And this I’m afraid that coinbase will have to give up to the control system which is what I don’t want to see happen but they might be able to negotiate fairly not to start the centralization of bitcoin and/with crypto in a bit but gradually with some confusing terms that some people will be celebrating once the deal is done, think I’m beginning to develop doubt how long we can go with bitcoin even though price might surge yet if you really loved the core ideas of bitcoin and satoshi motives you will be disgusted with what the terms of the bill states.
What the fuck are you talking about? Coinbase has no control over a "system" here, and most of the issues that they raised barely have a direct effect on them directly. While the objections are mostly related to stuff that happens in the shitcoin world, that does not mean that Coinbase is the supreme overlord of that "system". They have made good objections here, DeFi has to be preserved -- among other things -- even if it is primarily about shitcoins. Any laws that slowly infringe on the autonomy of people to use decentralized tools of any kind could create an unforeseen precedence or consequences in the future.
And what the fuck are you saying too? Because it’s obvious that coinbase has no control system nor did I mention anything of that nature, you should work on your understanding skills, “control system” which I am referring to is the government (centralized authorities) and centralized system is a controlled system. Maybe you read wrong, so you should try to reread and understand first.
The government is not a "control system" here, the lobbyists are. Don't write spammy shitposts here, you didn't read anything in this thread.
So basically it's a bill that primarily targets the yield advantage of banks. Yeah, good luck passing that without introducing an endless list of regulations that re-create another monopoly on yield.
You can effectively tokenize only bearer assets, in my head, such as USDT, ETH, and bitcoin. I don't understand how tokenization makes any sense for stuff like stocks or real estate. What happens if I own an e-NVDA and lose the private key? I've yet to found a sufficient response to this simple question.
I could ask you the same question, what happens if you own Bitcoin and you lose the private key? From the company side or the regulator side they couldn't care less if you lost e-NVDA shares or not, it does not have an effect on everyone else -- and traditionally when it comes to ownership they do not know whether someone who owned stock already died and whatnot from a top-down perspective. You should not consider these things from a general overview perspective, but you must consider every potential solution in detail. There have been cases historically, albeit rarely, where complete ownership or proof of some documents have been lost. There are various things that are done in those cases, but each time it depended on the specific nature of the situation.
Tokenization of real world stuff has a lot of potential benefits, you have no idea how convoluted and bad the financial system is -- especially in Europe. There is a ridiculous number of unnecessary intermediaries, high fees, settlement is very slow and so forth. If I recall there was somewhere an overview picture for these things but I have a trouble locating it. If I do find it I will post it here or send it to you so that you have a look. Further, you must differentiate between different types of solutions:
1) Basic tokenization, which is what most are pursuing, it is just wrapping ownership to make it faster to trade among other things. It is nothing fancy and it is essentially a duplicate ledger of the usual ledger.
2) Native issuance. Some are pursuing this, it is much harder but it can come with many more benefits -- that relate to the problem of intermediaries, settlement and fees as I have mentioned.
There is potential and it is an interesting topic, but like with NFTs, most companies that are pursuing this are just money-grab scams that do the least effort possible. They are the ones that are negatively influencing the space.
Brian Armstrong has responded to the above tweet
saying that it's inaccurate, and they're currently working on some ideas to help the "community banks".
Read Art of the Deal and forget about "inaccurate information". They are posting this in public only to strengthen their own positions in the negotiations, each is its own battle.
