‘It's all bullshit’: Democrats unload on the crypto industry while hearings loom(semafor.com)
semafor.com
‘It's all bullshit’: Democrats unload on the crypto industry while hearings loom
https://www.semafor.com/article/12/01/2022/dems-crypto-bullshit
12 comments
> maybe these billions of dollars had a purpose?
Tens of millions, not billions [1]. Profligacy whose purpose seems to have been to convince retail investors he had an in on the Hill.
Plenty of people spend tens of millions and buy nothing more than press and photo ops. Until we see evidence of policy pressure, I am concluding he was another rich numpty.
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donor...
Tens of millions, not billions [1]. Profligacy whose purpose seems to have been to convince retail investors he had an in on the Hill.
Plenty of people spend tens of millions and buy nothing more than press and photo ops. Until we see evidence of policy pressure, I am concluding he was another rich numpty.
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donor...
> anonymously
How is this even possible? If political donations aren't attributed to the donor, couldn't foreign nations just donate too?
How is this even possible? If political donations aren't attributed to the donor, couldn't foreign nations just donate too?
Foreign nations do donate to US politicians.
I thought this was obvious. Ever since Citizens United (and more accurately, subsequent Supreme Court rulings which strengthened aspects of Citizens United), unlimited secret donations are not just possible, they're the norm.
I thought this was obvious. Ever since Citizens United (and more accurately, subsequent Supreme Court rulings which strengthened aspects of Citizens United), unlimited secret donations are not just possible, they're the norm.
I do assert that political representatives can be bought, but of course they're not exactly going to stay bought when the industry goes bust and the checks stop coming in.
It's funny to watch how crazy Bitcoin drives everyone.
Bitcoin was the hottest thing on IRC in 2009 because of the 2008 recession. The USD (and all other currencies) were becoming questionable in terms of stability. Bitcoin was meant to be a world-currency not tied to one government. Simple as that.
Don't like Bitcoin? Don't believe in it? Don't use it or accept it at your business. I'll continue to use and accept it because I like the concept.
Bitcoin was the hottest thing on IRC in 2009 because of the 2008 recession. The USD (and all other currencies) were becoming questionable in terms of stability. Bitcoin was meant to be a world-currency not tied to one government. Simple as that.
Don't like Bitcoin? Don't believe in it? Don't use it or accept it at your business. I'll continue to use and accept it because I like the concept.
> Bitcoin was meant to be a world-currency not tied to one government.
And yet the dumbest thing you could have done in 2009 is make a Bitcoin transaction. People who used their bitcoins for buying pizza ended up paying a mansion's worth of money for extra pepperoni.
If the goal of Bitcoin was to be a currency it's a terrible one at that.
And yet the dumbest thing you could have done in 2009 is make a Bitcoin transaction. People who used their bitcoins for buying pizza ended up paying a mansion's worth of money for extra pepperoni.
If the goal of Bitcoin was to be a currency it's a terrible one at that.
I think you read one story about a pizza and really clung to it.
Or those early transactions are the only reason it ever grew into the behemoth it became. So if you were an early adopter, spending a little to make the rest of your stash valuable could be seen as an investment. If the guy didn't buy the pizza, then maybe Bitcoin never takes off.
That being said, I've never thought it would work well as a currency. I do like Ethereum due to its digital utility though.
That being said, I've never thought it would work well as a currency. I do like Ethereum due to its digital utility though.
If your goal is to have a pizza and not speculate on future value of internet-money, transacting with bitcoin is not a stupid thing to do
It is because you'd still have a lot more pizza. So unless you were starving, there really isn't a good reason.
That's like saying, "Don't like CFCs? Don't use them." It affects the rest of us with increased carbon emissions and increased fraud that we all have to pay for.
[deleted]
When you accept it, do you price dynamically based on the value in fiat currency? I'm curious if there's anyone left not doing that these days.
Yep, it grabs the latest price of Bitcoin for each invoice. A flat, non-dynamic price was cool when Bitcoin was under $100 (so "Starting at 0.1₿/mo")
[deleted]
Is the problem with crypto that it has no useful purpose or is it just riddled with fraud, like what happened at FTC?
It's a useful thought experiment to consider how much faith we would have in the banking industry today if it were as poorly regulated as the crypto industry.
It's a useful thought experiment to consider how much faith we would have in the banking industry today if it were as poorly regulated as the crypto industry.
> problem with crypto that it has no useful purpose or is it just riddled with fraud
It’s riddled with fraud. But so are other things. That it has no redeeming value makes the cost of crackdown palatable.
It’s riddled with fraud. But so are other things. That it has no redeeming value makes the cost of crackdown palatable.
