I read another comment on hacker news today that referred to a type of regulation that is actually accountability.

Perhaps if we were able to classify regulation further it would be easier to analyze the tradeoffs of certain regulations rather than saying all regulation is bad or all regulation is good.

But if we do that we have to accept that there are tradeoffs in the first place. We have to recognize that reasonable people might disagree about which tradeoff to make. We have to accept that even good decisions are likely to leave someone somewhere worse off. We might even have to gasp understand the historical and cultural context in which the current system arose.

Applying a slogan is so much easier.

Uber et al should have thought about those tradeoffs. That's my point.

It's much easier to be binary. Thinking about tradeoffs is hard and can't be used for scoring political points.

I don't think this is a failure of regulation (or the lack thereof), but a QA/testing failure.

I imagine regulations are not there to prevent financial institutions from making mistakes, they are there to wreck those who do.

Actually this is another example of how regulation allows rent seeking rapacious incumbents like Coinbase to stay in business.

> Actually this is another example of how regulation allows rent seeking rapacious incumbents like Coinbase to stay in business.

I fail to see how "this is an example". Care to elaborate?

Rent seeking is traditionally used when it comes to regulatory capture or certain types of actions by monopoly companies. CoinBase, although large, is not the only place nor has it built a moat with lobbyists+regulators friendly to it.

"Bu-bu-but it's too big to fail" (e.g. the banking crisis of 2008 and recent Equifax breach).