Do Kwon in more trouble
cryptofireside.com
cryptofireside.com
https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2022/05/putati...
You are going to see a lot of political maneuvering by the sorts of A16Z, Binance, FTX, Galaxy Digital, and — dare I say it — Y Combinator, to keep cases like this from getting very far. If all of this gets classified as general partnerships engaged in securities law violations (and worse, as per Terra/Luna), a lot of arrogant investors and market boosters will find themselves in more trouble than they imagined.
That's not to say that some suits won't be brought but even if bzx lost their case it would not be necessarily a reflection on other legal or political arrangements.
That's an assertion that may be tested when there are tens or hundred of millions of dollars at stake. In our everyday lives how you would go after something like a DAO is not at all obvious. But that doesn't mean there are ways.
And you are right to say it will be a reflection of other legal and political arrangements.
Have you, uh, met America?
Not only is America litigious, the long arm, when sufficiently motivated, will get you anywhere on the face of the planet. Just ask Assange. Not that I support this behavior, or this privilege, but I'm not ostrich enough to pretend it's not on the table.
> dao is a loosely defined word, except where legally defined and protected as in Wyoming
That may matter in Wyoming, but in America, I assure you, the 'ill defined' nature won't stop the prosecutors.
I don't think he dedicated his life to denouncing all morally questionable government actions everywhere. He ruined his own life by denouncing what the NSA was allegedly doing back then. I'm not sure I can demand that he should ruin his life even more by annoying the Russian government.
But he probably doesn't get any favors from Russia because he's not useful to them.
So there's already an exception to disprove this "universal, international, jointly and severally liable" theory that is going on in this thread. OP was mentioning A16z and the like as if they are not shielded from personal liability for lawsuits targeting the companies they invest in. That's not to say that a16z cannot be sued. But the individual investors that are part of it, that participate in rounds, being sued on a personal level as if they are "jointly and severally liable partners", that is not going to happen. Sorry. Even if Bzx loses their case, the facts of the case are material. The facts of each unique situation matter. Even within the United States.
Just as a thought experiment: if a DAO was created by 7 random people on the internet from Dubai, Latvia, Colombia, Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, and Taiwan, how exactly would you go about bringing a lawsuit against them from the United States? And how would you target them on a "jointly and severally liable" basis?
For your thought experiment: maybe try to use something from the CFT spectrum, because that you can make stick with a lot of places in some form or another? So not really simple civil law and probably not straight forward (could it even work?)
Sue the Australian in the Australian court--common law jurisdiction, so it's going to be quite similar to US laws, and personal jurisdiction over them in Australia isn't going to be hard to establish. I get the judgement against them for the full amount, and it's their problem to get the other 6 people to pony up their share. That's what "jointly and severally liable" means: I only need to go after one person for any claims I have; it's their problem to get the pain distributed.
Isn't this only relevant when ash organization takes the legal steps to register as a DAO in Wyoming? If that is not the explicit corporate governance model, then a default structure is assumed.
Analogously, my state (Virginia) has laws on the books limiting my personal liability for judgments against my business iff I register that business as an LLC. If I don't do so, then the business is considered a sole proprietorship, and I can be sued personally for harms my business causes.
Looking very closely at the link you give in another document, you have to specifically go through a registration process to register as a DAO in Wyoming, and get the legal benefits of becoming a LLC.
> At any rate, no, there is no way that any online organized group of people will be determined to be legally and universally and internationally jointly and severally liable.
That's not how the law works. If you've got (a) two or more people that (b) agree to do something in partnership [it does not need to even be a written agreement], then by default, you have created a general partnership. An "online organized group of people" is--you guessed it--a group of two or more people that agreed to do something in partnership, so you've got a general partnership, unless someone has a quantum of legal knowledge and takes steps to form any kind of legal governance other than a general partnership. And you've got any legal knowledge, you'll avoid a general partnership, because that means every partner is jointly and severally liable.
Sure, you can override this if you take the proper legal steps. But given how much the crypto community seems to spend trying to claim the law doesn't apply to them (e.g., code is law), I'm skeptical that very many DAOs have taken the appropriate legal steps to avoid forming a general partnership.
https://www.politico.eu/article/wife-of-us-diplomat-anne-sac...
At core, as with most things, it's unfortunately a question of power, not legality ...
If they had just done shit by the book they would have had him on US soil with no problems at all.
FWIW I don't agree that he -should- be able to be extradited. Just stating the fact that if the US had just not screwed the pooch they would have been successful in doing so.
Yet, the US government successfully indicted and got the four founders to surrender [1] (two of whom were non-US citizens).
