4 ms·

It's not really a contradiction. People who want financial system free of government control and people who want government to prosecute for crypto crimes are m

by reisse 4y ago

It's not really a contradiction. People who want financial system free of government control and people who want government to prosecute for crypto crimes are mostly different people. The latter usually care about 100% APR on dollar and other scammy promises, and not about any real crypto benefits. When they get burned, they want government to step in and regulate. The former don't care much that system allows to scam people (the "it's your fault if you were scammed" attitude), they care more that it's free from regulations.

knorker 4y ago
> People who want financial system free of government control and people who want government to prosecute for crypto crimes are mostly different people. Are they? I'm not so sure. Could you elaborate? The whole selling point of cryptocurrencies seems to be to start from scratch, without those pesky KYC/AML and tax laws. Traditional banking is not a natural law. It's man-made. The benefits cryptocurrencies have over traditional banking seem to all come either directly or indirectly from the extent to which they do not have the man-made rules and laws. Basically: It is hard to send money from A to B because of laws. The set of people who like cryptocurrency is not small. The number of anarchists is vanishingly small. People want anarchism (complete freedom) and unregulated cryptocurrency until someone else uses that anarchism against them, and then they want regulation, post-facto. It's not different people. It's the same people at different times; the times they're affected and the times they're not.
- reisse 4y ago
  > Could you elaborate? The whole selling point of cryptocurrencies seems to be to start from scratch, without those pesky KYC/AML and tax laws. > The set of people who like cryptocurrency is not small. There are two sets of people who like cryptocurrency. First ones like crypto because of better yields than traditional bank accounts or investments. But they want to live in a miracle pinky unicorn world where they can have better yields risk-free by having government protections. Other than better yields, they're completely fine with traditional banking system. Second ones like crypto because it allows for easy money transfer from A to B. These people don't care much about yields, they cannot transfer money via traditional ways for various reasons, and they want governments to stay away from crypto as long as possible. > It's not different people. It's the same people at different times; the times they're affected and the times they're not. That's your assumptions about some people. Sure, from my side it's also only assumptions and personal anecdata, but most of the guys I know that use crypto for something useful wants government to stay away from it as far as possible, despite all the scams around. Some of them lost money on FTX, and that didn't change their position.
  - knorker 4y ago
    I see what you mean. I guess in my mind "people who like cryptocurrency" like it for reasons other than its bigger-fool value proposition. Yes, I agree that there are many many people out there who don't care one bit for e.g. bitcoin itself, but would be perfectly happy buying a regulated ETF that tracked the price of bitcoin. I implicitly did not count these people as "liking cryptocurrencies". What they like is money, in particular fiat money. > These people don't care much about yields, they cannot transfer money via traditional ways for various reasons, and they want governments to stay away from crypto as long as possible. These are the people I was referring to, who want "no regulation" when they want to do something fine, but "full regulation" if and when they get screwed. They want insurance only when things go poorly, and see insurance as a waste of money the days when they don't have accidents.
- olalonde 4y ago
  The rule of law, police and investigations pre-date KYC/AML regulations by decades if not centuries. It's possible to fight crime without them. Would you say being in favor of HTTPS or encrypted messaging is equally incompatible with believing in a justice system?
  - knorker 4y ago
    Sure. Plenty of financial regulation is newer. Crashes and frauds just in the last 100 years have created lots of new laws. But the thing is people want fast and anonymous payments, but don't acknowledge that traditional banking isn't doing that so well (especially in the US) because of laws people want even more. E.g. given the choice of easier international payment or fighting mob money laundering, people will say the latter. Well, they'll say both, but cryptocurrencies only even try to do the former. (Failing, because it's anything but easy for almost everyone) As for your HTTPS analogy: mass surveillance is less law enforcement and more spy agency shit. Even for messaging, the messages are rarely the harm. For money the moving of money is the harm.

by reisse 4y ago

knorker 4y ago

> People who want financial system free of government control and people who want government to prosecute for crypto crimes are mostly different people. Are they? I'm not so sure. Could you elaborate? The whole selling point of cryptocurrencies seems to be to start from scratch, without those pesky KYC/AML and tax laws. Traditional banking is not a natural law. It's man-made. The benefits cryptocurrencies have over traditional banking seem to all come either directly or indirectly from the extent to which they do not have the man-made rules and laws. Basically: It is hard to send money from A to B because of laws. The set of people who like cryptocurrency is not small. The number of anarchists is vanishingly small. People want anarchism (complete freedom) and unregulated cryptocurrency until someone else uses that anarchism against them, and then they want regulation, post-facto. It's not different people. It's the same people at different times; the times they're affected and the times they're not.

reisse 4y ago
> Could you elaborate? The whole selling point of cryptocurrencies seems to be to start from scratch, without those pesky KYC/AML and tax laws. > The set of people who like cryptocurrency is not small. There are two sets of people who like cryptocurrency. First ones like crypto because of better yields than traditional bank accounts or investments. But they want to live in a miracle pinky unicorn world where they can have better yields risk-free by having government protections. Other than better yields, they're completely fine with traditional banking system. Second ones like crypto because it allows for easy money transfer from A to B. These people don't care much about yields, they cannot transfer money via traditional ways for various reasons, and they want governments to stay away from crypto as long as possible. > It's not different people. It's the same people at different times; the times they're affected and the times they're not. That's your assumptions about some people. Sure, from my side it's also only assumptions and personal anecdata, but most of the guys I know that use crypto for something useful wants government to stay away from it as far as possible, despite all the scams around. Some of them lost money on FTX, and that didn't change their position.
- knorker 4y ago
  I see what you mean. I guess in my mind "people who like cryptocurrency" like it for reasons other than its bigger-fool value proposition. Yes, I agree that there are many many people out there who don't care one bit for e.g. bitcoin itself, but would be perfectly happy buying a regulated ETF that tracked the price of bitcoin. I implicitly did not count these people as "liking cryptocurrencies". What they like is money, in particular fiat money. > These people don't care much about yields, they cannot transfer money via traditional ways for various reasons, and they want governments to stay away from crypto as long as possible. These are the people I was referring to, who want "no regulation" when they want to do something fine, but "full regulation" if and when they get screwed. They want insurance only when things go poorly, and see insurance as a waste of money the days when they don't have accidents.
olalonde 4y ago
The rule of law, police and investigations pre-date KYC/AML regulations by decades if not centuries. It's possible to fight crime without them. Would you say being in favor of HTTPS or encrypted messaging is equally incompatible with believing in a justice system?
- knorker 4y ago
  Sure. Plenty of financial regulation is newer. Crashes and frauds just in the last 100 years have created lots of new laws. But the thing is people want fast and anonymous payments, but don't acknowledge that traditional banking isn't doing that so well (especially in the US) because of laws people want even more. E.g. given the choice of easier international payment or fighting mob money laundering, people will say the latter. Well, they'll say both, but cryptocurrencies only even try to do the former. (Failing, because it's anything but easy for almost everyone) As for your HTTPS analogy: mass surveillance is less law enforcement and more spy agency shit. Even for messaging, the messages are rarely the harm. For money the moving of money is the harm.