BAT and FunFair are neither impossible nor useless.

>I'm not sure that's a good idea.

But if someone thinks it's a good idea, we should forcibly deny them the right to invest their own money in it? I simply don't understand the justification for such a strong-arming intrusion.

>It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time.

Reputation is a very real and powerful thing in the marketplace. In the long run scammers and other unscrupulous types cannot compete against honest providers who deliver. And by the way, I'm fine with going after confirmed scammers. I'm not okay with centralizing/banning an industry to preemptively prevent scams.

Who needs reputation or the long run if you can net a decent amount as a one-off?

I was referring to this:

>>It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time.

And making the point that the space will be dominated by the competent and honest in the long run if left to its own devices.

My comment was explaining why I believe that would be the long-term outcome.

It may, or it may collapse under the weight of the less scrupulous.

The cryptocurrency market is incredibly resilient. I've been involved in it for years and seen that even after the worst crises, it comes back stronger. Absent centralizing regulations, eventually all of the industries created by the new use-cases it enables will mature, with innovative technological solutions and much higher levels of consumer awareness, which is a much more robust outcome than the regulatory one that would devolve into a closed Old Boys/Girls club like the traditional financial sector.