Is the preceding sentence not useful?
> But its mere existence is an insurance policy that will remind governments that the last object establishment could control, namely, the currency, is no longer their monopoly.
> But its mere existence is an insurance policy that will remind governments that the last object establishment could control, namely, the currency, is no longer their monopoly.
Look at how the SEC is not only keeping tabs on crypto currencies, but are monitoring ICO's and bringing charges against people they feel are committing fraud. It's been pointed out before that although the SEC can't stop CC's, then can effectively sideline them as a niche offering to investors.
I guess this is the beauty and beast of CC's right now. Yeah, it's totally unregulated, but it's also rife with fraud. It's like people want it both to be safe and regulated while still outside the control of any government.
In that statement, Taleb uses his conclusion as a premise. That doesn't make his reasoning stronger.