3 ms·

> Neither should Congress or anyone else confuse the hype machine’s capacity to invoke real grievances—banking access, financial consolidation, transfer network

by dvt 4y ago

> Neither should Congress or anyone else confuse the hype machine’s capacity to invoke real grievances—banking access, financial consolidation, transfer network improvement, predatory lending, monetary policy—with capacity to solve them. The proper tools are known, but they aren’t found in any “white paper”. They are found on parchment, in the Constitution, vested in Congress. What a mouthful. Some problems are technology problems (e.g. "transfer network improvement"). Not sure what Congress has to do with solving these (read: nothing). Other problems are finance problems (e.g. financial consolidation, whatever that even means). Again, Congress has no say here, as these are problems to be solved by financial institutions (banks, funds, etc.). And others (e.g. predatory lending) are policy problems; here is the only place where Congress would have a say. > If our representatives tie themselves to blockchain with special favors, they will stand with it when the hustle grinds down, the debts come due, and full account is taken of its past as well as its promises. They should do the opposite. Nancy Pelosi consistently beating the market[1] is a meme at this point. How about we first solve the problem of congresspeople actively trading the very markets they're supposed to police? The entire post is just a confused hodgepodge of misgivings and grievances with no rhyme or reason. Blockchain bad, we get it. [1] https://www.fineprintdata.com/post/pelosistocks https://www.fineprintdata.com/post/pelosistocks

thecosas 4y ago
I don't know that the tl;dr is "blockchain bad". What I took from it is that blockchain-based money movement shouldn't get special treatment compared to other ways to move money in regards to regulations (KYC, enforcement, etc.)
- kemitchell 4y ago
  Author of post here. Much appreciate this comment. My personal TL;DR is probably more like "blockchain, bleh". I think it's a dead end, for social ⋃ technical reasons. But I know and respect folks holding out hope and putting in time. I wouldn't pull the plug on them. But the burden's still on them to meet and exceed extant standards. No public policy regressions tolerated. If you want deregulation, fine. Argue that across the board and compete.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
giaour 4y ago
> Some problems are technology problems (e.g. "transfer network improvement"). Not sure what Congress has to do with solving these (read: nothing). Other problems are finance problems (e.g. financial consolidation, whatever that even means). Again, Congress has no say here, as these are problems to be solved by financial institutions (banks, funds, etc.). I think you may be misunderstanding these terms. I read "transfer network" as referring to how banks transfer funds between each other, not as a specific kind of network technology, and there is most definitely a role for law and policy in establishing how independent financial institutions interact with one another in account holders' interests. I read "financial consolidation" here as referring to the consolidation of financial institutions, and Congress and regulatory authorities for sure have a role to play in determining what constitutes a monopoly or monopsony in the financial sector. Interoperability and anticompetitive mergers are absolutely (though not exclusively) policy problems. > How about we first solve the problem of congresspeople actively trading the very markets they're supposed to police? I mean, sure? Let's ban senators and reps from holding individual securities; I won't argue with that. But that seems orthogonal to a discussion of whether a particular industry should be exempt from regulation (and frankly seems like whataboutism).
- dvt 4y ago
  > and frankly seems like whataboutism I hate this new trend of dismissing tangential points as "whataboutism" -- this is simply a question of priorities. It's inane to prioritize blockchain regulation when even the markets (you know, the ones we've had for a few hundred years now) aren't regulated as heavily, which was the point.
  - giaour 4y ago
    The markets are heavily regulated; you were complaining about someone (seemingly) getting away with insider trading. It's completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion, which was that blockchain-based solutions have been escaping traditional securities regulations. Deciding that blockchains should be a free space for crime because, hey, someone else gets away with a different criminal activity, so what's the point of having laws? is the textbook definition of whataboutism.

by dvt 4y ago

thecosas 4y ago

I don't know that the tl;dr is "blockchain bad". What I took from it is that blockchain-based money movement shouldn't get special treatment compared to other ways to move money in regards to regulations (KYC, enforcement, etc.)

kemitchell 4y ago
Author of post here. Much appreciate this comment. My personal TL;DR is probably more like "blockchain, bleh". I think it's a dead end, for social ⋃ technical reasons. But I know and respect folks holding out hope and putting in time. I wouldn't pull the plug on them. But the burden's still on them to meet and exceed extant standards. No public policy regressions tolerated. If you want deregulation, fine. Argue that across the board and compete.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

giaour 4y ago

> Some problems are technology problems (e.g. "transfer network improvement"). Not sure what Congress has to do with solving these (read: nothing). Other problems are finance problems (e.g. financial consolidation, whatever that even means). Again, Congress has no say here, as these are problems to be solved by financial institutions (banks, funds, etc.). I think you may be misunderstanding these terms. I read "transfer network" as referring to how banks transfer funds between each other, not as a specific kind of network technology, and there is most definitely a role for law and policy in establishing how independent financial institutions interact with one another in account holders' interests. I read "financial consolidation" here as referring to the consolidation of financial institutions, and Congress and regulatory authorities for sure have a role to play in determining what constitutes a monopoly or monopsony in the financial sector. Interoperability and anticompetitive mergers are absolutely (though not exclusively) policy problems. > How about we first solve the problem of congresspeople actively trading the very markets they're supposed to police? I mean, sure? Let's ban senators and reps from holding individual securities; I won't argue with that. But that seems orthogonal to a discussion of whether a particular industry should be exempt from regulation (and frankly seems like whataboutism).

dvt 4y ago
> and frankly seems like whataboutism I hate this new trend of dismissing tangential points as "whataboutism" -- this is simply a question of priorities. It's inane to prioritize blockchain regulation when even the markets (you know, the ones we've had for a few hundred years now) aren't regulated as heavily, which was the point.
- giaour 4y ago
  The markets are heavily regulated; you were complaining about someone (seemingly) getting away with insider trading. It's completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion, which was that blockchain-based solutions have been escaping traditional securities regulations. Deciding that blockchains should be a free space for crime because, hey, someone else gets away with a different criminal activity, so what's the point of having laws? is the textbook definition of whataboutism.