Bitcoin Forum

This appears to me as a statement given by a person who is going through the 5 stages of grief and he is presently in the stage of bargaining hehehe. This is the 3rd stage before depression and then the last stage, acceptance.

The SEC chairman knows the government has no power over the internet in this age of VPNs, TOR and other privacy tools. Also, no government regulations can enforce the law on a brave group of developers to break the law and have a community of progressive users who are motivated by profit.

https://i.ibb.co/Fh8Kz23/D90303-A9-D51-D-4613-A393-78-CE348-C3-D52.gif

SEC Chairman: Cryptocurrency Won't Reach Its Potential if It Tries to Stay Outside Our Laws

SEC Chairman Gary Gensler talked about cryptocurrency regulation on Fox Business Thursday. Emphasizing that the SEC is focusing on investor protection, he said, “We are neutral about technology, bitcoin, and the other crypto tokens.” However, the chairman clarified that the SEC is “not neutral about investor protection.”

He added that any platforms offering securities must be registered with the SEC, noting that many of the so-called decentralized finance (defi) platforms “actually have a lot of centralization” and they need to be registered with the SEC.

He elaborated that these laws include money laundering laws, tax compliance laws, and “what we focus on at the SEC — investor protection.”

Read in full https://news.bitcoin.com/sec-chairman-cryptocurrency-potential-outside-our-laws/

Maybe the Chairman is right but only when we're talking about price. About 3 or 4 years ago, I encountered people who were hesitant to invest in BTC because they thought a SEC/Central Bank approval/recognition is necessary. They softened up when CEX and other custodial services were given licenses to operate legally in the country. I see more people from traditional markets transitioning now because our very own Phlippine Stock Exchange plans to offer crypto trading facility too (still awaiting approval from regulators).

Regulators are more seriously in bull market. In bear market, we only see FUD or plans for future regulations but in big bull market, regulators actually launch new regulations. They are challenged by bull market and feel their power will be damaged more or disappear if they don't response seriously with crypto market.

Consequently they response more seriously than they usually do, at governmental levels and globally.

They always want to regulate and get their piece of a cake when they see bull market. But when crypto goes down they losing their interest and spreading more FUD to make people stay away from crypto. I bet they actually buying it in that times and don't want regular folks to do the same.

This might be one of those rare occasions where the regulators actually have a better understanding than most of the users. 

It sounds like lots of people think these defi schemes are safe, but so many of them are going to get burned.  As I mentioned yesterday in this topic (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5355868.msg57761148#msg57761148), interest doesn't magically come from nowhere.  It is almost certainly either centralised or an outright scam.  Whatever it is, it isn't truly decentralised finance.  Just a bunch of people jumping on a bandwagon to make a quick buck and being ignorant of the consequences.

The fact is that cryptocurrencies cannot be on the other side of the law if they want to fit into today’s society, it is simply impossible. If we just talk about the price aspect, we can ask ourselves how much 1 BTC would be worth today if there were no big crypto exchanges or if big companies didn’t invest billions of $ in it? All this would not be possible without regulation, whether someone likes it or not, it is true.

The SEC talks all the time about investor protection, but I guess it's clear to everyone that there's a lot more to it than that, and that there's someone above them who suggests what to approve and what not, in what they like to say to protect national interests.

I still see too much centralization in all this with the SEC and the US, because we have come to a situation where a lot of important things for Bitcoin are in one place - and the impression is that one institution decides whether something will work or not. Therefore, I do not think that anyone is desperate about cryptocurrencies when it comes to regulators, because they have quite good mechanisms to do what they want and when they want it.

Regulation is inevitable. Mark my words! If not today or tomorrow, but day after tomorrow we are definitely going to have crypto regulations in place. It's not just for US but for the other countries too. And I support a regulatory framework around cryptos because crypto market is now filled with scammers and fraudsters. Millions of people have lost millions of dollars in ICOs or IEOs and in other type of frauds. So it's high time that a regulatory framework is provided.

Did US people forgot the pipeline hack happened few months back? Do you want to see the same with your electricity network too?

Correct or not, Gary Gensler’s argument that the cryptospace will not reach its potential outside their laws is funny.

