Topic: Ideas on de-centralized regulation. (Read 374 times)

Internet is a correct way for the de-centralized regulation.

If the government want to take over a certain thing then it means centralization so that they could control over it. Now in talking of Bitcoin currency, there is no way it will maintain decentralize as the government regulation is have the power to rule over it therefore the only chance that Bitcoin will remain decentralize is to be against the regulation in which its a difficult thing to do.

Really interesting ideas are given.

If bitcoins regulators are created, they will have to pay attention not only to business entities and companies, but also to individuals and their actions with bitcoin.

some of the latest regulations are usually used by governments that really prohibit or indeed will actually adopt a crypto so that will not get a loss for the country. The regulation contains some rules about the use of bitcoin.

The overall interest in blockchain will only increase, just like how it happened with the internet. The main problem is that out of the many initiatives, at current stage, the far majority will fail, but it will be something we all will learn from to develop more efficient applications and use cases.

Seriously, look at Bitcoin, it was the development of the first ever crypto currency where it was only meant to function as means of exchange, where right now we have Ethereum functioning as platform developers can build apps and other layers on. It's truly groundbreaking. Regardless of how I strongly dislike the far majority of the altcoins and tokens, some of them do actually serve a purpose. My main favorite is Monero since privacy is very important to me.

Bitcoin's advantage is that it doesn't need to compete with others because it's doing everything people want already, which is functioning as store of value, and means of exchange, where with LN on board it will be even more of a perfectly usable micro transacting tool, especially when clients allow easy usage for even the worst noobs. Main uses = Bitcoin. External uses = altcoins.

I think that the interest in the blockchain will get lower because  there are just a couple of working projects out of thousands of them. That is an advantage for such crypto currency as Bitcoin because it will make those who believe in its functionality to swith back to them.

Decentralization isn't something they like, but it's not that much of a problem for them right now. If we look at how the majority of the people enter and exit the market, and even keep using services as Coinbase to store coins, then they have a perfect view of what's largely going on, and that's all they care about. If the mass sticks to these centralized services, governments won't have anything to fear. As long as people prefer convenience over security and decentralization, nothing will change. If you look at how large Coinbase has become due to this, then it's safe to say that nothing will really change in the coming years. Coinbase is literally dominating this market, and let them be one of the most regulated services....

We could not control what may the decision of the government to have an interest in manipulating and put regulation on decentralized currency. But one thing I can be proved that they afraid on this decentralized they think that it will become their big competitor someday.
Decentralized regulation takes a long process before they made it, that's the reason some countries banning that decentralized currency to avoid illegal activities.

Whether we like it or not, its bound to happen. There are some things you don't have control over and one of them is the behavior of some other people towards certain things and because of that we have to come to a consensus on how we want to be run. Everyone knows the difference between good or bad (at least the obvious ones irrespective of cultural inclinations or orientations) but because of the greedy nature tendency, people tend to throw morality in the winds in other to live large and impress those around them.

For me, I don't have any beef against regulators until its obvious they are not being fair and we won't know until we have one. But for those who are preempting such to be a negative outcome, surely have something to hide.

Yeah they should need a thorough study before  they regulate, so that they have a fair regulations to all,  like  how  they  will cater  decentralized system and other bitcoin character in which different from fiat money.

In short its not really possible to collaborate that idea because it wont really suit out no matter how hard we do think off the possibilities.There would be always on need a control center which would able to make the whole system functional and in control which means its still centralized and we know that decentralization doesnt really work on that way.

Any little regulation , law or rules even with some unions ow whatever makes decentralized centralized. So its not possible to do that. Cryptocurrency is decentralized so there are need for some governing unions to handle it.

Decentralized regulation is quite a weird idea in my opinion. It does not make any sense. Regulation basically is exercising some sort of control over something in order to organize it properly and ensure its smooth functioning.

A regulatory framework ought to  operate at the center. Its powers may be delegated to a certain level that is well within its range only, but multiple level delegation will not let the regulatory systems work well.

Regulating the crypto market is  the  need of the hour and is what many people want. So the regulatory framework has to be such that it provides some good response and cuts down the number of mishappenings and the scams that are happening as of now.