The "problem" with crypto is that it was specifically designed as anti-finance.
Finance is a loaded term in the U.S. it's a composition of a few activities and responsibilities that you must fulfill to stay in business.
You must firewall customer deposits. You must do OFAC. You must do KYC/AML. All of these responsibilities are tied to the act of money transmission. Keep in mind, money here is USD.
Most "Crypto" tries to sidestep those extra responsibilities. You still do money transmission like activities and account management, but all that squicky social responsibility like maintaining transaction records, OFAC, KYC/AML, and sane institutional controls over customer assets? Naaaaaah.
If you implemented constructs like Monero and Tornado.Cash in USD, and tried to operate, you would be shut down faster than you can say "FIN-wha?" The only reason crypto hasn't, is because the on-ramps to crypto-USD have largely been locked down/brought into compliance. The cryptocurrencies in play are treated more as commodities than currency, and the tooling to integrate financial surveillance of the public ledgers crawls forward as resources to handle it come into awareness at the institutional level.
The old one about crypto speed running the history of finance applies. Every regulation they didn't bother implementing has proved that, yes, the regulation in trad fi is still, in a sense, justified.
Finance is a loaded term in the U.S. it's a composition of a few activities and responsibilities that you must fulfill to stay in business.
You must firewall customer deposits. You must do OFAC. You must do KYC/AML. All of these responsibilities are tied to the act of money transmission. Keep in mind, money here is USD.
Most "Crypto" tries to sidestep those extra responsibilities. You still do money transmission like activities and account management, but all that squicky social responsibility like maintaining transaction records, OFAC, KYC/AML, and sane institutional controls over customer assets? Naaaaaah.
If you implemented constructs like Monero and Tornado.Cash in USD, and tried to operate, you would be shut down faster than you can say "FIN-wha?" The only reason crypto hasn't, is because the on-ramps to crypto-USD have largely been locked down/brought into compliance. The cryptocurrencies in play are treated more as commodities than currency, and the tooling to integrate financial surveillance of the public ledgers crawls forward as resources to handle it come into awareness at the institutional level.
The old one about crypto speed running the history of finance applies. Every regulation they didn't bother implementing has proved that, yes, the regulation in trad fi is still, in a sense, justified.
Crypto is an ideological position first, and a technology second (and only in a subordinate role as a framework for the ideological objective).
So whether it is useful depends on how one feels about the tradeoff between highly efficient but potentially more oppressive centralization of public capital (the incumbent position), vs. ineluctably, stupendously inefficient but notionally less corruptable decentralization of public capital (this is the crypto-blockchain position).
And notionally is pulling a heavy load here indeed, as we have seen time and again that cryptocurrency might as well be called kleptocurrency given the endless fiasco parade of rugpulls, outright fraud, concentration of the market's very thin real liquidity in a few hands (thus enabling Number Go Up chart puppetry), facilitation of rampant ransomware and extortion to the point of inflicting naked cruelty on innocent people, shutting down city services, hospitals and more.
So whether it is useful depends on how one feels about the tradeoff between highly efficient but potentially more oppressive centralization of public capital (the incumbent position), vs. ineluctably, stupendously inefficient but notionally less corruptable decentralization of public capital (this is the crypto-blockchain position).
And notionally is pulling a heavy load here indeed, as we have seen time and again that cryptocurrency might as well be called kleptocurrency given the endless fiasco parade of rugpulls, outright fraud, concentration of the market's very thin real liquidity in a few hands (thus enabling Number Go Up chart puppetry), facilitation of rampant ransomware and extortion to the point of inflicting naked cruelty on innocent people, shutting down city services, hospitals and more.
Democrats are the least skeptical about fiat, so hey, why not denounce it.
I do think crypto is all bullshit. And that's precisely why I think it should be completely unregulated.
Stop trying to legitimize it. Stop spending FBI resources trying to recover money stolen from crypto accounts.
If you want to spend law enforcement resources spend it on people who are running obvious scams like most of the exchange operators.
Stop trying to legitimize it. Stop spending FBI resources trying to recover money stolen from crypto accounts.
If you want to spend law enforcement resources spend it on people who are running obvious scams like most of the exchange operators.
[deleted]
There’s an easy solution, make it illegal to exchange cryptocurrency for dollars (and vise-versa) and the problem will solve itself. Crypto has no use case if you can’t convert to and from dollars.
Banning is the "easy solution"--just as easy as banning alcohol, drugs, and gambling has been in the past. What banning money exchanges will do is 1) drive it underground to money exchanges being done by unsavory characters who have no issues committing crimes up to and including physical violence, 2) Drive up enforcement costs and create an entire police enterprise whose mandate and funding depend on hunting these unsavory characters, 3) Deprive Uncle Sam of any and all tax revenue from capital gains, etc, etc...
