Topic: Regulation: Can One Size Truly Fit All? (Read 266 times)
Chinese think it like that so let's try
""one size fits all"" method of regulation, constructed with a nod for universality, or should locales adopt tailored, case specific regulation?
One pattern of regulation will definitely not fit in all circumstances or to every country. So each country will have to evolve there own regulation to better suit her environment, citizens and investors.
While there is a large variance in how locales has approached the issue of regulation, the hallmarks of traditional finance (KYC/AML) have started to emerge in all locales where the legitimate regulation of crypto is taking place.
My question is, is KYC/AML the regulation that is talked about or expected? I just think this is not strict enough to be regarded as regulation.
To each his own. Different cultures might prevent regulators from having a one-size-fits-all policy worldwide. Some may be more stringent than the others.
At present, in most countries, upgraded encryption-related service providers will also be forced to comply with the rules that will be provided. All this is what will make the government to regulate to a great extent. And guess what, how? So give us piece, and we will give you
I think that there should not be any general regulations in this market of crypto currency but I am in favor of case specific regulation. The market of crypto currency is a decentralized market and any general regulation can affect the idea of decentralization but case specific regulation is needed for protecting the market from hacking and scam coins.
The simplest answer is no, but the more realistic answer is yes, confirm or be banned. The fact is, when it comes to regulations, most governments are not big on individualised laws with multiple clauses and if/but statements. They prefer general, blanket, choking clauses that completely stifle innovation in an attempt to make sure the law is a catch-all and future proofed against innovations. It is very unlikely we will see a one size fits all policy that promotes the innovation of blockchain.
Being too lenient is indeed not good thing. This is a decentralized market and thus government is in fear that it might ignite to something illegal in the economy. Hence the government of some countries are so strict towards the market. But once the crypto market kick stats, the system will go easy on the people too.
Bitcoin is based on blockchain technology which relies on the principle of decentralization. I believe that it truly represents the fundamental values of democracy and it doesn't make any sense for any centralised institution to oppose it just because it is not following their ideology. We must have a broader approach towards this new innovation because it is not something limited in financial or IT sector, it is going to play a key role in the entire economy on a global scale and narrow approach is not a solution in a long term.
I do not think it is possible to set uniform rules, because the situation is different in every country, but it is necessary to have some supervision on encryption.
Regulation can not really fit everything into its gambit when it comes to the crypto currency market because the market has its own characteristics that makes it very much vulnerable to the risks of manipulations and frequent changes. All this is a very common phenomenon for the crypto market. Rules and Regulations cannot eliminate the uncertainty factor fully because, one, it is an inherent feature of the crypto market; second, crypto market is decentralized and it cannot be controlled fully.
But yes as the OP says that the intensity of how the regulation framework within a country works can be altered according to the needs of the specific place. There are certain places where the risk of fraud and scams are more that has a negative bearing for the crypto market. So the regulators need to aware themselves of presence of such possibilities, then only situation would be put under control.
But yes as the OP says that the intensity of how the regulation framework within a country works can be altered according to the needs of the specific place. There are certain places where the risk of fraud and scams are more that has a negative bearing for the crypto market. So the regulators need to aware themselves of presence of such possibilities, then only situation would be put under control.
Different countries have different laws. That should tell you a lot about one size fits all regulations.
I see KYC/AML as means towards enforcing regulations, and not an actual regulation by itself. You start with an identity first because you can't go after offenders otherwise. Even it is enforced differently across different places. I'm not necessarily against regulation, but I think universal regulations would be ineffective.
I see KYC/AML as means towards enforcing regulations, and not an actual regulation by itself. You start with an identity first because you can't go after offenders otherwise. Even it is enforced differently across different places. I'm not necessarily against regulation, but I think universal regulations would be ineffective.
Many countries import regulations for adoption of cryptocurrency. I saying the regulations should be general and uniform for all. The regulations should be fair and justified for all.
Yes, you are right. The government can not manage bitcoin but the government can manage every bitcoin user and owner using the KYC form and I think in this way the government can levy a tax on each bitcoin hold.
I don't believe that it is possible that one size can truly fill all, this will never happen but this is my personal opinion which may be not the correct one as I am not a great specialist in this sphere
Given that it is a decentralized market, there will be some rules and regulations coming from the government's side. This happens only because of the sheer reason that it is anonymity of the activities in the market. But once the rules become flexible, the level of strictness will also fade, after seeing how profitable the market is for the economy.
