Topic: New South Korean president is pro-Bitcoiner and vows to deregulate the industry (Read 372 times)

actually both candidates are very pro BTC, in contrast to the previous president who was not pro BTC, but in the end the choice of the president of South Korea fell to Yoon Seokryul. Of course the positive impact is clearly seen with the increase in ICX which indicates that the market is accepting of this.
Hopefully with the election of a new president who is pro BTC, he will be able to regulate regulations that may be less pro-BTC, and will fix them.
I believe the international market reaction will not have any impact, if any, will only be small, on what a country does to the existence of bitcoin.
It is clear that South Korea is now entering a new era of leadership and it will have an advantage for crypto enthusiasts there.

without sentiment this is a boast to the crypto market and a free will to investment in South Korea as well as a boast to the South Korean economy

On the long run this privilege will be abused and misused by scammers and might become a gateway for cyber-theft. In as much as Bitcoin needs massive adoption giving it the complete privacy it posses by any government is a big risk. What else do we expect from the international market if not a frown or threats from IMF and their counterparts.

This is quite precise, Korea is one of the countries that like bitcoin and ought to be let go off any sort of regulations that steps the boom of them. South Korea is one of these nations that became brink of now not being even current, and yet they in some way controlled to continue to exist and no longer simplest continue to exist but become a international kingdom.

As the crypto market, especially bitcoin, is quite popular in Korea, many people in the country use crypto. However, South Korea also reported a large number of cases where native computer hackers and dark web workers were reported to manipulate the crypto market. Prosecutors even demanded criminal punishment for manipulating the crypto coin values. However, this plea was dismissed, but nonetheless, they were all punished.

The new president of korea- Mr. Yoon Suk-yeol was a bitcoin trader, as well as a former law prosecutor. His wife is also a businesswoman. No doubt, their level of position have made them quite educated about the market conditions.

Why you seem unsure if this is a good thing or bad thing when you already said that he is a pro bitcoiner? Is the article not full and it's not stated if the deregulate word that they mean is to make bitcoin fully decentralized on their country but still continue to allow it?

Because, it can also mean that he deregulate it and won't support btc anymore on their country as we know that most countries allow bitcoin for one condition and that is to regulate it so that they can protect the consumers but charged some fee in exchange for it via tax. The international markets can react positively if this means positive or can also react negatively if it was the opposite.

My first response to the news was that it was great, it would be useful for bitcoin and its future. Crypto-friendly regulations will bring many people to the market as investors as well as traders. Obviously it will affect the market due to increased demand but we don't know exactly what the end result will be even if it is good. But now the market is reacting the other way around, and we can think that even certain countries are supportive or pro-bitcoin then will not be able to keep the price from dumping because it all depends on supply and demand.

Yes, we really don't know what he's doing, but I think even if they had trader and investor friendly regulations, then cryptocurrencies wouldn't be decentralized for them. This means that the government will not allow the economy and the circulation of money to get out of control, it is very unlikely.

I am yet to understand how he is planning to deregulate the cryptocurrency market in South Korea, does it mean anyone can run an exchange without any KYC requirement and even if the exchange run away there is nothing they can do about that, or anyone can conduct an ICO/ IDO whatever name you call them without any restrictions. I am yet to understand his vision and it is better to comment after that.

reserve definition:


1. a supply of a commodity not needed for immediate use but available if required.

I agree about stricter regulations, especially to ensure that scam practices are illegal, and that crypto scammers can be properly prosecuted. I don't, however, support an outright ban. Ethereum was an ICO. Had the ICOs been banned, we probably would not have got even the #2 coin of the crypto market, let alone a handful of others which aren't total garbage. Also, as for NFTs, I know Ukrainian foundations and also the government if I believe correctly use NFTs to fundraise for humanitarian and military causes to combat the effects of the war. So, again, had they been outright banned, way less money would have been gathered for a cause which I believe deserves support (and I'm pretty sure that most wouldn't argue that at least raising money for humanitarian relief is a good cause).
I don't know what we'll see in South Korea and how much power the president really had over such matters as financial regulations there, but we'll see.

I am glad that someone agrees that such things should be regulated even more strictly, because it has turned into a global mess that has no end in sight. And if it goes on like this, it's only a matter of time before the next scandal happens, and the worst thing about the whole story is that people think Bitcoin is to blame for all the bad things that happen - and when people lose money, they have to find the culprit.

When it comes to losses, it would be good if it was only a few million dollars, the thing is unfortunately much larger and measured in tens of billions of dollars only in the case of Kwon, and in total, with DeFi/NTF we can talk about hundreds of billions.

This is like telling everyone, "invest in crypto and all of you are free in doing so". This is how I understand that statement but hopefully, he's not going to welcome the scammers because it can be taken as an advantage.

Also, I hope that he stand a firm stance against Do Kwon and its company that has taken a lot of money not just from their citizens but globally. Will he be like Bukele? Well, we don't know and we'll still see.

