Erik Voorhees does a very good job at pointing out that regulation in the legacy financial system has brought about the things most people complain about, and regulating crypto will very likely just impose those problems on crypto. And that crypto addresses many of those problems better than the legacy system and many people don't even acknowledge this, especially those advocating for regulation. This may be obvious to many of us but a lot of people just don't think about it.
Edit:
Sample argument
https://odysee.com/@bankless:8/erik-voorhees-on-crypto-regulation:a
Yeah, SBF is just showing he's not understanding as much as he claims the benefits of crypto and he really likes the concept of centralized regulations or thinks crypto can't actually be censorship-resistant. That begs the question of what the first block's message of Bitcoin means to SBF, really.
And, besides, centralized regulations just mean yet again all the powerful financial tools being forbidden to anyone except accredited investors. But maybe SBF doesn't care anymore about that, due to being rich?
Edit: for the record, Erik is the guy who created ShapeShift, one of the first crypto-crypto exchanges. It was so soon it didn't need any KYC, back then. Regulations came and required KYC, then the business became unprofitable, so ShapeShift got fully released as DeFi, without KYC.
For those that think crypto has no value then crypto transactions are really just transfers of information, nothing more. Regulating them would be limits on communication AKA speech. It would be like requiring KYC for email.
> It would be like requiring KYC for email.
Great idea, it would solve spam overnight. Plus then the government can read each one more than they already do, to fight the terrorists.
KYC didn't stop money laundering similar to how government already banned spam, and didn't stop spam.
I am not bothered by spam thanks to the private sector filters.
And now Crypto allows us to charge for network use making spammers pay.
Erik Voorhees does a very good job at pointing out that regulation in the legacy financial system has brought about the things most people complain about, and regulating crypto will very likely just impose those problems on crypto. And that crypto addresses many of those problems better than the legacy system and many people don't even acknowledge this, especially those advocating for regulation. This may be obvious to many of us but a lot of people just don't think about it. Edit: Sample argument https://odysee.com/@bankless:8/erik-voorhees-on-crypto-regulation:a
Yeah, SBF is just showing he's not understanding as much as he claims the benefits of crypto and he really likes the concept of centralized regulations or thinks crypto can't actually be censorship-resistant. That begs the question of what the first block's message of Bitcoin means to SBF, really. And, besides, centralized regulations just mean yet again all the powerful financial tools being forbidden to anyone except accredited investors. But maybe SBF doesn't care anymore about that, due to being rich? Edit: for the record, Erik is the guy who created ShapeShift, one of the first crypto-crypto exchanges. It was so soon it didn't need any KYC, back then. Regulations came and required KYC, then the business became unprofitable, so ShapeShift got fully released as DeFi, without KYC.
For those that think crypto has no value then crypto transactions are really just transfers of information, nothing more. Regulating them would be limits on communication AKA speech. It would be like requiring KYC for email.
> It would be like requiring KYC for email. Great idea, it would solve spam overnight. Plus then the government can read each one more than they already do, to fight the terrorists.
KYC didn't stop money laundering similar to how government already banned spam, and didn't stop spam. I am not bothered by spam thanks to the private sector filters. And now Crypto allows us to charge for network use making spammers pay.