REGULATIONS - A boon or a tale of woe?

[geminiboy]

In a real world economy, the price of an asset goes up when the demand increases. The demand increases only when the particular assets is circulated throughout the economy and every parties involved in a transaction want to use that assets.

Lets take an example of USD. Majority of the world trade are done by USD as a transaction medium. That one factor, keeps the demand of USD higher which push its value to remain at the top. Now lets implement the same rule in crypto world.

I personally believe, regulation will be good for the crypto economy because it will increase the adoption rate which will further increase the circulation on bitcoin pushing the demand higher. Remember, I am not referring to over-regulation here. A simple regulation means an acceptance notification notifying cryptos as a legal tender along with  pre-specified tax slabs as per the market standard.

This kind of regulation will actually encourage a lot of online/offline merchants to begin accepting cryptocurrency as a method of payment alongside fiat. It will encourage a lot of people to take their service fees in cryptos. Overall acceptance rate will be increased which will push the demand and circulation to another notch higher. This is one single factor that can drive immense growth in the crypto market for good.

Just my two cents!

if we think crypto / bitcoin will be like USD then what will happen is that bitcoin is worth stabilizing without a high increase, this in my opinion will reduce the interest of big traders to bitcoin, government regulation will be a bitcoin value like fiat money which can be controlled by the government itself that's just my personal thought

[Seeker#9]

I think it depend on a type of regulation a particular country might want to impose. Countries with strict laws are usually the one that imposes strict regulations that may eventually affect or hurt the cryptocurrency market in that place. Other countries has crypto friendly regulation with an aim to protect its people from scams and other illegal activities. Regulation is seem to be inevitable because a group of wealthy countries have been planning to impose it in the near future.

[Kakmakr]

There are "good" regulations and there are "bad" regulations. The BitLicense in NY is a example of "bad" regulations, because it was implemented to complicate and stall Bitcoin adoption, because it was too complicated and expensive for most people to adhere to.

The Japanese government are pulling the right strings with their self-regulation proposals, because it is not restrictive or too complex to adhere to and it encourage innovation. <This is an example of "good" regulations> 

[avikz]

Merchants have still been using it, allowing it even before any legality and regulations were ever discussed before, that 10k BTC pizza was bought when nothing was being regulated.

That was a mare exception buddy! There was stories about a lady who bought a car using bitcoin as well. But can we consider this as a mass adoption?? Definitely not! But to see mass adoption of bitcoin or other cryptos, we need regulation so that it can be considered as a legal tender. The way we are using paytm (since you are from my country, you will understand), probably then we will be able to use bitcoin for our daily transactions. Without regulation it is not possible!

I reiterate, that I don't support over regulation like Japan is trying to do. A simple regulation is what I am supporting! 

The country you're talking about, is the country I live in. I believe that most people in our Government have got poops in their minds and based on their own stupid analogies, they're giving silly statements that BTC is ponzi, BTC is too volatile to be regulated, etc. Now, when they are seeing that too much money can be made through this investment (though risky, but still highly rewarding) and they can either put people in jail for various unreasonable reasons or take huge taxes over gains from this, they're now going to regulate these markets.

I truly support this statement! Our government doesn't have much understanding of cryptos and that's why they have stated that bitcoin is a ponzi. The problem here is with the society itself, where you need to have post graduation to get a private company job but no education requirement to become a political leader. Even if there are bureaucrats helping them to understand the matter, the decision making power is still on that politician. 

Tell me, why the heck were they stopping everything (including banks) from dealing with crypto-related exchanges? And what's the guarantee that after taking a full hold of everyone's finances in crypto space, they won't stop everything once again and take back everything from us when BTC would once again be at its new peak?

Our government is stopping banks from providing service to crypto related businesses is a precaution from larger impact. Frankly, I don't have much hope on our government that they will understand the power and impact of crypto. However, at some point of time, if they legalize crypto and later decides to ban it, they can't provide retrospective effect on that.

Just for an example, lets assume that alcohol is legal in your state and you enjoyed few pegs at your home today. Now if the state government decides to ban alcohol from 15th January, they can't arrest you for the drinks you had on 6th January. That's unethical and no political administration will do that thinking of their votebank.

[gentlemand]

It doesn't matter what our feelings are, the people who run many of the most popular services are running towards it. The regulators themselves certainly will not turn a blind eye.

The best outcome is that regulated crypto becomes so enormous that the need to move back into fiat fades away. At that point regulators are screwed if they want to retain control. It will fly away like a randy birdie.

Of course by that point there'll be crypto banks bossing you around but also huge advances in decentralised exchanges and wallets plus enough people with the appetite and tools to shun attempts to control them. Imagine what Venezuela would look like if there was a closed loop crypto economy there that was simply uninterested and had no requirement for the Bolivar.

