6 ms·

This is sort of the idea I've been waiting to come out of the bitcoin universe for some time now. A decentralized stock exchange seems like an obvious killer ap

This is sort of the idea I've been waiting to come out of the bitcoin universe for some time now. A decentralized stock exchange seems like an obvious killer application for bitcoin. Though, the only thing I don't like about it is counterpart. Was never a fan of them, nor open transactions... Why go to the SEC? I feel like the advantage of doing something like this would be the ability to build a trading exchange without any authority over looking it.. I'd say that's what's wrong with the current system (NYSE,NASDAQ,etc).

iheartmemcache 12y ago
It's already been trading on CMFX (one of the most reputable Forex markets around, on par with BATS or CME) against the USD for a while now. This is nothing new.
- kasey_junk 12y ago
  This is the sort of thing that is exceedingly hard to have a measure for, but CMFX is in no way on the same level as BATS or CME. Also, Bitcoin being traded on a forex exchange has nothing to do with the article.
- jzwinck 12y ago
  If "CMFX is one of the most reputable Forex markets around," why can't I seem to find their official website? Do you have a link?
slg 12y ago
I am curious how someone can come away from the last decade of Wall Street behavior and conclude the answer to the problem is less regulation.
- awt 12y ago
  If there were a law that could prevent regulatory capture then I would say go for it, more regulation.
  - chc 12y ago
    With or without regulatory capture, I can't see how the problem we face is too much oversight on Wall Street.
    - lukifer 12y ago
      The counterargument is that regulation hurts small players more than large ones. Citibank can afford an army of compliance officers; most of us can't. I'm generally pro-regulation, if the details are sensible, but regulatory capture is a real problem, and it is not an unreasonable stance that the cure is sometimes worse than the disease.
      - wpietri 12y ago
        Regulatory capture's a real issue, but it's not a given. For those interested in the topic, I highly recommend Shelia Bair's "Bull By The Horns", which is her account of running the FDIC up to and during the financial crisis. It left me with quite a bit of respect for the FDIC's approach, and for what solid regulation takes.
      - chc 12y ago
        That isn't really a counterargument; it's just a factoid. A counterargument would be something along the lines of "Regulation hurts small players more than large ones, and the scarcity of small players has been the biggest problem with Wall Street over the past decade because _____, therefore the problem with Wall Street is too much oversight."
    - wyager 12y ago
      Why should people on wall street be forbidden from doing whatever investments they want to, insofar as they are contractually allowed? If you don't like how someone is investing, don't invest with them. If you think certain banks are behaving riskilly, don't give them your money. What are some counter-arguments to this? I.e. why is it a) moral and b) desirable to regulate the activity of wall street traders in addition to the laws they are automatically subject to (like anti-fraud laws)?
- wyager 12y ago
  The obvious answer is that wall street has never been in a state of no regulation; at least, not for a very long time. When you have a bunch of poorly thought out regulation, much of it designed to exclude competition, that's when things go bad. The cool thing about the internet is that regardless of what you or the SEC or John Q. Public thinks is a bad idea or improper, people are free to experiment with it anyway. Technology has outpaced the ability of governments to proscribe voluntary interaction.
- imaginenore 12y ago
  Regulation done by math is infinitely better than the regulation done by easily corruptible talking heads. HSBC got caught laundering billions of drug cartel and Iranian money. Do you know how many of the bankers went to jail? Zero. They had to pay a tiny fine equal to less than a month of their revenue. How many bankers or Wall st guys went to jail for the largest freaking financial crisis they had caused? Regulation in finance just doesn't work. Look at who the regulators are and who is in charge of the regulators. Half of t these folks are from Goldman.