@avikz. We have existing laws already if scammers and fraudsters are what really the government is chasing. However, if you are talking about real regulatory framework, I reckon it would classify many coins as illegal securities. These projects are in the top 10 in coinmarketcap.com, have organized a presale or a coin offering and have never registered with the SEC. Ethereum, Ripple, Cardano, Binance chain, Polkadot and Solana.

It may be funny but probably correct. Cryptocurrency and all cryptocurrency-related products and services cannot thrive if they are declared illegal. If the law prohibits all of them, their potentials couldn't be reached. I am not saying they will cease to exist and even function, but probably minimally, underground, and definitely less attractive as its use would entail penalties.

Just in US though.

If other countries' laws are open for cryptocurrencies and not regulating them tightly, the companies will just leave US jurisdiction, and there goes their plans. As Ted Cruz said, he may not be the likable senator of all time but SEC should not try to kill the industry that could potentially make more money for the people in the country

Bitcoin itself has enough impetus to thrive regardless.  Arguably the wider cryptospace does need a boost to its legitimacy.  I don't a great deal of potential (unless you count the potential to rip people off) in the current interpretation of defi.  Although it's a struggle to see how the SEC think they could provide any extra legitimacy there.  More KYC isn't going to cut it.  There's so little they could practically enforce that I think they'd bite off more than they can chew if they tried.  With so many hundreds, or possibly thousands of random crappy tokens, they can't possibly have the manpower to keep an eye on all of it.

If the government wanted the cryptospace to reach its real potential, why not leave it alone and only use existing laws to go after the scammers to protect the consumers? We were okay without regulations with the whole cryptospace market capitalization going to more than $1 trillion.

In any case, wait for those regulations and witness those who support it shake their heads because of trusting the government.

@DooMAD. Arguably leave the development alone or everything will move to where they cannot monitor and regulate it. However, these systems are decentralized enough and designed to continue working if they are classified legal or illegal by the government. Chinese citizens can still pay in cryptocoins, use Defi and trade with the use of an internet connection and privacy tools.

What we call the wider cryptospace is what SEC is probably concerned about. Not so much from "investor protection" point of view but from how the general markets can get poisoned if some really big exploits happen. The example of Mark Cuban losing a few millions in one of these tokens may be of interest.

When it comes to BTC, there really isn't much that can be done and nothing much that SEC should do, in good faith. Bitcoin has forced central banks to contemplate CBDCs, which won't pass the basic checks of a democratic society. Though if we now want to project China as the shining example of liberty and free markets, that may very well be the case.

The way that CBDCs and Bitcoin ends up being treated will be a lot more political and ideological than merely depending on what the SEC thinks.

Regulation won't change that at all. Also, I fully believe the pipeline hack was done by the US government (https://www.rt.com/russia/523798-kaspersky-cia-colonial-pipeline-attack/) to magnify people's fear of crypto. Did you know the hackers were allegedly hacked back by the US Naval Cyber Defense? Why would they use traceable Bitcoin instead of untraceable XMR, like other hackers have? Sounds like a setup to me to make the US look like the good guys. There was a constant stream of FUD around that time that tanked crypto, while the elite, institutional investors bought in. People are being manipulated.

All of those "pro regulation" people better wake up and realize what the latest infrastructure bill in the US will do, if it is passed unamended. Privacy will be gone. Development and mining will be banned. Do not believe the assurances by the Treasury that they will not prosecute people - lies. The wording of the law is all that matters. Are people willing to break the law to continue mining and development?

Contact your US House representative to get the bill changed ASAP. They are meeting this week to potentially wreck crypto in the US.

They are inevitable as they are necessary. The government regulators cannot just stay helpless in the face of billions of money being siphoned off by scammers and unregulated projects from innocent individuals and even institutions who have got no protection from the law whatsoever.

With adoption comes regulation and even vice versa for those who are waiting for the market to be complete with consumer protection mechanisms. 

Crypto regulations are certainly not necessary and government regulators will still be helpless against a smart attacker.

VPNs can be banned, TOR may have a backdoor and fiat onramp/offramps will always be a barrier to privacy for large transactions. Yes, government regulations can enforce the law on developers. Developers may move to other countries, but the new world order will do everything they can to prevent themselves from losing the power they have through the banks.

