Topic: Regulation Can Also Be Protection (Read 623 times)

This was an interesting read about Kirobo trying to circumvent the Israeli regulations  https://saferinvestor.com/blog/isa-cryptocurrency-security/

These are the major concerns we have to face with the people because daily new people are approaching the Crypto. So it should not damage their intention because every one of us is here to make money. So might don't know how to choose the right ICO, if government regulate then they will happily start investing into companies without facing any scams.

yes as it should be, regulations are made to protect, reduce crime, when crime begins to be in bitcoin to protect it by a rule, so that no one is harmed for those who obey will benefit and for those who violate will get punishment, so that we will invest more protected because it is our right

Regulation is not protection, but rather a protection racquet. And to be clear, the cryptocurrency markets are already broadly regulated under older laws. Take the example of BTC-e. They never obtained the necessary licenses or complied with USA's money laundering laws. As a result, neither BTC-e nor its customers were protected when the US government shuttered BTC-e down last year. There was no way for customers to recover seized funds; clearly the shutdown was not done to protect customers.

Licensing schemes are barriers to market entry that afford your business protection from government action -- for a very high price. That price ensures that only a limited number of capital-rich entities -- the Coinbases, the Geminis, the Bitflyers and the Circles -- can afford to pay for protection. This is how oligopolies form. That's where the market is headed now.

Regulations does not only implies for something to be made unlawful or restricted. Regulation simply means some rules around the specific topic are applied. For example the Human Rights is a set of regulation which grants benefits to humans. Therefore of course regulation also means protection.

Yes and regulations, apart from protecting us, come hand in hand with mass adoption. It is too naïve to think that everybody is going to use bitcoin and government is not going to regulate it.

Definitely right regulating bitcoin must be a protection to us bitcoiners.Government want to regulate us to avoid those illegal activities of some person who did bad in crypto.Bitcoin can be secured to any scammers or hackers if crypto was became legal.

Nothing can stop people being illegal.  But certainly rules and regulations can prevent illegal moves.  Yes regulations are indeed needed. Regulations directs and disciplines every act and formulates uniformity. This leads to long run and stability. At times it becomes hard to practice at the beginning but the outcome would strengthen the basement.

This is one of the reasons why many governments are concerned on the use of bitcoin because it might be use by some people for their illegal activities. They will seek further control the way btcoin is used to protect financial stability. The use of bitcoin by some criminal elements are hard to detect and many are are resorted to imposing regulations to control the use of bitcoin.

Regulations are necessary, I think if uncontrolled use of crypto money increases, crime rates and the country's economy are seriously damaged.

Yes! I actually dream of having it regulated, just that it would always come with consequences. But you know, since you have mentioned we are not in a perfect world, you should know very well there is too much politics going around. And because of such, we are put in a difficult situation as we are at the mercy of these politicians and businessmen alike, who, respectively, have their own vested interests. The average people are always the ones affected regardless if it is about Bitcoin or whatever global issue there is.

One probable thing governments would do is to regulate it by its own terms like exacting personal information in every transaction so they would know how to tax you accordingly. But of course, this is at a limbo until the VIPs have sat down and made compromises by virtue of reciprocal concessions.

So yes, regulation can also be protection but the VIPs are the ones protected while the average people are the ones robbed, technically speaking.

"The only problem is when regulations are set-up not to protect but to also kill or stifle the very thing being regulated."  I agree with this.I think regulations must make sense..

I agree if only there would be regulations to support the legal use of cryptocurrency it would be of great advantage for everyone. It gives the user the sense of security and wouldn't have a second thought when makjng their transactions.

If regulation is put in a good use and if we'll be benefiting from it the that would be great, but if it used to protect self interest it'll be an abuse of power.

Regulations can protect us from being scammed by the exchanges or by some users though you're right that don't invest on the things that you are not sure but this can help a lot. Regulations can also be bad to some people cause they will need to pay taxes for that one and basically this kind of decentralized market don't what that things to happen but if we talk about security, I'll agree for the regulations.

One of the reason of regulation if you think about it is about the protection that a state wants to give to their investors aside from detecting and preventing money laundering from criminals.
Many people disagree to this kind of system and it really shows how much demand for anonymity there is in the community and i think that's the reason why prices of cryptocurrency is very volatile and expensive even without having a physical appearance as a currency.

I don't see a reason why we'd need to be protected from one another. IMO if you don't know where to invest, how to verify a company, a dev team, or any other service provider, you shouldn't deal with them. You should look for a professional or not get involved with high risk investments at all.
The government prays on our laziness. Their regulation has nothing to do with protection. I see it as a form of control.

Even if you would take a pic it wont really guarantee you that it would happen into your place specially on regulating bitcoin. We do all know that there are some places who do regulate bitcoin which for some people it is really and advantage stuff because into the chance or having the feature on protecting once theres a problem arise into it but on general speaking for true believers of bitcoins potential would really oppose into this kind of regulation matters.

Your thoughts that lawyers, tax advisers, etc. are incentivized to lobby for regulation is interesting, but I think it oversimplifies the picture. Yes, you're right in acknowledging that lawyers and their ilk have a vested interest in complicated statutes because such statutes require lawyers to properly interpret. However, I believe the real problem lies in the grey area currently created by a vacuum of legal guidance. All anyone in the legal profession has to guide them right now is common sense and analogies to similarly-classified items. This legal imprecision is bad for lawyers because they might reach the wrong outcome and even worse for their clients who will bear the brunt of legal sanctions if they fall on the wrong side of future regulations.

It is in every legitimate investor's best interest to have regulations which, at the bare minimum, classify crypto-assets. The importance of this is tantamount to long-term tax planning. For example, Bitcoin is a cryptoCURRENCY because it acts as a store of value. While the IRS has decided to treat bitcoin as property, it is likely better classified as a foreign currency. Ethereum on the other hand, is more like a commodity in that one has to USE UP ether in order to access the Ethereum network. Tokens built upon the ethereum platform are (generally) neither cryptoCURRENCIES or cryptoCOMMODITIES. Rather, these second-generation tokens are utility based and can be thought of as cryptoTOKENS (these might lend themselves more to the 'property' analysis currently utilized by Bitcoin).

Whether a crypto asset is classified as property, foreign currency, or a commodity is extremely important for a variety of reasons too convoluted to get into here. As a quick example though, commodities (corn, oil, etc.) are NEVER entitled to long-term capital gains treatment meaning no matter how long you hold a cryptoCOMMODITY (if the IRS were to choose to implement this thinking), it would never be entitled to long-term cap gains tax treatment. As a result, holding ETH for more than a year would make much less sense. Likewise, with foreign currencies, one can apply the full extent of their losses in foreign currencies to their current tax year (whereas Bitcoin losses, being classified as 'property' instead of 'currency' are currently limited to amount of ordinary/long-term gains (depending on holding period) + $3,000 per year. Any amount in excess of this would be lost or be forced to carry backward / forward. For big losses, this amount may never be used up.). 

The angle I was thinking of analysing your comment when you came up with this line "(e.g. tax advisors, lawyers)", was the area of job creation but you decided to touch another area.

I think regulation would even see more people being employed in government to carry duties of collecting taxes, advising and lawyers for defending of adjudication because investors must adjudicate in the courts where they are aggrieved or feels short - changed by the system. This will help to grow the knowledge of bitcoin.