Hacker News Reader

Comment by lalaland1125 | Hacker News Reader

> I really struggle to see how most DAOs and cryptocurrency efforts aren't mostly just ways to skirt around existing financial security laws.

It's 99% just evading existing laws. The best example of this is the browser Brave which only uses a cryptocurrency so that they could raise money without following the accredited investor laws.

View on HN

A DAO can automate things currently handled by humans. There may need to still be some human involvement (and probably should be), but I'd say there can probably be less involvement than there is now in, for example, real estate transactions. It doesn't even have to be a DAO, it can just be a smart contract. Things like escrow can be automated. These things can also improve transparency assuming they are done on an open ledger. That could make corruption more visible and harder to get away with. There is more to this technology than just evading securities laws.

What stops a company from currently creating a more automated solution for real estate transactions except for current laws or an inability to integrate with government? I think some of the tech is cool and yes can automate things, I just wonder if it automates these things because it avoids integrating with government systems, which can be horrible out of date at times. So maybe it's not so much skirting of laws, but sometimes also working around systems, not with a bad intention, but because things aren't necessarily keeping up with technological change.

Also, could an open ledger make corruption more visible and harder to get away with? Yes, it could. Will it? I'm not so sure.

> What stops a company from currently creating a more automated solution for real estate transactions except for current laws or an inability to integrate with government?

They have no incentive to change how they've done things. I do think it would be cool if there was an automated solution for real estate transactions that didn't require crypto (or smart contracts). That would be great and I think someone should do it if they can.

> So maybe it's not so much skirting of laws, but sometimes also working around systems, not with a bad intention, but because things aren't necessarily keeping up with technological change.

I think this is right on the mark. The US banking system is a great example. Many of the arguments I see against the benefits of instant payments in crypto are from people in Europe, where instant payments are commonplace. I do think the competition and innovation in crypto forces existing legacy structures to innovate, which IMO is a good thing. The other thing is to consider those who are unbanked and unable to participate in existing structures, but do have smart phones. I think crypto can play a part in their lives as well.

> Also, could an open ledger make corruption more visible and harder to get away with? Yes, it could. Will it? I'm not so sure.

I agree. I'm not sure crypto will supersede all existing structures. I do like the idea of governments and politicians having to be more transparent, but I don't think they will give up what they have now.

Any smart contract could also be implemented as a regular program dealing with numbers instead of cryptocoins. And transparency isn't a real benefit either, assuming the centralized server makes all transactions public.

The issues crypto can solve are 1) the government/bank can't steal your money, 2) the government/bank can't hide corrupt transfers, and 3) you don't need permission from the government/bank to exchange cryptocoins. If the government/bank wasn't a bureaucratic mess it could solve all of these issues centrally. Decentralization is good because it's hard to create a central agency without it turning into a bureaucratic mess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com