- zanny 12y ago
  Because there is a tremendous amount of regulation surrounding finance - look at how it is impossible to make a backer liable Kickstarter. You cannot make your own stock market, and you cannot sell ownership in a company through anything but a public stock exchange. I imagine there is also tremendous regulation surrounding venture capital, but I have never engaged in it much so I'm unaware of the complexities. Too bad that, by nature of the fact the finance industry inherently has all the money, that money lets them buy the politicians to then use regulation to prevent competition and line their own pockets, while leaving them impervious to persecution when their greed fucks everything up. I do not see how even the best intentioned regulation can work in finance. It is the proverbial tightening the fist while the actors slip through your fingers - if you try to restrict the flow of money, really big money, like drug money, then all you will find is you suffering for it.
  - wpietri 12y ago
    Protip: If you start by saying "I do not see how", the problem may be that you are just not seeing it. One of the reasons that foreign companies list on US markets is that we have some of the strongest financial regulations in the world. A simple analogy: San Francisco has a vigorous health department, and food safety scores are posted visibly in every restaurant. Does this reduce the vibrancy of the restaurant scene? No, it enhances it. Because I know when a place is likely safe to eat at, I spend more money in restaurants and I'm more willing to try new places. That increases the effectiveness of the market because newer restaurants compete on a more even footing with established ones.
    - zanny 12y ago
      > Because I know when a place is likely safe to eat at, I spend more money in restaurants and I'm more willing to try new places. And the inverse of this, is that if a restaurant listed food safety scores irrespective of state mandate, you would visit those restaurants more, and if most people agreed, those restaurants would prosper and those not adopting food safety scores would suffer. Except in that situation there was no violence of the state to compel the individual restaurants to do something - the market naturally lead to that conclusion. It is not like there is any limit on your ability to learn information about a restaurant - I would say I am surprised that there is not some popular national database of website safety ratings made up of user reviews, but considering I have never searched for such a service - I just go by general user reviews, under the assumption that an unsafe food service locale would get trashed in criticism - I guess it makes sense not to exist. > That increases the effectiveness of the market because newer restaurants compete on a more even footing with established ones. Or it would be a competitive advantage if the markets truly benefited from food safety scores for newer restaurants to advertise them where their entrenched competition does no such thing.
- colordrops 12y ago
  People come away concluding that, because the problem with Wall Street is not deregulation, despite all the propaganda to the contrary. The problem was selective regulation or deregulation, whatever benefited Wall Street, as well as selective enforcement and interpretation of law. In a nut shell, Wall Street is in control and reconfigures the legal apparatus to their advantage; they don't randomly dismantle it.
  - ewzimm 12y ago
    I think people like to simplify regulation as either good or bad and fail to consider how biased it can be. Unbiased software rules that can be openly analyzed and force everyone to play fair are good. Selective regulation written by those with money is terrible.
bdcravens 12y ago
Why go to the SEC? Overstock is already a publicly traded company - anything that remotely hints at trying to circumvent the regulations they're already subject to would be a very bad idea

