Regulation. We must have it! Or must we?

in self-regulation •  16 days ago

daniel-jensen-440210.jpg

image from Unsplash.com - Daniel Jensen

There can be no doubt that the current crypto market is full of scams, scammers, shonky tech, vaporware, greedy liars, thieves, plagiarists and cheats.

It is also full of genuine entrepreneurship, innovation, genuinely incredible tech, giving, hard work, integrity and hope.

Well that's human beings for you.....and it hasn't even begun to get complicated. When you consider that we all carry the potential to be good or bad. We are all a mosaic of each. The difference for many may be circumstance or timing. For instance, is it wrong to steal food from where it is plentiful in order to save a loved one who is dying of starvation? It is possibly quite easy to stay good never truly tested. On any given day, under the right circumstance, under the right kind of pressure, who can say categorically that they would always act in a manner that is widely considered to be, the right or good way?

Perhaps it is fair to say that all we can say for sure is that most of us have the best intentions and refer to our history, our reputation to add confidence and credibility to the idea that a person is good and will remain good.

Whilst that is all fairly obvious, the point I would like to raise is this. In a system where regulation is not equally applied to all, there can be no justice at all and it is only a question of time before the regulators act, as all humans have the capacity to act, and take advantage of the situation out of perceived necessity, greed, avarice, you choose.

It cannot be lost on anyone, the fact that holding today's traditional financial criminals to account is at best, grotesque incompetence, at worst, intentional two-tier justice making all too visible, the brutal hand of totalitarian oppression.

Let's give everyone the benefit of doubt. Let's assume that the terrible injustice in our world, largely due to the egregious financial system, is all the result of our best intentions. They say that the road to hell is paved with best intentions. I don't believe in hell or heaven, unless they are on Earth and I believe that all too many human beings are living in a kind of hell on Earth.

So, what does this tell us? That despite our "best" efforts, we have failed so many of our fellows and we must do better. Urgently.

All the regulation in the world, so far, has achieved the WORST DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN HISTORY. Not only do the majority of people have absolutely nothing relative to those that have everything, but also that the negative influence on our environment, moderated as it is by so few interests, is having a devastating effect on more individuals than ever before. Regulation so far has not worked. They say that crazy is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. No argument there.

Yesterday, I watched the SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) and CFTC (Commodities Futures Trading Commission) give testimony to the Senate (Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee) about crypto currencies and blockchain (or distributed ledger) technologies. What they covered was fairly basic, bitcoin-centric and as you might expect.....we need to understand, we need to keep an eye on, there's some good stuff, there's some bad stuff, we might need more money, we might need some new rules, we're working together with x & y, it's difficult because it's global and often beyond our jurisdiction. What was unexpected was their tone, which seemed fairly measured and accepting. However, I would not read too much into that, they appear to be seriously behind the knowledge curve at this time and once they begin trying to regulate blockchains, in the end they will be forced to conclude that only total control over the internet and several other individual and collective freedoms will suffice in giving them the control they need in order to regulate this technology. A horrific prospect for what would be grand stupidity, brutality, inefficiency and hubris. Thankfully we're not there yet and we have a chance avoid such a terrible fate.

Instead of enforced regulation, we might consent to self-regulation instead. We may just have the time to demonstrate that self-regulation is not only possible, but far superior. What is self-regulation? To me, it's the kind of light, sensible regulation that is possible when a community's economic interests are generally aligned, when everyone in a community has voluntarily adopted a clear set rules for engagement within a network and therefore everyone has consented to the means for establishing and maintaining reputation and accountability and the means for resolving disputes by arbitration. A community empowered to regulate itself will have a far better chance of achieving it's objectives.

The crypto space is growing at an ever accelerating rate. The regulators are already incapable of regulating traditional financial markets. They are disasterously under-resourced to regulate crypto markets and the use of blockchains. As Daniel Larimer mentioned in the EOS telegram channel...

"saying blockchains should be regulated is like saying databases should be regulated."

If we can build a community on a blockchain that makes it impossible to steal, that has accountability, the rules for which are consented to by all, self-regulation has a far better chance of working for that community than any external regulation that is forced upon it. Self-regulation can be automated, can have millions of active participants and is transparent. External regulation has a budget, maybe a few thousand participants and is accountable only to itself.


Happy Steeming

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  trending

Good idea

·

:) thanks

nice boss

Great Post!
I too watched the coverage on c-span. The tone did seem very positive. However the lack of knowledge spewing from thier mouth was a little unsettling. You would think they would be on thier A1 game presenting thier case. It is early in the game tho so it will be interesting to see what’s next. Thanks for sharing & Steem On :)

·

It was eye-opening and I couldn't decide if they were intentionally presenting a severe lack of knowledge or not. It will certainly be interesting :)

·

I like that they at least took position of waiting in limbo of unawareness instead of banning.
But I don't like that nobody expressed problems with existing SEC regulations.

All they asked is funding, how about asking to fix problems with IPOs and securities to enable startups to issue them as easily as ICOs and target as wide audience as ICOs ?

Thanks a lot for saying your piece. Myself, I'm inured to cryptocurrency becoming regulated - but I sure do sympathize with your viewpoint.

Regulation should happen to a certain extent. The main chain should work with subchains. The subchains can be rwgulated to prevent illegal activities, etc.

Have read a lot about Dan Larimer, seems since he is no longer the CTO here things got twisted, am even sceptical to buy some trial steem and invest here though not as scammy as many ICO that i had fell victim too.

·

You fell victim to these ICOs because they are forced to not guarantee anything by current regulations, so you don't have a choice between those that guarantee and those that don't guarantee.
The reason why people don't want crypto to be regulated is because current IPO regulations are bad.
Stock market regulations for IPOs need to be changed to match ICOs freedom and only then applied to crypto.

Stuart Kauffman of the Santa Fe Institute has published a lot of his work and thoughts on self-regulating systems and how the larger they are, the more decentralized they need to be. Unfortunately, Kauffman doesn't make the next logical step that centralized government regulatory agencies might cause the same problems his NK models experience when they freeze at the "Stalinist limit." But maybe if enough of us try to educate people on the power of decentralized complex, adaptive systems, that might make the difference.

·

I think for many decentralizaiton and privacy is just a way to evade current bad laws.
I think this approach will have a lot of public resistance.

See more details here: https://steemit.com/decentralization/@alpav/are-decentralizaiton-and-privacy-the-right-tools-to-fight-for

I really can't say anything but the government should just set a clear guideline for taxing exchanges and not the people because cryptos are a friend to the government in terms of getting a revenue from it and they should not spook the crypto world with scare tactics because there is a lot of money everyone can make in cryptos for both governments and people.

And I would like to thank you again Sir for your support to me.

God Bless you.

·

Hi cryptopie, I hope you are doing ok. In the end, governments will be redundant and it will be done to people to organise themselves to build coherent, peaceful societies. In order to accomplish that, they will need to be much fairer!

I think of you often cryptopie. Stay strong bud.

·

No, first they need to allow all people to invest into private or public securities.
And then think about taxing it too, of course.
Pushing ICOs into illegal territory with SEC laws does not help tax collection.