The sad thing about this is probably also that a lot of businesses fully agree with him:) Hence the push for most crypto businesses to absolutely go regulation friendly and implement KYC from the beginning even though they know they did not do it well or even care properly about AML and privacy truly. Blind regulation.

I don’t care about all those shitcoins at all, because except for ETH which still makes some sense, everything else benefits nothing but getting a narrow circle of people rich. It has literally become a wild west where everyone does what they want without having to ask for any permission at all, and everyone is competing with Bitcoin even though no crypto project has managed to get close to it all these years.

---

I am not against regulation if it makes sense, but what is happening in the US actually looks like a ban on cryptocurrencies, only much nicer packaged than was the case in China. People do not seem to understand the consequences of this law, and apparently, the market does not yet recognize it - perhaps only because it will not enter into force until early 2023.

If they are in a state of helplessness today in the face of a smart attacker, then the more reason that they have to find a way to prevent such attacks in the future. We cannot expect that a government body would just admit that they are helpless and therefore it is pointless for them to put up security features against scammers and hackers. They are there to serve a purpose.

Crypto regulations are necessary precisely because they mean legalization.

I am not so sure is he all that off base with what he is saying here. First of all DeFi is a joke right now.  There is no way that it will remain viable long term as it's model is completely unsustainable.  That being said when it comes to bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies I think Regulation is a smart thing and something that is very much so needed. So I really am with him for the most part here.

Totally agree with this one even though they are powerless, they still try and regulate crypto even though there's nothing they can do about it. Right now, our country is experiencing that kind of BS from the tax agency, with the advent of Axie Infinity, they are trying the taxation angle even though there's nothing they can do about it, best thing to do is laugh on them.

He's correct in both statements. Without government greenlighting crypto, it won't get adopted by businesses, so it could only be used in informal p2p economy, which is only a small part of economy. He's also correct that a lot of DeFi is centralized, and if they are centralized, than what makes them different from centralized exchanges? If not much, then regulations could help reduce scams. 

Leaving it alone will worsen things, and rather than crypto reaching its full potential, it might actually spell the end of it. I must say the law is rather limited at this point, especially because the crypto space is rather new. In other words, existing laws may not be enough to protect the consumers.

The space has indeed reached more than a trillion in market cap but we cannot also discount that in just a relatively short period of time billions have already been lost from consumers.

Let's take as an example the highly unregulated ICO market. There used to be a time during its height when all kinds of projects are launching their ICOs. It was free for all. A group of young men who know how to copy codes could easily create a project out of nowhere and make millions, only to declare failure shortly afterward.

Sure, you can run after the scammers among them. However, as in other things, prevention is certainly better than cure.

Can they really enforce the law on an anonymous group of developers? They could not enforce the law on Satoshi. However, what the American government can do is classify some group of developers as terrorists, a scare tactic that they like to use hehe.

In any case, @everyone, do not be tricked by the government. The cryptospace is very much okay with the current regulations. Do not agree with them in giving themselves more power over you through new laws and regulations. Every bill they pass in congress is another limit on your freedom.

If ETH makes sense, then so should a plenty of other competing PoS, blockchain contract code providers.

The narrow circle of people getting rich has always been the case with VC investing. I find it a better situation that now that circle of people has a chance to expand, thanks to Satoshi.

No doubt that a lot of scammers have bastardized the inventions and are clearly using them for personal gains while people (especially noob retailers) shower them with hard earned money and attention based on copied code and slick marketing (XRP and Garlinghouse are a prime example of this). This really feels exasperating to see the promise of blockchain be wasted away on scammers like this and is the reason that we tend to hate shitcoiners.

This is a word of Desperation , the word use of a person that has nothing to do but talk because he has no power at all.

wondering whats the reason behind this , are the SEC surrendering their fight now? or they are planning to a widely attack against crypto ? because this sounds alarming knowing that SEC will not stop to favor crypto.

It's already here.

That's why you can't just launch an ICO or exchange in the US without your home getting raided by DHS.


Certain countries, due to lax policies e.g. Cyprus, Vietnam will never make proper regulations so all these services mentioned in the OP (including the scams) simply moved there.

