I personally do not agree with the vitriol Warren often gets. In a previous article about the DOJ 's actions against Samourai, DZM brought up HSBC and how they do pretty bad things. Well Warren's no apparently no fan of HSBC either.
From the Wikipedia article on Warren:
"At a March Banking Committee hearing, Warren asked Treasury Department officials why criminal charges were not brought against HSBC for its money laundering practices. Warren compared money laundering to drug possession, saying: 'If you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're going to go to jail ... But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night.'"
I mean that's almost the same kind of sentiment I can imagine DZM making.
So unless one thinks that is just theatrics, I think it is clear she is no friend of TradFi BS. I get the feeling that she was/is as pissed off about the 2008 Financial Crisis as I was/am. And that we have largely the same goals. And, in fact, they are the same when it comes to TradFi. Regulate those mofos. To paraphrase another Warren: Regulate any stealin' of our property and money.
We just differ in one tiny quadrant: crypto. And per this DZM piece it is a tiny quadrant: "According to Nasdaq, $3.1 trillion in illicit funds flowed through the traditional financial system in 2023. Cryptocurrency, meanwhile, was used to move $24.2 billion in illegal money, a literal rounding error by comparison."
Thus, I can disagree with her recent actions and comments--and hope it's more her team's fault than hers--and still support her Progressive views and efforts.
Regarding her team, remember it was a former staffer of hers that went after Pooltogether. And in this piece "Elizabeth Warren’s 'protege' Rohit Chopra and her former chief of staff, Dan Geldon" are prominently involved. To some, this could be seen as her minions are doing her bidding. But it could also be that it's her team that is encouraging her to go after crypto instead of banks. Perhaps her team is convincing her that crypto has no other value than money laundering and fraud. It can be hard to convince someone of otherwise when those do seem to be two very big use cases for it (just not bank-sized big use cases). Crypto is still early, so it's almost a matter of interpretation and prognostication, and maybe she's got some fintechy Svengali(s) "educating" her on the matter. I mean "shadowy super coders" does not scream a thurough and deep understanding of crypto. But that's okay. No one can be an expert on everything. And maybe her position will evolve over time.
I don't know. I kind of feel like it's being a fan of John Lennon. In general, and in the big picture, the guy really did care about peace, just kinda stinks that he also beat his wife (possibly wives). If wife beating is more important to you, or if crypto is more important, well, I can understand it. Wife beating is pretty f'ing bad.
Lastly, I think also maybe it is about different ways to get to a goal. 2008, in my mind, was institutions doing "shadowy super" finance chicanery. Which can possibly be solved by making it transparent to the few, but powerful and theoretically popularly elected (e.g. government regulation). Or by making it transparent to the many (e.g. a blockchain or distributed ledger). Yes, crypto isn't always transparent (see my comment on Samourai and my ethical conflicts with mixers). But regulations don't always keep proper tabs either (see the detoothing of Dodd-Frank that many think allowed Silicon Valley Bank to do what then caused them to fail - https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-regulatory-breakdown-behind-the-collapse-of-silicon-valley-bank - a detoothing ofa lot of the protections that I believe Warren helped put in place) .
There is probably more to be said about the political polarization of just about everything nowadays, even what could just be considered a technology, but maybe in another comment.
I personally do not agree with the vitriol Warren often gets. In a previous article about the DOJ 's actions against Samourai, DZM brought up HSBC and how they do pretty bad things. Well Warren's no apparently no fan of HSBC either.
From the Wikipedia article on Warren:
"At a March Banking Committee hearing, Warren asked Treasury Department officials why criminal charges were not brought against HSBC for its money laundering practices. Warren compared money laundering to drug possession, saying: 'If you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're going to go to jail ... But evidently, if you launder nearly a billion dollars for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night.'"
I mean that's almost the same kind of sentiment I can imagine DZM making.
So unless one thinks that is just theatrics, I think it is clear she is no friend of TradFi BS. I get the feeling that she was/is as pissed off about the 2008 Financial Crisis as I was/am. And that we have largely the same goals. And, in fact, they are the same when it comes to TradFi. Regulate those mofos. To paraphrase another Warren: Regulate any stealin' of our property and money.
We just differ in one tiny quadrant: crypto. And per this DZM piece it is a tiny quadrant: "According to Nasdaq, $3.1 trillion in illicit funds flowed through the traditional financial system in 2023. Cryptocurrency, meanwhile, was used to move $24.2 billion in illegal money, a literal rounding error by comparison."
Thus, I can disagree with her recent actions and comments--and hope it's more her team's fault than hers--and still support her Progressive views and efforts.
Regarding her team, remember it was a former staffer of hers that went after Pooltogether. And in this piece "Elizabeth Warren’s 'protege' Rohit Chopra and her former chief of staff, Dan Geldon" are prominently involved. To some, this could be seen as her minions are doing her bidding. But it could also be that it's her team that is encouraging her to go after crypto instead of banks. Perhaps her team is convincing her that crypto has no other value than money laundering and fraud. It can be hard to convince someone of otherwise when those do seem to be two very big use cases for it (just not bank-sized big use cases). Crypto is still early, so it's almost a matter of interpretation and prognostication, and maybe she's got some fintechy Svengali(s) "educating" her on the matter. I mean "shadowy super coders" does not scream a thurough and deep understanding of crypto. But that's okay. No one can be an expert on everything. And maybe her position will evolve over time.
I don't know. I kind of feel like it's being a fan of John Lennon. In general, and in the big picture, the guy really did care about peace, just kinda stinks that he also beat his wife (possibly wives). If wife beating is more important to you, or if crypto is more important, well, I can understand it. Wife beating is pretty f'ing bad.
Lastly, I think also maybe it is about different ways to get to a goal. 2008, in my mind, was institutions doing "shadowy super" finance chicanery. Which can possibly be solved by making it transparent to the few, but powerful and theoretically popularly elected (e.g. government regulation). Or by making it transparent to the many (e.g. a blockchain or distributed ledger). Yes, crypto isn't always transparent (see my comment on Samourai and my ethical conflicts with mixers). But regulations don't always keep proper tabs either (see the detoothing of Dodd-Frank that many think allowed Silicon Valley Bank to do what then caused them to fail - https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-regulatory-breakdown-behind-the-collapse-of-silicon-valley-bank - a detoothing ofa lot of the protections that I believe Warren helped put in place) .
There is probably more to be said about the political polarization of just about everything nowadays, even what could just be considered a technology, but maybe in another comment.