4 ms·

With crypto trading platforms, the SEC lacks any sort of oversight and access — and has scant ability to detect, investigate and deter fraudulent conduct. As a

With crypto trading platforms, the SEC lacks any sort of oversight and access — and has scant ability to detect, investigate and deter fraudulent conduct. As a result, the crypto marketplace operates without much supervision Isn't that the main idea of a decentralized currency? No doubt this has/does/will harbor criminal activity, but it will also foster the ability to exchange goods and services without third parties. This has huge benefits when the third parties are rogue and overextend their surveillance. Freedom is what we should be after. This has a cost in terms of criminal activity -- even to the extreme.

paxys 3y ago
This entire conversation is about centralized exchanges.
- waynecochran 3y ago
  Trying to force centralization onto something that was fundamentally designed to be decentralized.
uLogMicheal 3y ago
I wonder if the SEC knows how to use a blockchain explorer? That claim is made false from a simple glance at one.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  They do. The SEC pays competitively and there are a lot of crypto adept people who feel there is also a case for regulation in the space.
  - uLogMicheal 3y ago
    People need to justify the battle they are paid to fight so they find reasons to do so? I hope they realize at some point that they are playing for the wrong team. The increased surveillance they want means privileged access for few versus everyone needing to play under the same rules of transparency.
    - misnome 3y ago
      This seems to have circled back round to “It works as long as you trust everyone involved”.
Hermitian909 3y ago
Sure - and the question is - do we as a society want to allow that, do we think it's worth the tradeoffs? Five years ago I think the answer was still "wait and see", I think it's reasonable by now to say "actually, no, it's not worth it".
- waynecochran 3y ago
  Not to argue, but it really strange how the things that my generation valued (e.g. individual freedom) are being overturned. The old axiom "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." was a mantra in my younger days.
  - jasonlotito 3y ago
    Interestingly, the old axiom has a different meaning than what people think. It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security [1]. "He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it."[1] > it really strange how the things that my generation valued (e.g. individual freedom) are being overturned It's interesting for me as well. In the US, when I was younger, I always perceived "individual freedom" as a fundamental element of the right. It's only now as I get older that I see that's not really the case (at least, not anymore). That it seems as if the left has taken on that role of championing individual rights over that of the state. I think in the context of crypto, I think it's a fine balance of freedom versus regulation, which is why it's taken so long to get anywhere with it. Honestly, I think a large part of the reason it hasn't really been touched much is the feds ability to crack down on criminals despite using crypto. The belief that it's anonymous and untraceable makes it seem like at some level, it's easier to track people down. And in a circle of criminals, you only need to break the weakest link. 1. https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
jrm4 3y ago
EXACTLY. I think one of the oddest things is that I don't much see the following view, which is roughly mine: I'm generally pro the idea of crypto -- but more importantly, whether I love it or hate it, this particular fight was, or should have been, completely expected and anticipated. As in, this was the point of it; anyone into crypto should 100% welcome this battle, if you were paying attention to the idea?
myfirstacchere 3y ago
[dead]
favflam 3y ago
Regulations mandate a surveillance module attached to the trading system to detect suspicious trading patterns, and I guess also check the stability of the overall market place. Regulators get visibility into a trading platform through these mechanisms. Unregistered crypto-firms do not have to allow SEC access. This thinking does not apply to decentralized exchanges, only CEXs.

paxys 3y ago

This entire conversation is about centralized exchanges.

waynecochran 3y ago
Trying to force centralization onto something that was fundamentally designed to be decentralized.

uLogMicheal 3y ago

I wonder if the SEC knows how to use a blockchain explorer? That claim is made false from a simple glance at one.

alephnerd 3y ago
They do. The SEC pays competitively and there are a lot of crypto adept people who feel there is also a case for regulation in the space.
- uLogMicheal 3y ago
  People need to justify the battle they are paid to fight so they find reasons to do so? I hope they realize at some point that they are playing for the wrong team. The increased surveillance they want means privileged access for few versus everyone needing to play under the same rules of transparency.
  - misnome 3y ago
    This seems to have circled back round to “It works as long as you trust everyone involved”.

Hermitian909 3y ago

Sure - and the question is - do we as a society want to allow that, do we think it's worth the tradeoffs? Five years ago I think the answer was still "wait and see", I think it's reasonable by now to say "actually, no, it's not worth it".

waynecochran 3y ago
Not to argue, but it really strange how the things that my generation valued (e.g. individual freedom) are being overturned. The old axiom "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." was a mantra in my younger days.
- jasonlotito 3y ago
  Interestingly, the old axiom has a different meaning than what people think. It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security [1]. "He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it."[1] > it really strange how the things that my generation valued (e.g. individual freedom) are being overturned It's interesting for me as well. In the US, when I was younger, I always perceived "individual freedom" as a fundamental element of the right. It's only now as I get older that I see that's not really the case (at least, not anymore). That it seems as if the left has taken on that role of championing individual rights over that of the state. I think in the context of crypto, I think it's a fine balance of freedom versus regulation, which is why it's taken so long to get anywhere with it. Honestly, I think a large part of the reason it hasn't really been touched much is the feds ability to crack down on criminals despite using crypto. The belief that it's anonymous and untraceable makes it seem like at some level, it's easier to track people down. And in a circle of criminals, you only need to break the weakest link. 1. https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...

jrm4 3y ago

EXACTLY. I think one of the oddest things is that I don't much see the following view, which is roughly mine: I'm generally pro the idea of crypto -- but more importantly, whether I love it or hate it, this particular fight was, or should have been, completely expected and anticipated. As in, this was the point of it; anyone into crypto should 100% welcome this battle, if you were paying attention to the idea?

myfirstacchere 3y ago

[dead]

favflam 3y ago

Regulations mandate a surveillance module attached to the trading system to detect suspicious trading patterns, and I guess also check the stability of the overall market place. Regulators get visibility into a trading platform through these mechanisms. Unregistered crypto-firms do not have to allow SEC access. This thinking does not apply to decentralized exchanges, only CEXs.