I mean, all of this literally happened with alcohol, with cannabis, etc etc. Are we just going to keep repeating this cycle forever.
I mean, all of this literally happened with alcohol, with cannabis, etc etc. Are we just going to keep repeating this cycle forever.
[deleted]
Those other things are desirable in themselves. Cryptocurrency seems unlikely to fit the same mould.
Wait until you find out what people buy with cryptocurrency.
Sure, but at that point the cryptocurrency is a means to an end, not the end itself.
A buyer's intentions after the purchase of an illicit item have zero relevance to the evasion of law enforcement during the purchase itself.
I'm not sure I understand what this is a response to.
The assertion was that banning things is counterproductive, just look how much it failed for alcohol/drugs/gambling.
My counterpoint is that these things are desirable in themselves, cryptocurrency isn't really.
Your comeback is that it gets used for some of these things like drugs and gambling - yes, it does, that's a fine point. I agree
My response is that OK great, but cryptocurrency is a means there, not an end. And then you've said something about enforcement and intentions. Perhaps I should have expanded on my last post. What I meant is if cryptocurrency is harder to get, I don't think we'll see the exact same demand phenomenon as we would with those others things, even though cryptocurrency is used to pay for them right now, because cryptocurrency is not the object of desire itself.
Make drugs illegal, people still want drugs, so they go to the black market, which thrives, criminals make bank etc. They take risks to get the drugs.
Make gambling illegal, people still want to gamble, so they go to the gambling black market, which thrives, criminals make bank etc. They take risks to gamble.
Make cryptocurrency illegal, people still want ... drugs and gambling, so they either go to the crypto black market or maybe they find another way to pay for the drugs and gambling? They take risks to get drugs or gamble, not specifically for the crypto.
So I don't think this is wrong -
> A buyer's intentions after the purchase of an illicit item have zero relevance to the evasion of law enforcement during the purchase itself.
However I also don't think it really addresses the point that I was making, that while I agree prohibition has a history of not doing what it's supposed to, in the case of cryptocurrency I don't think it's safe to assume the same historical pattern would play out, because (for most people who aren't ideologically wed to it) cryptocurrency is second-order desirable, rather than the object of desire itself.
The assertion was that banning things is counterproductive, just look how much it failed for alcohol/drugs/gambling.
My counterpoint is that these things are desirable in themselves, cryptocurrency isn't really.
Your comeback is that it gets used for some of these things like drugs and gambling - yes, it does, that's a fine point. I agree
My response is that OK great, but cryptocurrency is a means there, not an end. And then you've said something about enforcement and intentions. Perhaps I should have expanded on my last post. What I meant is if cryptocurrency is harder to get, I don't think we'll see the exact same demand phenomenon as we would with those others things, even though cryptocurrency is used to pay for them right now, because cryptocurrency is not the object of desire itself.
Make drugs illegal, people still want drugs, so they go to the black market, which thrives, criminals make bank etc. They take risks to get the drugs.
Make gambling illegal, people still want to gamble, so they go to the gambling black market, which thrives, criminals make bank etc. They take risks to gamble.
Make cryptocurrency illegal, people still want ... drugs and gambling, so they either go to the crypto black market or maybe they find another way to pay for the drugs and gambling? They take risks to get drugs or gamble, not specifically for the crypto.
So I don't think this is wrong -
> A buyer's intentions after the purchase of an illicit item have zero relevance to the evasion of law enforcement during the purchase itself.
However I also don't think it really addresses the point that I was making, that while I agree prohibition has a history of not doing what it's supposed to, in the case of cryptocurrency I don't think it's safe to assume the same historical pattern would play out, because (for most people who aren't ideologically wed to it) cryptocurrency is second-order desirable, rather than the object of desire itself.
I understand your point more fully now, and agree that my second reply was somewhat orthogonal to it.
Crypto is a huge risk minimizer for buying illicit goods. Unless you make the punishment for purchasing cryptocurrencies severe (on par with buying/possession of the goods in question) you won't remove the motivation for using them as an intermediate means of exchange. If you do make the punishment sufficiently severe, you'll be sending people to jail for the exchange of the equivalent of digitally encrypted beanie babies. Have you thought through the implications of that? For whom is that solution easy?
Cryptocurrencies are a second-order desirable in the same way that meeting in private, instead of public, is. Would you support criminalizing private meetings and encrypted communications to the same end?
