[scoofy]

Regulation can be bad, but it can also be good.

People think of history like it was wonderful, but it was full of cons and scams. Reputation matters, and people with reputations charge a premium for it.

Some of the best aspects of regulations is exactly to remove the reputation tax by mandating everyone follow the same practices as the trusted institution.

The real sad aspect is that the crypto-libertarians of today are repeating some of the exact same clear scams from the wildcatting era, and when it's brought up, it's just mocked because, honestly, who is going to read a book about 19th century finance when you can just watch the new star wars show instead.

[r00fus]

btw "bad regulation" is usually due to regulatory capture [1] whether in legislation (ie, regulation without teeth, designed to fail) or in practice (ie, revolving door/corruption).

Which usually points back to the companies/industries being regulated.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

[scoofy]

Again, this can be true, but regulatory capture is a problem of democracy, not of regulation powers themselves.

[r00fus]

The problem with democracy and regulations both come down to essentially sovereign financial powers (wealthy/corporate) that have interests that don't align with the people or the state that is supposed to represent the people.

These corporations control us if we don't control them.

[scoofy]

The problem with democracy is the dunning-kruger effect more than the principle-agent problem. People think highly-complex problems are obvious and easy. They care more about big sweeping theory than they do about local technocracy.

The idea that anti-intellectualism even exists is testament to this.

[r00fus]

Gonna say something that would likely be downvoted but a functioning society does not need democracy. A governing body needs legitimacy because it's power springs from the people, but democracy and voting are not necessarily requisite.

e.g. China/CCP (which isn't really communism, but definitely not democratic).

[mellavora]

The advantage of a democracy is that it gives society a way to say "we made a bad choice". Individuals almost never can do this.

But you are right, a benevolent, enlightened dictatorship is probably the best form of government. Only two problems:

- finding a benevolent enlightened dictator

- keeping them benevolent and enlightened

[brutusborn]

How is regulatory capture a problem of democracy? Surely you only need a regulator and a party to capture them?

For example, what's stopping a company in China lobbying a minister for regulations that harm their competitors? The Minister may not have been elected through democratic means, but regulatory capture can still occur.

[scoofy]

I didn't mean exclusively. I meant it's an existing problem, the distance between the regulator and the authority, which in democracy is quite distant, but in other form of government can also be quite distant.

[brutusborn]

I think we're getting closer but I still don't understand. What do you mean by "the authority"?

[scoofy]

This is not a game for me

[reydequeso]

>who is going to read a book about 19th century finance

What recommendations do you have?

[scoofy]

you can start with the investopedia entry:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/wildcat-banking.asp

here's a whitepaper from the Atlanta Fed,

caution PDF:

https://maysweb.tamu.edu/sage/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/20...

[epgui]

> […] when it's brought up, it's just mocked because, honestly, who is going to read a book about 19th century finance when you can just watch the new star wars show instead.

Modern-day anti-intellectualism FTW! I know, I know, commenters will argue that this is mainly a laziness problem… But when has it ever been “cool” to read (in the sense of being socially incentivized broadly speaking)? To quote a modern day (retired) twitter poet: “Sad!”

[rory]

How exactly would regulation help in this case? Most countries already regulate pretty strongly against theft.

[scoofy]

Again, the purpose of blockchain-as-capital is exactly to escape regulatory requirements. One of the main reasons why we are able to use the banking systems like we do, is the ability, generally, to unwind translations that were fraudulent. There are also disclosure forms that must be presented as a double-check, to transactions that cannot be unwound.

With most blockchains, this is entirely not feasible. The irony is that many of the brokers will likely be swamped by regulation going forward exactly because people will be unhappy with the lack of these types of disclosures.

[rory]

No need to condescend-- the gap isn't that I didn't read what you wrote, or even that I disagree. Your point is just unrelated to the situation we're talking about.

A wallet is not like a bank. It's like.. well, a wallet. If you hand a wallet full of cash to a thief, no banking regulation will protect you. The tradition digital equivalent is a Visa gift card or Western Union.