WINKLEVOSS: ‘CRYPTO DOESN’T NEED RULES,’ CRYPTOCURRENCY COMPANIES DO

[Wingleness]

It’s no secret that the Winklevoss twins have been championing the ‘sanitization‘ of cryptocurrency. With their “fully regulated” Gemini exchange, their goal is to change the Wild West image of the fledgling industry that’s been plagued by exchange hacks, scams and fraudulent security offerings.

https://bitcoinist.com/winklevoss-cryptocurrency-trust-rules/

[butka]

Indeed. Apart from the rules embedded in the Bitcoin protocol, no other rules are needed.

The moment you send your coins to a third party (exchange, fund, company, or similar) you are no longer in control of your coins. Whether some external rules may help you retain some degree of control is questionable. Rules may help, but as many crypto owners have already experienced many times in the past, rules may be broken and money can be lost.

Rules or no rules, it all comes down to this: If you don't have control over the private keys associated with your coins, you don't own anything. 

[avikz]

It’s no secret that the Winklevoss twins have been championing the ‘sanitization‘ of cryptocurrency. With their “fully regulated” Gemini exchange, their goal is to change the Wild West image of the fledgling industry that’s been plagued by exchange hacks, scams and fraudulent security offerings.

https://bitcoinist.com/winklevoss-cryptocurrency-trust-rules/

How can one prevent exchange hack through rules and regulations? It can only increase the chance of not getting hacked if the businesses follow some standard security protocol and have adequate insurance cover. 

Also the billboard of Gemini says that,



And after receiving a fair amount of criticism from the bitcoin users worldwide, Cameron came back with the statement that you've mentioned in the thread subject! Cryptos can't be regulated - that's an universal truth! However, I too strongly believe that the business entities must be regulated who are built around cryptos. because the mass adoption can only happen when there is regulation because it brings trust within the system. 

[YuginKadoya]

Exchange needs rules and I think there are certain rules that take control over the way they sometimes change it, well I really think that it is OK to have certain rules in the exchange or certain cryptocurrency companies to ensure the safety and securities of a certain individual, This is to protect the transaction from a criminal eye and thief as well, The security issue is a fault of human error and we can not blame cryptocurrency about it, We should spread the word about it so people would not lose their trust over bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

[alisafidel58]

How can one prevent exchange hack through rules and regulations? It can only increase the chance of not getting hacked if the businesses follow some standard security protocol and have adequate insurance cover.

An increase in the chance of not getting hacked means that you are preventing such hacks from happening into your company. Rules and Regulations is the key needed for such event to happen.

And after receiving a fair amount of criticism from the bitcoin users worldwide, Cameron came back with the statement that you've mentioned in the thread subject! Cryptos can't be regulated - that's an universal truth! However, I too strongly believe that the business entities must be regulated who are built around cryptos. because the mass adoption can only happen when there is regulation because it brings trust within the system. 

It really cant be regulated but at least regulate the exchanges because they are businesses and businesses around the world are regulated by a law. Businesses that are regulated by laws attracts more costumer or investor alike.

[DooMAD]

It's a point I've always raised when people discuss things like consumer protection.  Individual companies can and should be regulated because there need to be consequences when rules are broken.  But it's simply not feasible to attempt to regulate open-source protocols in which rules are enforced by user nodes.  Particularly if proposed laws would weaken the security of those protocols or diminish the fungibility of the currencies being transacted.

[dothebeats]

Agreed, services and companies built around cryptocurrency should be regulated in order to enforce consumer protection and to make sure that no company will have the guts to trip themselves over with their own wires and screw with their peers and consumers because no law will ever held them accountable for their mistakes and shortcomings. Bitcoin and crypto per se is already fine without regulations, and I'm pretty sure most people who are handling cryptocurrencies know how to discern a shady transaction from a legitimate one by now. Government interference should only be focused on companies dealing with crypto and trying to make profits off of it and leave the open-source cryptocurrencies as it is as they literally have no control over it, no matter how much grip they think they have on the said currency.

[LeGaulois]

It's true. Even if cryptos are regulated (for people) it's supposed to be a monetary system outside of governments control, which they have no control over, no way to stop you using it nor to know you own coins. The governments won't knock at your door to search your house to see if they can find a seed, hardware wallet. That was the IFM plan firstly but once they figured it's not feasible with efficiency they gave up.

[franky1]

regulations DO NOT mean consumer protections

regulations means a business approved gets a shiny sherrifs badge to then monitor and police its customers.
we need to stop trying to scream and demand for regulations that allow banks/businesses to get away with crap simply because they have a licence. and instead scream and demand for consumer protections, where it become easier for consumers to take companies to court(consumer protection)... not the other way around companies take consumers to court(regulations)

i still laugh and facepalm at all the people that think that not only giving a business funds.. but then advocating that a business should be given a shiny licence to then tell users what they can/cant do. while the business is allowed to do many foolish things with users funds

[Sandus_Cryptolover]

In every system, human errors is inevitable thus the need for a regulated platform that is backed with rules for the safety of investors assets as well as the platform itself.