Crypto is a huge risk minimizer for buying illicit goods. Unless you make the punishment for purchasing cryptocurrencies severe (on par with buying/possession of the goods in question) you won't remove the motivation for using them as an intermediate means of exchange. If you do make the punishment sufficiently severe, you'll be sending people to jail for the exchange of the equivalent of digitally encrypted beanie babies. Have you thought through the implications of that? For whom is that solution easy?
Cryptocurrencies are a second-order desirable in the same way that meeting in private, instead of public, is. Would you support criminalizing private meetings and encrypted communications to the same end?
> Unless you make the punishment for purchasing cryptocurrencies severe (on par with buying/possession of the goods in question) you won't remove the motivation for using them as an intermediate means of exchange.
See I don't necessarily agree with you there, it all depends what you're trying to achieve. I think in the context of the discussion - an article which says that cryptocurrency is being seen as bullshit by democrats - you just have to make it difficult for normal people to participate in order to kill the current industry, and you can do that by regulating banks rather than individuals. You could make it illegal to market these things, illegal for exchanges to operate and for banks to send money to them, and you'd strangle the majority of it.
Yes, you're right that there would probably be a residual demand for it illicit purchases, gambling, that sort of stuff, but the mainstreaming of it as an investment/speculation vehicle would likely be crushed.
If I can't buy cryptocurrency by credit card or bank transfer then I'm probably not going to try and invest my pension in it, or invest in a high-yield staking account at Celsius, or just buy some BTC at an exchange to speculate on price rises, firstly because my bank would throw up obstacles and secondly because it would be difficult to rehabilitate any gains into the system. Yes, I might want some to buy drugs, but the pseudo-financial industry that's sprung up around this stuff (the FTXs, the 3ACs, the Celsius, Coinbase) wouldn't be able to operate in that sort of environment, and the number of people who are in it to make a buck would be considerably reduced.
So -
> Cryptocurrencies are a second-order desirable in the same way that meeting in private, instead of public, is.
Yes, for transactions where that's important, I can see it still being desirable, until/unless some other means to do this comes along, and you're right, that would likely be a comparatively resilient demand.
But for the current speculative mania, and the large-scale fraud it enables? Less so.
(Frankly if I have to take cash down a back alley to get some bitcoin to buy weed ... I may as well just buy the weed there!)
See I don't necessarily agree with you there, it all depends what you're trying to achieve. I think in the context of the discussion - an article which says that cryptocurrency is being seen as bullshit by democrats - you just have to make it difficult for normal people to participate in order to kill the current industry, and you can do that by regulating banks rather than individuals. You could make it illegal to market these things, illegal for exchanges to operate and for banks to send money to them, and you'd strangle the majority of it.
Yes, you're right that there would probably be a residual demand for it illicit purchases, gambling, that sort of stuff, but the mainstreaming of it as an investment/speculation vehicle would likely be crushed.
If I can't buy cryptocurrency by credit card or bank transfer then I'm probably not going to try and invest my pension in it, or invest in a high-yield staking account at Celsius, or just buy some BTC at an exchange to speculate on price rises, firstly because my bank would throw up obstacles and secondly because it would be difficult to rehabilitate any gains into the system. Yes, I might want some to buy drugs, but the pseudo-financial industry that's sprung up around this stuff (the FTXs, the 3ACs, the Celsius, Coinbase) wouldn't be able to operate in that sort of environment, and the number of people who are in it to make a buck would be considerably reduced.
So -
> Cryptocurrencies are a second-order desirable in the same way that meeting in private, instead of public, is.
Yes, for transactions where that's important, I can see it still being desirable, until/unless some other means to do this comes along, and you're right, that would likely be a comparatively resilient demand.
But for the current speculative mania, and the large-scale fraud it enables? Less so.
(Frankly if I have to take cash down a back alley to get some bitcoin to buy weed ... I may as well just buy the weed there!)
We are in agreement on the crypto split between illicit and mainstream activities, and your points are well supported by the history of monero/XMR--it can't be bought with card or bank transfer on any of the major exchanges, and has been insulated from the volatility and inflation of the more mainstream coins. So in a sense the outcome you're describing has already come to pass, in a small section of the market.
Where we disagree is the criminalization of cryptocurrency transactions to achieve that end. Owning, buying, and selling monero isn't illegal; regulations of some type (I am not aware of the exact structure) have prevented it from being touched by institutional players, but the risk of a private citizen getting caught in some sort of spike trap designed to eliminate reckless speculation and fraud on an institutional level is zero.
I agree 100% that there's a major bubble in cryptocurrency, the popping of which will happen in manner that is novel and unknown, but "make it illegal" means cops and guns, full stop. I (and I suspect many of the people who replied to you) see that option as a last resort, and totally inappropriate in the case of free exchange of innocuous assets between private individuals.