A lot of implications will happen if cryptocurrencies were to be regulated in the future.
Frst, prices would be somehow stable and less-volatile since it will be regulated by government-created departments or institutions;
Second, the government will need to accept its legality and function into the society and other countries must conform with this acceptance for a wide-scale implementation;
Third, it will benefit the general public and the government economically, as it may provide job opportunities and employment if they offer cryptocurrency-related work or matters; and
Fourth, since prices would be less-volatile, expect its price to decrease in some point wherein investors would look for another alternative to earn income.

If any body is considered regulatory, it should have the authority to regulate it. Therefore, any regulatory body should be centralized, that is, its decisions must be mandatory for execution. However, regulating bodies can be not only state bodies, but also public organizations, associations of citizens. In this regard, regulators, for example, for the ICO, can be not only government agencies, but also public organizations.

Decentralized or not regulations is always implemented. Without regulation everything is void. Each of us have differences in life the way we move and the way we display our selves. If regulation is not present in this place it could not be founded because regularity of things must be done because without it every thing is weak. Regulations doesn't mean government but it means to control the possibility that should happen. It is a preparation to avoid irregularities.

1. Crypto UK – A self-regulatory trade association for the UK cryptocurrency industry.

2. Virtual Commodity Association (VCA) - An industry sponsored self-regulatory organization for the U.S. virtual currency industry.

3. Sixteen exchanges in Japan forming a self-regulatory organization.

4. The Korean Blockchain Association with 23 exchanges is preparing to form a self-regulatory organization.

5. The South African Reserve Bank (SARB) is setting up a self-regulatory organization to regulate cryptocurrencies.

6. Indian Bitcoin exchanges are self-regulated under Digital Asset and Blockchain Foundation of India (DABFI).

Regulations are inevitable, either governments would impose their own crypto regulations or non-governmental self-regulatory organizations would be able to come with their own regulatory framework that is efficient, effective, enforceable, and acceptable to prevent any over-the-top regulatory intervention from the government.


SRO's would be more flexible to adapt and implement regulatory guidelines according to the changing crypto dynamics without impeding innovations. Most of the countries are yet to come up with any regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies and with proposals like VCA and Crypto UK, if the industry is able to self regulate then the possibility of stringent governmental regulations can be avoided.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/south-africas-central-bank-to-establish-self-regulatory-body-to-oversee-crypto-industry

Can this be said the same for the crypto-community? While there are private parties that facilitate and probably supervise the internet, are there any present organizations for crypto? Since there has been an influx of ICO scams recently, there's going to be some need to police the crypto-community. Even while countries attempt to regulate crypto, it would be suitable for the cryptocommunity to have a self regulated organization despite it being decentralized.

A regulation means to have control and I don't think you can control something that is decentralized because every one has his own way of doing it. It is oxymoron in the sense that decentralized means separate and regulation means to come together so it is hard to imagine having a decentralized regulation.  This is the reason why government do not want a decentralized currency because they know that they cannot totally take control of it. If possible they would come to a system wherein people would use cryptocurrency still but the system is centralized so that they can still take control of it.

There's nothing impossible for our leaders to accept this way that we wanted to be with decentralized currency, and in fact the central bank of the most countries of asia were accepting digital currency in lined to what regulation of their local trading sites. Bitcoin is limitless and I think the boundaries depends on the positive views of the government leaders, but most importantly as residence of a country we should and don't just wait for what's the outcome is. But we should learn and be able to respect the law no matter what, and I am sure we'll be able to see the future results that we may see in reality soon.

So many traditionalists in this thread who are using circular reasoning instead of thinking outside the box. I wonder what they're even doing on this forum. Why are they even interesting in Bitcoin?

It would be pointless if we do think on creating such union but we do know that theres powerful people still on the top who would make the final judgement which means it would be useless on thinking up a decentralized regulation. From the word itself "regulation" it will do really require leaders and we know that most of them will really picture out their own traditional beliefs or ways which wont be suited on the thing we are talking here.

I disagree. In a democracy central authorities follow laws formed by societal consensus. Societal consensus can be achieved in a decentralized way. Now we need to find a way to enforce decentralized law, in such a way that prevents authority overstepping their boundaries.

In the name of the topic is a contradiction. Regulation cannot be decentralized. In order to come up with and implement the General rules need a Central authority and this is a real centralization it contradicts the idea of creating an oval bitcoin can only harm. We need to be able to adapt to the conditions that exist. It is not difficult if you have a desire.

I agree with you in your idea and I have been thinking how this last part can be made to work. I'm saying, how will the community leaders be identified or informed on what there responsible will be to the mass of users or investors?