The thing also in some other countries, the laws will be so tight and yet corruption and poor enforcement will be so that it will continue to go on but as a sort of black market.

Look at India where gambling is illegal in general and yet,,, almost every Indian with a smartphone and money is gambling.

Same as crypto ban, no a single one crypto user stopped using crypto, except for the big registered businesses!

You're pretty right about this but what if they will steadily grow and recruit more companies and people who will support their regulations of bitcoins, isn't it good too? I remember when Steam accepts bitcoins as one of their payment methods but they remove it as soon as lots of people are not happy with what they've experienced using it. right now is another kind of chance where those bugs and errors are already fixed and if they put it back again, I'm sure there will be fewer problems than before.

Laughable, and stupid to say it like that. Businesses, and companies that need a “green light” to adopt Bitcoin, or “crypto”, should not be in the business of adopting Bitcoin or crypto. You’re allowing the government to censor you from using something permissionless and censorship-resistant?

Sorry to burst your bubble but all of them proved to be total failures when the government actually wanted to track somebody! If the government doesn't send the military to knock at your door, break all your fingers and then ask you if you have downloaded stuff illegally doesn't mean it's not cable of doing so, it's just they don't want to.

In all the western world there was never a real war on privacy or what stuff is illegal or not on the internet, the governments only acted on serious cases, they let you have some freedom knowing too well they can cut it in a matter of seconds. No power over the internet? It takes one major ISP to power off its infrastructure and you're going to miss the old dial-up days.

Do not underestimate what they can do, if they want!

As for the title "desperation", sorry but I don't see anything like this, you would see a totally different course of action if they would be "desperate". What have they actually done other than talking and proposing stuff o a date?


The moment companies would be banned from doing so we would see the mother of all drops but I'm not sure if there will be another pump for a long period after this. It's not just that this move would be so dangerous alone, the problem lies with the fact that many will see this as the opening of pandora's box, and they would probably wonder what's next. Cutting at this stage investors or even worse the banking line would be a blow nobody wants to see, despite all the tough stance everyone takes on the internet, in reality, it will be a slaughterhouse.

This project is somehow closer to BTC in the sense that it was created in 2013, and that it still has the option of smart contracts that BTC does not have (although I think I read that it is possible to implement it in BTC). Therefore, I see this cryptocurrency as the only one that can compete with BTC to some extent, although like all the others, there is no key thing that makes BTC what it is - complete decentralization without a central figure that pulls all the strings.

---

We completely agree on that, and we are separated from that by a simple sheet of paper on which someone's decision will be written and there will be a sign with a stamp. So the decision on whether BTC will succeed to the extent we envision is actually in the hands of those whom Bitcoin as an idea opposes - which is actually a paradox, because why would anyone cut the branch on which it sits?

That's why I'm more in favor of Bitcoin being an alternative that shouldn't be imposed too much as the ultimate solution that will send fiat into history - because guys who build their empire on centralized finances will not calmly watch someone or something undermine it.

I agree.

Most of the time, when the market is in its bullish season, you will see a lot of news and articles saying that the government wants to regulate it. The reason behind this is because they see it as an opportunity to collect more taxes and to control the source of income of the citizens. Meanwhile, when the market is in its bearish season, the government disregard it. They don't pay attention to it as much. However, they spread news that cause FUD to the potential users to shoo them away from investing. They spread false information such as claiming crypto is a scam, a type of ponzi scheme, and the likes.

I would just like to relate the situation here in our country. This isn't really related about bitcoin but on NFT game which trended the past few months which is Axie Infinity. Prior to the game being widely known and played, they stated it is a form of scam. That axie is nothing but a waste of money and not worthy to be invested upon. But right now, axie really boomed and our government want to tax the players now because they knew they were earning. What a clown, right?

In general, the government wants to regulate anything they see doing good and earning money, but they don't care about it when they don't see they can benefit from it.

Companies have to follow laws and regulations and they can not run illegal business if governments don't allow it officially.

DeFi projects nowadays are created by know teams and team members are identifiable so governments can catch those founders, developers if they find something illegal. They are not decentralized from team member anonymity and their domains. Governments are aiming at stable coins and they will aim at DeFi soon.

