3 ms·
> Some problems are technology problems (e.g. "transfer network improvement"). Not sure what Congress has to do with solving these (read: nothing). Other proble
by 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 agoThe 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.
- dvt 4y agoAs I mentioned, it's a matter of priorities, not whataboutism. We should fix the financial system: how about we start with Citizens United, with lobbying in Washington, with more stringent insider trading rules, etc.? This (definitionally) should be of a higher priority than the blockchain—if we really care about fixing the financial system. Lamenting that the blockchain might get "regulatory favors" when the government spent $700 billion bailing out the banks in 2008 is so tone-deaf it's almost in poor taste.