regulate exchanges and prevent them from scamming people and call that a hack.
regulate exchanges and force them to provide some sort of insurance (funds, assets,...) that proves they can accommodate the user's funds in case of a real hack.
regulate exchanges and force them to provide some sort of insurance (funds, assets,...) that proves they can accommodate the user's funds in case of a real hack.
regulations solve nothing
if you actually read whats required to get the "regulation" stamp of aproval, very little is about the rgulated entity bing ethical. 99% of regulations is about authorities getting the business to create their own policy on how the business will police their customers.
think about it. the bank/mortgage industry is regulated. in 2007-2008 were they punished or were they rewarded. banks done some illegal, immoral and unethical crap but no one was jailed. instead banks pleadd poverty and got large sums of funding, wile also screwing people out of their houss so the banks could also keep all the mortgagepayments AND sell the house aswell.. triple win.
SEC does not police businesses. instead they just fine businesses that are not paying the SEC for policing its customers. EG if your licenced you can get away with crap. but if your not licenced but are ethical and dont steal from customers. you will get fined simply for not being licenced and not policing your customers.
we should not be demanding rgulation. as its MEANINGLESS
we should be asking for consumer protection oversight yes the 'insurance' part you requested (which is the 1% function regulation does have) that way consumers can have an agency that actually does police businesses.
