> Regulation is the correct solution.

I once read (here, perhaps) that Bitcoin is a long demonstration in how regulation comes to exist.

I think many in the Bitcoin community conflate "regulation" with "monetary policy". They assume if bitcoin is treated like money, with laws that protect people from fraud, that must somehow lead to restrictive monetary policy, which the community tends to abhor.

> Bitcoin is a long demonstration in how regulation comes to exist.

Or perhaps a short demonstration, given that BTC appears to be recapitulating the entire history of currency in a few years?

Exactly. It boggles my mind that people can't grasp the difference between the two. I hate the fed and the department of the treasury, and think QE is a horrible policy just like our permanent deficit. But I happily welcome the SEC and FINRA getting involved in cryptocurrency.

I disagree. If the state wants to offer some certification of regulation and an exchange is willing to go through that process to capture consumers, let them be.

Thats not bitfinex nor tether. Let people choose. If the SEC had its way, bitfinex would have not existed and millions of people wouldn't have been served.

History has shown that in certain matter people will, over and over again, commit systemically wrong choices.

So no, in some things we're all in this ship together and as long as that's the case I want people to not collectively fuck things up.

Thats what you want. Why do you feel entitled to make other people do what you want?

The only thing that makes him entitled is learning from history and being able to reason about pretty elementary models in his head.

Why do people with your types of opinion always make it wholly personal, just to try to weasel their way around a subject?

Like, here's another comment you made:

>I like to compare Bitcoin to Land.

Just stop. There is so much fundamentally wrong with that analogy at face value it beggars belief that you are being sincere.

> The only thing that makes him entitled is learning from history and being able to reason about pretty elementary models in his head.

That is his opinion, and even if it were factually true it doesnt give him the entitlement to prevent other people from doing it. If he believes the SEC provides value he can go to SEC regulated places, and let the ones that don't just be.

Today, the SEC regulates the startups right here, depressing wages of workers, reducing founder's returns, increasing investor returns and reducing overall market size. That is an economical fact. The steam of that oppression is coming out in crypto, where millions of people worldwide have a chance to 'invest' or speculate in something they are otherwise barred from doing. Barred by institutions like the SEC.

Crypto in spirit and technology is a way to get around those involuntary and foreign restrictions.

> Just stop. There is so much fundamentally wrong with that analogy at face value it beggars belief that you are being sincere.

I've made my case about it. You don't have to agree with it, and I dont have to agree with you. Do you want to call someone else into this to make sure neither you nor I say the wrong thing at punishment of fines and jail?

>and even if it were factually true it doesnt give him the entitlement to prevent other people from doing it.

Yes it does. In the same way I'm entitled to prevent people from drunk driving, because we know it's factually a bad idea and likely to end in a pretty nasty mess.

>I've built my case about it

In the same way you can build a ship designed to sink maybe.

Why do you think seat belts are mandatory? Apply the same reasoning to your question.

For the wrong reasons. I dont think they should be mandatory at all.

Apply the same reasoning: check.

But this case is even worse. Its the sec regulating a foreign exchange that has foreign investors. You think the SEC can go and try to do that on alibaba?

Because people can make choices collectively and that affects all of us.

No man is an island. If people choose to engage in activities that end up affecting negatively the rest of us through externalities such as pollution, corruption, and the destruction of economic value, sorry, but historically people don't just stand by idly and let others destroy the societies they've built.

How is people buying tether and getting screwed related to you? What is the externality they are imposing on you?

Also even if that were true, it would show something else: the entitlement of doing something unto others to your own benefit. Isnt that always the reason to apply force?

It's related in that those phenomena can cause an economic crash and the the losses of bad investments affect families, dependents, and the long-term health of societies.

Even the most stringent and controlled economies can prevent crashes. Thats not what the SEC does as a purpose or as a result. Let alone in this space.

Bitcoin is entering another stage now where its resistance to this will be tested, hard.