in the rules they live under. That's kind of fundamental to the whole concept of democracy. A regional entity can't really have full control over its monetary system unless it's a 'nobody goes in or out' fortress like North Korea. In which case, it's of course difficult to have a democracy in anything but name! So to talk about the rules of local politics as if they can contain the monetary system through which they trade with others doesn't seem to me like the product of careful thought either. The US was sort of in that position because it was the global hegemon, but that should hardly be thought of as the historical norm.