This isn't a great argument, regardless of my stance on the issue.

We ban and heavily regulate plenty of financial stuff so that people don't get taken advantage of. Payday loan regulations/bans are a good example.

I don't know about finance, but in automotive it's common for the established Auto companies to increase regulations to keep competition out.

The driver Out Of Position 2 airbag test comes to mind as one that causes worse airbags/safety, and increases cost.

Just because we do something doesn't mean we should.

That's not an argument in either direction. We do lots of things we could instead not do, many of which we should.

If you think that's not an argument in either direction, I don't know what to tell you.

You're implying that some financial regulations are unnecessary, but without saying it or giving reasons why. Yes, I think you have no provided an argument.

Adults should be allowed to make adult decisions. Thats the argument.

That’s a poor argument. What about adults that take advantage of other adults?

Subprime? Insider trading? Organised crime?

They are all adults making decisions… why even have police? How much crime is committed by kids anyway?

You know, people talk about "there should be some protection from yourself making bad decisions" and when someone says "no there shouldn't, let people make their own mistakes" you see responses like this, "so we shouldn't ban crime?" Its absurd. It is classic straw man garbage.

Of course stealing and fraud and such should be illegal. But if I want to squander my money on bullshit, that is my right.

What’s the difference between “fraud” and “squander my money on bullshit”?

Ponzu schemes are a crime… are you against that regulation?

The difference is you prosecute the criminal actor, you make the act of creating a scam illegal. No, I'm not against that regulation. And you might be surprised to find that that regulation already exists, if you're not surprised I don't see why you keep trying to make the same point. Yes, crime should be illegal.

That's not what you're arguing for though. You're arguing for laws against participating in risky behavior by participants, regardless whether that risky behavior is a scam or not, on the grounds that they could lose money.

We don't ban fraud because people lose money, we ban fraud because people are deliberately misled, their rights are violated and they are stolen from, deliberately.

"We should ban people from taking risks", "no, I don't think so", "oh so you think fraud should be legal?" It's exhausting honestly. You should be able to come up with a better argument than this.

If you legalize sex work and drugs fine, I'll give you cryptocurrency.

I've already got cryptocurrency, but I can get behind that as well.

That wasn’t my argument. But well done on successfully arguing with yourself. Bravo.

So if we “know” that USDT is a scam, and people are being deliberately misled then we should define it as fraud, or come up with some kind of new regulation. (By your own logic).

So we agree.

By my own logic we need no new regulation, we have what we need. If something is fraud prosecute it as fraud, which is already illegal.

Right - so the OP originally stated that government should step in and protect its citizens. Which I agree with.

USDT is fraud. Which is illegal, so you are agreeing. Just you interpreted what they said as “introduce new law” whereas I interpreted it much more literally as public prosecutors should be taking action.

> What about adults that take advantage of other adults?

Well, there's a pretty big universe of meaning.

> Subprime

What is more wrong? Banks lending to people they know they can't afford it because they think the risk/reward ratio is worth it? Or governments not letting them feel the effects of the markets reaction?

> Insider trading

Honestly who gives a shit? This is the type of thing that would be quickly priced into the market.

> Organised crime

Are we talking about selling drugs? Or murder? Or sex trafficking. Because I have very different opinions between the first and the second two.

> why even have police

See above.

Oh… so we should regulate some things. Got it.

Please read and follow the site guidelines and please don't use this site for flamewar or political battle. We ban accounts that do those things. I'm not going to ban you right now because it doesn't look like you've made a habit of it, but if you keep posting like this or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27512975 we will have to, so please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We've banned this account for repeatedly and egregiously breaking the site guidelines.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The prices of these coins can and does get manipulated all the time. Real people will get burned, badly. You can't even depend on these exchanges to actually handle high trading volume when there are price crashes. It's honestly a joke that anyone trusts this system as it currently stands.

Anyone who seriously believes in a future of cryptocurrency should be calling this crap out instead of brushing everything bad about it under the rug and labeling it as FUD. The problem: very few people actually believe in cryptocurrency, most are looking for a quick buck instead.

> The prices of these coins can and does get manipulated all the time.

This is known.

> Real people will get burned, badly.

Welcome to the game, there is a learning curve.

> You can't even depend on these exchanges to actually handle high trading volume when there are price crashes.

If they're centralized, you mean.

> It's honestly a joke that anyone trusts this system as it currently stands.

It's easy to distrust a system you don't understand.

> Anyone who seriously believes in a future of cryptocurrency should be calling this crap out

If you interacted with anyone in crypto you'd realize that they do.

> The problem: very few people actually believe in cryptocurrency, most are looking for a quick buck instead.

Why is that a problem? The ecosystem needs technologist and "market makers" (including individual traders in this) to function.

I just want to say I like cryptocurrency, but there are some real problems with some of your points I just had to point out.

> welcome to the game.

Is this a game, or something useful, a currency system? If it's a game all your opponents are right. Truth is, some people get burned with every risk that people take, and everyone gets burned by some risk they take at some point, it is why most of us are risk averse. People get burned crossing the street.

> If they're centralized

Find me a single decentralized exchange that has the liquidity to handle high trading volume.

> It's easy to distrust a system that you don't understand

You're assuming detractors don't understand. It is self supporting fallacious logic, "if you don't agree with me that's because I know more about it than you"

As far as unaddressed points, to talk about crypto getting manipulated and pretend that heavily regulated markets like the housing market or stock market don't get manipulated is hilarious. Every market gets manipulated, but people pretend like the government solves that and cryptocurrency is the only market where this happens.

All in all I like cryptocurrency, and I don't like regulation for the most part. Before someone out there decides that this means I don't think murder should be illegal, I do, so no sense going down that line of discussion. But I don't think protecting people from predators is the same as protecting people from themselves, one is within the realm of a justice system and the other is not.

> Is this a game, or something useful, a currency system?

Do you not think the current economic system is a game? Because it is.

> single decentralized exchange...

Uniswap had no liquidity issues for blue chips with the recent crash.

Clearly there can be more liquidity in the market, but that’s not the argument.

> detractors don’t understand

Why would I think differently when they never do?

Assuming the rest of the response isn’t directed at me.

What about encrypting their files, threatening to leak documents with PII, and making them buy Bitcoin?

Another good tactic.

Obviously not, rather because of the significant negative externalities that remain unaddressed after over a decade.

If we want to address significant negative externalities that have remain unaddressed for over a decade maybe we should look into how many people we bomb on a frequent basis. Or healthcare. Or corruption in politics. Or our crumbling society.

"Bad thing exists, therefore, really, this isn't that bad of a thing" isn't an argument.

It is when it's a zero sum game.

Thanks for your input! You have committed a subvariety of the classic tu quoque logical fallacy also sometimes colloquially known as "whataboutism". It is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Would you care to try again, and address the argument rather than deflecting?

yes, those are also bad

Thanks your your valuable input.