Where we disagree is the criminalization of cryptocurrency transactions to achieve that end. Owning, buying, and selling monero isn't illegal; regulations of some type (I am not aware of the exact structure) have prevented it from being touched by institutional players, but the risk of a private citizen getting caught in some sort of spike trap designed to eliminate reckless speculation and fraud on an institutional level is zero.
I agree 100% that there's a major bubble in cryptocurrency, the popping of which will happen in manner that is novel and unknown, but "make it illegal" means cops and guns, full stop. I (and I suspect many of the people who replied to you) see that option as a last resort, and totally inappropriate in the case of free exchange of innocuous assets between private individuals.
You’re actually the only person that replied to me :)
I think you can make something illegal for the banking industry to connect to, without too much in the way of cops and guns.
shrug
Either way, it’s fascinating to watch!
I think you can make something illegal for the banking industry to connect to, without too much in the way of cops and guns.
shrug
Either way, it’s fascinating to watch!
This does make sense that cryptocurrency doesn't necessarily have any intrinsic value, but I also feel like there's going to be a bit of a "Bart Simpson" effect. If you tell people exactly what they _can't_ do, you are going to induce serious demand in many people who are going to attempt to do exactly what you told them they can't do, just for the sake of it. Which could then drive up value, and attract more people, etc... owning banned things is very attractive to a lot of people.
> Drive up enforcement costs and create an entire police enterprise
This is a feature if you're the government.
This is a feature if you're the government.
It always amazes me how trigger happy people are when it comes to banning things they don't like/don't agree with.
Think about something that you like/strongly support getting banned. How would that make you feel?
Did the gov try banning stuff in the past? How did that work out?
Think about something that you like/strongly support getting banned. How would that make you feel?
Did the gov try banning stuff in the past? How did that work out?
The whole point of cryptocurrencies is that they're not supposed to be converted to and from dollars - their use case is to bypass fiat currencies such as the dollar and more specifically the centralized institutions necessary to process transactions in fiat currency.
If you sell goods or services for a bitcoin, you can buy a bitcoin worth of stuff. If bitcoin happens to be worth $15k, that means you can buy $15k worth of stuff, but the important thing is at no point in time do you need to convert your bitcoin into $15k.
If you sell goods or services for a bitcoin, you can buy a bitcoin worth of stuff. If bitcoin happens to be worth $15k, that means you can buy $15k worth of stuff, but the important thing is at no point in time do you need to convert your bitcoin into $15k.
If you are measuring the value of your BTC in USD, you already kinda lost there.
Furthermore, you just handily stated cryptocurrency's true purpose, which is avoiding the modern world's curbs on the more destructive habits of unregulated finance.
You are not painting yourself into a good corner with a lot of more normal people here.
Furthermore, you just handily stated cryptocurrency's true purpose, which is avoiding the modern world's curbs on the more destructive habits of unregulated finance.
You are not painting yourself into a good corner with a lot of more normal people here.
I'm not measuring the value of BTC in USD, I clearly stated 1 bitcoin for 1 bitcoin worth of stuff. That stuff will invariably also have a USD value, and similarly a EUR value, and a Yen value, because that's how currencies work. And just as you can say a EUR is worth 1.05 USD, you can say a BTC is worth 15k USD.
Yes, I stated bitcoin's purpose, but I said nothing about avoiding financial regulations. What I was referring to was ledger keeping.
I am quite happy with the corner I'm in. May I ask why you are opposed to and seek to vilify something you don't use, understand, or are in any other way affected by?
Yes, I stated bitcoin's purpose, but I said nothing about avoiding financial regulations. What I was referring to was ledger keeping.
I am quite happy with the corner I'm in. May I ask why you are opposed to and seek to vilify something you don't use, understand, or are in any other way affected by?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Can't you use it as a stand alone currency for the exchange of goods?
Theoretically but it’s a weak fiat currency with high overhead and no intrinsic value, and it’s risky for anyone to use if they are not complying with local law. There are very few cases where someone’s best option is to pay more to use bitcoin despite the drawbacks.
Nothing has intrinsic value as value is subjective. Things may have inherent human utility, but in the case of cryptocurrency, there is certainly utility.
The true utility of a cryptocurrency is the blockchain itself as way to perform escrow, saving, spending, and transaction auditing without a human intermediary.
Despite all of this, I will grant that so far it would seem that the financial and material costs of crypto are higher than the benefits lowering overall utility.
