First observation: their research points out 80% of transactions are via exchanges and it seems their research basically does nothing to analyse that 80%, it's

First observation: their research points out 80% of transactions are via exchanges and it seems their research basically does nothing to analyse that 80%, it's all on-chain analysis (ie, completely worthless and extremely ironic since they literally describe the block chain being a move away from a "few centralized record keepers" - bitcoin is far better, only accounting for 80%) >"Without proper regulation, this is going to be a very dangerous place for many retail investors.” I don't like Bitcoin. I hold no bitcoin. Even for me, this reeks of institutionalism. Is it better that you pay repetitive over-draft charges at your bank or exorbitant fees to your local investment advisor, or watch your savings disappear into nothing through inflation? I don't know how, but MIT is radicalising me. To be honest the over-arching theme of this article is just "let's apply all the legacy regulations to bitcoin". Which is probably right in general, but this article does a poor job of selling it.