regulating crypto currencies and ICOs is an oximorron

[someone111]

Regulating crypto currencies and ICOs seems an oxymoron, trying to square a circle.

It's rooted in a deep ideological political conflict.

Why was Bitcoin created? Any or multiple of the following. A digital storage of value, an instrument to invest/speculate, low fees, fast transactions, be their own bank, free from illegitimate seizure/discrimination (wikileaks...), protect from systemic risks (bankrupt banks, lost funds, hyper inflation, money reform), and some also to protect money from bad governments.

Bitcoin wouldn't be necessary if states woudn't have globally created an air tight banking legislation. Imagine most if not all banks operating under "You are our client. Your money is yours. We won't tell the government. No one can seizure your money. We are full reserve. We won't lend your money without consent." Then no one would have bothered with crypto currencies.

Why isn't there such a customer-only-friendly bank? Because one needs a license by the state to run a bank. Obtaning such a license is a very costly and difficult process. That keeps competition down. Banks that don't obtain a license or don't comply with regulations (that refuse to seize any accounts upon request by authorities) are closed down in a glimpse, no one would even dare trying.

Why is there an ICO boom? For similar reasons. Fundraising the ordinary way is heavily regulated, expensive and difficult. Sure, it sets a level of vetting, investor protection and quality, but it also discourages people from going for ordinary fundraising. ICOs are like a wiping/ignoring all regulations, like creating a new country. Just have a website, accept money (cryptos) with barely any governmental oversight or attempt to stop it. That created this boom for teams asking for ICO funding.

So a regulation cannot have it both ways.

- Either the law is restrictive as in "EUR is the official currency. All shops must accept EUR. Taxes are to be paid in EUR. Other currencies are not legal tender. Securities are regulated. The state decides who may run a stock company and protects investors"

- Or the law is permissive as in "It's the right of the people to decide which kind of money they want to be using. There shall be currency competition. It's the individual responsibility of the investor to choose sane contracts and investments."

The "regulate" crypto currencies no clever new laws are required. Actually what's required would be making the existing laws more permissive.

[1715225053]

1715225053

[1715225053]

1715225053

[1715225053]

1715225053

[iamTom123]

Of course, since we are in the cryptocurrency space we are all rooting for deregulation and decentralization and this is the most ideal that should be happening. Unfortunately, we don't live in this world alone...the government has been there since we have been born and we could never avoid it no matter how we wish it to go away. The government is the one wielding the power and although in democratic setting that power emanates from the people invoking that idea will only be very effective on election season. We have to deal with those people at the helm of the government.

Another reason why there is really a need for regulation is that there are people who will take advantage of the platform (the blockchain technology) for their own evil intentions. Again, we don't live in a perfect world so we have to deal with this fact and reality. The government can always invoke the need for regulations so we can be protected from people whose concept of living is taking away from other people.

How I wish then that there can be a way to implement self-regulation...but even then the concept may not be palatable enough for many in the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

[AgentofCoin]

Regulating crypto currencies and ICOs seems an oxymoron, trying to square a circle.

It's rooted in a deep ideological political conflict.
...

I disagree.

There is a major difference between a properly functioning cryptocurrency and an ICO.

The current standard of cryptocurrencies, which was made possible by the blockchain
system in combination with other systems, allows that cryptocurrency to exist and
survive in the face of governmental regulation or attempts at enforcement. Majority
of cryptocurrencies are illegal devices that can not be controlled because there is no
one who is in control or is a responsible party. They are in violation, but unenforceable.

On the other hand, ICOs are essentially an illegal device that IS in control and DOES
have a or multiple responsible parties. The entities that are in control is the ICO
ISSUER PLATFORM and the COMPANY that is using the token to gather capital for
their REGULATED COMPANY. That is what allows ICOs to be enforced in ways that
properly functioning cryptocurrencies can not. They are in violation, but can be
enforceable through their responsible parties.

The real issue is not "ideological political conflict" or "double standards" or etc,
the issue is that you do not understand the actual difference between these two
designs. Essentially ICOs are all scams since Legal Entities or Individuals have
publicly chosen to willing violating the laws on securities and other asset devices
within their jurisdictions, and while using preexisting mechanisms that allow them
to be more easily enforced against. They are basically walking into the fire on
purpose either due to ignorance or arrogance.

So, regulating certain cryptocurrencies is indeed an oxymoron, but regulating ICOs
is not an oxymoron. You just need to bring simple actions against the companies or
individuals that has created the ICO token and took funds. If you do such, the ICO
will be disbanded or "shut down" in short time and thus proves that that ICO was
just a simple loophole to violate current regulation, that is easily patched and
brought back into compliance. Thus ICOs are children's games.

Edit: To clarify: an unregulated centralized ICO issued by a regulated centralized
corporation is the actual oxymoron.