[onethought]

That’s a poor argument. What about adults that take advantage of other adults?

Subprime? Insider trading? Organised crime?

They are all adults making decisions… why even have police? How much crime is committed by kids anyway?

[betwixthewires]

You know, people talk about "there should be some protection from yourself making bad decisions" and when someone says "no there shouldn't, let people make their own mistakes" you see responses like this, "so we shouldn't ban crime?" Its absurd. It is classic straw man garbage.

Of course stealing and fraud and such should be illegal. But if I want to squander my money on bullshit, that is my right.

[onethought]

What’s the difference between “fraud” and “squander my money on bullshit”?

Ponzu schemes are a crime… are you against that regulation?

[betwixthewires]

The difference is you prosecute the criminal actor, you make the act of creating a scam illegal. No, I'm not against that regulation. And you might be surprised to find that that regulation already exists, if you're not surprised I don't see why you keep trying to make the same point. Yes, crime should be illegal.

That's not what you're arguing for though. You're arguing for laws against participating in risky behavior by participants, regardless whether that risky behavior is a scam or not, on the grounds that they could lose money.

We don't ban fraud because people lose money, we ban fraud because people are deliberately misled, their rights are violated and they are stolen from, deliberately.

"We should ban people from taking risks", "no, I don't think so", "oh so you think fraud should be legal?" It's exhausting honestly. You should be able to come up with a better argument than this.

[haskellandchill]

If you legalize sex work and drugs fine, I'll give you cryptocurrency.

[betwixthewires]

I've already got cryptocurrency, but I can get behind that as well.

[onethought]

That wasn’t my argument. But well done on successfully arguing with yourself. Bravo.

So if we “know” that USDT is a scam, and people are being deliberately misled then we should define it as fraud, or come up with some kind of new regulation. (By your own logic).

So we agree.

[betwixthewires]

By my own logic we need no new regulation, we have what we need. If something is fraud prosecute it as fraud, which is already illegal.

[onethought]

Right - so the OP originally stated that government should step in and protect its citizens. Which I agree with.

USDT is fraud. Which is illegal, so you are agreeing. Just you interpreted what they said as “introduce new law” whereas I interpreted it much more literally as public prosecutors should be taking action.

[marsrover]

> What about adults that take advantage of other adults?

Well, there's a pretty big universe of meaning.

> Subprime

What is more wrong? Banks lending to people they know they can't afford it because they think the risk/reward ratio is worth it? Or governments not letting them feel the effects of the markets reaction?

> Insider trading

Honestly who gives a shit? This is the type of thing that would be quickly priced into the market.

> Organised crime

Are we talking about selling drugs? Or murder? Or sex trafficking. Because I have very different opinions between the first and the second two.

> why even have police

See above.

[onethought]

Oh… so we should regulate some things. Got it.

[dang]

Please read and follow the site guidelines and please don't use this site for flamewar or political battle. We ban accounts that do those things. I'm not going to ban you right now because it doesn't look like you've made a habit of it, but if you keep posting like this or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27512975 we will have to, so please don't.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html