It is not possible to say without knowing what plans they have. But speaking of de/regulations the nonsense politicians say before election is not something we can rely on. Not to mention that certain things in "crypto" market require even stricter regulations, for example the mess called ICO (and all the alternative names all the way to DeFi and NFT) need an outright ban and the altcoin market needs to be restricted because people have proven to not be able to handle it being unregulated and  the result has been billions of dollars worth of scams.

Bitcoin l think can never be deregulated except for those on centralized exchange with identity known. Come to talk of it, deregulating the industry goes in two ways; the people effect and the government  effect.

The people effect: As a blockchain enthusiast, nothing is more precious than freedom of being out of the government raider. You can do your deal without interference or hindrance from any quarters.  On the other side, it would steer up more crypto/ blockchain activities. As a major hub for crypto enthusiast, there would be surge in transactions and more adoption would definitely be in place. However, this would result to other nations and nationals to have a review of the blockchain industry while giving it a soft landing.

The government effect: Every government wants to protect her economy and citizens from unforseen circumstances and dangers. Also, deregulating blockchain industry means that the government hands are tied to the activities of the industry and therefore would not interfere. No tax, no monitoring of transaction, no identity verification, more fraudulent activities etc. Though deregulating blockchain is a favor to the people and disfavor to the government because the presence of government effect would cushion to some extent some activities onchain.

Now I ask is the new president a well experienced blockchain enthusiast to have opted for deregulating the industry as a government official or it's just a political statement so as to gain the love and support of the masses because no political or government official would dare say such knowing the circumstances surrounding the blockchain industry. I think it all a sugercoated talk while they do their secret monitoring so as to clamp down when ever and whom ever they see as a threat because such statement is nothing but a bait for opposition's. I don't in anyway trust politicians and their statement so I don't take them serious. But however let's watch and see as things unfold itself.

I don't think the bitcoin network can be regulated by the government even if they wanted to.  What comes to my mind when I hear regulation is the government's set rules for centralized companies. that want to take advantage of the Bitcoin Industry.  I also agree that this deregulation will bring more negative impact on cryptocurrency because of the possible influx of scam and fraud companies that use Bitcoin to entice unsuspecting investors in investing in their fraudulent schemes.

Even if he is a is pro-Bitcoiner and vows to deregulate everything, I would still not throw away all my doubts and hopes. Especially because of how politicians are almost all just lying dirtbags with no moral compass. The question should rather be does the new South Korean president have any kind of stake Bitcoin, crypto or even just some kind of blockchain technology or its unique use cases?

I will be looking into the background of that gentlemen before I decide whether or not his word can be taken seriously...

He plans to deregulate cryptocurrency, but I never even knew that it was that heavily regulated in South Korea in the first place? Were they one of the countries that took a heavy hand against it and banned it outright in recent years? It's a good start but not sure if it'll have much of a wider impact. Anything that builds a framework of laws around new technology instead of trying to banish it is definitely an improvement. It allows citizens to come up with innovative new ideas, instead of trying to lurk in the shadows and suppress something that could be really useful. As for the Philippines, your leader had some pretty terrible ideas during his terms in power and hopefully your citizens choose wiser in future.

This is quite good, Korea is one of the nations that like bitcoin and should be let go off any type of regulations that steps the growth of them. South Korea is one of those nations that was brink of not being even existing, and yet they somehow managed to survive and not only survive but grow to be a global nation.

Maybe it is their music that we hear more than anything else, but their industry giants are insanely big as well. Just think about Samsung alone, that is bigger than most nations GDP, and that should tell you something. Having a nation THAT big in crypto and not have any regulations that stops them? It should be bringing a lot more money to the table for sure.

Even though he is said to be a pro-Bitcoiner president, we need to know how the history of the Korean region has always had an interest behind their actions and support for a policy. Even though in the end if indeed the pro-Bitcoiner president in South Korea enforces a pro-Bitcoin and crypto policy, can they not do the same as the North Korean government has done by funding large amounts of crypto theft?

Being pro-Bitcoin and being pro-crypto are completely different things because who can say the new president is someone who will support Bitcoin, not some new Kwon shitcoin?

Has anyone read the article at all? It's about shilling some shitcoin whose name I won't even mention, and all wrapped up in a story about how the crypto market should be deregulated. I think that even stricter measures should be introduced in countries like South Korea, because history has shown that these people have very strange ideas that affect everyone else.

@cheezcarls -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2022-03-16-bitcoin-rallies-as-new-south-korean-president-vows-crypto-push-5391301

Yes, but what is clear is that the authorities were not going to allow their power to be taken away from them. I think that when they realized what BTCwas and that trying to ban it was like banning the internet, they decided to regulate it, centralizing it in a subtle way.

The more BTChas grown, the less centralized it has been, and I don't think the trend will change going forward, despite the P2PECS in the whitepaper.