5 ms·

> Once again crypto investors have to be bailed out by the same government regulation they hate so much. Are they being bailed out by the government? I didn't

> Once again crypto investors have to be bailed out by the same government regulation they hate so much. Are they being bailed out by the government? I didn't see anything that said the government is making the investors whole here, do you?

paxys 4y ago
Prosecution of crime discourages further crime, so yes the ecosystem is being helped directly by the government regardless of whether these few investors get their money back or not. And while it is too early to say in this case, the government has reimbursed crypto victims in several cases in the US (see https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2020/11/ftc-sends-refunds-victims-deceptive-money-making-schemes-involving-cryptocurrencies https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2020/11/... and https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/18/22789507/crypto-scam-government-bitconnect-56-million-victim-reimbursement https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/18/22789507/crypto-scam-gov... as examples).
- djschnei 4y ago
  Especially in Bitcoin circles, the classical economic view of property rights is pretty much a cornerstone of the ideology. Many would argue defending property rights is one of the most legitimate utilizations of Government force. I'm not sure I understand your point, at all.
  - paxys 4y ago
    The ideas that: • The blockchain is an immutable distributed source of truth outside the control of any central authority and • The government can pass judgement, seize your assets and give them to someone else are fundamentally contradictory. If you want the government to be the final arbiter of property rights then you are conceding that they control property allocation, not some global ledger.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      Outside the control of something does not mean the same as outside the reach of. For a typical tech example consider e.g. owning a word processor vs using a word processing software as a service. In the former your usage of that is outside the control of any central authority, but certainly not outside their potential reach. If the government deems your copy of that software is illegal, they may come for you [and it], but at the same time they can't simply whisk it out of existence - because they don't control it. By contrast, in the SaaS case - they can indeed simply whisk it out of existence, so far as you are concerned. This also has nothing to do with conceding who "controls property allocation." It's all about control/ownership.
  - belltaco 4y ago
    What pays for all the investigations to find the fraudsters and the funds? It's taxes, but a large proportion of people in crypto circles say that taxation is theft.
    - landemva 4y ago
      Income tax is slavery. Import duties, use taxes (diesel fuel to fund roads), and many sales taxes are legitimate.
  - intrasight 4y ago
    So "no regulation" when it suits them. And "strong regulation" when it suits them. No different than any other industry, actually ;)
- djbebs 4y ago
  If you'd prefer im sure crypto investors would be happy to take justice into their own hands. Somehow i think you wouldnt like private mercenaries running around hanging people that crypto bros dislike though
  - sleton38234234 4y ago
    i actually think this is a valid point. Either enforce property right laws correctly or people will turn to vigilanteeism. Just because the property happens to be crypto rather than real estate or your car, doesn't mean it's any less deserving of due process.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  When I read your post I interpreted it as the government making people whole out of the general tax fund. However, after reading the articles, it seems the government seized assets from fraudsters and then returned the assets to the victims. This comment is not intended to argue about anything, just adding a clarification.
hartator 4y ago
> Are they being bailed out by the government? I didn't see anything that said the government is making the investors whole here, do you? Isn't the whole thing that code is the new law? If you transfer ownership to your cryptos to that exchange, they should be the "legitimate" owner if you follow that logic. However it seems that all of this is just avoid the actual law when it seems convenient and cry back when it's not.

paxys 4y ago

Prosecution of crime discourages further crime, so yes the ecosystem is being helped directly by the government regardless of whether these few investors get their money back or not. And while it is too early to say in this case, the government has reimbursed crypto victims in several cases in the US (see https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2020/11/ftc-sends-refunds-victims-deceptive-money-making-schemes-involving-cryptocurrencies https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2020/11/... and https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/18/22789507/crypto-scam-government-bitconnect-56-million-victim-reimbursement https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/18/22789507/crypto-scam-gov... as examples).

djschnei 4y ago
Especially in Bitcoin circles, the classical economic view of property rights is pretty much a cornerstone of the ideology. Many would argue defending property rights is one of the most legitimate utilizations of Government force. I'm not sure I understand your point, at all.
- paxys 4y ago
  The ideas that: • The blockchain is an immutable distributed source of truth outside the control of any central authority and • The government can pass judgement, seize your assets and give them to someone else are fundamentally contradictory. If you want the government to be the final arbiter of property rights then you are conceding that they control property allocation, not some global ledger.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    Outside the control of something does not mean the same as outside the reach of. For a typical tech example consider e.g. owning a word processor vs using a word processing software as a service. In the former your usage of that is outside the control of any central authority, but certainly not outside their potential reach. If the government deems your copy of that software is illegal, they may come for you [and it], but at the same time they can't simply whisk it out of existence - because they don't control it. By contrast, in the SaaS case - they can indeed simply whisk it out of existence, so far as you are concerned. This also has nothing to do with conceding who "controls property allocation." It's all about control/ownership.
- belltaco 4y ago
  What pays for all the investigations to find the fraudsters and the funds? It's taxes, but a large proportion of people in crypto circles say that taxation is theft.
  - landemva 4y ago
    Income tax is slavery. Import duties, use taxes (diesel fuel to fund roads), and many sales taxes are legitimate.
- intrasight 4y ago
  So "no regulation" when it suits them. And "strong regulation" when it suits them. No different than any other industry, actually ;)
djbebs 4y ago
If you'd prefer im sure crypto investors would be happy to take justice into their own hands. Somehow i think you wouldnt like private mercenaries running around hanging people that crypto bros dislike though
- sleton38234234 4y ago
  i actually think this is a valid point. Either enforce property right laws correctly or people will turn to vigilanteeism. Just because the property happens to be crypto rather than real estate or your car, doesn't mean it's any less deserving of due process.
Consultant32452 4y ago
When I read your post I interpreted it as the government making people whole out of the general tax fund. However, after reading the articles, it seems the government seized assets from fraudsters and then returned the assets to the victims. This comment is not intended to argue about anything, just adding a clarification.

hartator 4y ago

> Are they being bailed out by the government? I didn't see anything that said the government is making the investors whole here, do you? Isn't the whole thing that code is the new law? If you transfer ownership to your cryptos to that exchange, they should be the "legitimate" owner if you follow that logic. However it seems that all of this is just avoid the actual law when it seems convenient and cry back when it's not.