The true utility of a cryptocurrency is the blockchain itself as way to perform escrow, saving, spending, and transaction auditing without a human intermediary.
Despite all of this, I will grant that so far it would seem that the financial and material costs of crypto are higher than the benefits lowering overall utility.
> Nothing has intrinsic value as value is subjective.
Yeah, yeah, and reality has no meaning because everything is subjective. That's great as a dorm-room topic at 4am but it's not a useful distinction here because there's a huge practical difference. Bitcoin uses random hashes which nobody cares about except to the extent that someone else will give them some tangible value in exchange for them. That's different from almost any other fiat currency because most of them are linked to a functioning economy and have some built-in demand where a government requires use for taxes, procurements, salaries, etc. Quality varies, of course, which is why some currencies are stronger than others but Bitcoin is an extreme outlier in the sense that almost nobody has any need to use it except when they think it's financially advantageous.
This is why it's so volatile: someone who has purchased a lot of Bitcoin has an incentive to get other people to buy into the system so they can make money off of it but nobody else shares that reason. Using Bitcoin could make sense if it was cheaper but there are many alternatives and unless you have an ideological commitment you're most likely to pick whatever fits your preferred balance of easiness, cost, and safety. That could some day be Bitcoin but it hasn't been for the last decade and a half except in a few cases involving unusual circumstances.
Yeah, yeah, and reality has no meaning because everything is subjective. That's great as a dorm-room topic at 4am but it's not a useful distinction here because there's a huge practical difference. Bitcoin uses random hashes which nobody cares about except to the extent that someone else will give them some tangible value in exchange for them. That's different from almost any other fiat currency because most of them are linked to a functioning economy and have some built-in demand where a government requires use for taxes, procurements, salaries, etc. Quality varies, of course, which is why some currencies are stronger than others but Bitcoin is an extreme outlier in the sense that almost nobody has any need to use it except when they think it's financially advantageous.
This is why it's so volatile: someone who has purchased a lot of Bitcoin has an incentive to get other people to buy into the system so they can make money off of it but nobody else shares that reason. Using Bitcoin could make sense if it was cheaper but there are many alternatives and unless you have an ideological commitment you're most likely to pick whatever fits your preferred balance of easiness, cost, and safety. That could some day be Bitcoin but it hasn't been for the last decade and a half except in a few cases involving unusual circumstances.
[deleted]
Yes, plus it's also risky as a store of value for someone even if they are complying with local law. There are greater opportunities for fraud as well as the risk the regulatory environment can change at any time.
Over the past N years since bitcoin came into being, I have yet to see a real use for exchange of goods that is running at scale. The cost to move coins/token has always been too high or the use was never at real scale.
In fairness, all the businesses that currently accept it (at least in America) as a method of payment would likely stop accepting it if they couldn’t exchange it for dollars.
Yes. Even if every country in the world “banned” it. It would still be used as such.
So let me get this straight. I can't be paid in it, and I can't pay rent with it or buy groceries with it.
Sure, there would be hobbyists who conduct trivial transactions with their monopoly money. But no, this would not even be a small fraction of overall economic activity in such a scenario.
Sure, there would be hobbyists who conduct trivial transactions with their monopoly money. But no, this would not even be a small fraction of overall economic activity in such a scenario.
No, you can still be paid in it and still pay rent with it or buy groceries with it. You can't exchange a bitcoin for cash, but you can exchange bitcoin for something that has cash value.
Please let me know when the first ever major employer offers a paycheck in BTC, and when the first ever landlord offers rent payment in BTC.
Oh, and most importantly. When the U.S. government will allow me to pay my taxes in BTC.
Until then, this is a thought experiment. I'm not holding my breath.
Oh, and most importantly. When the U.S. government will allow me to pay my taxes in BTC.
Until then, this is a thought experiment. I'm not holding my breath.
Employers offering paycheck in BTC: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2014/11/04/bitwage-now-lets...
https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/041-22/mayor-ad...
Landlords offering payment in BTC: https://www.american-apartment-owners-association.org/proper...
U.S. government allowing you to pay taxes in BTC: you can take your btc and turn it into usd and pay taxes that way - and would need to on your capital gains.
Lots of reading for you to do!
https://www.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/041-22/mayor-ad...
Landlords offering payment in BTC: https://www.american-apartment-owners-association.org/proper...
U.S. government allowing you to pay taxes in BTC: you can take your btc and turn it into usd and pay taxes that way - and would need to on your capital gains.
Lots of reading for you to do!
So do you considering that you missed that the entire premise of this thread was, "what happens if the U.S. government bans the exchange of BTC and dollars?".
In that instance, bitcoin would lose nearly ~100% of its current market value due to anyone with a brain dumping it.