They can definitely claim jurisdiction if American users were affected in the scheme.
1 - https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2021/03/15/bitmex-founder-b...
Why? These ~~marks~~ investors wanted free unregulated finance on the blockchain, and they got it. Where's the crime?
People who spent money on Terra/Luna knew it was a cryptocurrency that used magic computer maths to make numbers get bigger (until number got small), same as all the other cryptocurrencies.
So no, it's still a ponzi, and no, most people had no idea.
If an industry needs "more legal flexibility" that just screams scam to me.
IIRC Stem cell reserarch is limited in the USA given the puritanism in its society and laws.
I wouldn't say that Stem Cell therapy is a scam per se.
Sometimes, laws fall behind progress in some countries.
Here in mu country there are A LOT of stem cell related scams. But that doesn't mean there's not some real R&D going on .
Why is crypto avoiding US laws?
Edit: Also, a quick Google of top stem cell research companies show that they are based in the U.S. or Europe, so I’m not sure how correct the claim of US avoidance is. But even if they are avoiding the U.S., they are choosing Europe instead, where “legal flexibility” is still not a thing.
This is a heck of a claim given that stimulus checks were issued by the US Treasury, not the Fed.
The Delaware corp acts as a service provider to the offshore foundation. The DAO and it’s treasury are directly tied to the BVI foundation.
The advantage of this is that if the equity ends up having value in addition to the token, then you have a nice Delaware corp to wrap that equity value in.
Very interesting to see similar structures with crypto startups as they launch protocols/foundation tokens. I guess the commonalities have to do with the treasury aspects, right?
More importantly, a large portion of the economic value of many projects passes through these informal, legally untested structures. And, as anyone who has read ICO white papers and read through the “tokenomics” can tell you, a significant portion of that economic interest is held by VC “whales” such as Binance and A16Z (greater than 5% = significant).
There may not be blood, but there will definitely be a whole lot of lobbying.
>If all of this gets classified as general partnerships
to literally mean all as opposed to only those DAOs that in fact are General Partnerships.
Either way, it’s nothing new in law nor surprising. I’m not saying their isn’t legal risk or potential liability issues, but it’s certainly not something A16Z isn’t aware of, they have written about the legal issues pertaining to DAOs extensively, just one example: https://a16zcrypto.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/dao-legal-...
These guys know they’re playing with fire. They assume they can buy their way out of legal problems — which, well, it’s America in 2022. It’s probably true!
Again I’m in agreement there is always potential liability and risk, and notwithstanding their activities I think we can both safely and fairly assume AZ16 has at least competent legal representation that advises them nearly every step of the way and minimizes any legal risk and potential liabilities. Beyond that, without specific examples I just wouldn’t speculate, but as a simple example going back to the idea of DAO without a legal entity being treated as a General Partnership resulting in joint and several liability, yes that could be very bad for you and me if we invested in tokens in our individual capacities because we could have unlimited personally liable, but I’d be shocked if AZ16 didn’t use separate legal entities as investment vehicles for each DAO investment, meaning under the same set of facts their liability though unlimited like you and I personally, would in practice be limited to their investment via the separate investing vehicle.
In terms of not mentioning securities in that publication, no I’m not surprised. Not because it isn’t a very important issue, but securities issues and analysis is independent of the legal framework being discussed, which they are defining as the legal entity, tax and operational considerations. They might have other publications with respect to securities, but if I were their lawyer, I’d advise against it.
Look, Zhou Tong ran off with some of my money (Bitcoinica). GOX ran off with some of it. The obfuscation around the scam has evolved, the language and instruments have become more complicated (mostly for the purpose of suckering people who think they're not suckers, I suppose), but the basic scam is exactly the same.
It's almost like crypto has become a living thought experiment in how many times people can be scammed and keep on believing.
People want money more than ever. But financial education and common sense is at all time lows. But also people have access to applications that allow for rapid investing at the speed of thought. And Crypto provides a vehicle for obfuscating transfers of wealth, from fools to scammers. Barriers to entry in creating a scam are very low. Social media allows for rapid propagation to unwary victims. Governments don’t do anything to protect people.
I only got into taking Bitcoin because UIGEA cut my real-money gaming startup off at the knees right when I'd finished 3 years of coding and beta testing. I spent a lot of time in the gambling world with sharks, but Bitcoin was a whoooole other pit of snakes. And those [early Bitcoin] guys at least understood the technology and believed in the libertarian ethos of it, even if they were also the first to understand how to manipulate the market. What's gross is watching a whole generation of scammers and marks who don't even fundamentally understand what's going on.
