I see the problem here, and I think you're right about this. The license is important for the customer to make sure that the site is can be trusted, right?
it suppose to be. but these days the conditions of a licence is less about consumer protection and more about barrier to entry.
positives(1):
you need a team of people to ensure compliance
negatives(1):
they are not cheap to employ these specialists
positive(1):
they are specialists
negative(1):
these specialists went to college and have a certificate, but can still be corrupt a-holes
positives(2):
you need to report everything to regulators
negatives(2):
you pay them, while you are the one doing all the hard work
positives(2):
they ensure losses if your hard work results in a genuine loss
negatives(2):
they do all they can to find holes in your paperwork to not pay out
positives(3):
customers have someone to complain to if things go wrong
positives/negatives(3):
customers still have someone to complain to if things go wrong even more so when they dont have a licence. as the regulators can slam the company even harder
negatives(3):
competitors use their relationship with regulators to slam the competition, monopolizing the market.
no matter if its a licenced or unlicenced exchange.. the customer itself can still go through many avenues to attempt to get recompense.
even licenced exchanges can just disapear (check out cryptsy) without having to make their customers whole
summary:
the whole purpose of licencing needs to change it needs to be 95% consumer protection 5%barrier to entry(prevent scammers starting up boiler rooms)
rather than the current feel of a licence, which is 95% barrier to entry and 5% consumer protection.
.
