> But when you have two funding systems, where one is completely open, and the other requires certain guarantees (identity, legal responsibility), the first is always going to be full of scammers.
Exactly. It always cracks me up when people tout the completely deregulated nature of cryptocurrencies as a good thing.
It’s really not. I’m so tired of people being surprised by articles like this. Scams like this and ransomware would simply not exist without cryptocurrency, and that’s enough for me to eschew their use entirely.
There is literally no legitimate excuse for cryptocurrency, and I don’t think there ever was.
I don’t know, I am not into crypto. I assume you might have to ask one of the many thousands of people that have lost untold quantities of money to a nearly infinite number of scams why they might question the practical value of the crypto ecosystem.
> What makes you anti-crypto specifically? To me, crypto means cryptography, that enables both digital signatures and encryption. Are you against end-to-end encryption as well, for the same reasons?
This is an unreasonable contortion of the OP’s comment. Conflating cryptocurrency (an industry rife with scams) to cryptography (a branch of discrete mathematics) belies precisely the reason people don’t take cryptocurrency boosters seriously.
> I'm talking about deliverable perpetual futures.
It's a nonsensical term (like many other nonsensical terms) that only exists in the crypto space. And only works in the highly volatile market like crypto. This is short-to-medium term currency speculation, and I'm sure there are plenty of services that allow you to do that in "traditional finance". As I'm not interested in currency speculation, I couldn't tell you what they are.
> Now perhaps you see what I am getting at? It's not accessible
You've selected a single service revolving around currency speculation and you call "traditional finance" inaccessible because of that. That... is not what accessibility to financial services means. Or what "levelling the playing field" is.
> Is there some reason the system is the way it is? Yes, I'm sure there is.
You're sure, but at the same time you are completely uninterested to learn why it is that way, and you dismiss anyone telling you why it is the way it is because, let me quote, "it's an awful exploitative global financial system".
> There are a million and one ways to lose all your money, plus a million new ones that weren't possible before.
Indeed. And that makes this "accessible and a level playing field" unlike traditional finance which offers fraud protection, deposit insurance, etc. etc.
> And soon a new technology will come, and everyone who understands the current landscape will know immediately what to do with it
So, the "accessible system" will be accessible to those who understand current landscape, who have already lost money a million ways and cut themselves on sharp corners.
That is neither accessible nor a level playing field.
If you claim that it is "global financial system which can be participated in by anyone", where are the protections for those who "did not have access to existing systems" (I keep quoting you).
I'm a programmer, I earn quite a lot. And I still cannot afford to just go ahead and "lose my money in a million ways" and "cut myself when working with a sharp object". Where's your accessibility, huh?
> and everyone who has had their head in the sand will wait for the SEC for guidance
Ah yes. Instead we can just not wait and lose the money a million and one ways for the sake of.... something.
There's a reason for SEC guidances, but, again, you're entirely unwilling to learn why they exist. Perhaps, you will learn it the hard way.
Can we please not No True Scotsman this? Crypto “the future of money” is completely unregulated and nothing but full of scams hitherto unseen since the days before banking regulations.
You’d be hard pressed find a bank that can execute a rug pull like this. While I’m no fan of Bank of America, I’ll keep my “dirty fiat” there and sleep soundly, just like I slept soundly in though the Great Recession.
I've never heard anybody educated on the matter make this statement. It's always from someone that doesn't understand it and therefore thinks it's a scam.
> What it sounds like you're saying is that Average Joe should really understand that crypto implicitly carries a risk of fraud and you are likely to lose your money
That is what a lot of people have been saying for a very long time now!
I don't mean this in a way to blame the victims of the crypto fraudsters, merely to explain the somewhat exasperated responses by people who feel like they've been trying to warn people who have been ignoring them.
> I'm starting to think that these organizations need to be regulated as banks, stat.
I mean, why do you think they don't want to be regulated and brag that they aren't? To make you more money?
> This is one of those scary things with a cryptocurrency based society that I worry about.
No, not really. It is the same kind of story as people putting all their money in a bag in a chimney to find out their family decided to finally lighten the mood by making a fire in long unused fireplace. It is an actual story about my neighbour when I was a kid.
People have been doing stupid things with money for thousands of years.
You can store crypto safely. It is essentially the same problem as storing encrypted backups. It has been solved.
As much as I hate cryptocurrency, I would actually be more at peace having lots of crypto than lots of stock on my account (if not for the fact that crypto is just a scam).
Isn't crypto synonymous with scams?
https://time.com/personal-finance/article/popular-crypto-sca...
reply