[gomox]

I am in Argentina. I can do an investment on a company being founded in France tomorrow and cash out in 3 months on a secondary market to a buyer in Angola. The friction involved in doing this in a pre-crypto world makes it a non-starter.

One of the reason VC has its characteristic geographical distribution is because exit opportunities are extremely localized. No more.

This in turn unlocks a ton of talent-capital synergy opportunities for a myriad of projects outside of the large tech hubs.

[vkou]

But you're not doing it because of any intrinsic property of crypto-coins. You're doing it because they haven't been regulated yet. (I am not implying any ill intent on your part.)

You could do the same thing with normal investments, if trading houses and banks didn't do any KYC checks.

[gomox]

I don't know about "intrinsic". No other asset class has the same characteristics. It's making investments viable that were not viable before.

No regulation exists now in conventional banking that prevents me from doing that investment without crypto. It's just not practical and therefore unviable. I would need to surf through 3 different bureaucracies in 3 different languages and currencies. If you are doing this kind of thing, it's in your best interest to always do KYC, mostly not for AML - just for general due diligence purposes.

The fundamental thing is disintermediation, not deregulation. Regulation might be able to kill the space, but it would really be a triumph of the incumbents over a real progress opportunity.

PS I'm going at it from the investor angle here but it goes without saying that enabling investment enables entrepreneurship.

[s73v3r_]

The only reason Crypto has those characteristics is because most of the crypto trading platform flat out ignore the law.

[tome]

> it's in your best interest to always do KYC

And why will this never hold for similar transactions done on the blockchain?

[gomox]

I meant that for VC-type deals done on the blockchain.