Topic: ㅤ - page 5. (Read 1125 times)

It is necessary to understand that it is impossible to live in a state and be free from its established rules of conduct. This is especially true for the financial sector of the economy. No state can allow capital to flow uncontrollably and anonymously on its territory, sometimes on a fairly large scale. Therefore, a certain regulation of the circulation of cryptocurrency in society is inevitable. On the other hand, the regulation of cryptocurrency circulation in the state is an integral part of its legalization, during which the state takes relations with cryptocurrency under the protection of its law enforcement and judicial system, and this has a positive effect on people's trust in cryptocurrency and increases the level of security when working with it.
The whole point is that states can choose the golden mean between the decentralized nature of the cryptocurrency and its regulation so that the cryptocurrency can not only exist, but also develop freely.

I think it is inevitable that trading BTC on a platform will always require some regulation. A business needs some control and unfortunately, most of the time government (even if they are unreliable) is the only one who can do that. The best thing to do if you're not a fan of it is to do P2P trades. The network is gonna be fine regardless of what happen on the regulation side imo.

Thats gonna be hard. Let just say decentralized are in favor of some especially the scammers, hackers and many thieves. Who keep jumping from ship to ship just to ransack money from people. Its something the government cannot tolerate. On the otherhand, even though the government has all authority on such regulation, being on centralized compromised corruption since it cant be held transparently which is also bad.

Not sure how to balance this cause both sides have their own pros and cons.

This is intriguing paragraph and really don’t know where to start the non ending discussion really! So you telling me if KYC becomes solid thing in the crypto from all the directions then we might just see crypto as centralised system.

So it may happen that bitcoin would be nothing but informal alternative to the fiat system. Now this has given second thoughts like, if it becomes reversible transaction then many people will start using it because they will have security of error free system and use it as alternative to fiat.

Practically transactions are irreversible but with KYC we know both parties so any third party managing transactions can resend money easily to them.

That’s gonna be hard to digest if it happens. In next 10 years you ask, it would be nothing but fiat system.

I'm not surprised, yeah they are known professional investors (in this case KYC is no longer a problem) who generally always prefer the centralized way. Of course regulation is their first condition as protection, because basically their only interest is volatility which means another space for profit. However, that doesn't mean they ignore cryptocurrency innovation altogether, just that they are not interested in taking advantage of the technicalities.

The world should not be a place without law. Even we can disagree with a lot of things launched by governments and central banks, we must recognize that they somewhat govern societies and keep things on the right track.

Without laws, without regulations, without governments, the world would be a very chaotic place that is not what I want to live in. I guess most of us don't want to live in a society without law and regulations too.

In my opinion, I agree that "Regulation is a good thing".

Yes because for having a regulation they can assure that their money or assets has little secured on the platform which is proper regulated by government. They mostly don't care about doing Kyc or even paying taxes since what this type of guys are into profits on low risk as possible they can.

At the moment those other investors who don't like to do Kyc will surely like this option if they realize that this is part of regulation and they will be protected on it.

I hope you are differentiating between scam tokens/companies and privacy, because neither is supposed to imply the other. Actually, the fact that things like ICOs are heavily regulated now is a good thing, if you look back at the time when this forum was buzzing with scam ICOs to such an extent that Wikipedia blacklisted us.

Some people consider KYC important to be protected, although there is no guarantee at all after doing KYC, on the other hand many retail traders continue to push for regulation, which they think can protect their investment and the security system we expect.
Regulations and KYC also cannot guarantee the level of security and the overall process of crypto travel. This will only impose the wishes of some people who think differently from the concept of Crypto.

There is a kind of fear of the growth of Bitcoin or Crypto in general, so the regulation is constantly being developed, but to make people believe it more, they use the excuse as a form of security. If I'm honest, regulation is always being pushed and talked about everywhere, only for the benefit of some people, but not entirely the wishes of those involved in Cryptocurrency investment, this concept is completely against the bitcoin journey, even bitcoin adoption continues and grows very developed, although no such regulation exists, regulation is just another reason to limit decentralization.

For this reason I strongly agree, Cryptocurrency does not require KYC, Regulation and Centralization, all forms of development methods are self-determined steps, as you said the concept is anonymous and does not require third parties.
In the future we will continue to be faced with regulatory pushes, making it even more annoying. Despite Bitcoin's growth and widespread adoption, there is no close connection to the reasons that continue to be voiced.

Crime existed hundreds of years before bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, and without bitcoin, the government would never be able to stop all crime. Regulating bitcoin will never stop criminals, they will find another way to continue their behaviour, don't always associate crime with bitcoin.


This is not going to happen. Regulation means user account control, if you don't control users how can you hunt criminals, there is no such kind of regulation. Regulation is inevitable and what its impact will be, let time tell. Nor can we object or oppose it.

I will be surprised to hear that if the real time bitcoin investors are the the ones demanding for regulations, how could this be, it rather serve more bad and insecure on their privacy than they could thought of, nothing is good with regulations ones it cones to bitcoin because here regulations could serve another means to got colonized under central authorities for directives, what bitcoin stand for is complete decentralization and no any big time investor would prefer government regulations when how to remain secure lies with using cold storages or running a bitcoin full node with bitcoincore than centralized exchanges, other cryptocurrencies may adopt regulations since they were centralized while bitcoin is fully decentralized and need not to be regulated.

I am one of the strong advocates of a fully regulated environment, and this includes Bitcoin. I was hesitant to deal with Bitcoin many years back because of some of the illegalities that it aids due to its decentralization and anonymity, but thanks to regulations that are reducing its anonymity. Many may get this wrong, but I don't care, all I care about is a better world of transparency that would reduce where criminality could hide.

