|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sargos
1638 days ago
|
|
|
I was responding to this >What Web3 is pitched to be is completely antithetical to what most people want in the sense that by it's nature, Web3 basically makes AML and other financial controls pretty much impossible So you've pretty much made my point with your reply. People don't want KYC, authoritarian governments do. People decide what they are okay with and not governments and as the failed war on drugs has shown governments don't really get what they want long term. People want private cash and an open financial system and then will have it regardless of what government thinks. |
|
|
What people want, and what they actually get are two completely different things, and the process of moving from one thing to another is slow, bump filled, spans lifetimes, and requires a refresher every few generations.
I'm not denying that KYC and AML is a pain in the arse most people wish would go away. Hell, I'm ready for a bit of that. I have, unfortunately, been part of that system though. I have also seen from sampling of job offerings in the space, that the hires getting planned out paint a picture of societies getting ever more tightly integrated, and doubling down on who can participate in the financial system.
A theoretical question for you. Do you believe that authorities will blink at enacting some coercive structural implementation that will give them an effective lever to use for controlling cryptocurrencies? Do not mistake slow progress, for no progress. Especially when immutable stores of data are concerned.
Hard limits on power consumption, limits on hardware manufacture, protocol filtering, other more intrusive measures; it is all on the table.
KYC/AML itself was at one point far outside the Overton Window. It only took a short time for the circumstances to arise for that to rapidly change.
This isn't a case of Tech doe tech's thing, and society does another. The tech will be judged by the rest of society on it's utility, what it enabled, and whether that justifies adoption or regulation.
People are not stupid. Do not mistake not agreeing with you or silence as assent. I apologize if I'm sounding preachy, as it isn't my intent; I merely caution to temper your estimation of societal uptake with a comprehensive reevaluation of the objectives and end goals of the apparatus to which everyone delegates the responsibility of making the infrastructure that even spawned the potential for technology/technique possible.
All tech throws more work at creating minima in terms of facilitating some way of life. By the act of an allegedly representative government, it was decreed there was utility to higher friction in this particular sector of human endeavor.
Wait til the ink is dry to pop the champagne is all I'm trying to say. It's far from a settled question, and life never ceases to find ways to surprise.