> If only there were something like a public bank ledger that belongs to everyone...

Feels like proper legislation might also be a solution to the human problem, rather than just throwing technology at things. Maybe both?

Of course, neither may actually be feasible in some places.

> Feels like proper legislation might also be a solution to the human problem, rather than just throwing technology at things. Maybe both?

Possible compromise:

We try the decentralized public ledger. Then, should that fail, we can still attempt to legislate morality for the... well, darn- I've lost count of the failed attempts but maybe it will work next time.

Motherfucker, the entire crypto industry is in the middle of a collapse. It lasted less than a decade at scale and that’s just the 10% that weren’t an out and out scam (I lean toward that number being closer to 0%, but I’ll throw you a bone since you sound like you’re caught up in it).

> Motherfucker, the entire crypto industry is in the middle of a collapse. It lasted less than a decade at scale and that’s just the 10% that weren’t an out and out scam (I lean toward that number being closer to 0%, but I’ll throw you a bone since you sound like you’re caught up in it).

1) Stick to overcollateralized stablecoins (MAI, DAI, FRAX, sUSD, sEUR, etc.) & Layer 2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync). If you're okay with the centralization risks, then USDC & fiat-backed stablecoins can enter into the picture.

2) Account abstraction's an important step in providing the necessary security & recovery features to make it easier to use & secure. One of the parts required was ERC-4337, which has been in the works for some time and was recently publicly announced.

https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/blob/master/EIPS/eip-4337.m...

Before the contrarians come in for the quick gotcha and say that it bring in centralization: That's been made painfully aware multiple times over. However, Vitalik's 2021 post on social recovery wallets puts it best:

https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/11/recovery.html

> One common response to suggestions to use any form of multisig, social recovery or otherwise, is the idea that this solution goes back to "trusting people", and so is a betrayal of the values of the blockchain and cryptocurrency industry. While I understand why one may think this at first glance, I would argue that this criticism stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of what crypto should be about.

> To me, the goal of crypto was never to remove the need for all trust. *Rather, the goal of crypto is to give people access to cryptographic and economic building blocks that give people more choice in whom to trust, and furthermore allow people to build more constrained forms of trust*: giving someone the power to do some things on your behalf without giving them the power to do everything. Viewed in this way, *multisig and social recovery are a perfect expression of this principle*: each participant has some influence over the ability to accept or reject transactions, but no one can move funds unilaterally. This more complex logic allows for a setup far more secure than what would be possible if there had to be one person or key that unilaterally controlled the funds.

Legislation hasn't even been able to fix people dying due to daylight savings.

Can you elaborate? I’m assuming things go wrong when people don’t get enough sleep but I’m otherwise unaware of the dangers of changing the clocks.

NHTSA stats show increased traffic fatalities following the time change every year

I’m sure this is true and can be attributed to DST, but do we know if this would be worse than traffic fatalities caused by commuting in the dark during winter months without DST?

Interesting question. One would have to first account for changes in light conditions in the morning, and then changes in light conditions in the evening.

Daylight savings time can affect the heart, according to the American Heart Association[1].

[1]https://www.heart.org/en/news/2018/10/26/can-daylight-saving...

I mean, they did, last year, and we're done changing clocks now, at least in the US, after this last change. At least until what happened last time we tried this (in the 70s) happens, and kids start getting hit by cars while going to the bus in the dark all winter long. Though perhaps the glow of their phones will save them this time around.

There's a difference in many US brokerages between having your stocks held in your name versus having them held in "street name" (i.e., in the brokerage's name).

GP could probably purchase the shares and be issued stock certificates that they could physically own, in which case there would be no chance of a brokerage being able to sell them.

(I'm not disagreeing that the brokerage's action was sucky, mind you)

If you research how companies are actually incorporated, shares are created, and then listed them it's basically just two tiny companies that exist solely to hold shares. They actually own basically all the publicly traded shares in the US, plus a bunch of non publicly traded ones.

You legally can hold shares of any company, but you'd have to spend insane amounts of money. Even when companies are acquired the shares aren't actually transferred to the acquirer. One of the custodial companies just merges the shares into the acquirer.

Almost all shares are held in street name, but as a shareholder you have the option of either having the shares registered directly in your name through the company or their transfer agent or to be issued physical stock certificates (usually for a fee).

As an example, I used to own a couple of shares of both Apple and IBM. My shares were held directly in my name by computershare, which is the transfer agent for both companies.

When I sold them, someone _probably_ bought them through a brokerage, which means that computer share updated the registration to name Cede & co as the registered owner of the stock, and cede updated an entry indicating that the buyers brokerage owned the shares, and the buyers brokerage updated an entry that said that the buyer owned the shares.

> There's a difference in many US brokerages between having your stocks held in your name versus having them held in "street name" (i.e., in the brokerage's name).

This is irrelevant - a US brokerage cannot arbitrarily trade your shares, whether or not your shares are held in street name.

> GP could probably purchase the shares and be issued stock certificates that they could physically own, in which case there would be no chance of a brokerage being able to sell them.

This is equivalent to suggesting someone put their cash in a mattress rather than using a bank. The real solution is to find a better bank.

> This is irrelevant - a US brokerage cannot arbitrarily trade your shares, whether or not your shares are held in street name.

Indeed. It seems most people think the Hypothecation agreement on a Margin account is something brokerages can do without having such an agreement on file. They can't.

There's much ado made over street name vs your name, but the reason margin and hypothecation agreements are so long and you need to sign them to open a margin account is so they can even take steps such as lending out your shares, because unless you have, they can't actually touch them, per your agreements with a cash account. Street name is primarily so that when you go to sell they don't have to go find YOUR shares (adding time and cost) to sell, but can simply find shares of the particular stock that you have in your account which they have a quantity on, to sell. Basically, it maintains fungibility to streamline the process.

But you're right, if you care to not trust that, you do have the ability to either get certificates (if they're issued for the stock in question) or do a direct registration (DRS) so they're held directly in digital form at the Transfer Agent. Just of course bear in mind that if you're NOT intent on holding these shares forever, selling at this point can become a multi-day process, so you become a bit less able to react quickly to market activity.