2 ms·

I briefly worked for a crypto company. This is my personal observation. The SEC regulates understood things. If you create something new, they’re not going t

I briefly worked for a crypto company. This is my personal observation. The SEC regulates understood things. If you create something new, they’re not going to give guidance for it because they don’t have to give. They’re not in the business of helping people create new markets.

DennisP 3y ago
But they also shouldn't be in the business of preventing people from creating new markets, unless we want our society to stagnate.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hnbad 3y ago
  Disruption for disruption's sake doesn't seem desirable. Stagnation is bad, but not as bad as going in the wrong direction instead of staying still.
  - DennisP 3y ago
    Historically, top-down control of economies hasn't worked out that well. The whole point of free markets is to let everyone decide on the directions they want to take.
    - hnbad 3y ago
      That fully centralized command economies have had severe issues historically doesn't mean completely deregulated markets would fare better. I don't think anyone is seriously hoping for a comeback of privateers. Arguing that one extreme is bad is not an argument for the other extreme, especially when every economy on Earth currently exists somewhere in between those two extremes rather than on either end (except maybe the DPRK if you squint really hard and tilt your head). Incidentally the current scarecrow of unfree markets, the PRC, is doing economically pretty well and "top-down control" within large parts of the industries is pretty popular except we call it "vertical integration". But that's a tangent, I agree. "Stagnation bad, disruption good" is 101 level analysis. The important question remains the direction. Disruption is movement. Movement is good if it takes you to a better place. But if you just move for movement's sake you might as well end up hurling everyone down a cliff. Letting go of all the reins is fun and exciting in a simulation, not so much in the real world where failure can mean death, suffering and permanent harm.
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  > But they also shouldn't be in the business of preventing people from creating new markets, unless we want our society to stagnate. That's actually their entire business... to stop sophisticated private enterprises from fleecing the public by offering unregistered securities.

DennisP 3y ago

But they also shouldn't be in the business of preventing people from creating new markets, unless we want our society to stagnate.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hnbad 3y ago
Disruption for disruption's sake doesn't seem desirable. Stagnation is bad, but not as bad as going in the wrong direction instead of staying still.
- DennisP 3y ago
  Historically, top-down control of economies hasn't worked out that well. The whole point of free markets is to let everyone decide on the directions they want to take.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    That fully centralized command economies have had severe issues historically doesn't mean completely deregulated markets would fare better. I don't think anyone is seriously hoping for a comeback of privateers. Arguing that one extreme is bad is not an argument for the other extreme, especially when every economy on Earth currently exists somewhere in between those two extremes rather than on either end (except maybe the DPRK if you squint really hard and tilt your head). Incidentally the current scarecrow of unfree markets, the PRC, is doing economically pretty well and "top-down control" within large parts of the industries is pretty popular except we call it "vertical integration". But that's a tangent, I agree. "Stagnation bad, disruption good" is 101 level analysis. The important question remains the direction. Disruption is movement. Movement is good if it takes you to a better place. But if you just move for movement's sake you might as well end up hurling everyone down a cliff. Letting go of all the reins is fun and exciting in a simulation, not so much in the real world where failure can mean death, suffering and permanent harm.
polygamous_bat 3y ago
> But they also shouldn't be in the business of preventing people from creating new markets, unless we want our society to stagnate. That's actually their entire business... to stop sophisticated private enterprises from fleecing the public by offering unregistered securities.