4 ms·

Mad because some entrepreneurs makes the effort to build legitimate business entities, and what certain governments find to do is any scheme to keep them out of

by hirako2000 3y ago

Mad because some entrepreneurs makes the effort to build legitimate business entities, and what certain governments find to do is any scheme to keep them out of legitimity. Not that crypto fans would care all that much about these businesses, but there is a need to onramp and offramp given transactions are made in their vast majority in fiat. An exchange run as a business having at least a lot at stake in ensuring continuity is one of the decent ways to get on with crypto. If it was my call I would skip the perp and earn products to stay clear of regulators when operating in the US, but there must be stories behind closed doors that we don't easily get to know would be my guess.

seydor 3y ago
it's not like these onramps served the real purpose of digital currency. People don't buy bitcoin in order to pay for services, they buy it to speculate. Bitcoin could succeed even without onramps; digital workers can easily accept bitcoin if they care, which over time will be traded with goods in the physical world with other people who care. That's grass roots deployment, not VC-backed "legitimate" ponzi exchanges. I do however understand why people are mad. To me it seems that crypto is to GenZ what Real estate was to boomers. It's about building generational wealth in a time of extreme inequality where most other avenues have been closed. It may come back for that, but it has to be built outside the confines of state-regulated money systems
- hirako2000 3y ago
  The offramp / onramp is necessary so long as we have two systems, we need a gate between the two, even if crypto had 10 times its current level of trading transactions, as in trading of good or services for crypto, there would still be a large imbalance where more income would be taking fiat in. Adoption is happening, surely less so or far slower in the developed nations like in the US, but is not contracting globally. Unless all fiat currencies were to suddenly collapse, the bridge is needed. And, even if the wildest adoption was to take place, there will likely still be centralised issuers here and there, some countries sitting on paper money which would make off ramping a very long term need. Interesting comment, I like the parallel with the boomers era. Crypto may just take over once throw genX take over in far greater numbers, get elected, and the few old recalcitrant putting obstacle get cornered.
  - seydor 3y ago
    If bitcoin was valued, banks would create the onramps. The current, speculation -based exchanges are putting the cart before the horse
    - jrm4 3y ago
      "Valued" is carrying a lot of weight there. Crypto's stated PURPOSE is to get around traditional banks; that banks don't like it doesn't actually equal "not valued."
jrm4 3y ago
Yeah, but let's be real. I 100% believe in the big picture theory of crypto, but it's not at all unreasonable for the parties in charge to see what's actually happening to real people and to be like "this is NOTHING but scams." I don't have a lot of sympathy for whingeing about "the SEC is treating us unfairly." They're doing their job. If "crypto-at-large" wants to be an acceptable business thing, then it needs to better protect people from getting scammed; present regime of crypto things have nearly absolutely failed at this.
JohnFen 3y ago
> Mad because some entrepreneurs makes the effort to build legitimate business entities, and what certain governments find to do is any scheme to keep them out of legitimity. This isn't what it looks like to me. It looks to me like the entire point of cyptocurrency was to complete route around regulations that these people thought were too onerous. That's not building a "legitimate" business, that's taking a risk and building a business in the hopes that it will end up being legitimized. I think that if you're taking a big risk and lose, it's unseemly to be mad at anyone except yourself.
- jrm4 3y ago
  Exactly this! For whatever reason I have this image of guy in a wetsuit and surfboard looking at a big wave coming in and being like "whoa, what's this? how dare it!"
- hirako2000 3y ago
  Entrepreneur are risk takers, and they do move the needle. We easily forget to thank them. Would you say the same about music streaming, as companies were launching services without all the due dues, but knew they would finally have leverage once they have a significant user base to negociate deals for legitimate offerings? Anyhow those big risk takers are not losing because of the roulette factor here, they are hit by some political stance that wants to keep a statu quo, with crypto entering more mainstream at each cycle, legislators work hard at putting a stop to it. Just read what the head of the SEC said, verbatim "the US does not need other digital currencies". As if it was the SEC to tell what the US need and doesn't need. This whole war against crypto isn't about unregistered securities being sold by unlicensed businesses, it's about using whatever they have to tame what has become a threatening industry, a competition to the traditional financial system. It's about keeping the statu quo. Yesterday bitcoiners were drug dealers and terrorist, today they are illegitimate investors and exchanges are not following financial regulations, the law, abusing innocent uneducated investors. These laws are impossible to navigate, after countess demands from businesses and those competent in that tech along with the law: Provide clear direction and regulations for a legitimate crypto field. But no, let's sue businesses who insist to operate and keep the rules impossible to adhere to so that we can sue, shut down, after the demonising that stopped working so well after a while. I would like to be less one sided but the simplistic views on the crypto situation can only make me more radical in the view that the whole thing will be, or should be some may say, absolutely not regulated. Those who get into it don't want some imposed pseudo protection, they just demand the freedom of money. If its the SEC or the danger of being rug pulled, more and more will chose the second.

