Hacker News Reader

Comment by rednerrus | Hacker News Reader

Your value prop has to outweigh the potential negatives or there is no value prop. What OP is saying is that you can't have unregulated markets in this space the incentives to cheat are too great.

View on HN

Sure, and I'm not making an argument against regulation. My point is that there is nothing inherent in cryptocurrency to create these forms of fraud except the lack of regulation, otherwise the same fraud would exist in traditional markets.

But that point doesn't support the message you're trying to say.

Suppose I were to say "Elbonia is a dangerous lawless country, where corruption abounds and you're not safe on the streets," and you were to respond by saying "There's nothing inherent to Elbonia to create those conditions except the lack of laws against corruption or mugging. And corruption and mugging happen in the US, too, and you'd see more of it if there weren't any laws against it. There's nothing about the Elbonians as a people that makes them more inclined to crime."

I would respond by saying "Thank you for proving my point that Elbonia is a dangerous place."

So in this hypothetical, Elbonia has no laws against corruption and mugging, and we truly believe the only thing missing is the laws? Then sure, that's a fair comparison. In that case one might think that Elbonia could be a great place to visit once a less lawless regime steps in.

What message do you think I'm trying to say? I'm certainly not claiming crypto is free of scams and self dealings.

I think he's trying to say that regulation will discourage conflicts of interest even if they don't entirely prevent it. The key point is that right now people are able to do things they couldn't in traditional markets that they can do in the crypto market and there are no penalties for it.

But your value add is that they are unregulated, right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com