[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.