Topic: Crypto being unregulated is a strength and an advantage - page 2. (Read 184 times)

This is where there must be a balance struck between the average consumer and the allowance of regulation for the market at large. If there is too much government intervention then it stifles the entrepreneur which in turn causes a capitalist system to become a corporatist system - not a proper economy. Allowing for megacorps to take over large swaths of the economy and cementing pseudo-monopolies where no new competition will ever be allowed to ferment is never good for an economy, regardless of how good it may sound on paper.

Regulating cryptos is not something that's good, realistically. There should be a more significant emphasis on consumer responsibility and curbing greed, otherwise it should be entirely the fault of the person spending their money when they end up making mistakes.

It will be great to checkmate the numerous crimes and scams that we often see with icos. How will that be checked if there is no regulation? This is the area that worries me with the absence of regulation. If that is taken care of I would say to hell with regulation because it will fall under the government. Look at the recent scam that was found in a campaign ran by Yahoo. It was an ICO. If not for the watchful eyes of user YuTu.Co.in here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/arbitao-is-100-a-scam-4486941 another scam would had happen.

I hope you know the main reason why those ICOs are being regulated. There are thousands of ICOs emerging from nowhere trying to create their own project that could potentially profit the devs and the team working behind it. There are those companies that are just using peoples' money for their own benefit by scamming peoples' investments. For me, a good and legitimate project won't be affected by these regulations if their vision mission is to really help out and improve the technology with the project that they are trying to introduce to the society.

In this section today, we have a thread about a small village in japan issuing its own ICO. There are a few broad points which may be derived from this:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-small-village-strengthening-its-economy-by-cryptocurrencies-4496558

Schools teach the concept of banks being great benevolent financial establishments which drive economic growth by extending credit and creating debt. This process fuels start ups and small businesses which statistically create approximately 50% of new job growth. However one neglected aspect of this rosy illustration of reality may be the large and unnecessary amounts of regulation present which restrict and delay loans/credit where they are needed the most.

Theory: ICOs could provide a real world application to the idea regulation strangulates business and restricts credit in a way which reduces economic growth, thus fueling an onset of recession and stagnation.

Evidence: As in the thread linked above, a small village in japan is able to issue an ICO. What makes ICOs attractive is their deregulation. An ICO can be issued without crippling amounts of regulatory red tape which would be invoked if the same thing were attempted through a standard investment method.

An ICO is like an IPO for those who aren't filthy rich, who do not have connections with powerful and influential people. An ICO is like a deregulated form of IPO, that is its strength and its advantage.

When posts in this section propose that bitcoin be "regulated" and ICOs must be cracked down upon. To a degree what they are saying is ICOs must become more "regulated" like IPOs. This in essence would kill off advantages IPOs, crypto and bitcoin have over traditional assets and investments offered by existing financial institutions.

To a degree, regulated crypto implies only the rich having access to things like IPOs or ICOs and that is not the direction which bitcoin nor crypto currencies should take.

Agree / disagree?