There's a saying that "without rules and order, chaos is the order of the day". Let exchanges have backed up rules they must adhere to.

[MakeMoneyBtc]

Rules are useless if they cannot be respected and applied. Since governments dont have any kind of control over cryptocurrency , they dont have much control over cryptocurrency companies. In conclusion cryptocurrencies dont need rules ,meanining they dont need companies and every person should have full control over their own crypto.

[1Referee]

i still laugh and facepalm at all the people that think that not only giving a business funds.. but then advocating that a business should be given a shiny licence to then tell users what they can/cant do. while the business is allowed to do many foolish things with users funds

I'm not sure what the extent is of how businesses are allowed to do 'foolish' things with user funds, but you have a point here.

The thing however is that a licensed business is less likely to do foolish things with user funds than a non licensed business. Coinbase, while I'm not particularly a fan of it, hasn't gone through an exchange level hack where coins were lost, hasn't an insane amount of its holdings sitting in hot wallets, knows how to securely generate key pairs, etc.

In the end, it's people's fault for letting centralized services use them as a punching bag. If you don't like it, quit using it.

[shamc]

This is a good thing because crypto has many participants and it needs to cater for a variety of people. Some are crooks in the dark web, others are investors that need regulation. Good to have them on board

[betty11]

Exchanges, ICO, IEO must all be regulated to avoid scams. When investors have some level of assurance that their funds are protected from hacking and scams, their overall participation will be high and positive instead of this current uncertainty of possible losses.

[mohammedmattar]

Exchange needs rules and I think there are certain rules that take control over the way they sometimes change it, well I really think that it is OK to have certain rules in the exchange or certain cryptocurrency companies to ensure the safety and securities of a certain individual, This is to protect the transaction from a criminal eye and thief as well, The security issue is a fault of human error and we can not blame cryptocurrency about it, We should spread the word about it so people would not lose their trust over bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

This is a very difficult equation
Adoption needs to be organized to increase confidence
crypto is based on absolute freedom
We need access to a point that reassures the public and increases trust in crypto
At the same time does not cancel the features of the character of encryption and most important financial freedom and the abolition of the mediator.

[tunapa]

I think they are right on this. Taking a deep look at it , crypto dosent need any more rules. The third party agents that served as exchange platforms are the ones that need to be regulated and have a standard of operation. This will boost the confidence of people using the platform and will reduce scam rates and also reduce rate at which new exchange platforms  pop up this days .

[sandra_x]

The ideal solution for bitcoin exchange should be a decentralized exchanges, because centralized exchanges provide a single point of failure especially as regard security and anonymity. But the current decentralized exchanges we have has not lived up to to expectations. It now seem having centralized exchanges with regulations is a lesser of two evils centralization requires the trust of third party.

[buwaytress]

@avikz That's the first thought crossed my mind. They spent millions on their "crypto needs rules" campaigns. Billboards, public transport ads. Of course, I don't really think they're now going back against what they said. I think anyone who understands crypto knows that's what they meant when they said "crypto needs rules".

The news article linked also clearly says, that's what they're clarifying: that they meant crypto business. Not that there aren't people who actually think Bitcoin needs rules and CEOs and governing bodies;)

[lizardbtc]

It’s no secret that the Winklevoss twins have been championing the ‘sanitization‘ of cryptocurrency. With their “fully regulated” Gemini exchange, their goal is to change the Wild West image of the fledgling industry that’s been plagued by exchange hacks, scams and fraudulent security offerings.

https://bitcoinist.com/winklevoss-cryptocurrency-trust-rules/

And after receiving a fair amount of criticism from the bitcoin users worldwide, Cameron came back with the statement that you've mentioned in the thread subject! Cryptos can't be regulated - that's an universal truth! However, I too strongly believe that the business entities must be regulated who are built around cryptos. because the mass adoption can only happen when there is regulation because it brings trust within the system. 

Marketing trick for gemini!

Regulation is inevitable if we want broader adoption - I can agree to this. Many people/companies will see cryptos as a gray area and if you were to ask somebody still he will think twice if this thing is legal. By having the strict rules that are made public will only have an impact on the crypto space in a positive manner, to grow more.

[Teawhalee]

If new rules are made for crypto then there will be no essence for it to be decentralized. No new rule is needed for cryptocurrencies. Let’s just get the crypto exchangers regulated and that will settle everything.