Regulators are on next level desperate on Bitcoin and the cryptospace

[Kong Hey Pakboy]

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.

[hatshepsut93]

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. 

[Darker45]

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

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.

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.

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.

[bbc.reporter]

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.

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.

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.

[amishmanish]

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.

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.

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.

[rodskee]

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.



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

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.

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.”[/i]

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

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.

[NotATether]

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 already here.

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

It's not just for US but for the other countries too.

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.

[leea-1334]

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!

[yazher]

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.

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.

[Wind_FURY]

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. 

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?

[stompix]

The SEC chairman knows the government has no power over the internet in this age of VPNs, TOR and other privacy tools.

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 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 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.

[Lucius]

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

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.

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.

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.

[AicecreaME]

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.

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.

[tbct_mt2]

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. 

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.

[DooMAD]

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?

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. 

[franky1]

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.

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, 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.

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

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?

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.  

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

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.

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.

[bbc.reporter]

The SEC chairman knows the government has no power over the internet in this age of VPNs, TOR and other privacy tools.

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?

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?

[onecall123]

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. 

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.

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.

[slaman29]

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.

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.

[kryptqnick]

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?

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, 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.