Good to know. I won't comment on the rest of it - as those views you've expressed previously and have been well and truly thrashed out.
SEC Chair Gary Gensler joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss what crypto exchange FTX's fallout means for potential crypto regulation and investors. For access to li...
www.youtube.com
Funny seeing all the crypto bros running around crying out where were the regulators
Funny how? Because of an assumption you've made? You've identified centralized aspects re. crypto - and when it comes to those centralized parts, the sector has been trying to get regulatory clarity for a number of years already. Anyone that's spent more than 5 minutes researching activity in that respect over the past couple of years knows that.
This is an accurate take on the current scenario. As is
this. SBFs shenanigans is truly spectacular but in no way is all of this a clean game. From the Ripple case, to the lack of approval of an ETF (causing the grayscale fund to exist in the way that it does (not as an etf) - and the issues with that leading to AC3 blowing up earlier this year), to the double speak (Gensler saying that they'll talk to anyone but refusing to talk to Armstrong/Coinbase - then meeting with SBF because of the fat wads of cash which he was giving to the Demo's (who Gensler is aligned with), Gensler and his counterpart in the CFDC openly fighting for regulatory control over crypto (at the expense of actually getting the job done).
The assertion seems to be that nobody in the space has wanted regulation until now. That's simply untrue and the evidence is there in spades to prove it. When it comes to the decentralized aspects, those working on that tech are also looking for regulation - as there are actions that can be taken around the edges that can hold back the development of that innovation.
Of course there are many who would prefer that such systems are developed to a point where they're robust enough not to be impacted by anything a regulator or government might do. I'd sooner prefer that myself - but most recognize that it's not that simple (for the next few years at least). With that, there's been an ongoing fight for A. regulatory clarity and B. good regulation that doesn't stymie the innovation.
On that second point, I remember a previous discussion here a couple of years back where someone was trying to corral me into saying regulation is either good or bad - either you're on board with it or you're not. That could never be the case. There are plenty of examples (of progressive and horrendous regulation) and we have one with this crap storm right now.
SBF was throwing big money to the Democrats over the course of the past year or so. It's unethical but it's how everything is done in the US. If that was simply to draw attention to a need for sensible regulation, fine. The issue is described in Tom Emmer's tweet that I linked to above (i.e. he wanted it tailor made to exclude others - and that's what set off the chain of events in recent days as his main competitor responded).
