4 ms·

Agree, but let's let banks fail and put them in receivership. Nationalize them if needed. Anyone speculating in crypto shouldn't get backstop by government. W

by r00fus 4y ago

Agree, but let's let banks fail and put them in receivership. Nationalize them if needed. Anyone speculating in crypto shouldn't get backstop by government. Wasn't the whole DeFi argument that fiat/government could be bypassed?

ptudan 4y ago
DeFi and FTX (and all the CEXs/Centralized lending platforms who credited FTX) are basically on opposite ends of the spectrum. Most who are getting fucked by this fiasco are retail who have never touched DeFi.
- m00dy 4y ago
  Yes, DeFi has a high barrier to get into. But, once you are in the rabbit hole, there is no going back...
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Ridiculous you are getting downvoted for stating something that is clearly true.
- aww_dang 4y ago
  FTX was in bed with regulators and SBF was calling for more regulatory capture. The "reasonable regulation" trope is fit for parody.
beaned 4y ago
Anyone speculating in crypto should be let to fail, but anyone speculating in stocks or housing should be backstopped... Why?
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  because crypto is icky and weird
- nemo44x 4y ago
  Because a government is only as strong as its businesses and buildings/assets. Crypto is on another tier and apart from government.
- JackFr 4y ago
  Well, speculators should not be backstopped at all. But if you feel there’s no difference between stocks (an enforceable legal claim on the real property and intellectual property of an on going enterprise), housing (real property) and crypto (nothing, literally nothing) then there’s no point in discussing it.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > but anyone speculating in stocks or housing should be backstopped... Why? Crypto is cauterised. There were inklings of institutionalisation, but the Fed raised rates before that took hold. This means the people and wealth in crypto can vanish without compromising much else, a statement I cannot make about most industries or assets. I would also venture that most people suggesting we not backstop crypto were also opposed to bailing out banks. But unlike with banks or housing, there is no broader interest in crypto.
- hnews_account_1 4y ago
  Before trying so hard to put your thoughts into the ether, stop for a moment and ask yourself if you can’t find the answer to that question. Is everyone on the fucking planet wrong? Or are you being stupid? Are stocks different from crypto? Why was there a need to bail out mortgage buyers? Did everyone just wake up one day and make a decision or is there detailed reasoning available for your perusal should you choose to look?
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Seems quite easy for me to see the majority of people on the planet being wrong. Historically, it has happened quite a bit.
    - hnews_account_1 4y ago
      Indeed. But that is both from a less globalized and less open times. There have always been people who have recognized social idiocies and questioned why other people follow them blindly. We are not unique in that regard. Where we are unique though, is in living in an era of unprecedented freedom to voice that opinion and call others out (in the west at least). Which means, errors get caught before compounding too much. It also means knowing that no decision is made with the greater good or lining my pockets mantra solely. It is a combination of both.
- sdiacom 4y ago
  Because letting the fake crypto economy go to zero has no tangible effects on the real world, while letting stocks and housing go to zero has very real, very negative effects on people's lives.
happyopossum 4y ago
Nationalizing all banks seems like the worst option of them all. There is no precedent in history of a society built around government owned banks that doesn’t include oppression and failure.
- ProjectArcturis 4y ago
  Nationalize, recapitalize, and reprivatize. So that the benefits of government recapitalization don't get captured by the same people who caused the crisis.
- courgette 4y ago
  Is’t what happened in 1929 in the us ? https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/emergency-banking-act-of-1933 https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/emergency-banki... Title 2 above seems to describe a government appointed regulator in case of failure.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Title 2 above seems to describe a government appointed regulator in case of failure Receivership is different from nationalisation. It’s aimed at winding down or disposing of the asset on a short timeline. For comparison, we’re FTX in receivership, its assets would be controlled by a third party whose job would be to protect it for users’ benefit.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  Semi-independent federal reserves? We can quibble about fiat/currency vs banking, but technically the government owns all money. Granted, retail and last-mile banking seems a poor fit for government control. Although from memory Japan offers retail banking services through their postal service? (for historical quirk reasons, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Post_Bank https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Post_Bank )

by r00fus 4y ago

ptudan 4y ago

DeFi and FTX (and all the CEXs/Centralized lending platforms who credited FTX) are basically on opposite ends of the spectrum. Most who are getting fucked by this fiasco are retail who have never touched DeFi.