I however agree in the regulation of icos because it has become a corner stone to fraud.

Would governments be satisfied with this though? The crypto community can self-regulate all they want, but there's no way to bind every user to this agreement. The community can only do so much to penalize offenders too, so it may be ineffective on that end. I find it really hard to visualize. Nothing's stopping government regulations from overriding everything, too. In the end, maybe "decentralized" and "regulation" simply don't mix.

In real life where we coexist with the government, I would find it difficult to create a decentralized community. There will always be regulators who will decide and keep an eye on everything that happens in the community.

But for the technology world we are most likely able to create a decentralized system, we can manage by ourselves without any party set up. Because the world of technology will be hard to intervene by some authoritative rights, even though those who have authority like the government will do the banning then we will easily find a way to find it again.

Yes, I agree with the internet is a way to create a decentralized system. With the internet we can do anything that can never be regulated by the authorities. As cryptocurrency is always alive though some countries actually severely forbid cryptocurrency, but that is only their intention of the fact that cryptocurrency is still alive today.

What's great is that the miners do not allow the solution to scalability problems? They make it bad for everyone. If there was a platform for finding joint solutions it would be better. But I agree that there should not be a regulatory body that can solve problems with a strong-willed decision. To manage the processes should only economic principles.

The miners form a loose group and their opinions do matter. We have seen that during the signalling for different BPIP during the debate about scaling solutions. Apart from that, I don't think we need any specific regulatory authority as such.

This issue must be approached from the position of what we are going to regulate. If it concerns the crypto currency, then the rules of its circulation here will be established by state bodies. The issues of the technical and technological plan can not be regulated at all. Otherwise, it will be another crypto currency and we do not need such a crypto currency. The issues of holding an ICO can really be regulated either by state bodies or by public organizations. That is, the question of which body can carry out regulation depends on what is subject to regulation. Everything else depends on the balance of forces that will be interested in solving these issues.

I love how you are describing the internet here as far as regulation is concerned. The best way to deal with regulation is self-regulation though there will still be existing laws that can be used in the governance so that erring members of the community can be controlled using those laws. Hopefully, cryptocurrency is going to the route threaded by the internet and that the government will only intervene in extreme cases as can be defined by both sectors.

   you don't need anyone to control everything you can weed out scammy projects just fine with a trusted standard of peer review.

there has been 2 examples of somewhat self-regulated spaces brought up already, in science and the internet...   the whole idea of open source is self-regulation, isn't it?

   you need some honest media and content creators working with devs and exchanges in the space to just basically review stuff.  Projects can pay a fee for a review perhaps, or maybe there's a way to get money out of exchanges for this service..  this I don't know.

Agree with you since regulatory body needs someone to control everything specially in ICO but it can't be done without centralizing it. So, the best action for this, is that the leader should be a trust-worthy one, meaning that we only centralized the leaders but decentralized the ICO for it's anonymity and other purposes. If they do find a better than this, then it must be done in a right way like ICO.

When we talk about regulation, it can't be be done in a decentralized way. Regulatory body needs to be the supreme power holder. Even if we implement the idea of union, that will also need some leaders to make decisions. So decentralized regulation can't exist in reality.

But I agree to the point that we will need some sort of self regulatory body in near future, especially in ICO market which will be responsible for due diligence of any new ICOs. Otherwise the entire market will loose credibility slowly.

To achieve this goal, the community leaders should act. We as a common people scattered worldwide, can't achieve any significance.

I think the Internet makes a good model for what you're describing.

The Internet itself is a good example of a decentralized and (mostly) self-regulated organization.  At the highest levels on the behind-the-scenes of the internet are generally boards of trustees/directors (ICANN, ARIN, etc). After that very high level, once you're on the internet-as-you-know-it, much of what you experience falls back on non-authoritarian rules enforcement. For example, it's illegal to send spam email. But most of spam prevention and eradication is actually done by private parties.

Ultimately, even when you do regulate the internet with traditional laws, the real enforcement and implementation of such is done by loosely-connected individuals seeking to achieve a common objective.  The internet is beautifully self-healing and self-regulating.

   Can you have regulatory bodies function without centralized authority?   sort of like a union.  Can this be monetized in a way that's fair and consensual?   I think most of us in this space have some beef with regulators, but it's becoming apparent that some self-regulating needs to happen.   I think it's an important discussion, would love to hear any ideas on the topic.