5 ms·

Regulation can be bad, but it can also be good. People think of history like it was wonderful, but it was full of cons and scams. Reputation matters, and peopl

by scoofy 4y ago

Regulation can be bad, but it can also be good. People think of history like it was wonderful, but it was full of cons and scams. Reputation matters, and people with reputations charge a premium for it. Some of the best aspects of regulations is exactly to remove the reputation tax by mandating everyone follow the same practices as the trusted institution. The real sad aspect is that the crypto-libertarians of today are repeating some of the exact same clear scams from the wildcatting era, and when it's brought up, it's just mocked because, honestly, who is going to read a book about 19th century finance when you can just watch the new star wars show instead.

rory 4y ago
How exactly would regulation help in this case? Most countries already regulate pretty strongly against theft.
- scoofy 4y ago
  Again, the purpose of blockchain-as-capital is exactly to escape regulatory requirements. One of the main reasons why we are able to use the banking systems like we do, is the ability, generally, to unwind translations that were fraudulent. There are also disclosure forms that must be presented as a double-check, to transactions that cannot be unwound. With most blockchains, this is entirely not feasible. The irony is that many of the brokers will likely be swamped by regulation going forward exactly because people will be unhappy with the lack of these types of disclosures.
  - rory 4y ago
    No need to condescend-- the gap isn't that I didn't read what you wrote, or even that I disagree. Your point is just unrelated to the situation we're talking about. A wallet is not like a bank. It's like.. well, a wallet. If you hand a wallet full of cash to a thief, no banking regulation will protect you. The tradition digital equivalent is a Visa gift card or Western Union.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
r00fus 4y ago
btw "bad regulation" is usually due to regulatory capture [1] whether in legislation (ie, regulation without teeth, designed to fail) or in practice (ie, revolving door/corruption). Which usually points back to the companies/industries being regulated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
- scoofy 4y ago
  Again, this can be true, but regulatory capture is a problem of democracy, not of regulation powers themselves.
  - r00fus 4y ago
    The problem with democracy and regulations both come down to essentially sovereign financial powers (wealthy/corporate) that have interests that don't align with the people or the state that is supposed to represent the people. These corporations control us if we don't control them.
    - scoofy 4y ago
      The problem with democracy is the dunning-kruger effect more than the principle-agent problem. People think highly-complex problems are obvious and easy. They care more about big sweeping theory than they do about local technocracy. The idea that anti-intellectualism even exists is testament to this.
      - r00fus 4y ago
        Gonna say something that would likely be downvoted but a functioning society does not need democracy. A governing body needs legitimacy because it's power springs from the people, but democracy and voting are not necessarily requisite. e.g. China/CCP (which isn't really communism, but definitely not democratic).
        8note 4y ago
epgui 4y ago
> […] when it's brought up, it's just mocked because, honestly, who is going to read a book about 19th century finance when you can just watch the new star wars show instead. Modern-day anti-intellectualism FTW! I know, I know, commenters will argue that this is mainly a laziness problem… But when has it ever been “cool” to read (in the sense of being socially incentivized broadly speaking)? To quote a modern day (retired) twitter poet: “Sad!”
reydequeso 4y ago
>who is going to read a book about 19th century finance What recommendations do you have?
- scoofy 4y ago
  you can start with the investopedia entry: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wildcat-banking.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wildcat-banking.asp here's a whitepaper from the Atlanta Fed, caution PDF: https://maysweb.tamu.edu/sage/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2018/09/Wildcat-Banks-Atlanta-Fed-vol81nos3-6_dwyer.pdf https://maysweb.tamu.edu/sage/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/20...

by scoofy 4y ago

rory 4y ago

How exactly would regulation help in this case? Most countries already regulate pretty strongly against theft.

scoofy 4y ago
Again, the purpose of blockchain-as-capital is exactly to escape regulatory requirements. One of the main reasons why we are able to use the banking systems like we do, is the ability, generally, to unwind translations that were fraudulent. There are also disclosure forms that must be presented as a double-check, to transactions that cannot be unwound. With most blockchains, this is entirely not feasible. The irony is that many of the brokers will likely be swamped by regulation going forward exactly because people will be unhappy with the lack of these types of disclosures.
- rory 4y ago
  No need to condescend-- the gap isn't that I didn't read what you wrote, or even that I disagree. Your point is just unrelated to the situation we're talking about. A wallet is not like a bank. It's like.. well, a wallet. If you hand a wallet full of cash to a thief, no banking regulation will protect you. The tradition digital equivalent is a Visa gift card or Western Union.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

r00fus 4y ago

btw "bad regulation" is usually due to regulatory capture [1] whether in legislation (ie, regulation without teeth, designed to fail) or in practice (ie, revolving door/corruption). Which usually points back to the companies/industries being regulated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

scoofy 4y ago
Again, this can be true, but regulatory capture is a problem of democracy, not of regulation powers themselves.
- r00fus 4y ago
  The problem with democracy and regulations both come down to essentially sovereign financial powers (wealthy/corporate) that have interests that don't align with the people or the state that is supposed to represent the people. These corporations control us if we don't control them.
  - scoofy 4y ago
    The problem with democracy is the dunning-kruger effect more than the principle-agent problem. People think highly-complex problems are obvious and easy. They care more about big sweeping theory than they do about local technocracy. The idea that anti-intellectualism even exists is testament to this.
    - r00fus 4y ago
      Gonna say something that would likely be downvoted but a functioning society does not need democracy. A governing body needs legitimacy because it's power springs from the people, but democracy and voting are not necessarily requisite. e.g. China/CCP (which isn't really communism, but definitely not democratic).
      - 8note 4y ago

epgui 4y ago

> […] when it's brought up, it's just mocked because, honestly, who is going to read a book about 19th century finance when you can just watch the new star wars show instead. Modern-day anti-intellectualism FTW! I know, I know, commenters will argue that this is mainly a laziness problem… But when has it ever been “cool” to read (in the sense of being socially incentivized broadly speaking)? To quote a modern day (retired) twitter poet: “Sad!”

reydequeso 4y ago

>who is going to read a book about 19th century finance What recommendations do you have?

scoofy 4y ago
you can start with the investopedia entry: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wildcat-banking.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wildcat-banking.asp here's a whitepaper from the Atlanta Fed, caution PDF: https://maysweb.tamu.edu/sage/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2018/09/Wildcat-Banks-Atlanta-Fed-vol81nos3-6_dwyer.pdf https://maysweb.tamu.edu/sage/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/20...