Yet, I don't support the regulation that controls one's account, No. The regulation I support does not stop the decentralization and total ownership of Bitcoin and others, it would only aid traceable deals. And if you are clean, there is nothing to worry about. Anything outside this is excessive by the government and companies involved.

The majority of institutional and retail investors lose their money, can't keep up with the inflation, and therefore are stupid enough to make reasonable judgments; they simply can't know whether this or that measure is going to be beneficial for the market, let alone a decentralized cryptocurrency that is nothing less but phenomenon humanity hasn't witnessed before and couldn't have predicted. Trying to regulate a phenomenon, a breakthrough in technology, alleged regulators make it less significant and less useful because any attempt to invade its development process prevents people from achieving the desired financial well-being. Regulated bitcoin won't enable people to express their will via peaceful protests against the broken traditional fiat system; it won't protect their savings from rapid devaluation, it won't set them free from shackles of financial slavery, with regulated bitcoin, masters - banksters will retain their power in keeping people poor.

I don't think many people are against laws to protect investors and make the space more fair and transparent. It looks like the cryptocurrency regulatory process is in full swing and will continue until regulators are sure they can monitor everything.

Now, all who are involved in the world of the Money Market need a system that protects investors. If we are not sure whether something is legit or not it is better to just avoid it.

In other words, the future of cryptocurrencies will depend on regulation—but regulation is done right. There is nothing wrong if the parties want to regulate this industry, as long as it is done in the right way. But by protecting consumers and investors, regulators will help cryptocurrencies thrive—not hinder them.

The "Investors" will not ask for regulations, because they want the volatility to increase their profits.... and a unregulated commodity will have more volatility, because Crypto whales can flourish in a unregulated environment.

The Retail industry on the other hand, want a less volatile currency, because it works better with the pricing of items and services, if you have a less volatile currency. 

The institutional investors are tied to the fiat money system. They can't untie. Dumping the fiat system and choosing an alternative would simply mean that the institutional investors would lose the support of the central banks and the governments, which will kill their business.
The more crypto looks like fiat money, the more institutional investors will get interested into investing in crypto. The problem is that cryptocurrencies will lose their true nature, if they simply turn into another form of fiat money.
The current situation in terms of global crypto regulation seems enough balanced. Any more regulations regarding the mandatory declaration of cold wallets and/or dumping PoW coins would simply destroy the balance. This means that crypto will turn into "fiat 2.0" and the institutional investors might like it, but the true crypto supporters, who want decentralization would be repulsed by the new regulations.

Finding an effective balance on this big issue is the key to make sure that regulations are not being utilized to suppressed and even kill the very thing that is being regulated. On the side of the government, there are a lot of reasons why regulations are and will be in placed for the whole crypto marketplace...and I even agree with many of the reasons. Now, on my own PoV, what the government is doing is exercising its own power over everything as it does not want to be caught with anything off-guard. At this age, governing is a very complicated thing and for sure it does not want to add cryptocurrency to the mix of things that it does not any control with. And as such, it is hoped that eventually there will be more and more investing people that will be looking - and entering - at cryptocurrency with more trust and confidence. In other words, we are slowly getting away from the old Wild, Wild West era. Now, will that be good or bad? Let history be the judge.

Regulations in a country or a well-organized government system as well as layered rules for most investors who will enter a product industry in various worlds may have obstacles for the entry of these investors, but with these regulations at least it will provide security and supervision guarantees for investors. investors as the main financiers will not open cryptocurrencies in the world.

Basically the concept of cryptocurrency is no centralization, no KYC, everything is anonymous and without third parties. But at the same time, without regulation, a large number of scams and scammers emerge, many crypto exchanges in the market can manipulate prices.

At least the regulations that are implemented as an example of the existence of the KYC system are nothing but to create a conducive ecosystem and also to facilitate efforts in a country which of course will have a significant impact on job creation, especially in encouraging the country's economy.

I'm normally on the idea that increasing regulation increases the sophistication of scams and doesn't get rid of them. In this age of technology, scams move faster than law enforcement can and people are able to scam and go missing still - and a lot do (and once those people are gone you're going to find it hard to recover the money). I think investors are happy to know the source of their funds too, they're a lot less likely to be propping up illicit industries if regulation does well and non kyc coins cost more than kyc ones for example (like how "fund" coins are cheaper - due to management fees mostly - like Grayscale).

I liked the Theymos endorsed ico idea though with howeycoins, I think more of that sort of education might come from regulation which should be supported. Transactions in bitcoin are likely to remain irreversible though too and that's something that could be educated on more too (I don't know if it's a good or bad thing that wallets don't include their own education documents and force them onto their users - electrum's readthedocs seem like a good example of having useful education but aren't something an excited newbie would potentially find).

Getting a user to enter the nmemonic they've just written down and then a phrase of "I downloaded this software from electrum.org and can confirm it by going to my browsers download history or seeing it's been signed, I also understand confirmed bitcoin transactions are irreversible and will try my best to follow the documentation from [source] if I'm using this wallet for any purpose other than testing with a small amount of funds. I understand bitcoin has value and that I'm the sole controller of my wallet and will keep it secure along with my computer to the best of my abilities and not install untrusted software on my computer".

With this kind of article, It had to be Bloomberg. Not surprised, they are always negative about Bitcoin and crypto in general.

I think we are already seeing the signs.

Remember the old days when there were not stablecoins and one has to determine trading pair prices in sats?
And then came the centralized stablecoins and before we know it there will be CBCDs in most crypto exchanges.

The problem is that masses tend to trust centralized and custodial services where they have to sign up and avoid being responsible with their own money. It why custodial services like Coinbase and blockchain wallet are so popular among new users and noncustodial wallets like Electrum less popular. Some people just don't want to go an extra mile.