[linsomniac]

>[economical instruments are] not just a gambling machine

Oh really? With stock buybacks, splits, and options, financial trickery, and market cap not matching production?

There are lots of forces in the market that make it very much a gambling machine. For example SMCI produces very real things, I've owned hundreds of their products, but some questionable decisions resulted in a huge drop despite them being well positioned for all the AI growth. Or TSLA, which has recently doubled from a point where many felt the stock price didn't match the available market.

[mrtksn]

The point is that their reason for existence isn't gambling. It wouldn't be surprising if more rules and restrictions are introduced if they end up not being able to serve their core purpose.

[linsomniac]

Don't take this the wrong way, but the way you say "their core purpose" makes me think that you agree that their reason for existence isn't gambling. I'd agree that they haven't lived up to their core purpose as much as they could have, and it's a lot gambling

[mrtksn]

Not functioning as intended is different than the original intentions and it is important when arguing for one more function.

[linsomniac]

Full disclosure: I've probably "lost" more by following advice like this article than everybody on this thread has lost on bitcoin.