Topic: DFS Hearing, Takeaway Thusfar (Read 1824 times)

Ppl gives Charles Lee way too much credit. Hes just a programmer that copy and fork Bitcoin. His fork was half serious and he never shows any understanding of btc from financial/economy point of view. All of his interviews has been terrible. Only noobs follow him as if hes an early btc contributors.

I would rather have Roger or Andreas on the panel. Charles Lee and Bobby Lee are all jokes.

It started with Lee making a point about the benefit of crypto-currencies being easier money laundering in his opening statement. The panelists answers were for the most part very weak, i stopped watching after 15 mins.

Why? I missed the 2nd panel.

Sorta... If he'd really done his homework, he would've called it a 51% attack instead of basically asking how the system could be attacked (which is a basic and obvious question that any regulator should ask about anything). Lawsky was clearly insightful, but the others, not so much, IMO.

The second panel made me want to sell all my BTC.

What struck me is that the regulators has really done their homework and asked some very insightful questions, which is some cases did not get the best answers from the panellists.

Asking what amounted to a question about the risk of a 51% attack for example is a very insightful question form a regulator.

Why oh why oh why cant we get andreas antonopolous on one of these panels.

Just finished watching charlie lee and imho he didnt do a very good job explaining the many benefits of crypto.


Andreas is a god when it comes to explaining the potential of bitcoin.

Everyone in session-1 was pro-reg too. It's just a matter of degrees. To echo Fred Wilson, a "safe harbor" period of non-strenuous regulation for startups is reasonable. Expecting big-bank level compliance processes from small organizations is stifling.

Session 2 is ridiculous....100% of the panel in favor of regulation.

I'm investing a lot of time, money and energy in this and would prefer to see anyone in session two who comes close to representing my views.

Russell Peters does a better Chinese guy than Charles Lee.

BTC may just end up being a monster locked in a cage depending on how things go.

eww, is she talking about Bankcoin?

BTC is unstoppable at the moment. Just depends who realizes that first.

Indeed, and Barry Silbert and Jeremy Liew were both quick to point that out. Again, I'm encouraged that Lawsky did seem to genuinely appreciate that point.

I'm hopeful that the outcome will be clear regulation that doesn't stifle innovation whilst at the same time further legitimising bitcoin. They have to strike the right balance. Get it wrong and another country will simply step in with better regulation and allow for greater and quicker growth of Bitcoin industry in that country.

One things for sure, this thing is going mainstream. It can't be driven back underground. That's where it started.

I'm happy to see that Ben Lawsky does appear genuinely interested in making sure bitcoin isn't hampered by regulations to the point of stifling most innovation. That said, in his role as chief financial regulator for NY, he's going to be heavily leaning to the side of more regs to stamp out money laundering and so-forth, and will probably have the natural tendency to underweight the overall benefits to society of allowing free innovation. But it's encouraging that, like Senator Carper, he really does seem to get that there's something with great potential here, and he needs to be mindful of allowing it to develop and incentivizing virtual-currency businesses to set up shop in NY.

Other takeaway: Fred Wilson is great. He's quick to eloquently convey the greater vision and potential, the uniqueness and breakthrough-nature of bitcoin as a technology, and the historic context of bitcoin as a nascent revolutionary open-tech akin the internet in 1990. I think a lot of that did resonate with Lawsky.

As one might expect, regulators' general thinking on the topic, as evidenced from other members of the DFS team, is not terribly sophisticated. Right here on this forum we've beaten these issues to death for years. These guys are just starting to ask the basic questions; topics like "liquidity", "hoarding" vs incentive to spend, "pseudo-anonymity", "mining as an infrastructure", "Dr. Evil attack on mining" (ie, 51%), all mentioned by DFS team with little real understanding/nuance. This is going to take time.

I just hope in the meantime they take Fred's idea of a minimally-invasive regulatory on-ramp for startups to heart, and produce actionable regs fit for entrepreneurs soon.