It's hard to create a generalized regulation in terms of financial dealings since for every country, there are different cases in which a generalized law can leave holes and gaps that wrongdoers can exploit to their heart's content. Perhaps a universal 'guide' on how to deal with cryptocurrencies would be a great help, and countries can adapt it, make a variant or add some spices to the said 'guide' to cater with the domestic transactions taking place within the country. I'm pretty sure this will take a lot of effort, but seeing that most countries are geared toward blockchain and cryptocurrency adoption, all efforts wouldn't go to waste and if anything, help lower the amount of illicit activities concerning bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
remember the 2008 crisis..
how many regulated bank CEO's got prison time... none
how many bank ceo's got bonuses and government payouts.. most of them
how many regulated bank CEO's got prison time... none
how many bank ceo's got bonuses and government payouts.. most of them
you can't really compare bitcoin businesses with banks and their CEOs. those CEOs are too big and influential in their country with all the money that they have and all their corruptions.
in comparison a bitcoin business owner like a CEO of an exchange is like a tiny user in their banking system.
Of course not, it's not realistic to expect that cryptocurrencies will be regulated the same way all around the world. But it will be very similar in some communities like European Union which gives legal basis that is relevant for all member countries and the have to adopt more or less same rules.
But in USA and Japan will be totaly different and that is quite normal because the regulation of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies also must fit in the existing legal framework.
But the essence isn't whether the regulation is completely same but what is the framework and guidelines that gives, positive or negative.
But in USA and Japan will be totaly different and that is quite normal because the regulation of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies also must fit in the existing legal framework.
But the essence isn't whether the regulation is completely same but what is the framework and guidelines that gives, positive or negative.
We all know cultures are related with environment. So it’s important to adopt a new culture. Because so many things are included. That’s why need to specific these things.
why are people screaming the word regulation, in many cases saying in terms as a positive thing that should be welcomed.. (facepalm)
dont you guys realise. regulation is not to protect consumers, but to monitor and police consumers and to protect businesses from prosecution.
what we should be advocating for is not regulation. but consumer protection. so that us users can make businesses accountable... not the other way round
remember the 2008 crisis..
how many regulated bank CEO's got prison time... none
how many bank ceo's got bonuses and government payouts.. most of them
how many mortgage users got a free house.. none
how many mortgage users got thrown on the street.. most of them
think about it
dont you guys realise. regulation is not to protect consumers, but to monitor and police consumers and to protect businesses from prosecution.
what we should be advocating for is not regulation. but consumer protection. so that us users can make businesses accountable... not the other way round
remember the 2008 crisis..
how many regulated bank CEO's got prison time... none
how many bank ceo's got bonuses and government payouts.. most of them
how many mortgage users got a free house.. none
how many mortgage users got thrown on the street.. most of them
think about it
I see it way too often, people talking about regulation like they love it.
Unfortunately I seriously think they don't realize.
Government can regulate the crypto market with the use of centralized exchanges and crypto services providers by allowing customers to undergo a compulsary kyc to verify their identities.
why are people screaming the word regulation, in many cases saying in terms as a positive thing that should be welcomed.. (facepalm)
dont you guys realise. regulation is not to protect consumers, but to monitor and police consumers and to protect businesses from prosecution.
what we should be advocating for is not regulation. but consumer protection. so that us users can make businesses accountable... not the other way round
remember the 2008 crisis..
how many regulated bank CEO's got prison time... none
how many bank ceo's got bonuses and government payouts.. most of them
how many mortgage users got a free house.. none
how many mortgage users got thrown on the street.. most of them
think about it
dont you guys realise. regulation is not to protect consumers, but to monitor and police consumers and to protect businesses from prosecution.
what we should be advocating for is not regulation. but consumer protection. so that us users can make businesses accountable... not the other way round
remember the 2008 crisis..
how many regulated bank CEO's got prison time... none
how many bank ceo's got bonuses and government payouts.. most of them
how many mortgage users got a free house.. none
how many mortgage users got thrown on the street.. most of them
think about it
I heard at some places government is trying to regulate crypto through imposing taxes on it. What do you think of that?
