[ifeeltriedboss]

Banks failed because they weren't regulated. If we regulate crypto, whole crypto premise is lost. So what's the point?

[Ztynovovk]

The only way crypto works is if it had stayed niche.

If (old) people loose money, they will complain, legislators will notice, regulating policy will be implemented.

There is no point. Crypto is a fantasy.

[hanklazard]

There’s an important subtlety here though:

Centralized entities (ie businesses) that are holding people’s funds absolutely should be regulated, and certainly more than the current state. The scammers in this space don’t have any real connection to the tech per se, they’ve just identified a relatively friction-free way to scam people.

“Crypto” itself (the tech) can’t be regulated, short of coordinating all countries to confiscate mining rigs/validators and make them seriously illegal, thus breaking the network.

So regulating the businesses does not invalidate the premise—it just protects people as they onboard funds.

[everfree]

We can regulate crypto banks, which is what these failed institutions were, without the premise of crypto being lost.

There's a difference between regulating the institutions that hold crypto customer deposits, compared to regulating the crypto networks themselves.

[lrvick]

We only need to regulate crypto-banks that are holding other peoples assets.

We should not regulate those that wish to hold their own assets.