[mattwilsonn888]

Regulating bodies are not capable of performing cyber-security protocol audits on emerging technology. 'Throwing regulation at the problem' is an embarrassing proposal that I'm sure many regulating bodies will pat you on the back for stanning.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

Like we have chemical analogue laws that prohibit new drugs that are similar to existing drugs, we could have financial services / product analogue laws that prohibit bullshit like this, that enables regulators / LE to prosecute bad actors.

I'm not suggesting that we ought prohibit innovation, and I'd prefer we tax and regulate drugs too, and laws don't prevent bad actors, but we should be able to go after and exact retribution upon those whom intentionally break the rules.

[mattwilsonn888]

What you suggest is smart, but it's fundamentally financial friction and people who want to risk money will avoid that friction, usually because they don't understand why it is useful.

What would be much better is if more crypto skeptics had more nuance. Most of them treat crypto like the D.A.R.E program treated drugs - in reality there are a concentrated subset of categories of crypto which have an outsized probability of being extremely high risk, but when counter-shills tell everyone to avoid all crypto, those a bit more open minded are less equipped to make distinctions within crypto.

I say the bad example of this is https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ which is fraught with cynicism and absolutism.

The good example is https://rekt.news/ which keeps track of every hack and exploit while at the same time acknowledging what is progressive about crypto.

[adrianN]

But regulating bodies could require adequate insurance against losses from hacking.