In that instance, bitcoin would lose nearly ~100% of its current market value due to anyone with a brain dumping it.
Whatever people choose to place value in with their transactions cannot be easily regulated by banning it.
That is an easy solution. But it's neither a feasible solution nor a good one.
There are plenty of things that you currently can't legally exchange for dollars. But it happens.
There are plenty of things that you currently can't legally exchange for dollars. But it happens.
I’m toying with advocating for a three-pronged approach:
1. An annual wealth tax on crypto holdings to fund (a) a victims’ compensation fund and (b) an enforcement agency;
2. Said enforcement agency, whose job is to manage the compensation fund and make referrals to the DoJ (no rulemaking authority); and
3. Reporting requirements for crypto transactions, crypto-fiat or DeFi, above $10k, individually or in aggregate. Civil fines for first time violators. Criminal referrals for repeat, large-scale violators.
Also considering: SEC gets explicit jurisdiction over crypto and FinCEN over DeFi and mining. (I’ve toyed with extending liability to VCs, but that gets messy because it requires defining a crypto start-up, which is harder than defining crypto.)
1. An annual wealth tax on crypto holdings to fund (a) a victims’ compensation fund and (b) an enforcement agency;
2. Said enforcement agency, whose job is to manage the compensation fund and make referrals to the DoJ (no rulemaking authority); and
3. Reporting requirements for crypto transactions, crypto-fiat or DeFi, above $10k, individually or in aggregate. Civil fines for first time violators. Criminal referrals for repeat, large-scale violators.
Also considering: SEC gets explicit jurisdiction over crypto and FinCEN over DeFi and mining. (I’ve toyed with extending liability to VCs, but that gets messy because it requires defining a crypto start-up, which is harder than defining crypto.)
I always appreciate reading your comments even though I don't necessarily agree with the position you take.
However, I'm wondering, how would "1. An annual wealth tax on crypto holdings to fund (a) a victims’ compensation fund and (b) an enforcement agency;", make any sense? Why would someone who owns, say, Bitcoin, be required to pay a "wealth tax"? What is the rationale? Just because there are other people who use the Bitcoin system illegaly? If USD is used illegally, should everyone who holds USD pay a "wealth tax"?
In terms of "3. Reporting requirements for crypto transactions, crypto-fiat or DeFi, above $10k, individually or in aggregate. Civil fines for first time violators. Criminal referrals for repeat, large-scale violators.", how do you propose reporting works for personal wallet addresses, or DeFi protocols? It seems to me like the implementation of that would be a nightmare, not to mention the concerns with privacy.
However, I'm wondering, how would "1. An annual wealth tax on crypto holdings to fund (a) a victims’ compensation fund and (b) an enforcement agency;", make any sense? Why would someone who owns, say, Bitcoin, be required to pay a "wealth tax"? What is the rationale? Just because there are other people who use the Bitcoin system illegaly? If USD is used illegally, should everyone who holds USD pay a "wealth tax"?
In terms of "3. Reporting requirements for crypto transactions, crypto-fiat or DeFi, above $10k, individually or in aggregate. Civil fines for first time violators. Criminal referrals for repeat, large-scale violators.", how do you propose reporting works for personal wallet addresses, or DeFi protocols? It seems to me like the implementation of that would be a nightmare, not to mention the concerns with privacy.
> If USD is used illegally, should everyone who holds USD pay a "wealth tax"?
Don’t we? The FBI and Secret Service are funded out of taxes. I don’t think someone who has never touched crypto should pay for crypto crimes. One could introduce a transaction tax, but that seems messier than counting up your crypto once a year.
> how do you propose reporting works for personal wallet addresses, or DeFi protocols?
Same way it does with cash. Most people voluntarily comply. Criminals don’t, and occasionally get busted.
Don’t we? The FBI and Secret Service are funded out of taxes. I don’t think someone who has never touched crypto should pay for crypto crimes. One could introduce a transaction tax, but that seems messier than counting up your crypto once a year.
> how do you propose reporting works for personal wallet addresses, or DeFi protocols?
Same way it does with cash. Most people voluntarily comply. Criminals don’t, and occasionally get busted.
Crypto has a use case, and that use case is money laundering. Go ahead and regulate that.
It’s a PayPal killer :-)
Really? I'd prefer to not send my money to someone without the chance of it being returned in the event they do not deliver...
The sad thing is that there’s a lot of interest in something like that. If people were building a better PayPal, however, it’d look less like a political manifesto and more like something with _better_ safety, performance, and pricing (rather than worse, as it currently is).
They made that. It's called xmr.