seydor 3y ago

it's not like these onramps served the real purpose of digital currency. People don't buy bitcoin in order to pay for services, they buy it to speculate. Bitcoin could succeed even without onramps; digital workers can easily accept bitcoin if they care, which over time will be traded with goods in the physical world with other people who care. That's grass roots deployment, not VC-backed "legitimate" ponzi exchanges. I do however understand why people are mad. To me it seems that crypto is to GenZ what Real estate was to boomers. It's about building generational wealth in a time of extreme inequality where most other avenues have been closed. It may come back for that, but it has to be built outside the confines of state-regulated money systems

hirako2000 3y ago
The offramp / onramp is necessary so long as we have two systems, we need a gate between the two, even if crypto had 10 times its current level of trading transactions, as in trading of good or services for crypto, there would still be a large imbalance where more income would be taking fiat in. Adoption is happening, surely less so or far slower in the developed nations like in the US, but is not contracting globally. Unless all fiat currencies were to suddenly collapse, the bridge is needed. And, even if the wildest adoption was to take place, there will likely still be centralised issuers here and there, some countries sitting on paper money which would make off ramping a very long term need. Interesting comment, I like the parallel with the boomers era. Crypto may just take over once throw genX take over in far greater numbers, get elected, and the few old recalcitrant putting obstacle get cornered.
- seydor 3y ago
  If bitcoin was valued, banks would create the onramps. The current, speculation -based exchanges are putting the cart before the horse
  - jrm4 3y ago
    "Valued" is carrying a lot of weight there. Crypto's stated PURPOSE is to get around traditional banks; that banks don't like it doesn't actually equal "not valued."

jrm4 3y ago

Yeah, but let's be real. I 100% believe in the big picture theory of crypto, but it's not at all unreasonable for the parties in charge to see what's actually happening to real people and to be like "this is NOTHING but scams." I don't have a lot of sympathy for whingeing about "the SEC is treating us unfairly." They're doing their job. If "crypto-at-large" wants to be an acceptable business thing, then it needs to better protect people from getting scammed; present regime of crypto things have nearly absolutely failed at this.

JohnFen 3y ago

> Mad because some entrepreneurs makes the effort to build legitimate business entities, and what certain governments find to do is any scheme to keep them out of legitimity. This isn't what it looks like to me. It looks to me like the entire point of cyptocurrency was to complete route around regulations that these people thought were too onerous. That's not building a "legitimate" business, that's taking a risk and building a business in the hopes that it will end up being legitimized. I think that if you're taking a big risk and lose, it's unseemly to be mad at anyone except yourself.

jrm4 3y ago
Exactly this! For whatever reason I have this image of guy in a wetsuit and surfboard looking at a big wave coming in and being like "whoa, what's this? how dare it!"
hirako2000 3y ago
Entrepreneur are risk takers, and they do move the needle. We easily forget to thank them. Would you say the same about music streaming, as companies were launching services without all the due dues, but knew they would finally have leverage once they have a significant user base to negociate deals for legitimate offerings? Anyhow those big risk takers are not losing because of the roulette factor here, they are hit by some political stance that wants to keep a statu quo, with crypto entering more mainstream at each cycle, legislators work hard at putting a stop to it. Just read what the head of the SEC said, verbatim "the US does not need other digital currencies". As if it was the SEC to tell what the US need and doesn't need. This whole war against crypto isn't about unregistered securities being sold by unlicensed businesses, it's about using whatever they have to tame what has become a threatening industry, a competition to the traditional financial system. It's about keeping the statu quo. Yesterday bitcoiners were drug dealers and terrorist, today they are illegitimate investors and exchanges are not following financial regulations, the law, abusing innocent uneducated investors. These laws are impossible to navigate, after countess demands from businesses and those competent in that tech along with the law: Provide clear direction and regulations for a legitimate crypto field. But no, let's sue businesses who insist to operate and keep the rules impossible to adhere to so that we can sue, shut down, after the demonising that stopped working so well after a while. I would like to be less one sided but the simplistic views on the crypto situation can only make me more radical in the view that the whole thing will be, or should be some may say, absolutely not regulated. Those who get into it don't want some imposed pseudo protection, they just demand the freedom of money. If its the SEC or the danger of being rug pulled, more and more will chose the second.