375
SEC says it will deregulate cryptocurrencies with 'Project Crypto' (qz.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
153 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

In a Thursday speech, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chairman Paul S. Atkins announced “Project Crypto,” an initiative to modernize the country’s securities rules and regulations to move financial markets on-chain.

“Under my leadership, the SEC will not stand idly by and watch innovations develop overseas while our capital markets remain stagnant,” he said at an America First Policy Institute event in Washington D.C. His plan includes measures to reshore crypto businesses that have left the country and to ensure that “archaic rules and regulations do not smother innovation and entrepreneurship in America.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

1 Bitcoin used to be with less than a dollar.

Now it's thousands of dollars.

It's also lost thousands of dollars in value.

It hasn't even been 2 decades.

There's never been ANYTHING that volatile and unstable aside from maybe fucking tulips.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    Well, it should have went to some value from no value. So initial volatility was to be expected.

    While the current volatility - I don't know, I guess it's because a transaction is expensive and takes some time. If transactions would cost almost nothing and were almost instantaneous, I'd expect the volatility by now to not be very big. And if there were no premined coins, of course.

    And if there were inflation built into the system. BTC proponents boast how it having no such artificial mechanism is good.

    They, 1) don't understand that having inflation stabilizes a currency, because there's a stimulus to spend practically and not as part of speculation, 2) don't understand that what they would want to imitate, gold, has inflation too.

    So - inflation and cheap and fast transactions are what would make BTC less volatile. It would be a less lucrative speculative asset.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    So - inflation and cheap and fast transactions are what would make BTC less volatile.

    Yeah, and we have that...

    It's called fiat currency 🙄

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Fiat currency is controlled by central banks and nation-states. Obviously.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yeah, because the last time humans tried decentralized money it also caused a ton of problems.

    Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency isn't inventing anything new, it's just doing the same old localized bank notes system again, but with computers™

    Even if crypto had any actual physical value, and solved the stability problems, lack of inflation, etc, it would still end up having control issues, because those already wealthy in a lot of it could manipulate the value easily by simply exchanging it or dumping it.

    So basically you'd just end up with the problems of current currencies + all the problems crypto has, which were the same problems localized notes had 200 or so years as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes, I've remembered my old idea of something like an automated digital barter connected to storage space and computation provided on demand for tokens (every provider an issuer), or something else confirmed by escrow or whatever, after learning that in China 200 years ago people used non-uniform money, that is, all kinds of coins, some literally ancient still in circulation, and somehow that worked.

    That wouldn't be as convenient as uniform money as a universal equivalent, but wouldn't have that particular kind of problem, which value manipulation via such globally meaningful action. Simply because there'd be no single variable to manipulate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    after learning that in China 200 years ago people used non-uniform money, that is, all kinds of coins, some literally ancient still in circulation, and somehow that worked

    I'm talking about valuation pegged paper money, not hard value currency. This old strawman is getting old too.

    The coins worked because they were still tangible material with assigned value (ie metals value by weight or marking).

    The local bank paper money was different, and pegged to hard value materials (gold standard).

    Cryptocurrency works like the second because, like the paper money, crypto doesn't have inherent tangible value (technically even less than paper since it's completely intangible).

    It doesn't work like the fucking Chinese coins (which, btw, still relied on a very centralized government existing anyway) because you can't hold or do anything with 0s and 1s, nor can you physically keep it around.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    because, like the paper money, crypto doesn’t have inherent tangible value

    That's wrong, "owning a number" is tangible value. That's also why there are no (working) offline cryptocurrencies, double spending is a problem.

    If by "works like the second" you mean that it doesn't have physical form, then yeah, that's in the name.

    which, btw, still relied on a very centralized government existing anyway

    A few of them, different ones, each making their own coins. So no.

    because you can’t hold or do anything with 0s and 1s, nor can you physically keep it around.

    Yeah, that's a problem, but "fucking Chinese coins" in their value also were worth more than the metals they were made from. Sometimes those metals were not very meaningful for Europeans.

    And using a mix of non-uniform coins for transactions was a thing for much of history in Europe too.

    In any case, in absolutes of course nothing is like any other thing. If your argument fits under that, then don't bother, it's boring and useless.

    In relatives - you can have a "half-offline" cryptocurrency, where you don't need all the network (or good enough majority of it) to be accessible, just one partition (or even just portion) of it, to make a transaction. In theory. This can even seem like a "partitioned blockchain", LOL. A tree of blockchains.

    There are so many cryptocurrencies so honestly I don't know if such has been made, but it would be useful.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The reason for volatility is that any such concept at scale is subject to just the messiest lump of evolving opinions on everything. It will deflate, inflate, deflate wildly because it's utterly subject to the whims of the people without any mechanism to counter a lack of mass consensus on what 'value' is.

    We started noticing as things scaled up, there needed to be some regulatory management to counter the whimsical populace. Hard to fight mass inflation or deflation when you can't do anything to manage the "money supply" to offset panic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •