GP was referring to Binance and not Binance US, I think?

Exactly. It's amazing how efficient you can be when you don't have tons of pesky government rules and regulators breathing down your neck.

It's also amazing how much damage you can do.

It's also amazing jus how much damage regulators can do, who may occupy a priveleged seat of corruption that is neither beholden to the customer nor the provider of the goods. Often (most) time the regulator is not even sitting in an elected position, with only the loosest accountability to the voter.

So obviously the answer is no regulation, and to let Ponzi schemes and rug-pull scams be a de-facto tax on those who fall for the marketing, with the beneficiaries being the perpetrators.

If you were completely uncreative or speaking in bad faith, you may come to the conclusion that your "obvious" answer of such a false dichotomy.

The regulators are not corrupt. You believe that without evidence because it's part of your political ideology.

Some regulars are corrupt. Some are not. Some government officials are corrupt. Some are not. Some business people are corrupt. Some are not.

Any position of power has the potential to fall to corruption, if proper checks and balances aren't put in place to prevent it. GP simply seems to believe that regulators are insufficiently held accountable to avoid corruption from taking root.

Are you sure you yourself don't believe something without evidence ("regulators are not corrupt") because it's part of your political ideology?

I would also add that most businesses of a certain size ARE corrupt.

A great deal, possibly even most, people can be corrupted if placed in a position that enables it. Any regulatory mechanism implemented has to bear in mind that the underlying problem is that _people_ are corrupt. Putting people in a position where there is no check (such as voting, or customers choosing whether to buy) on that corruption makes everything more dangerous.

My position all along has been that businesses are greedy, oft corrupt, enterprise. So it shouldn't surprise anyone that individuals in the revolving door between industry and regulator are still corruptible people -- whether they are in the role of regulator or business director. These revolving door individuals didn't suddenly become corrupt when entering business or become pure when entering regulatory agencies.

Likewise, regulators are not beyond reproach and one's political ideology influences that perception.

Hours ago you called the court of the land "corrupt hyper-partisan" and now you believe there's no evidence of corruption in the vastness of the regulatory agencies?

Spare me the hypocrisy.

> The regulators are not corrupt.

And what would you say the basis for you believing that is?