4 ms·

Given that they had virtually 0 real users, I'm not convinced the strict fintech laws are a necessity. It seems like the free market on its own is alreardy pret

by Hermel 11y ago

Given that they had virtually 0 real users, I'm not convinced the strict fintech laws are a necessity. It seems like the free market on its own is alreardy pretty good at avoiding dodgy companies. One might think of Mt.Gox as a counterexample. However, I see that debacle more as an unintended consequence of too much regulation: making it too hard to setup legit exchanges reduces consumer choice and forces users onto alternatives like Mt.Gox even though they don't really trust them.

ForHackernews 11y ago
> It seems like the free market is pretty good at avoiding dodgy fintech startups. Hahaha, are you kidding me? https://www.reddit.com/r/sorryforyourloss https://www.reddit.com/r/sorryforyourloss
Johnie 11y ago
FinTech specific laws aren't necessary. There are more than enough financial regulations beyond what you can wrap your head around. The thing that many tech entrepreneurs underestimate is the power of these financial regulators. It's not like Uber/Taxi industry that will bend to their wills. Financial regulators don't like any risk that they can't manage/mitigate.
Retric 11y ago
I think your underestimating how often banks fail. "The Panic of 1819. The Panic of 1837. The Panic of 1873. The Panic of 1907. The Great Depression. The savings and loan crisis of the '80s and '90s. The financial crisis of 2007-2009. The list goes on and on." http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-bank-failures-in-the-united-states.php http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-bank-failures-in-the-un... PS: The average is more than 6 banks per month over the last 50 years in the US. With only 2 years from 1934 to now having zero bank failures in the US.
nickodell 11y ago
>One might think of Mt.Gox as a counterexample. However, I see that debacle more as an unintended consequence of too much regulation I don't agree. A fairly simple asset control system would have detected that someone was embezzling money from the exchange. That's been standard at companies I've worked at, even though they weren't in the financial sector.
- thesimpsons1022 11y ago
  but muh freedoms. Rand Paul 2016
- yc1010 11y ago
  No one would have been using Mt Gox if there were better options back then (the coinbases, krakens and bitstamps didnt exist then or were just starting off) I used bitcoin since 2011, MtGox was fairly much unavoidable at the time, tho I do remember #bitcoin-otc :) Everyone knew mtgox was dodgy, and in the end the people who did get burned are those who forgot about their bitcoins there and those who were willing to gamble despite months of warning signs of impending doom. Hell I think i have like 100$ worth of bitcoin there at todays rate but for the life of me can not remember the password I used.
thesimpsons1022 11y ago
lol you guys come up with some convoluted explanation whenever reality goes against your libertarian fantasies, huh?
tptacek 11y ago
By the time they have hundreds of thousands of users, it's too late to prevent MtGox scenarios. Better that they get shut down quickly --- for their own sakes.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Given that they had virtually 0 real users, I'm not convinced the strict fintech laws are a necessity. They had virtually 0 real users because "strict fintech laws" were applied to them while they were still actively limiting their number of users and scope of use while planning to scale out. I'm not sure how that is a demonstration that the "free market on its own is already pretty good at avoiding dodgy companies". > One might think of Mt.Gox as a counterexample. Well, yeah. Among others. > However, I see that debacle more as an unintended consequence of too much regulation: making it too hard to setup legit exchanges reduces consumer choice and forces users onto alternatives like Mt.Gox even though they don't really trust them. So, if a "dodgy company" fails before it gets many users (even if that failure is a direct result of regulatory action!), this proves that financial regulation isn't needed and the free market works to constrain dodgy companies. And if a "dodgy company" gets lots of users and lots of real money before it fails and inflicts widespread harm on a large number of users when it fails, that also proves that financial regulation isn't necessary. Is there any conceivable set of facts which you would not characterize as demonstrating that financial regulation isn't necessary?
s73v3r 11y ago
I'm sorry, but your last statement is idiotic. If they didn't trust them, then why did they use them?
s73v3r 11y ago
I'm sorry, but your last statement is idiotic. If they didn't trust them, then why did they use them?
waterlesscloud 11y ago
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with you in this specific case. Even the craziest bitcoin gamblers avoided this one... Now, 1broker.com on the other hand...