Bitcoin is the best decentralized crypto project.

That's not a very realistic sentiment, sadly.  Businesses answer to regulators.  You can try to fly under the radar, but that usually doesn't last long.  Sooner or later, some bureaucrat or another is going to come knocking and will want to know what you're up to.  Just because Bitcoin itself is censorship resistant, doesn't mean companies are. 

quoting for posterity. first time i seen doomad out his on fangirlism for another network.. maybe worth some merit for this admission


dang agreeing with doomad twice in one topic.
.. guess ill have to hand him some merit after all

rare.. but it happens

..
but lets correct him in one part.. and hope he takes this moment to learn

the SEC is not just 'legit cos kyc'
the SEC is more involved.
there are two sides.. regulation and protection
things like liability insurance
regular audits
policy handbooks

registering as a money service business is not just the KYC stuff.. its actually the consumer protection stuff.
maybe try to learn what it takes to be a MSB and whats involved.

You might be overestimating the government’s capabilities. Why then did they not stop those terrorists from crashing 2 airplanes on the twin towers and another one on the pentagon in the 911 incident?

Also, you reckon that the government can fully enforce their laws on the cryptospace? How would they know and stop me from sending 1 moneroj to pay someone who sold me an unlicensed firearm?

The regulators are working with regulations to put a clear picture and safety over the hype of DeFi. The SEC wasn't happy about losing their power. Although the timing is suspect, we can do nothing about it. Whenever crypto is adopted, the SEC flies into action to protect them. Yes, it's certainly something I've wondered about, but the issue is we do not anything. Things are so diversify now, that it may affect you directly so you may be curious about other perspectives.

This is one thing people forget sometimes. I hate being monitored and regulated all the time but I have to admit, for some things, I would prefer this consumer protection.

If you go to regulators office anyway in some places (I do not know how it is in USA) especially in Asian countries I think many headaches they get is public calls asking them to help get back lost money from Nigerian scams, phone scams, HYIPs, and now from crypto scams.

For regulators a lot of the problems now are online business and the only way they can deal with it because people refuse to educate themselves.

I agree that regulating the crypto market and setting up AML legislation to prevent scammers from going unpunished is a good idea. However, SEC might not be the right authority to regulate the market, and I thought cryptos were actually already regulated in the US, at least in the taxation part. Cryptos like Bitcoin are not securities, as a wise SEC Chair once said (https://www.investopedia.com/news/sec-chair-says-bitcoin-not-security/#:~:text=SEC%20Chair%20Jay%20Clayton%20has,in%20an%20interview%20with%20CNBC.), so why would the SEC have a say in how to regulate them? I'm also not sure how relevant the pipeline hack is to this discussion, to be honest, as it happened not because of the lack of regulations but because of people breaking the law.

Comparing apple pies and superglue.
By the same logic, if the government is unable to stop you from crossing the street on the red light they are unable to drop two atomic bombs in a war...
Are you seriously comparing the average user who most likely had already lost his seed phrase or never actually printed it with a terrorist cell?


Try to do that in NK, and if you think that's an extreme thing, just try to get that firearm in Japan.
And to do a bit of crossposting, we're going to see it live as in one huge country experiment what cryptos can do in a country with a hostile government in Afghanistan, are you willing to bet on it? Behind every keyboard, there is a warrior, 2 hours behind bars in a cell and the numbers dwindle to 0.0 something

Again, the fact that they aren't doing anything is not because they can't, it's because is easier to let some small fish think they are free, it's easier to let a few people get some money crypto trading and keeping them occupied rather than having them queueing at the unemployment office and asking for food stamps or taking the matter in their own hands and rob somebody.

So all the big and medium businesses should forget about accepting Bitcoin? Then how you expect to see any sort of meaningful Bitcoin adoption? People want payment methods that are universally accepted. People love Visa and Mastercard cards because you can pay with them everywhere. Why would people adopt Bitcoin if you can only make some p2p purchases with it or spend it with small businesses only (which is even now not a reality).

However, it has clearly showed that they could not monitor everyone similar to the way that you have described. You reckon they can monitor all Monero users in their country and know where and when they send their coins?

