[markdestouches]

> One benefit is that you can more credibly offer to keep your promises.

We are yet to see a working example of that.

> Meanwhile, users of FTX depended on government regulation and pinky-swears to keep their money safe, but since SBF owned the platform he could do whatever he wanted.

These two sentences contradict each other. And no, there was no government regulation that insured FTX deposits. There was so little regulation, they didn't even keep their transaction history.

[ChadNauseam]

> We are yet to see a working example of that.

I referenced Uniswap, which seems like it works to me

> These two sentences contradict each other. And no, there was no government regulation that insured FTX deposits. There was so little regulation, they didn't even keep their transaction history.

There's no public insurance for it, but if there were no regulations against doing what FTX did I'm not sure why their executives are fleeing the country

[habinero]

Because "there are no regulations" is not permission to defraud others.

[ChadNauseam]

The fact that fraud is a crime is a form of regulation, although it's clearly not sufficient on its own (just like how smart contract code being auditable isn't sufficient on its own)

[habinero]

Sure, but it's not specific. I'm thinking more along the lines of requiring public SEC filings or prospectuses.

[markdestouches]

Then you are arguing for allowing fraud and crime.

[oblio]

Yeah, but if they're not personally affected, it's fine.

People who are affected are just dumb or they had it coming, anyway.