According to a pseudonymous Twitter account, banking regulators are assembling dossiers on outspoken critics of “Chokepoint 2.0,” an alleged undisclosed initative to restrict crypto firms access to banking … which the current administration insists does not exist.
"
Eh, if anything we'll get Chokepoint 2.1, which is the same with exceptions for Trump/Thiel/Munk and their allies. If that's too difficult, I doubt they will want anything involving financial accountability going on. If they can contain it, keep loyal lackies as the investigators and enforcers, then maybe. But I think it more likely their tradfi grifts would get hurt by less speculation in general than helped by the lack of competition.
Also, I believe in some balancing. More regulations for onramps/offramp if you want non-regulation/deregulation fon defi. Let the experiment continue, five FOSS devs can't afford a regulation department, but don't force mom and pop to foot the FDIC bill. It's gotta be balanced with a buck stop somewhere, otherwise in case of global conflict you got fewer non-violent options. Maybe that's okay, when/if we live in a true decentralized-ledger-for-the-world-and-all-transactions reality (which seems like an unlikely utopia right now), but when tradfi is /less/ regulated while true defi is /more/ regulated, that to me is a recipe for more shenanigans in the shadows, as for every 1 shadowy supercoders there are 100 shadowy Credit Suisse shell (company) gamers.
"
According to a pseudonymous Twitter account, banking regulators are assembling dossiers on outspoken critics of “Chokepoint 2.0,” an alleged undisclosed initative to restrict crypto firms access to banking … which the current administration insists does not exist.
"
Eh, if anything we'll get Chokepoint 2.1, which is the same with exceptions for Trump/Thiel/Munk and their allies. If that's too difficult, I doubt they will want anything involving financial accountability going on. If they can contain it, keep loyal lackies as the investigators and enforcers, then maybe. But I think it more likely their tradfi grifts would get hurt by less speculation in general than helped by the lack of competition.
Also, I believe in some balancing. More regulations for onramps/offramp if you want non-regulation/deregulation fon defi. Let the experiment continue, five FOSS devs can't afford a regulation department, but don't force mom and pop to foot the FDIC bill. It's gotta be balanced with a buck stop somewhere, otherwise in case of global conflict you got fewer non-violent options. Maybe that's okay, when/if we live in a true decentralized-ledger-for-the-world-and-all-transactions reality (which seems like an unlikely utopia right now), but when tradfi is /less/ regulated while true defi is /more/ regulated, that to me is a recipe for more shenanigans in the shadows, as for every 1 shadowy supercoders there are 100 shadowy Credit Suisse shell (company) gamers.