Hehe the argument does not need to be about firearms. How would they stop someone from sending 1 moneroj as payment to a prostitute or for drugs or stolen credit card numbers? The argument is about enforcement of the rules.

I believe it’s they’re choice whether to comply, or not. But shower thought, what would the use of Proof of Work be if your business needs the government’s “green light”/permission before it can start using Bitcoin? Then maybe your business truly has no need for Bitcoin?

Think of it this way.  If someone has a rigid routine or process that they have followed for a long time, they are often reluctant to change it.  You tell them that you've got a better way to do it.  But you can't force them to change their ways.  So what you need is an opportunity to show them how you do things and hope they recognise why it's better.  But on the downside, they are, unfortunately, in a position to tell you not to do it your way and could potentially make things difficult for you if you continue doing it once they've asked you to stop.  They haven't reached the stage where they've told you not to do it anymore, yet.  So there may be a limited window of time to convince them that your way is better.

That's the "need".  To show that this works and that it's better.  

So, ideally, it's easier for businesses who recognise the benefits if any regulations and laws being implemented aren't impeding them in any way.  Businesses can't operate in a vacuum.  There will almost invariably be a physical premises with a door for authorities to kick down.  And Bitcoin has more utility if authorities aren't kicking doors down when companies use it.  

You're correct in that it is their decision whether to comply or not, but any business which is driven to operate underground generally won't be as successful as one which operates within the confines of regulations and laws.  It's a difficult trade-off if authorities do ever decide to curtail usage of Bitcoin.  They'll never shut it down completely, but they could drive it underground, reducing overall utility and usage.

regulators are on the next level of despair in bitcoin and crypto,,?? it's human nature that never have the slightest gratitude, don't even have the gratitude for what they have got from bitcoin, when bitcoin is at a high level, they praise bitcoin as high as the sky, but when the price of bitcoin falls, they even post things negative thing about bitcoin, what's worse, they provoke other people to leave bitcoin, but i will stick with it no matter what..

There is no choice, their either comply or get fined and shut down.

Companies might have many reasons to adopt Bitcoin payments, not necessarily because they hate banks and centralized payment systems. I don't think we should gatekeep Bitcoin by saying that "only true cypherpunk anarchists deserve to use Bitcoin". If so, you will never see mainstream adoption.

Regulation always happened when they all see the value of crypto currency especially when the price in the market really exploding and keep promising.. But when there's an issue occur and the prices in the market turn into long bear season, they suddenly refuse to adopt it and ban crypto currency wherein until they become the common problem in the space. That's what happened to some countries, so for sure in the future there's a tends that some of the country that regulate crypto now will decline it also because of some reason. Just saying.

I think we should not understand estimate the power of government to enforce regulations on anything be it centralized or decentralized, even with the presence of vpn, tor, other privacy means I feel the government can still pull a string whenever they want to, means they can take extreme measures which will affect the entire market some how,
The crypto space is increasing rapidly free to everyone and it doesn't seem the government will ignore this for long, especially now that big institutions are tapping all the benefits, some form of regulations will certainly come, not very restrict perhaps.

That's the most important thing, they can't monitor everyone.
Of course, they can't monitor where you spend all your coins, where you go on a walk, or every word you say on the phone and do the same for the rest of the country, there will be gaps, but at one point when usage surges the gaps will no longer be there as users get connected by traces in real life. You pay a random hooker 100$, nobody will be able to stop that, but once she receives 100 of those payment sand she needs to somehow convert that money or suddenly decides on buying a car or a flat instantly the will become a target for law enforcement, then all they have to do is track her and simply pick one by one her clients.

It's pretty simple, can the government know when I'm mopping my flor? No! Can they find out where I bought my mop? Yeah, they simply need to take the surveillance video from my block of flats and they will see when I got it out of my car. The same with your drugs buy, they don't know when you paid for it with that, but they know a guy received a package from somebody they had under surveillance cause they were sending 20 packages a day across the country. Finding the needle in a stack becomes very easy when the stack is made out of needles, not hay.

I completely agree that, despite their powerlessness, they continue to try to regulate cryptocurrency despite the fact that they have no control over it. Right now, our country is dealing with that type of nonsense from the tax agency, and with the introduction of Axie Infinity, they're attempting to use the taxes angle even though there's nothing they can do about it; the best thing to do is laugh at them.