Taxing is not regulating. First and foremost if they want to start talking about taxation, they should allow people to pay taxes in Bitcoin. And guess what, governments don't want to allow that. They want to take without giving anything.
Pay, you slave! How? I don't care, think of something. We will count your gains in our local fiat currency, even though you don't have any, and require you to pay taxes in fiat. So we want a piece of your pie, but won't give you a knife to cut it. You make the pie, buy a knife, bring the piece to us, and we'll give you... wait for it... nada!
I heard at some places government is trying to regulate crypto through imposing taxes on it. What do you think of that?
I think many governments are implementing regulations for users as well as bitcoin exchange providers, and inevitably, people have to abide by the rules.
Governments may not be able to regulate crypto currencies in their decentralized form, but they can certainly regulate the ecosystem around it firmly. As time passes, regulations should become more concrete with every serious innovation in the sphere, peeling back the layers of uncertainty.
While there is a large variance in how locales has approached the issue of regulation, the hallmarks of traditional finance (KYC/AML) have started to emerge in all locales where the legitimate regulation of crypto is taking place. Do you agree with a """"one size fits all"""" method of regulation, constructed with a nod for universality, or should locales adopt tailored, case specific regulation?
I have already thought about that, yeah some specific government like the big eight would develop their unique and United law system about those countries which wanted to accept cryptocurrencies. And they would need to add it into their law system While there is a large variance in how locales has approached the issue of regulation, the hallmarks of traditional finance (KYC/AML) have started to emerge in all locales where the legitimate regulation of crypto is taking place. Do you agree with a """"one size fits all"""" method of regulation, constructed with a nod for universality, or should locales adopt tailored, case specific regulation?
Governments may not be able to regulate crypto currencies in their decentralized form, but they can certainly regulate the ecosystem around it firmly. As time passes, regulations should become more concrete with every serious innovation in the sphere, peeling back the layers of uncertainty.
While there is a large variance in how locales has approached the issue of regulation, the hallmarks of traditional finance (KYC/AML) have started to emerge in all locales where the legitimate regulation of crypto is taking place. Do you agree with a ""one size fits all"" method of regulation, constructed with a nod for universality, or should locales adopt tailored, case specific regulation?
While there is a large variance in how locales has approached the issue of regulation, the hallmarks of traditional finance (KYC/AML) have started to emerge in all locales where the legitimate regulation of crypto is taking place. Do you agree with a ""one size fits all"" method of regulation, constructed with a nod for universality, or should locales adopt tailored, case specific regulation?
Even though one size cannot fit all there is need to do with what we have at this point and that is why emphasis is placed on the KYC/AML option as that is the only viable means of regulation. As time goes on, I see some form of restrictions being applied for money to be moved. Currently in most countries, the banks are required by laws to report the movement of certain amount of money to the authority depending on the category one belongs to the same thing is applicable in the airports and point of entries. This method have not be full proof but its still combating the issue of money laundering. The 'fear' of being accosted is enough for one to have a rethink. As a form of upgrade service providers related to crypto,would also be compelled to comply with the provisions that would be made available.
Another upgrade that I see, is the aspect of revenue collection where this service providers are by default governments agents to furnish it with tax deducted and details of who it was deducted from, the nature of transaction and the amount involved. All of this is what will make government to regulate to a large extent the ''seemingly impossible to regulate market'. KYC/AML might not be the answer to everything but its surely the beginning of what is to come.
I think culture is the way or outcome of people's interaction with their environment. So regulation should be jurisdictional based. Therefore, it should be case specific and not generally classified.
Governments may not be able to regulate crypto currencies in their decentralized form, but they can certainly regulate the ecosystem around it firmly. As time passes, regulations should become more concrete with every serious innovation in the sphere, peeling back the layers of uncertainty.
While there is a large variance in how locales has approached the issue of regulation, the hallmarks of traditional finance (KYC/AML) have started to emerge in all locales where the legitimate regulation of crypto is taking place. Do you agree with a ""one size fits all"" method of regulation, constructed with a nod for universality, or should locales adopt tailored, case specific regulation?
While there is a large variance in how locales has approached the issue of regulation, the hallmarks of traditional finance (KYC/AML) have started to emerge in all locales where the legitimate regulation of crypto is taking place. Do you agree with a ""one size fits all"" method of regulation, constructed with a nod for universality, or should locales adopt tailored, case specific regulation?
Jump to: