A little terminology advice on "regulation" FUD

[dado7]

Good day to you all good people,

I noticed that each time when a word "regulation" & stem "crypto" appear in the media together, a FUD starts to spread all over the crypto community.
While that sometimes purely amuses me, as I like behavioral sciences and I like to observe the behavior of the masses, this is actually very harmful to the crypto society and I simply cannot believe that the majority of the people still haven't gotten on top of this.

I can agree that the word "regulation" seems threatening as we all know what was the purpose of invention of Blockchain and Bitcoin - to fight against the current way the money is being created and distributed, and this basically means fighting the banking system, so each time a "regulation" comes up most of the people assume the worst - the Governments and bankers have finally found a way to stop it for (their) good.

However, there is quite a difference between:
a) regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation;
b) prohibition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(disambiguation).

Please notice how in the title of this news article you have a word "regulate" and then "legalize" deliberately put in the parenthesizes to explain that the regulation means quite the opposite from prohibition in this case (and most of the cases):
https://www.ccn.com/thailand-law-regulate-legalize-cryptocurrency-ico-markets-coming-april/

Finally, it doesn't make any sense to cry over:
a) poor security of crypto trading and
b) regulation
at the same time.

Best regards

[charlotte04]

Good day to you all good people,

I noticed that each time when a word "regulation" & stem "crypto" appear in the media together, a FUD starts to spread all over the crypto community.
While that sometimes purely amuses me, as I like behavioral sciences and I like to observe the behavior of the masses, this is actually very harmful to the crypto society and I simply cannot believe that the majority of the people still haven't gotten on top of this.

I can agree that the word "regulation" seems threatening as we all know what was the purpose of invention of Blockchain and Bitcoin - to fight against the current way the money is being created and distributed, and this basically means fighting the banking system, so each time a "regulation" comes up most of the people assume the worst - the Governments and bankers have finally found a way to stop it for (their) good.

However, there is quite a difference between:
a) regulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation;
b) prohibition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_(disambiguation).

Please notice how in the title of this news article you have a word "regulate" and then "legalize" deliberately put in the parenthesizes to explain that the regulation means quite the opposite from prohibition in this case (and most of the cases):
https://www.ccn.com/thailand-law-regulate-legalize-cryptocurrency-ico-markets-coming-april/

Finally, it doesn't make any sense to cry over:
a) poor security of crypto trading and
b) regulation
at the same time.

Best regards

People does not know that our crypto community needs regulation in order to prevent some of the money laundering and also for protecting the investors. Many people will start to invest because it is now secured.

[DooMAD]

Finally, it doesn't make any sense to cry over:
a) poor security of crypto trading and
b) regulation
at the same time.

If it could be proven that regulation would, in fact, provide more security, then perhaps it would be a less contentious issue.  But all the regulation in the world isn't going to prevent hacks and thefts.  One could even argue it may have the opposite effect and create more security risks.  If regulation means exchanges have to keep records of all their customers' personal details stored, this could lead to an increased threat of identity theft.  It wouldn't just be the coins people will try to break into the exchanges for, it's also a potential cache of photo ID that could either be sold for profit or used to commit fraud.  As with all things, it's never that clear cut.  Regulation is a complicated and nuanced subject, so it will likely take some time before we manage to strike the right balance.

[BitcoinHodler]

the problem starts from when FUDs become effective. at some point everyone starts liking them and doing the same. it is not about being true or not, and it is not just about certain terms. when a news about some regulation comes out and everyone sees a drop thanks to the FUD, next time automatically everyone starts dumping because they expect FUD and then a drop.

[TheQuin]

Finally, it doesn't make any sense to cry over:
a) poor security of crypto trading and
b) regulation
at the same time.

If it could be proven that regulation would, in fact, provide more security, then perhaps it would be a less contentious issue.  But all the regulation in the world isn't going to prevent hacks and thefts.  One could even argue it may have the opposite effect and create more security risks.  If regulation means exchanges have to keep records of all their customers' personal details stored, this could lead to an increased threat of identity theft.  It wouldn't just be the coins people will try to break into the exchanges for, it's also a potential cache of photo ID that could either be sold for profit or used to commit fraud.  As with all things, it's never that clear cut.  Regulation is a complicated and nuanced subject, so it will likely take some time before we manage to strike the right balance.

Regulation of fiat markets is mainly in place to protect the customers. Keeping client funds in segregated banks accounts, insuring against theft and other losses and enforcement of data protection rules are part of that. They are also there to ensure a fair playing field for all market participants. All these things would be beneficial also in crypto exchange.

Where the fear comes is that regulation is used excessively to force out those that do not want to succumb to it. Satoshi's original purpose:

..allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.

As long as we can still do that then we don't have much to fear from regulations.

[gentlemand]

I've been consistently staggered at the level of reading comprehension on display in places like this and elsewhere. It really appears to me that barely anyone reads beyond a headline, and more often than not they lack the mental firepower to interpret that correctly.

My guess is 80% read the first couple of words of a headline. The next 15% make it to the end of the headline. 5% actually bother to click through. 4.9% don't get beyond the first paragraph. 0.09% gets to the end. 0.01% actually takes the time to understand what they've read.

[brooklynian]

Thank you so much for demystifying this subject which has been a matter for discussion in the recent time. Very many people often confuse regulation with prohibition. People should now know that the government did not say they are bringing and end to cryptocurrency.

[BrewMaster]

I noticed that each time when a word "regulation" & stem "crypto" appear in the media together, a FUD starts to spread all over the crypto community.

is it really "every time"? i have no proof but i think it is not every time, for example last year a couple of countries like Japan regulated bitcoin and no FUD was spread.
i believe it is mostly timing + regulation in certain countries. for example if it is China, everyone is going to panic no matter what! it is as if they are programmed to panic.

besides at the end of the day we are talking about bitcoin, a decentralized currency. regulations should not even matter for it. at least not as much as the panic goes.

[sorrysteve1]

I've been consistently staggered at the level of reading comprehension on display in places like this and elsewhere. It really appears to me that barely anyone reads beyond a headline, and more often than not they lack the mental firepower to interpret that correctly.

My guess is 80% read the first couple of words of a headline. The next 15% make it to the end of the headline. 5% actually bother to click through. 4.9% don't get beyond the first paragraph. 0.09% gets to the end. 0.01% actually takes the time to understand what they've read.

Sorry, you lost me at 'I've been consistently staggered at the level of reading comprehension' - there were too many words over 2 syllables that I just couldn't manage it. I don't think that what you speak of is unique to cryptocurrencies or this forum. I believe it's something that is happening world over, people are too stuck in the idea of being 'busy' and having everything 'on-demand' that they do not bother to take one moment to verify the information they are spoon-fed and as you said they definitely do not take the time to consider it and what that actually means. As this continues it's only allowing the powers that be to shape the minds of the masses and use their naivety for their own benefit.

[salterious]

I never have been a proponent that regulation is a bad thing, in fact I have been wishing it comes earlier because the big investors will come after that. It is the back and forth that I don't like, the media manipulation which I don't like, but then again who is to blame for this manipulation? Yes the media writes these stories, but it takes two to tango. You need somebody on the other end to eat it up, and sadly in crypto most people aren't thinking for themselves and they eat up whatever propaganda is being fed to them, makes me wanna cry . If we didn't succumb to weak thoughts or feelings, I don't think the markets would be as volatile as they are now.

[digaran]

I never have been a proponent that regulation is a bad thing, in fact I have been wishing it comes earlier because the big investors will come after that. It is the back and forth that I don't like, the media manipulation which I don't like, but then again who is to blame for this manipulation? Yes the media writes these stories, but it takes two to tango. You need somebody on the other end to eat it up, and sadly in crypto most people aren't thinking for themselves and they eat up whatever propaganda is being fed to them, makes me wanna cry . If we didn't succumb to weak thoughts or feelings, I don't think the markets would be as volatile as they are now.

