8 ms·

There's currently US congressional hearings going on about cryptocurrency regulation. This is admittedly from a very pro-crypto source, but great video overview

There's currently US congressional hearings going on about cryptocurrency regulation. This is admittedly from a very pro-crypto source, but great video overview of the most recent testimony: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xohK2W07F0Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xohK2W07F0Q I'm very very glad for any consumer protection, but it does come across like the SEC is setting up a narrative of crypto risk as a reason to repress transactions between it and the traditional banking system.

smackeyacky 4y ago
Is this one of those "self aware wolf" situations?
cal5k 4y ago
The revelation that FDIC (allegedly) forced Signature's acquirer to divest of cash holdings from crypto companies is another bit of evidence that anti-crypto regulatory activism is a very real thing. Which is quite silly because crypto is still small peanuts compared to the bank failures that happened recently.
- ForHackernews 4y ago
  You mean the bank failures where good regulations and government intervention mean that depositors aren't out a cent? _Those_ bank failures? I'm not sure this is quite the example you think it is...
- paxys 4y ago
  I don't see the "anti-crypto regulatory activism" you are calling out. If FDIC is bailing out a bank and its depositors, that too well beyond its insurance limit, it absolutely has to ensure that the bank is not going to continue to gamble with customer funds. Heck "no customer deposits going into crypto" should be a hard requirement to be eligible for FDIC insurance.
  - ursuscamp 4y ago
    Is the FDIC going to tell Silicon Valley bank to stop taking deposits from tech companies, or make them stop purchasing long-term treasuries? My guess is no…
    - astrange 4y ago
      FDIC shot Silicon Valley Bank in the head and fired all the executives. It literally does not exist anymore.
      - ursuscamp 4y ago
        Same with Signature. Both banks are being sold off. I was shorthand referring to whoever bought them.
- vkou 4y ago
  Being a crypto-focused bank carries most of the same risks as being a startup-focused bank (But worse), and in case anyone missed the news the other week, one of those just exploded with what could have been a much bigger hole on its balance sheet had the FDIC waited.
  - sgammon 4y ago
    that explosion had very little to do with being exposed to the risk of startups
    - vkou 4y ago
      It had everything to do with it. If SVB diversified its depositor base, it wouldn't have gone bankrupt.
      - sgammon 4y ago
        their depositor base could have been anything, it was their purchase of 10yr bonds at large volumes which caused them to collapse, i thought?
pavlov 4y ago
Setting up a narrative? Did the SEC orchestrate FTX and all the other crypto failures? They’re finally taking steps to actively protect retail investors. This should have happened after the ICO boom of 2017. Nothing of value would have been lost if crypto had been unbanked the past five years.
- cypress66 4y ago
  The kind of protection people want: this exchange is not going to steal my funds The kind of "protection" regulators want: you can't buy or use crypto
  - pavlov 4y ago
    The sad truth is that all the exchanges are going to steal your funds. Some of them just go about it in more sophisticated ways, like Coinbase paying out billions in stock-based compensation while losing money.
    - cypress66 4y ago
      Thus the regulation so exchanges have to prove they have all the funds and aren't doing anything funny with it...
    - piqi 4y ago
      > The sad truth is that all the exchanges are going to steal your funds. > like Coinbase paying out billions in stock-based compensation while losing money I really wish people put more effort into arguing their side in these discussions. Your point is absurd and lazy. [public company] pays some % of employee salary in stock >> while "losing money" >> ??? >> customer's property is stolen. > Did the SEC orchestrate FTX and all the other crypto failures FTX's problems were amplified by being unregulated, outside the US. The overwhelming majority were not US residents. The SEC didn't have jurisdiction over their International firm. The US version of FTX was handled very differently, but supposedly co-mingled funds. They FAILED to protect US residents by not shutting down the US version. They could have gave warnings about the international firm, instead of working so closely with FTX's founder. As usual, lots of hand-waving from crypto detractors. You have a clear bias. Sadly, when enough people share a bias, truth and facts are irrelevant. There's a lot to criticize about in crypto. No need to make up irrelevant associations.

smackeyacky 4y ago

Is this one of those "self aware wolf" situations?

cal5k 4y ago

The revelation that FDIC (allegedly) forced Signature's acquirer to divest of cash holdings from crypto companies is another bit of evidence that anti-crypto regulatory activism is a very real thing. Which is quite silly because crypto is still small peanuts compared to the bank failures that happened recently.

ForHackernews 4y ago
You mean the bank failures where good regulations and government intervention mean that depositors aren't out a cent? _Those_ bank failures? I'm not sure this is quite the example you think it is...
paxys 4y ago
I don't see the "anti-crypto regulatory activism" you are calling out. If FDIC is bailing out a bank and its depositors, that too well beyond its insurance limit, it absolutely has to ensure that the bank is not going to continue to gamble with customer funds. Heck "no customer deposits going into crypto" should be a hard requirement to be eligible for FDIC insurance.
- ursuscamp 4y ago
  Is the FDIC going to tell Silicon Valley bank to stop taking deposits from tech companies, or make them stop purchasing long-term treasuries? My guess is no…
  - astrange 4y ago
    FDIC shot Silicon Valley Bank in the head and fired all the executives. It literally does not exist anymore.
    - ursuscamp 4y ago
      Same with Signature. Both banks are being sold off. I was shorthand referring to whoever bought them.
vkou 4y ago
Being a crypto-focused bank carries most of the same risks as being a startup-focused bank (But worse), and in case anyone missed the news the other week, one of those just exploded with what could have been a much bigger hole on its balance sheet had the FDIC waited.
- sgammon 4y ago
  that explosion had very little to do with being exposed to the risk of startups
  - vkou 4y ago
    It had everything to do with it. If SVB diversified its depositor base, it wouldn't have gone bankrupt.
    - sgammon 4y ago
      their depositor base could have been anything, it was their purchase of 10yr bonds at large volumes which caused them to collapse, i thought?

pavlov 4y ago

Setting up a narrative? Did the SEC orchestrate FTX and all the other crypto failures? They’re finally taking steps to actively protect retail investors. This should have happened after the ICO boom of 2017. Nothing of value would have been lost if crypto had been unbanked the past five years.

cypress66 4y ago
The kind of protection people want: this exchange is not going to steal my funds The kind of "protection" regulators want: you can't buy or use crypto
- pavlov 4y ago
  The sad truth is that all the exchanges are going to steal your funds. Some of them just go about it in more sophisticated ways, like Coinbase paying out billions in stock-based compensation while losing money.
  - cypress66 4y ago
    Thus the regulation so exchanges have to prove they have all the funds and aren't doing anything funny with it...
  - piqi 4y ago
    > The sad truth is that all the exchanges are going to steal your funds. > like Coinbase paying out billions in stock-based compensation while losing money I really wish people put more effort into arguing their side in these discussions. Your point is absurd and lazy. [public company] pays some % of employee salary in stock >> while "losing money" >> ??? >> customer's property is stolen. > Did the SEC orchestrate FTX and all the other crypto failures FTX's problems were amplified by being unregulated, outside the US. The overwhelming majority were not US residents. The SEC didn't have jurisdiction over their International firm. The US version of FTX was handled very differently, but supposedly co-mingled funds. They FAILED to protect US residents by not shutting down the US version. They could have gave warnings about the international firm, instead of working so closely with FTX's founder. As usual, lots of hand-waving from crypto detractors. You have a clear bias. Sadly, when enough people share a bias, truth and facts are irrelevant. There's a lot to criticize about in crypto. No need to make up irrelevant associations.