I can't help find it funny as the libertarian cryptocurrency fans slowly realize why we have all these dang laws. There are plenty of financial regulations that could use updates or tweaks, but an overwhelming majority are put in place to protect people and try to ensure transactions are as fair as possible. Cryptocurrencies too often throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Majority of the people who gamble on crypto are doing so only to make a quick buck. They neither know nor care about the ideology, decentralization, removing intermediaries and other such lofty goals of crypto. Most people are in it because they either saw someone making a lot of money or read about it in the media and they also want a piece of it.
It's speculation, plain and simple. If not ban, government needs to regulate it like it regulates other speculative markets.
As for the libertarian goals of removing the central authority - that's not happening.
Always funny how crypto-bros espouse the joys of being free from government regulation while also whining that government regulation didn't protect them from crypto grifters.
You understand that BTC, ETH, and every derivative non-privacy-coin is exactly what the regulators have been salivating for, right? Why regulate a non-repudiable chain-of-custody that mathematically proves your serfs'/slaves' assets that you can seize at will?
> libertarians were empowered(but not enough to be the main political power).
You should re-examine the GOP, particularly the tickets on today's ballots. This ain't your grandfather's GOP.
Libertarians often stand by the 'small govt' ideal, where the ideal size of a govt. is a set of the minimum and necessary regulations needed for basic functioning.
Crypto started off with zero govt, and is speed running towards the same level of regulations that banks operate under. The implication is that libertarians usual complaint about overegulation in legacy systems may be misguided, and that legacy systems are adequately libertarian. Phrased another way, the seemingly crippling regulation in legacy financial systems might actually be the 'minimum' amount of regulations necessary to enable a financial system of the size we operate in today.
A more charitable reading would be that during this speed run, we reach a much earlier and smaller set of regulations that are sufficient for functionality equal to todays legacy system. Crypto can simply 'stop' adding regulation at that point, and achieve the libertarians dream of a leaner and more effective regulatory body. To some degree, it will also accomplish some of original goals of Crypto pioneers of 'low regulation' finance.
Cryptocurrencies[1] are trying to be decentralized and free of regulation. But it turns out the world is run by people who like regulation.
[1]: There are so many people in crypto with such diverse views that it doesn't really make sense to say cryptocurrencies are X for any non-tautological value of X. Some people are 'code-is-law' crypto-anarchists, and some people are actually sane and can't wait for the law to get its shit together so they can build their cool decentralised prediction market without accidentally losing the ability to take international flights or something.
That's the way I see it. Anarcho-libertrian cryptobros who think government regulation is a net negative are like people who don't wear seat belts because they know somebody who died in a crash despite wearing one. It is true that sometimes these safety measures don't prevent the bad thing from happening, but if you focus on those cases then you miss all the times it did work.
Woah, back up here. Cryptocurrencies are not unregulated, they are very much regulated. Those people you are referring to like the fact that they are self-regulating. If they were completely unregulated then bitcoin would have never gotten off of the ground.
I personally think that cryptocurrencies could do for a lot more regulation, not just from governments but also from public advocacy groups. We need to be carful about the kind of regulations.
It's farcically absurd that the crypto industry built its brand on avoiding government rules and now they are asking for regulation to protect their interests.
Every few decades, libertarians need to be reminded why regulations exist. Time passes, and people forget why the SEC, FTC, FDA, FDIC, OSHA, child labor laws, et al were even created.
Cryptocurrencies created a completely anarchic monetary system, which people have used to layer investment systems on top of. Naturally, low hanging fruit scams and cons have arisen, and some form of governing structure will eventually be imposed, if not by actual governments, then by the community. Then more sophisticated abuses and negative externalities will arise, and ever more sophisticated regulations will be imposed by the community to thwart them.
In the end you may end up with something very much looking like a government, where people with connections and leverage in the governing structures get to decide the evolution of the rules, where a few players with disproportionate wealth or hashing power, help elect those people to committee positions. And once again, people will be looking to create systems to escape the defacto control and cronyism imposed on the system.
I guess what I'm saying is, nature abhors a vacuum, and given human nature, most systems will evolve to thwart the worse tendencies of the worst people, opening opportunities for others to capture power. So in the end, rather than seek to bring down our democratically elected government monetary systems via technology, we should seek to evolve them with ideas from technology.
