| > So cryptography is fine, unless it's part of a network that you don't like, used to secure a ledger that you don't like. What is the legitimate use case for this, that is better than current system? Why does it need to solve billions of useless puzzles, incinerate the planet and waste gargantuan amounts of energy at the same time to secure it? > Why can't you let people have their worthless internet tokens without the government getting involved? Because when your uncle, aunt, sister or in-laws comes to you for money when they are in a financial loss after placing their life savings into an ICO, or a crypto token. It indirectly becomes your problem. If the crypto industry cannot regulate itself to find a legitimate use case beyond rampant speculation, it needs to be regulated as it is out of control. The FTX crash is just one of many reasons why you cannot lose $8BN of crypto funds without getting the government involved. There are $12BN lost and counting which is documented below for your recommended reading. https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ |
Also, nice list of people who did cryptography wrong. I guess there's more innovation to do.
To be clear, I think there's a legitimate need for crypto regulation to ensure that businesses that claim to be custodians do in fact have all of the crypto. The fiat rails are a sensible place to do this. Incidentally, this clearly illustrates why crypto is property and not a security.