Regulation is bad and is prohibition. centralized markets are prohibiting some countries and some of their people. when you are regulated, you will have to prohibit the same people from using your services.

[avikz]

I never have been a proponent that regulation is a bad thing, in fact I have been wishing it comes earlier because the big investors will come after that. It is the back and forth that I don't like, the media manipulation which I don't like, but then again who is to blame for this manipulation? Yes the media writes these stories, but it takes two to tango. You need somebody on the other end to eat it up, and sadly in crypto most people aren't thinking for themselves and they eat up whatever propaganda is being fed to them, makes me wanna cry . If we didn't succumb to weak thoughts or feelings, I don't think the markets would be as volatile as they are now.

Regulation is bad and is prohibition. centralized markets are prohibiting some countries and some of their people. when you are regulated, you will have to prohibit the same people from using your services.

I don't think so. Regulation is certainly doesn't mean prohibition as correctly pointed out by op here. That is the point he is trying to make and it is completely valid. Regulation is a framework provided by an authority/government to regulate an activity, it doesn't prohibit an that activity to occur.

On the other hand, prohibition means restricting the same activity to occur. I strongly believe, regulation will actually bring good result to the crypto economy. If we want Cryptocurrency to be adopted by mass, it needs to be regulated. May be directly contradicting the idea of decentralized currency, but it is good for the entire ecosystem.

[dado7]

People does not know that our crypto community needs regulation in order to prevent some of the money laundering and also for protecting the investors. Many people will start to invest because it is now secured.

My thoughts exactly.

If it could be proven that regulation would, in fact, provide more security, then perhaps it would be a less contentious issue.  But all the regulation in the world isn't going to prevent hacks and thefts.  One could even argue it may have the opposite effect and create more security risks.  If regulation means exchanges have to keep records of all their customers' personal details stored, this could lead to an increased threat of identity theft.  It wouldn't just be the coins people will try to break into the exchanges for, it's also a potential cache of photo ID that could either be sold for profit or used to commit fraud.  As with all things, it's never that clear cut.  Regulation is a complicated and nuanced subject, so it will likely take some time before we manage to strike the right balance.

I agree that there should be some concerns, but not FUD, FUD is totally unnecessary. About identity, I am really not sure that Governments, because we are talking about Governmental regulations, will be selling proprietary information around. And regarding the usual privacy concerns, I really don't think I have anything to hide and hence I am never worried about those issues... I would mind someone putting a camera or a wormhole in my home, or peeking through the window, but this is also not what we are talking about when we are talking about Governments, except if we were some celebrity persons or politicians, but even they should have more concerns over the pushy news people then Governments. "Should", and you know what I mean by that.


@All the others, not quoted - thank you for the support

[dado7]

I've been consistently staggered at the level of reading comprehension on display in places like this and elsewhere. It really appears to me that barely anyone reads beyond a headline, and more often than not they lack the mental firepower to interpret that correctly.

My guess is 80% read the first couple of words of a headline. The next 15% make it to the end of the headline. 5% actually bother to click through. 4.9% don't get beyond the first paragraph. 0.09% gets to the end. 0.01% actually takes the time to understand what they've read.

Gentlemand, I am quoting you separately because you touched a much wider subject here. The problem with reading these days is very apparent, at least in my country. It wasn't enough that most of the people don't have a capacity or will to read books, most of them being discouraged by the poor education system in which there was a constant obligation to read books not interesting and adequate for a target age, but now we also have a problem of rushed times where "nobody has time for anything" and a constant overflow of information potentiated with the accessibility of technology.....

However, most reads are easy, unsubstantial and people got used to not reading more than two sentences. This also provided ground for click baits and similar news manipulations.

This is of course also reflecting on the problem I mentioned in the OP.