iheartmemcache 12y ago

It's already been trading on CMFX (one of the most reputable Forex markets around, on par with BATS or CME) against the USD for a while now. This is nothing new.

kasey_junk 12y ago
This is the sort of thing that is exceedingly hard to have a measure for, but CMFX is in no way on the same level as BATS or CME. Also, Bitcoin being traded on a forex exchange has nothing to do with the article.
jzwinck 12y ago
If "CMFX is one of the most reputable Forex markets around," why can't I seem to find their official website? Do you have a link?

slg 12y ago

I am curious how someone can come away from the last decade of Wall Street behavior and conclude the answer to the problem is less regulation.

awt 12y ago
If there were a law that could prevent regulatory capture then I would say go for it, more regulation.
- chc 12y ago
  With or without regulatory capture, I can't see how the problem we face is too much oversight on Wall Street.
  - lukifer 12y ago
    The counterargument is that regulation hurts small players more than large ones. Citibank can afford an army of compliance officers; most of us can't. I'm generally pro-regulation, if the details are sensible, but regulatory capture is a real problem, and it is not an unreasonable stance that the cure is sometimes worse than the disease.
    - wpietri 12y ago
      Regulatory capture's a real issue, but it's not a given. For those interested in the topic, I highly recommend Shelia Bair's "Bull By The Horns", which is her account of running the FDIC up to and during the financial crisis. It left me with quite a bit of respect for the FDIC's approach, and for what solid regulation takes.
    - chc 12y ago
      That isn't really a counterargument; it's just a factoid. A counterargument would be something along the lines of "Regulation hurts small players more than large ones, and the scarcity of small players has been the biggest problem with Wall Street over the past decade because _____, therefore the problem with Wall Street is too much oversight."
  - wyager 12y ago
    Why should people on wall street be forbidden from doing whatever investments they want to, insofar as they are contractually allowed? If you don't like how someone is investing, don't invest with them. If you think certain banks are behaving riskilly, don't give them your money. What are some counter-arguments to this? I.e. why is it a) moral and b) desirable to regulate the activity of wall street traders in addition to the laws they are automatically subject to (like anti-fraud laws)?
wyager 12y ago
The obvious answer is that wall street has never been in a state of no regulation; at least, not for a very long time. When you have a bunch of poorly thought out regulation, much of it designed to exclude competition, that's when things go bad. The cool thing about the internet is that regardless of what you or the SEC or John Q. Public thinks is a bad idea or improper, people are free to experiment with it anyway. Technology has outpaced the ability of governments to proscribe voluntary interaction.
imaginenore 12y ago
Regulation done by math is infinitely better than the regulation done by easily corruptible talking heads. HSBC got caught laundering billions of drug cartel and Iranian money. Do you know how many of the bankers went to jail? Zero. They had to pay a tiny fine equal to less than a month of their revenue. How many bankers or Wall st guys went to jail for the largest freaking financial crisis they had caused? Regulation in finance just doesn't work. Look at who the regulators are and who is in charge of the regulators. Half of t these folks are from Goldman.
zanny 12y ago
Because there is a tremendous amount of regulation surrounding finance - look at how it is impossible to make a backer liable Kickstarter. You cannot make your own stock market, and you cannot sell ownership in a company through anything but a public stock exchange. I imagine there is also tremendous regulation surrounding venture capital, but I have never engaged in it much so I'm unaware of the complexities. Too bad that, by nature of the fact the finance industry inherently has all the money, that money lets them buy the politicians to then use regulation to prevent competition and line their own pockets, while leaving them impervious to persecution when their greed fucks everything up. I do not see how even the best intentioned regulation can work in finance. It is the proverbial tightening the fist while the actors slip through your fingers - if you try to restrict the flow of money, really big money, like drug money, then all you will find is you suffering for it.
- wpietri 12y ago
  Protip: If you start by saying "I do not see how", the problem may be that you are just not seeing it. One of the reasons that foreign companies list on US markets is that we have some of the strongest financial regulations in the world. A simple analogy: San Francisco has a vigorous health department, and food safety scores are posted visibly in every restaurant. Does this reduce the vibrancy of the restaurant scene? No, it enhances it. Because I know when a place is likely safe to eat at, I spend more money in restaurants and I'm more willing to try new places. That increases the effectiveness of the market because newer restaurants compete on a more even footing with established ones.
  - zanny 12y ago
    > Because I know when a place is likely safe to eat at, I spend more money in restaurants and I'm more willing to try new places. And the inverse of this, is that if a restaurant listed food safety scores irrespective of state mandate, you would visit those restaurants more, and if most people agreed, those restaurants would prosper and those not adopting food safety scores would suffer. Except in that situation there was no violence of the state to compel the individual restaurants to do something - the market naturally lead to that conclusion. It is not like there is any limit on your ability to learn information about a restaurant - I would say I am surprised that there is not some popular national database of website safety ratings made up of user reviews, but considering I have never searched for such a service - I just go by general user reviews, under the assumption that an unsafe food service locale would get trashed in criticism - I guess it makes sense not to exist. > That increases the effectiveness of the market because newer restaurants compete on a more even footing with established ones. Or it would be a competitive advantage if the markets truly benefited from food safety scores for newer restaurants to advertise them where their entrenched competition does no such thing.
colordrops 12y ago
People come away concluding that, because the problem with Wall Street is not deregulation, despite all the propaganda to the contrary. The problem was selective regulation or deregulation, whatever benefited Wall Street, as well as selective enforcement and interpretation of law. In a nut shell, Wall Street is in control and reconfigures the legal apparatus to their advantage; they don't randomly dismantle it.
- ewzimm 12y ago
  I think people like to simplify regulation as either good or bad and fail to consider how biased it can be. Unbiased software rules that can be openly analyzed and force everyone to play fair are good. Selective regulation written by those with money is terrible.

bdcravens 12y ago

Why go to the SEC? Overstock is already a publicly traded company - anything that remotely hints at trying to circumvent the regulations they're already subject to would be a very bad idea