[South Park]

There are "good" regulations and there are "bad" regulations. The BitLicense in NY is a example of "bad" regulations, because it was implemented to complicate and stall Bitcoin adoption, because it was too complicated and expensive for most people to adhere to.

The Japanese government are pulling the right strings with their self-regulation proposals, because it is not restrictive or too complex to adhere to and it encourage innovation. <This is an example of "good" regulations> 

I agree, regulations are inevitable and governments cannot let a market like this to be unregulated but if they try to take control over the market with their regulations then investors will simply avoid that jurisdiction and move to countries with less restricting laws, Japan is understanding this correctly they want to get the prosperity that cryptocurrencies will bring and are only introducing enough regulation to not scare investors away but if at some point they change their posture then investors will leave.

[bellamente]

Most people say that the regulation violates the basic rules of Bitcoin.
But isn't the main purpose of a bitcoin to become legal tender? I think we should make some sacrifices.

[gentlemand]

Most people say that the regulation violates the basic rules of Bitcoin.
But isn't the main purpose of a bitcoin to become legal tender? I think we should make some sacrifices.

I wouldn't say the aim was to become legal tender, though that can be helpful. The aim is to be a currency that anyone anywhere can use without having to seek the permission of someone else. That makes it entirely voluntary between the person sending it and the person receiving it.

In the future there'll be places where it will be possible to pay taxes with it while in other countries it might be a criminal offence to even possess it. Neither matters between the two parties transacting.

[Stedsm]

There are "good" regulations and there are "bad" regulations. The BitLicense in NY is a example of "bad" regulations, because it was implemented to complicate and stall Bitcoin adoption, because it was too complicated and expensive for most people to adhere to.

The Japanese government are pulling the right strings with their self-regulation proposals, because it is not restrictive or too complex to adhere to and it encourage innovation. <This is an example of "good" regulations> 

I've read some more things about the VanEck and SolidX ETF with physically backed Bitcoin Futures, I don't really know whether it'll be good for us or not because it's going to increase liquidity but will surely decrease the volatility, so stability is what these investors are looking for? As well, for these to happen, regulations are needed to come in action. The only fear I have is, even if everything goes right and BTC gets regulated the good way as you said, isn't there a possibility that after having a complete hold on the crypto space, Governments will let things go smooth and will not interfere in the ongoing works and developments as well as any/all parts of crypto and/or even use their power to stop it from the roots? Is it going to be a permanent solution or just a lollipop or a bubble gum that will pop whenever they want it to burst?

Most people say that the regulation violates the basic rules of Bitcoin.
But isn't the main purpose of a bitcoin to become legal tender? I think we should make some sacrifices.

I wouldn't say the aim was to become legal tender, though that can be helpful. The aim is to be a currency that anyone anywhere can use without having to seek the permission of someone else. That makes it entirely voluntary between the person sending it and the person receiving it.

In the future there'll be places where it will be possible to pay taxes with it while in other countries it might be a criminal offence to even possess it. Neither matters between the two parties transacting.

All we need is this BTC to become a mainstream global currency that can be used anywhere without involving any third party in order to reduce transaction costs and transact next to 'instant'. I know that I've been against regulations from the start for my own reasons, but even if it gets implemented, I believe it should be done at global level including each and every country that is related in terms of economy; so that if regulations are same and at a specific level, it'll be possible for those countries to trade easily in BTC using it as a store of value.

[libert19]

Valid points, but these days there are so many scams in the cryptocurrency world, I believe regulations will help curb it better, at least to some extent?

[Stedsm]

Valid points, but these days there are so many scams in the cryptocurrency world, I believe regulations will help curb it better, at least to some extent?

In order to upgrade BTC from just an ordinary cryptocurrency to an asset of its kind, it needs to be traded on a fully regulated exchange that is secure enough to store our assets like cryptocurrencies, and Bakkt has the potential to provide such level of security and for that, I think we'll need to welcome regulations with both our hands opened (as even if we are against it, we're bound to accept them).

[South Park]

Valid points, but these days there are so many scams in the cryptocurrency world, I believe regulations will help curb it better, at least to some extent?

Regulations will help but common sense would be many times better, how many people are investing in icos which have no possibility of becoming successful and they do it before making any kind of research about the project? You can find that most of the icos are scams by digging a little bit or using the forum to see the comments of those which dedicate their time to look for such scams.

[mohammedmattar]

I see that there must be a compromise formula between the two sides
The BTC community, the traditional financial system, and the people behind it - governments, banks and the like
But in the end it must keep BTC retain its entity and personality
And the goals for which it was established
Decentralization and financial freedom to and other goals
Of course, the government will not give up its control easily
How can this happen?
Truth .. I do not have I imagine.

