Bitcoin Forum

A group of Bitcoiners and I have created a new non-profit organization called the Bitcoin Financial Association.

One of our first tasks is a letter to Mr. Ben Lawsky of NY.

Please read and sign if you agree.

(Also, please advise about any tips or typos etc.)

ALSO-  please join the association .....if you use member code BruceFB you will receive a free / 100% discount....obviously no credit card required.

http://bitcoinfinancialassociation.org

Excellently worded. Just hope they read it!


 ;D

great letter!  there were 2 things that the regulators said that bothered me.  the first was the 1000 flowers the second was a comment from the guy to the right about startups.  something like surely you can fund them for a few millions if you fund them at all?   this question was largely ignored but the reality of the early startup scene (esp. for new tech) is more "throwing sh*t against a wall to see what sticks" than it is a careful cash infusion.  that comes later.  by requiring even 100k to be spent on regulatory compliance you both dramatically limit the number of early phase startups that can be funded AND essentially grant a monopoly on startups to the VCs to the detriment of the individual who wants to be an entrepreneur. the section "consideration of the various costs of regulation" would be a good spot for this.

Exactly!  Those two comments bothered me as well.

We included the 1000 flowers comment in the letter.

The other point would be great to include as well if we had space.

It's so odd for a regulator to suggest that as a solution to the massive burdens of regulation "oh, just have venture capitalists pick the best businesses and fund them"

First off all it's terrible business....VCs have enough risks without adding $2-3 million on regulatory costs which offer no ROI, second it discriminates against small and lifestyle businesses ...which are BY FAR the biggest employers in the US and the world.   Very wrongheaded thinking.

Good letter, I'll sign it soon.

Thank you!

The quote is at 57:00, I can't figure out who the regulator is though...
I don't think my long and detailed explanation is necessary.  I think just a sentence or two will suffice.  Maybe:

"In contrast to the comments made by Mr.  XXX (day 1, time 57:00) about how startups are created, the reality of the very early stage startup is that it often operates without funding or investors.  Venture capitalists often enter after a business model has proven itself in the local market to drive it nation or worldwide.  To require even 50k in regulatory fees or excessive time burden is going to eliminate startups like Intel and Facebook (which began in a garage and a dorm room, respectively) and perhaps more importantly, this barrier to entry will grant essentially a monopoly on Bitcoin startups to well-funded VCs at the expense of the individual hard-working entrepreneur.  Rather than face this burden, these very-early-phase startups will simply incorporate in another jurisdiction."

Excellent letter.

You asked for typo's etc. The only one I have seen is in this section below.

Existing laws preventing computer hacking and violations of physical security related to Bitcoin holding companies and individuals involved Bitcoin are areas that most of us would be happy to see solid enforcement action on.

Perhaps it should say involved in Bitcoin.

Sorry for being picky mate.

I'll sign it too.

Jacko

Thank you, not picky at all....I'm amazed there are not many more!

Is membership only for ny people?

yes, otherwise you are not allowed to participate in this petition I think

No no, definitely not.  It's open to anyone -- I'm the author and do not live in NY -- this affects everyone in America and therefor ultimately the world.   

When you sign you can say where you are from....certainly New Yorkers, followed by other Americans have the most affect on influencing NY regulators but this is a national and global issue and I think that even people outside the US have some affect on regulatory decisions.

Good stuff, thanks

Remember to keep yourselves decentralized.  Bitcoin does not need a spokesperson or foundation.  
It will proceed with, or without approval or permission from folks like Lawsky.  

Creation of organizations dedicated to the progress of Bitcoin are nothing more than hobbies of those who found them.
They are not needed, and likely will be unwelcomed in the long term, even within the Bitcoin community.

Everything starts with good intentions, but the necessity for decentralization should not be ignored.
Any single point of failure in the bitcoin ecosystem only weakens the possibilities for Bitcoin.

-B-

I disagree with that a bit.

For example, next month I'll be back in the Mid East where I've done a ton of work over the last 10+ years.

If I go meet a Central Bank on behalf of "me, myself and I" a guy who really loves Bitcoin it doesn't have any weight and show any commitment or focus.   At least when done in the name of an organization it shows some focus and plan.

Now some would say it's not worth meeting central bankers -- but these are the guys who can simply ban Bitcoin in the country and make life very difficult for anyone attempting to do anything.

Same here...someone like Lawsky has a great deal of power to harm Bitcoin and if governments take a hard line it means more people charged with crimes, more fear, less adoption, less innovation.

Whether we like it or not there will be spokespeople -- our only choice is whether it's people we choose or people someone who hates Bitcoin chooses.   Professor "Bitcorn" Williams from the NY hearing is working hard to promote himself as a leading authority on Bitcoin....speaking circuit etc.

It seems there is value in a counter voice to that that comes in an organized manner in addition to all the one-off voices who might not be heard.

Something like this letter is also an example...with one person sending it it may not be read....with 500 or 1000 signatures it will likely be read.

sign

Thanks!

Signed just now.  :D

Bravo, Bostonbitcoin. Absolutely stellar. Thank you for undertaking this effort on behalf of us all. I have signed.

I have a number of suggestions, all small. Feel free to ignore them if you disagree.


s/b

'...Bitcoin is not just a digital currency; the blockchain and the...'

also perhaps '...megaphone and announce a private key, I do not ...'

consider '...believe that this invention is significant, disruptive transformative technology.' (in this context, disruptive and transformative have similar meanings, with disruptive carrying possible negative connotations)

consider '...Your role is not necessarily to foster innovation...' (possible misinterpretation as antagonistic)

'...fear of losing our property, our reputations, or our freedom.'

'You may choose either more regulation, or more freedom. With either path there will be a price.'

ETA: I don't know what to think about another organization. I think TBF has done some good and some harm. Maybe your new org will serve as a counterbalance? I'll think about it.

Lawksy definitely carries some serious weight.   So addressing him is a great idea.  In the mortgage industry today, Lawksy himself blocked a deal between OCWEN and Wells Fargo.  It was a $2.7 billion deal to purchase some of the mortgage servicing rights from Wells Fargo.

Lawsky blocked the deal because he did not believe OCWEN could sufficiently handle servicing that many new loans.

Thanks very much!

(This is my new account I made with my actual name)

signed

Andreas Antonopoulos rebuttal to NYC hearings - Extremely moving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk_kDkrx62s&feature=youtube_gdata_player

When I grow up I want to be Andreas.  :)