Demand side already has responsibility and correct incentives: the fools have been parted from their money. Done.

This goes for small things, like NFT ponzis, and big things, like turning housing into an asset class.

When has housing ever not been an asset class?

Real estate is and was the original asset class.

Within the western world, that has always been the primary basis of one’s wealth until fairly recently.

I think the issue is assuming people who get scammed are at fault for something, just because a more paranoid person would have avoided the scam.

Regulation will not stop me from selling a potato for $100. it will stop me from selling a regular potato for $100 while claiming it cures cancer.

Buying a potato for $100 would be dumb, and nothing stops me from doing it

Buying a cancer-curing potato for $100 is not dumb. Believing a potato can cure cancer because someone else is publicly selling it to me that way in full view of the entire world is not dumb. I would think "oh wow, something about this potato must be cancer-curing because surely this guy knows that if he scams me in front of the public then the public will hold him accountable."

So it is now time to hold people accountable

Basically, it's exactly that.

Now one can be informed but also choose to make stupid decisions. People do this all the time on penny stocks, options, etc... The SEC has no interest in trying to stop them, just making sure they know up from what they are getting into.

Other than that, lies and manipulation are part of the equation. It's a bad decision to blindly trust anyone or anything. You can't separate smelling bs from judgement.

The whole concept of an accredited investor is basically saving people from themselves.

The SEC has a pretty ill defined set of risks they are trying to protect people from. People will find ways to lose their money if they don't have a general "wait, do I have a clue what I'm doing here?" filter.

I agree with personal responsibility but not at the expense of communication.

Imagine if every single person who moved a package was required to open the package and confirm the contents. It may be the only way to accept personal responsibility for its contents, but it's dumb. I am telling you what the contents are and if I am lying to you then I need to be held accountable. Especially if the contents are dangerous and I told you they are safe.

If I write "i owe you a billion dollars for your 64 diamonds" on a minecraft sign you shouldn't be surprised if I don't hold up my end of that.

The more a community holds itself accountable without regulation, the less regulation the community needs. If people always avoided unregulated assets because of your logic - we wouldnt have any regulated markets today.

Non-scams are the norm where I come from and with the people I interact with. Maybe it is cultural. Some cultures held people accountable for their bullshit and some didnt... and now the expectations for responsibility are different. "you should expect to get scammed" vs "if you find a scammer we will deal with them"

>If I write "i owe you a billion dollars for your 64 diamonds" on a minecraft sign you shouldn't be surprised if I don't hold up my end of that.

If you take my 64 diamonds, deny me a billion dollars, and then refuse to give the 64 diamonds back.. that is theft. In minecraft, I would then proceed to remove your health bar, take what I want from you, pour lava buckets on your house, etc. And you should not be surprised by that.

Abusing a lack of regulation causes chaos, and hinders the ability of communities to grow stronger. Weak communities enable unnecessary suffering. There is an ethical responsibility to make an example out of people who manipulate communication to scam others. It is one of the few things nature allowed us to have to enable building communities in the first place.

If scamming is currently the norm, then it is currently hunting season.

I mentioned it to another, but have some humanity and empathy for those less "smart" than yourself.

You're still thinking of it as something people can learn, but psychology / history says otherwise.

This is why I say empathy is important. For you, it's obvious. For others, it's not.

In addition, there are other factors at play, like desperation (when you're living paycheck to paycheck, you _want_ to believe there's a way out).

Everyone has different experiences / situations to grapple with, and as a society we should try to help folks find the happy path and protect them. Especially so for those of us who recognize cons!

So I guess I wouldn't understand the "empathy goes both way" statement.

Your points are certainly valid. I don't think either way results in something perfect or even that good.