[sudeshkumar]

Regulations  are boon when these are implemented in true spirit ,there are various regulations which are evaded by the non compliance and the governments can not trace it resulting in unaccounted money generation then it is used by the anti social elements for anti societal activities .Mass adoption of the currency is necessary so its value increases and  faith of the users is also certain.If the digital currency with blockchain technology is given an opportunity of mass adoption through the regulations, people s faith automatically will increase and the currency will perform better. 

[Natalim]

Regardless of what the result will be, we cannot prevent this regulation.
The government will certainly wants in control of things, they looked at the crypto and they saw we are going so that rings their bell.
We should be ready because we will be force to adopt in order not to violate any law. At first maybe there's a little negative effect but along
the way as people slowly understands everything, this will bring positive effect.

[Seeker#9]

Cryptocurrency regulation is certain to happen and several countries have already imposed their own rules on cryptocurrencies. The G20 summt that held last year decided to impose regulation on cryptocurrencies to combat money laubdering and other crimes that uses the vrtual coins and they also worked together to monitor the rapid digitization that happening in the world. I think it will be a boon to those who want to keep  themselve from scams and illegal activities.

[Stedsm]

Regulations  are boon when these are implemented in true spirit ,there are various regulations which are evaded by the non compliance and the governments can not trace it resulting in unaccounted money generation then it is used by the anti social elements for anti societal activities .Mass adoption of the currency is necessary so its value increases and  faith of the users is also certain.If the digital currency with blockchain technology is given an opportunity of mass adoption through the regulations, people s faith automatically will increase and the currency will perform better. 

First of all, it's not a currency, nor is it being used as the same as the value is too much volatile that we can only call this thing an asset that's being traded - so don't say that currency will perform better because it's not a currency in public's views but rather more like a stock over which they can make some bucks. Secondly, it's true that tracing everything will become so easier and that, scams may (slightly) decrease in number and arrests may also happen in found scams (but then, whatever goes into Gov's hands will be used for their own good) and they're not really going to do anything in average Joe's support, even criticize him to stop using crypto as it was his/her fault if he/she loses the coins in any such scams. At least what we possess right now is kept safe and most importantly "PRIVATE". Do you really want to lose your freedom of using crypto anonymously just because you want BTC to perform better? I'm against regulations knowing that it can't be ditched but we can bypass it. Govs are in the mood of putting up clauses like 'you can't send your BTC outside your country without letting them know or without their permission', 'you need to pay huge taxes over crypto gains', and so on.

[squatter]

At least what we possess right now is kept safe and most importantly "PRIVATE". Do you really want to lose your freedom of using crypto anonymously just because you want BTC to perform better? I'm against regulations knowing that it can't be ditched but we can bypass it. Govs are in the mood of putting up clauses like 'you can't send your BTC outside your country without letting them know or without their permission', 'you need to pay huge taxes over crypto gains', and so on.

Bitcoin already falls under lots of existing regulations (tax laws, money transmission laws) and many governments are using companies like Chainalysis to observe how their residents are using it. In my country (the US), we don't need explicit regulations to tell us to pay taxes on capital gains. It's already required since Bitcoin is a type of property.

If Bitcoin is completely unregulated where you live, enjoy it while it lasts. The bigger the market gets, the more control governments will want. I'm all for breaking unenforceable laws and bypassing dumb regulations, but it's going to get harder and harder to avoid things like AML/KYC with trading and buying/selling for fiat. Governments are really cracking down on this stuff.

[Stedsm]

--snip--

Bitcoin already falls under lots of existing regulations (tax laws, money transmission laws) and many governments are using companies like Chainalysis to observe how their residents are using it. In my country (the US), we don't need explicit regulations to tell us to pay taxes on capital gains. It's already required since Bitcoin is a type of property.

If Bitcoin is completely unregulated where you live, enjoy it while it lasts. The bigger the market gets, the more control governments will want. I'm all for breaking unenforceable laws and bypassing dumb regulations, but it's going to get harder and harder to avoid things like AML/KYC with trading and buying/selling for fiat. Governments are really cracking down on this stuff.

They are not going to crack it down for us at a stretch, they'll see and utilize the markets' sentiments, play with them, gain some money as it's a Billion dollar industry after all, and then clamp it down like a balloon to burst it off. The KYC thing through exchanges is a favor for them actually as they're gaining lots and lots of data of people whom they'll catch today or tomorrow and start torturing those innocent ones against charges they've not even committed. Regulations are good only if they come on an agreement that no one's privacy will be teased with, at any cost.

[andi_wahid]

I think if the government tries to regulate this with their provisions this will be a big woe. they will enter the annoying bureaucratic system they used to use and this will make confined people trade with an unclear system.