I agree with your assessment of cryptocurrencies. Here is a thought experiment that I use with other people: Ask yourself why none of the top 10 global investment banks have started their own crypto exchange. Now, add the 20 largest stock, futures, and options exchanges. Still none. After all, it is "just" market making (with a bit of clearing, custody & execution services). What is wrong with this picture? For me, the real issue is that KYC (know your customer) legal requirements will drain all the profit from the operation and expose the ibank/exchange to enormous legal risk.
Another one to make you scratch your head/chin: The world's busiest crypto exchange is Binance. The Wiki page literally says: "Headquarters: Unknown". How can anyone trust a company like that? Who regulates it? What enforcement agency will help in the event of fraud?
90% agree with this , with the little caveat that law and regulation always are a couple of steps behind huge innovations. Unfortunately sometimes companies think this gives them freedom to break current laws and regulations.
That's happening because crypto 'value' doesn't exist in a vaccuum, immune to the vagaries of the tradFi markets. When shit hits the fan, credibility matters. That's why traders park cash in government bonds when a market sell-off happens; a government bond essentially guarantees you get your money back quickly when you're ready to go back into the markets.
The recent moves by the administration have been so incompetent as to tank the bond market as well, thereby leaving few safe harbors. And no harbor is less safe than crypto.
By now everyone who stands to gain from (ab)using crypto is probably already convinced. Almost everyone else heard so much about scams and illegal activities around crypto that they find it too risky. So the current admin is preaching to a small choir, to the angst of the large one.
What I like is that every time there's a hack, or someone loses money over crypto either due to some illegal action or just unintended consequence of using it, you have a few more people demanding more regulation and state intervention. If only crypto regulation was scoped exclusively to when they need it after being swindled out of it.
I think this was edited - my understanding of the original comment was that it was primarily for buying things on the darknet ("illegal transactions").
And drugs. And delivery of bribes to the sitting US president (these are not the same as illegal transactions because when the president does it it is not illegal).
I posted the original comment everyone is replying to so it's clear I'm not fan of crypto. To be fair, literally everyone I've ever known, including myself, has only ever used cash to buy drugs. I can't put that on crypto.
There's a pretty big market for drugs and other illegal things on onion websites.
You send an encrypted order, transfer crypto to an escrow wallet, then they send the product in the mail.
On a whim in say 2011 I bought 2 bitcoin. 3 weeks later they had tripled in price (not like what happened much later) and I immediately sold them as I was uncomfortable using a USB drive s a wallet for currency. It was dumb to sell at that stage but I have always been somewhat risk averse with my finances. (making money has always felt like _work_ to me ;)
Oh, it is illegal. It's just that the DOJ is turning a blind eye because someone at some point wrote a "memo"[0,1], which it seems can be the bane of global peace and prosperity as we know it. (Yes, it is ironic that a memo in some countries like the U.S. can affect everyone else.)
P.S. I understand the context in your comment here. Just expanding on it for cynicism's sake.
You've cited policy which blocks prosecution of sitting Presidents -- but that didn't necessarily enjoin eventual justice from being served after his term(s) end. However the outcome of Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) appears to not just block prosecution but grant immunity, meaning what would normally be a crime ceases to even be a crime.
That ruling appears to draw a nearly complete shield of immunity around Presidents for any crimes done as 'official acts,' and nearly everything can be claimed to be an 'official act' especially given how vaguely-scoped much Presidential power has become. I consider it pretty unlikely that we'll ever see a former President even be charged with a crime if Congress doesn't explicitly repudiate this ruling with an actual law.
> I consider it pretty unlikely that we'll ever see a former President even be charged with a crime...
You could have stopped the sentence here; most US presidents are responsible for acts that appear to be criminal but for the fact that it is political convention not to charge them. The most egregious case I recall was Anwar Al-Awlaki [0] - where he seems to have been killed on the president's orders without actually having done anything specific to justify it. Searching for "crime" on his Wikipedia page turns up nothing much. If a president isn't publicly investigated by the judicial system for having a US citizen killed it is hard to see when charges would be appropriate.
Thank you. I tried to keep my comment short, but your expansion was necessary on second thought. For better or for worse, I expect this to be relitigated. (Unless all outgoing presidents start the tradition of pardoning themselves from now on.)
The reason is that what constitutes an official act is up in the air, and let us be honest, the incumbent president is not known for staying inside the Executive branch's lane.
But the sheer unwillingness of the DOJ to prosecute, creates a catch-22: you need indictments to change or clarify Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, and right now there are two options:
Somehow revive the private right to criminal prosecution (and of the president at that)(See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., (1973) 410 U.S. 614 (citations omitted)) or a Federal Court to appoint counsel to investigate a former or incumbent president. (Young v. U.S. ex re. Vuitton et Fils, (1987) 481 U.S. 787.) And I am not sure which one is less likely to happen. (Or for Congress to take that role beyond impeachment, which is even less likely.)
Another one to make you scratch your head/chin: The world's busiest crypto exchange is Binance. The Wiki page literally says: "Headquarters: Unknown". How can anyone trust a company like that? Who regulates it? What enforcement agency will help in the event of fraud?