It's not just about the laughing but to completely shun traditional financial services while focusing more on decentralized financial services (short for DeFi). This is the only way we would win the fight against regulatory bodies. If we use finance services built on traditional or centralized platforms, it would be so much easier for them to control, get data or do anything they want compared to decentralized finance systems where its more expensive do carry out such exercises.

this is the kind of subject that doesn't need to be discussed much, the thing is quite simple: if a government creates a law that prohibits using bitcoin then people in that country just have to obey the laws and of course fewer people who would be buying bitcoin would be exchages from this country that would be closing its doors, there is no way bitcoin  prosper if all countries in the world had a law prohibiting bitcoin. Let's look at the current scenario: binance is demanding that its customers comply with KYC, this is due to pressure from many governments, yet another concrete example that cooperation with governments is necessary for this market to prosper

And it's not just the compliance aspect.  It's the overall accessibility of your services.  Many individuals may want to preserve their privacy.  It's a much easier choice for them because they likely don't have any need to draw attention to themselves.  Legitimate businesses, on the other hand, want to be seen.  They want the public to know who they are and where to find them, so people can buy their products.  It's going to be more difficult for a company to attract customers if the only way to access their services is through the darkweb.  There's an obvious financial incentive for companies to follow regulations and laws.

I reckon with more regulations, we might witness the ascent of the blockchain analytics partnerships with much of the services and applications in bitcoin and the blockchain platforms in the cryptospace that want to be compliant. I hope everyone who argued that regulations are better for the cryptospace reconsider their position on the matter.



Cardano Foundation (ADA) signs on Coinfirm to comply with FATF norms

Cardano Foundation is an independent non-profit that supervises the advancement of Cardano (ADA), while protecting and promoting the protocol’s technology.

The Swiss-based foundation recently announced that it has selected a major crypto intelligence and blockchain analytics provider Coinfirm to bolster the security of Cardano, while overseeing the network’s compliance with the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) guidelines.

Furthering institutional capabilities and mass adoption

“This partnership will ensure that Cardano is able to be in full compliance with the FATF’s guidelines,” read the announcement, stating that the new pair up will also secure the 6th Anti-money laundering directive (6AMLD) and other supranational and national regulations are being met.

According to the announcement, Coinfirm represents a “component of commercially critical infrastructure for Cardano,” and by teaming up with a major crypto intelligence and blockchain analytics provider, the Foundation has made a big strategic move that will further the institutional capabilities of the growing ecosystem.

The new collaboration with Coinfirm is aimed at furthering Cardano’s mass adoption in regulated markets while assuring governments, financial institutions, and consumers “that reasonable measures have been taken to reduce the risk of transactions being exposed to illicit or illegal behavior.”

Source https://cryptoslate.com/cardano-foundation-ada-signs-on-coinfirm-to-comply-with-fatf-norms/

That's a privilege way of looking at things, as if following the law is a fair thing for many people. Also, if you're forced to obey the laws then you're living in a police state, it's not like your a robot, you can comply but you can't be forced.

Imagine if more and more companies will be adopting Bitcoin and demands government to regulate it so they could safely transact with Bitcoins, then I think regulating Bitcoin as the government would want it would be beneficial in the long run. This is simply a case of testing the worthiness of Bitcoin to the general public in terms of using it not just as an asset, but also as a mode of payment. Provided they come up with fair pricing methods to keep people from paying too much satoshis.

when bitcoin is regulated by the government Bitcoin no longer achieves its purpose. Bitcoin cannot be controlled by anyone. Bitcoin has high volatility and greater risk than Fiat currency. Bitcoin cannot replace fiat. Although some countries such as El Salvador have adopted bitcoin for legal payments, most countries are still unable to do so due to the volatile and risky nature of bitcoin. Fair pricing methods may still be researched to be more secure. but currently bitcoin is only an option as a digital currency for trading.

Then if everyone had the same perspective as that, and especially if Satoshi and the OG Cypherpunks had the same viewpoint as that, then in my opinion, Bitcoin and the other developments that lead to it, wouldn’t be invented.