by Hermel 11y ago

ForHackernews 11y ago

> It seems like the free market is pretty good at avoiding dodgy fintech startups. Hahaha, are you kidding me? https://www.reddit.com/r/sorryforyourloss https://www.reddit.com/r/sorryforyourloss

Johnie 11y ago

FinTech specific laws aren't necessary. There are more than enough financial regulations beyond what you can wrap your head around. The thing that many tech entrepreneurs underestimate is the power of these financial regulators. It's not like Uber/Taxi industry that will bend to their wills. Financial regulators don't like any risk that they can't manage/mitigate.

Retric 11y ago

I think your underestimating how often banks fail. "The Panic of 1819. The Panic of 1837. The Panic of 1873. The Panic of 1907. The Great Depression. The savings and loan crisis of the '80s and '90s. The financial crisis of 2007-2009. The list goes on and on." http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-bank-failures-in-the-united-states.php http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-bank-failures-in-the-un... PS: The average is more than 6 banks per month over the last 50 years in the US. With only 2 years from 1934 to now having zero bank failures in the US.

nickodell 11y ago

>One might think of Mt.Gox as a counterexample. However, I see that debacle more as an unintended consequence of too much regulation I don't agree. A fairly simple asset control system would have detected that someone was embezzling money from the exchange. That's been standard at companies I've worked at, even though they weren't in the financial sector.

thesimpsons1022 11y ago
but muh freedoms. Rand Paul 2016
yc1010 11y ago
No one would have been using Mt Gox if there were better options back then (the coinbases, krakens and bitstamps didnt exist then or were just starting off) I used bitcoin since 2011, MtGox was fairly much unavoidable at the time, tho I do remember #bitcoin-otc :) Everyone knew mtgox was dodgy, and in the end the people who did get burned are those who forgot about their bitcoins there and those who were willing to gamble despite months of warning signs of impending doom. Hell I think i have like 100$ worth of bitcoin there at todays rate but for the life of me can not remember the password I used.

thesimpsons1022 11y ago

lol you guys come up with some convoluted explanation whenever reality goes against your libertarian fantasies, huh?

tptacek 11y ago

By the time they have hundreds of thousands of users, it's too late to prevent MtGox scenarios. Better that they get shut down quickly --- for their own sakes.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Given that they had virtually 0 real users, I'm not convinced the strict fintech laws are a necessity. They had virtually 0 real users because "strict fintech laws" were applied to them while they were still actively limiting their number of users and scope of use while planning to scale out. I'm not sure how that is a demonstration that the "free market on its own is already pretty good at avoiding dodgy companies". > One might think of Mt.Gox as a counterexample. Well, yeah. Among others. > However, I see that debacle more as an unintended consequence of too much regulation: making it too hard to setup legit exchanges reduces consumer choice and forces users onto alternatives like Mt.Gox even though they don't really trust them. So, if a "dodgy company" fails before it gets many users (even if that failure is a direct result of regulatory action!), this proves that financial regulation isn't needed and the free market works to constrain dodgy companies. And if a "dodgy company" gets lots of users and lots of real money before it fails and inflicts widespread harm on a large number of users when it fails, that also proves that financial regulation isn't necessary. Is there any conceivable set of facts which you would not characterize as demonstrating that financial regulation isn't necessary?

s73v3r 11y ago

I'm sorry, but your last statement is idiotic. If they didn't trust them, then why did they use them?

s73v3r 11y ago

I'm sorry, but your last statement is idiotic. If they didn't trust them, then why did they use them?

waterlesscloud 11y ago

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with you in this specific case. Even the craziest bitcoin gamblers avoided this one... Now, 1broker.com on the other hand...