Regulators have far broader scope for regulation than just to ensure that people are not taken advantage of or scammed.

They don't stop innovative financial products from being built, they might stop them from being used for a particular purpose or even at all depending on how a particular development impinges on the list of items for which they regulate.

Amongst others, and depending on where you live your local regulators may add or subtract from this list considerably:

- fairness

- transparency

- stability

- anti money laundering

- anti terrorism financing

- tracking of ultimate beneficiary owners

That list was developed for traditional finance. After messing around with DxDy protocol, i learned that literally all of those point are impossible. Also, how would you shut them down if they don't comply - It's a smart contract on eth. Even if you arrested everyone involved, it 'lives' outside of the reach of the US gov unless you ban all of eth.

You are wrong to include fairness on your list (and probably stability).

> You are wrong to include fairness on your list

The company I work for is owned by a huge French bank. Even though I am in tech I still need to do some mandatory (legally required) training, and one of the courses is Treating Customers Fairly.

The FCA say "Treating customers fairly is a requirement for all regulated firms, no matter their size or the nature of the activities they undertake".

It is right there in the charter of the regulators of the three countries that I'm most familiar with. Spelled out.

> It would be far from ideal if some regulator decided that we can't use it because reasons x,y,z.

Not for you to say. Society as whole decides which regulations are ideal.

Sure, but we also live in a free society, so they can't just ban things because they feel like it without swift opposition. If it's a legitimate thing that people want, it'll still continue to exist, but would only move underground (for example, we know how alcohol ban worked out).