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

But aren't we are going against the government with that approach by creating self motivated ecosystem? I mean its like owning the island and putting up your own flag over there.

Government might just overlook this for initial stages. If this kind of ICO gotten to much exposure and if the taxes coming from the such villages on foods and water supplies got cut off then im sure they will take legal action on them.

I mean different countries different rules but still who knows what could be the after effect of this all.

Regulations don't prevent scams. The only thing regulations will do in that regard is cause a shift where it will no longer be amateurs setting up schemes and whatnot, but professionals knowing how to stay out of the picture for a very long time. The danger with this is that the current scams are easy to spot, but that later on won't be as easy anymore with how well set up they are.

I am quite sure that if BitConnect was run properly, it could have existed for years without imploding. It all comes down to how greedy and poorly operated they are in the end. These greedy baboons will make place for smart, conservative and well instructed entities that will legally scam you out of your funds.

Crypto ICOs is good without regulations but some projects are already taking advantage of this, if ICOs is to provide initial offering for those that are not rich then some ICOs already breach this condition. Taking Telegram ICO as example and also many other projects that consider less the not rich. Regulation would keep everything in track but as well it will give the regulating body too much power that will violate the aim of decentralization.

Regulation isn't necessarily bad. It exists for some reason, mainly for consumer protection. A company who wants to go for IPO has to deal with a lot of terms from the government. On one side, it prevents fraud/scam and on another side, it really expensive. Without some kind of regulation, we will see more and more scam ICOs. There must be some balance between regulation and freedom. It's not a binary scale 0/1 but more like a spectrum.

The government is afraid of decentralisation. They want everything under their radar.

I can' really see the picture of decentralization and regulation being in the same place it's like opposite sides of a magnet, that is why we are facing dilemma in the crypto society now. It is just starting and i bet they have more to do.

That maybe true, but then again i would.much rather join i on a regulated ICO. It will give me comfort that what I'm going inti isn't fraudulent and it will give my investment a protection that it won't fly away once the ICO is over. I know the strengths of having an unregulated ICO but a regulated one still supercede it.

Yes I believe so. Regulation could stop businesses from really improving on the businessman's view. They are there to make money and how can they if there will be too many Regulations? That is why I think people are trying to move on to cryptocurrency as a business because their is less regulation and they are free to do what they want and they are borderless with cryptocurrencies which means they have a wider scope than normal. Yet some concerns are also raised on the government side. The economy is always affected with the movements of money. Wether it is cryptocurrency or fiat, a country maybe affected that is the reason why they are monitoring or regulating businesses for the everyone's advantage. So for me it ia quite complicated really. I could agree on both sides.

In a sane economy, where everyone isn't for their selfish interest, this would be true but however in the world where we are, an unregulated space would be an ideal environment for scams and scammers

Definetely disagree with this, having access to ICOs is mostly bad for many investors because they are being scammed. I don't think also it is something for the poor or rich, it is ico and need to be regulated.

I definitely think so.

If crypto investments are regulated to the point that the average Joe isn't able to invest in a project without having to go through extensive background checks, extensive AML checks etc., and that is able to discourage him from investing, then it's certainly a negative. But it depends on how strict and what the regulation is, honestly.

ICOs are able to be invested in by everyone, and that is unlike IPOs which are only accessible to a select few big names.

However, can you really change the fact that the government wants to regulate crypto, and its related investments? I think it's hard.

It seems to me that regulation is one of the forms of modernization. It is impossible to predict all the risks before the appearance of the coin. Then life shows coin weaknesses and regulation can correct this and make the coin more convenient to use and viable. But regulation by the state and banks is quite another. This can be more called an attempt to subdue cryptocurrencies.

You're probably right when btc started out but as the market grows bigger and more people are into it, regulation becomes necessary to avoid or minimize illegal activities that through it. Regulation to a certain point is healthy.

At first, I kinda like the idea of ICO after the successful bout of ETH, but afterwards, many wanted to replicate the success by creating their own coin without providing any real value to its peers. In short, they masked profit-grabbing through ICOs and let people think that what they're doing is innovative and right. With ICOs being unregulated, people could just create it without a hitch, grab other people's money and get away with it. It becomes the safe haven of a money launderer if not watched over so no, I don't think cryptospace being unregulated is a strength for most people. Maybe for the dev of the coin, sure, but for peers and consumers? Certainly not.

It is likely we have the power for our own bitcoin for now. We see what are the advantages of havin unregulated crypto. We have the power and strength with our own bitcoin. We can do what we want to do, it is free for any kind of transaction.

That is exactly the reason why people patronizes bitcoin. If bitcoin is regulated then why don't we just stick to mainstream banking?

Looking at how btc started and it's decentralized nature then yes, obviously regulation is not something that really fits that picture.

 I think this is one of the main reasons why the government's of many countries are not ready to accept cryptocurrency it is because the Freedom, that it has.

You have some good points there but if crypto currencies aren't regulated then you would still have this blockade between exchanges & banks. Thus regulation would be the only way to go forward for crypto to mature.

Unless you are paid in crypto for the work you do, you are still tied to banks. Since banks/governments are afraid to loose control of the money, this blockade will continue.

Any Kickstarter,Indiegogo,Gofundme crowdfunding campaign can do the same work as an ICO and I don`t think that those crowdfunding platforms are heavy regulated or it`s expensive to list a project there.
Actually it`s easier to create a crowdfunding campaign.With ICOs you will have to code smart contracts and do some other programming work.
ICO were unregulated in the past,now they are more and more regulated.I think that this advantage is gone.

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?