If I need to pay a neighbor $10 for some random kid's stuff I'm buying from them, how much am I looking at net? Using PayPal that appears to be $0.78 cents. With Apple Cash, it's $0.15.
I'm not saying there's no interesting technology going on but most normal people are going to go with the option which is cheapest unless it's a LOT harder to use.
I'm not saying there's no interesting technology going on but most normal people are going to go with the option which is cheapest unless it's a LOT harder to use.
Which as far as crypto goes, was unambiguously written out of the legal financial world since it's inception.
XMR is really interesting from a technical perspective, but I worry it’s not as anonymous as folks think.
I am Canadian and I don't follow the lower-level goings on with US politics habitually, but is Katie Porter still around? Cause I remember some fantastic video clips of her interrogating CEOs awhile back, and I would really like to see her turned loose on the bankman-fried while it's under oath. I'm cackling just thinking about it. I wanna see Katie Porter draw some blood on this one.
Sorry if this is too opinionated to pass civility muster and I'm not usually much of a fanboy for political theatre, but if there's a place to buy tickets for the Katie Porter Crypto Show, I'm just sayin', I have money.
Sorry if this is too opinionated to pass civility muster and I'm not usually much of a fanboy for political theatre, but if there's a place to buy tickets for the Katie Porter Crypto Show, I'm just sayin', I have money.
Yep - she narrowly won reelection in November so she'll still be around, although since the Republicans won more seats in the House, she'll be in the minority now so she'll have less time and influence during hearings.
The only thing crypto had a shot at was bypassing regulations to get investment money. once that became illegal it pretty much lost it's legal use cases.
and the problem from an investment vehicle is too much money flowed in too quickly so there's not much incentive to actually make the products work.
Democrats the party of hypocrites. Sure, we will happily take your millions of dollars in campaign contributions, but then pretend like there is no conflict of interest and sit on a pedestal of moral and intellectual superiority as we have hearings about crypto and the FTX meltdown.
Would you prefer that they kept supporting scams? The fact that US politics is inherently corrupt and depends way too much on big money donations is absolutely disgusting, but given that that's the law of the land, I'd rather they accept the bribe and do the right thing anyway, than to accept the bribe and stay bought.
Exactly. Once its clear there's no more donations to be had, all to ready to denounce it. On the other hand, you have to wonder if they are truly done with it, since SBF felt a little too comfortable answering questions, no real fear of prosecution.
Well the alternative: being totally beholden to SBF and allowing campaign contributors to openly buy public figures and their favor is much worse no?
It should be noted that Sam admitted to giving equally to both Dems and Reps.
This has nothign to do with one party or another.
He said he gave publicly to Dems to get credit and via dark money to Reps due to reporters giving him a hard time about donations to republicans, which in of itself says alot about people these days:(
He said he gave publicly to Dems to get credit and via dark money to Reps due to reporters giving him a hard time about donations to republicans, which in of itself says alot about people these days:(
> Sam admitted to giving equally to both Dems and Reps
Sam is a liar. What we know: he predominantly gave to Democrats, though he “also made maximum donations to many individual candidates, including Republican senators John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and John Boozman (R-Ark.)” [1].
Meanwhile, “Ryan Salame, a top Bankman-Fried lieutenant at FTX” gave “$19 million…to Republican candidates and committees, and made him the GOP's 10th-largest donor.”
[1] https://www.axios.com/2022/11/15/ftz-crypto-bankman-fried-de...
Sam is a liar. What we know: he predominantly gave to Democrats, though he “also made maximum donations to many individual candidates, including Republican senators John Hoeven (R-N.D.) and John Boozman (R-Ark.)” [1].
Meanwhile, “Ryan Salame, a top Bankman-Fried lieutenant at FTX” gave “$19 million…to Republican candidates and committees, and made him the GOP's 10th-largest donor.”
[1] https://www.axios.com/2022/11/15/ftz-crypto-bankman-fried-de...
Sam originally denied giving any money to Republicans, until he discovered that political donations are publicly reported and he admitted to donating to Republicans.
And that's around the time he stopped donating to Democrats and claims he started making untraceable donations to the GOP. The GOP Senate Leadership PAC admitted to receiving large dark money donations in the summer, so it's fair to say that SBF was one of these donors since the timing adds up.
And that's around the time he stopped donating to Democrats and claims he started making untraceable donations to the GOP. The GOP Senate Leadership PAC admitted to receiving large dark money donations in the summer, so it's fair to say that SBF was one of these donors since the timing adds up.
I don't assert that some political representatives were bought, of course it can't happen in such a democracy with high moral standings, but maybe these billions of dollars had a purpose?