Crypto is the future of our financial system and our citizens deserve officials that do their homework to understand this new technology. Most of our leaders haven’t done that yet. We also need regulators and politicians who understand that new ideas need room to grow.
Cryptocurrency is the wild west of our financial system and desperately needs rules of the road to protect investors and our economy. I’m glad SEC Chair @GaryGensler agrees, and I’m going to keep pushing our regulators to act. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
agreed. Which goes back to my original point - accredited sophisticated investors should be able to engage in these and protections should not sweep across everyone indiscriminately which is what they are now. US citizens are broadly banned from all derivs exchanges as it stands
fair enough, the way I view it is more the OTC side but you’re right it’s a fine line. I just hope people see the value in how efficient and modular a lot of these defi protocos are relative to their ISDA counterparts. Insurance contracts are a great example of a stark diff
yes i’m with you there. But our definition in the level of modularity and counterparty is different - bringing your ISDA position from one bank to another is very different than one contract to another. And the UIs built on top etc. all use same underlying data structure etc.
i’m all for regs which stamp certain smart contracts as government approved safe maybe even insured - that would be a productive, user protecting reg. I’m afraid shutting it all down and rebuilding as it was defeats the purpose of what said contracts provide - modular finance
and the tone from today’s speech sounded more like shut it all down and make it work like it does in traditional finance now rather than help make the way it was built function with investor protections considered on top
now we’re having a more productive convo. I agree it’s non trivial but it is getting better. For example if you look at the top 2-3 lending protocols on chain and top perp swap protocols, you’ll see they have flawless records. And maybe sure a gov reg helps verify down the line
there are numerous instances of protocols with billions in assets and flawless records of holding said assets, humming along perfectly fine while others are exploited. It’s on audit teams and users to understand the differences and yes government can help verify there too
google a smart contract. Look at how Aave, compound, makr handle collateral in escrow. None of them have been hacked - multi billion dollar honey pots. You’re slamming a system without using or trying to understand it
it’s literally the opposite of what I want - you can do fully funded options on chain with no clearing house and direct transfer of premium from buyer to seller and transfer of collateral in the event of strike getting hit straight to the buyer. But I guess you’ve never used any
selling a put is a limit order where you get paid to bid, easy to understand and allowed to do it in robinhood on equities no problem - how do you do it on eth based in new york city in front of screens
missing the point - if you want to take a high risk trade with going to zero shot, you should be able to with a small percentage of your portfolio. So a qualification system proving you know how to diversify could work. Sweeping regs are not that. I’d bet on tails w small size