4 ms·

The SEC and Wallstreet have been locked in an eternal cat and mouse game for decades. And given that Wallstreet has the money and hence the talent and options i

The SEC and Wallstreet have been locked in an eternal cat and mouse game for decades. And given that Wallstreet has the money and hence the talent and options it tends to be a step ahead of the SEC. I expect this will be even more true for crypto. While I believe that some regulation might be a good thing as it makes crypto safer for the wider public I am genuinely doubtful that the SEC has the capabilities or the right incentives to be that regulator.

ASlave2Gravity 4y ago
I think it boils down to public adoption, right? Like, everyone, even the bell-hop, was telling me to buy. It was beyound insane. But they said that because they all saw the graphs. It made the news, etc. But I rarely meet people who will happily take BTC or what have you. Now, is this because it's still in geeksville, or because it's harder to pay taxes, or because its slow? Where do you draw the line on usability? We know why it was made.
kloch 4y ago
In this case the tension is not between SEC and Wall Street but between the SEC (which regulates stocks and bonds) and the CFTC (which regulates commodities and derivatives). Most people in Wall Street and the crypto community want clearer regulations so they know what the rules are for specific coins/tokens and transactions. What we have now is a very slow Government trying to catch up with technology coupled with infighting between different regulators defending their own turf. Fortunately there was a bill introduced in the US Senate (referenced in the article) that would clear up much of this, along with various taxation issues.
undersuit 4y ago
It's the same problem that the ATF has with regulating guns or the FDA with regulating drugs; classifications are inherently limited and once you define one I can now make something that doesn't fit your existing classifications. Which is good, we don't want to give the government over-reaching powers, but we also want them to do something.

ASlave2Gravity 4y ago

I think it boils down to public adoption, right? Like, everyone, even the bell-hop, was telling me to buy. It was beyound insane. But they said that because they all saw the graphs. It made the news, etc. But I rarely meet people who will happily take BTC or what have you. Now, is this because it's still in geeksville, or because it's harder to pay taxes, or because its slow? Where do you draw the line on usability? We know why it was made.

kloch 4y ago

In this case the tension is not between SEC and Wall Street but between the SEC (which regulates stocks and bonds) and the CFTC (which regulates commodities and derivatives). Most people in Wall Street and the crypto community want clearer regulations so they know what the rules are for specific coins/tokens and transactions. What we have now is a very slow Government trying to catch up with technology coupled with infighting between different regulators defending their own turf. Fortunately there was a bill introduced in the US Senate (referenced in the article) that would clear up much of this, along with various taxation issues.

undersuit 4y ago

It's the same problem that the ATF has with regulating guns or the FDA with regulating drugs; classifications are inherently limited and once you define one I can now make something that doesn't fit your existing classifications. Which is good, we don't want to give the government over-reaching powers, but we also want them to do something.