Because booting out fiat currency and rebooting with crypto really just forces a painful relearning of all of the lessons we've learned in the last century of modern finance.
Rest assured that the regulations are coming because the crypto simply did a speed-run of unregulated securities market and repeated every fraud or scam that the traditional markets went through over the history.
In the process, huge fortunes were created and libertarians were empowered(but not enough to be the main political power). Congrats to them but there's nothing anarchist left in crypto, they even end up consolidated and centralised. No interesting business models or financing came out of it except for ransomware.
The silver linings might be that the crypto regulations can be made with the current technology and globalisation in mind, hopefully.
Most people I know who hold crypto seem to think that a lack of regulatory oversight is one of the main features and scream bloody murder at even the mildest proposals for legislation. As far as I can tell, they want it to be treated like money, just so long as it is not treated like money.
Bitcoin and for that matter all crypto currency is a libertarian ideal.
Libertarian ideals do not fit in communist societies. Regulation was always coming, as even liberal societies regulate.
But regulation is only there to keep the established order. The established order is very afraid of crypto right now in the same way the music industry freaked out over MP3.
I can't help it, but I get annoyed when crypto is branded with illegal activities like terrorism, fraud etc. No one talks about USD being used in the same way!
I think a lot of people that like big government, people that tend to call themselves liberals, these people generally don't like (or even hate) crypto.
Maybe these people feel this way because they feel the government needs to protect people against themselves. Or maybe because they somehow fear central banks losing power and they feel central banks are needed in a monetary system. Or maybe they are concerned with the energy use for mining some crypto currencies (mainly Bitcoin).
On the other hand there's the libertarians that want as little government as possible. Libertarians tend to feel that people should be free to make their own choices as long as it doesn't harm other people. And that it's ok to make mistakes and learn from them and government doesn't need to protect people from mistakes.
I believe the tech sector has plenty of people on either side.
I myself am on the libertarian side and think crypto is a force of good. I do wonder if this crypto crackdown in China could somehow be related to the situation with Evergrande.
There is no definition given for what "well regulated" entails. A bunch of nerds on the internet can certainly form their own militia to practice with crypto munitions.
I think if anyone from the pro-economic freedom side of things structured an argument the way you have they would be flagged into oblivion here.
>How is that due to regulations? There simply isn't much demand for those types of transactions.
Perhaps there isn't demand because they have been regulated out of the realm of the possible with traditional instruments? There is demand, but you are not aware.
Tips on Twitter,
Tips on Reddit,
Tips in chats,
Tips for streamers,
Tips for bloggers,
Payouts for activity in a browser game (QuakeIII, rougelikelike or others),
Survey response,
Mechanical Turk style microtasks
These are just the few ideas that leap off the top of my head. You fulfill all of the criteria of my initial criticism, a lack of appreciation for the subjective theory of value. Just because you do not value it, are totally unaware of it, or lack the imagination to conceive of it, does not mean that the activity has no value.
>So unless you are the type of hypothetical libertarian who thinks all government is bad while enjoying a standard of living that is only possible in a regulated economy, supporting cryptocurrency as a way of opposing bad laws is nonsensical.
This is where you go off the rails. Consider if I had structured an argument, "Unless you are the kind of commie who..."
I realize that pro-market sentiment is something of a thought crime here on this forum for entrepreneurs, but this is a bit much. As to living in a highly regulated country, don't you think that is a bit presumptuous?
In regards to pro-market sentiments and private property, many have said, "If you don't like it, move to Somalia" I don't know if it is within your powers of imagination, but there are several better options. No, I don't need to show ID (suspicious looking? Imagine that!) to walk up the street. I never needed to show a vaccine card to buy a coffee either. Yes, I am truly suffering by not living in a highly regulated country.
>while providing little additional benefit
Who are you to say? Again, you might not value some of these things. They might not impact your life. Others may. Generalizing it into criminality is just sloppy to the point of the absurd. Although, perhaps that is a privilege for those lacking imagination.
Cryptocurrency does not incentivize ransomware anymore than the Ford V8 incentivized John Dillinger to rob banks. Men act. Cryptocurrency transacts as per the intentions of men. Don't personify the inanimate by misattributing agency. Please seek help if you hallucinate the BTC SVG on your shoulder, "incentivizing" you into a life of cyber-crime.
reply