m00dy 4y ago
Yes, DeFi has a high barrier to get into. But, once you are in the rabbit hole, there is no going back...
whimsicalism 4y ago
Ridiculous you are getting downvoted for stating something that is clearly true.
aww_dang 4y ago
FTX was in bed with regulators and SBF was calling for more regulatory capture. The "reasonable regulation" trope is fit for parody.

beaned 4y ago

Anyone speculating in crypto should be let to fail, but anyone speculating in stocks or housing should be backstopped... Why?

whimsicalism 4y ago
because crypto is icky and weird
nemo44x 4y ago
Because a government is only as strong as its businesses and buildings/assets. Crypto is on another tier and apart from government.
JackFr 4y ago
Well, speculators should not be backstopped at all. But if you feel there’s no difference between stocks (an enforceable legal claim on the real property and intellectual property of an on going enterprise), housing (real property) and crypto (nothing, literally nothing) then there’s no point in discussing it.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> but anyone speculating in stocks or housing should be backstopped... Why? Crypto is cauterised. There were inklings of institutionalisation, but the Fed raised rates before that took hold. This means the people and wealth in crypto can vanish without compromising much else, a statement I cannot make about most industries or assets. I would also venture that most people suggesting we not backstop crypto were also opposed to bailing out banks. But unlike with banks or housing, there is no broader interest in crypto.
hnews_account_1 4y ago
Before trying so hard to put your thoughts into the ether, stop for a moment and ask yourself if you can’t find the answer to that question. Is everyone on the fucking planet wrong? Or are you being stupid? Are stocks different from crypto? Why was there a need to bail out mortgage buyers? Did everyone just wake up one day and make a decision or is there detailed reasoning available for your perusal should you choose to look?
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Seems quite easy for me to see the majority of people on the planet being wrong. Historically, it has happened quite a bit.
  - hnews_account_1 4y ago
    Indeed. But that is both from a less globalized and less open times. There have always been people who have recognized social idiocies and questioned why other people follow them blindly. We are not unique in that regard. Where we are unique though, is in living in an era of unprecedented freedom to voice that opinion and call others out (in the west at least). Which means, errors get caught before compounding too much. It also means knowing that no decision is made with the greater good or lining my pockets mantra solely. It is a combination of both.
sdiacom 4y ago
Because letting the fake crypto economy go to zero has no tangible effects on the real world, while letting stocks and housing go to zero has very real, very negative effects on people's lives.

happyopossum 4y ago

Nationalizing all banks seems like the worst option of them all. There is no precedent in history of a society built around government owned banks that doesn’t include oppression and failure.

ProjectArcturis 4y ago
Nationalize, recapitalize, and reprivatize. So that the benefits of government recapitalization don't get captured by the same people who caused the crisis.
courgette 4y ago
Is’t what happened in 1929 in the us ? https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/emergency-banking-act-of-1933 https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/emergency-banki... Title 2 above seems to describe a government appointed regulator in case of failure.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Title 2 above seems to describe a government appointed regulator in case of failure Receivership is different from nationalisation. It’s aimed at winding down or disposing of the asset on a short timeline. For comparison, we’re FTX in receivership, its assets would be controlled by a third party whose job would be to protect it for users’ benefit.
ethbr0 4y ago
Semi-independent federal reserves? We can quibble about fiat/currency vs banking, but technically the government owns all money. Granted, retail and last-mile banking seems a poor fit for government control. Although from memory Japan offers retail banking services through their postal service? (for historical quirk reasons, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Post_Bank https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Post_Bank )