IMHO financial education is pretty simple: Don't take on debt. Don't invest in people who take on debt. Don't invest in something that's too good to be true. Save as much as you can. Save something from every paycheck. Buy stocks that pay dividends, reinvest and don't touch them until you're dead. Don't dip into capital. Don't ever sell real estate. It's not hard, it's not complicated, it's just not fast. If it's fast, it's too good to be true; see step 3.
But when the pattern repeats time and time again, you gotta start to realize what it is, even if you can't define or prove it.
In an system centered on printing money and distributing it via the banking industry to whichever group is preferred by the current government? Might be the worst advice I have seen. Mortgages are free money and if you aren't using that you are going to become poor within a generation.
Every day they see value of housing, stocks and cryptos skyrocketing while their wage remains stagnant. They don’t believe they could ever catch up and they feel obliged take riskier and stupid bets like stable coins.
It also doesn’t help that they don’t trust sensible financial advice because those advocate investing in the old system that had failed them. Hence the “haters gonna hate” attitudes from some crypto dudes.
Therefore, people now have insatiable urges to acquire money by all means necessary, even prostituting themselves casually through OnlyFans.
When cultists put their all-consuming faith in a prophecy, experience shows that the failure of that prophecy tends to make their faith more ardent.
So it's just like the perpetually insolvent fractional reserve banking system that creates not only massive inflation and inequality but also global recessions and yet continues on with complete impunity. Cryptocurrency is only slightly more unhinged by comparison.
Look at the afterlife of LUNA. That tanked trying to support his stablecoin. So, a way was found to undo the crash, sort of.[1] You thought blockchains were immutable? No. Rename old token something else. Create new token called LUNA. Initialize new LUNA with balances from old LUNA as of 7 May 2022, referred to in the hype as the "pre-attack" date.
So what happened? New LUNA crashed. Opened around US$20, now around US$3.
[1] https://docs.terra.money/docs/migration/exchange-migration.h...
Nothing different than all the other platforms out there like Ethereum, Solana, Polygon now.
Expect price to slide even further https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/terra its $2.9 now, surely everyone have learnt the lesson
The problem is, you can't get rich off that.
They aren't 100% backed in liquid USD owned by the bank. If that amount isn't enough during a bank run, federal insurance kicks in, to cover the rest.
Which is why not a single deposit dollar was lost in a bank collapse in the United States over the past, what... 40 years?
The crypto space can barely claim that sort of thing for 40 days.
The federal reserve will print money in order to inject liquidity into banks. This means they are creating money out of nowhere, inflating the currency, essentially taxing everyone holding USD in order to maintain the illusion that banks are solvent.
However, in the event of an actual, real-wold bank collapse, the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) will take ownership of the bank and sell the book to someone else. That's how WaMu's collapse in 2008 was mitigated (WaMu -> OTS -> JPMorgan Chase) without ever drawing on the BIF let alone the credit facility at the Fed.
Remember, the fractional reserve is where the supply of currency in the economy comes from so this is a pretty big misunderstanding of modern monetary policy. Dollars are backed by the obligation to repay the fractional reserve loans that created the dollars in the first place, and the entire social system on which it is built.
> As part of national fiscal policy response to the Great Recession, governments and central banks, including the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England, provided then-unprecedented trillions of dollars in bailouts and stimulus, including expansive fiscal policy and monetary policy to offset the decline in consumption and lending capacity, avoid a further collapse, encourage lending, restore faith in the integral commercial paper markets, avoid the risk of a deflationary spiral, and provide banks with enough funds to allow customers to make withdrawals.
> The Federal Reserve created then-significant amounts of new currency as a method to combat the liquidity trap.
As for the bailouts you were alluding to, they were managed at least in the US by the treasury, not the fed, and they were loans, not grants - that have since been repaid yielding $100B in profit, with more to come.
Fiscal policy and monetary policy are different things managed by different entities. Any new money that was created to support the stimulus was unrelated (after all the treasury could have apportioned any money) and has since blinked out of existence as the loans have been repaid.
Bank shenanigans have happened in the past, but at least the smaller accounts survived unscathed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Mutual
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomeFed_Bank
(Somehow my family got caught in both of those, we weren't very good at picking banks heh)
In the WaMu case actually no money was lost by anyone - and they didn't even touch the Bank Insurance Fund. The Office of Thrift Supervision took control of WaMu and sold it JPMC.
Is it?
> "Audit reports of the GUSD reserve are published monthly by an independent registered accounting firm, BPM LLP."
> GUSD's site claims audits - under a heading titled "Review the Gemini dollar reserve-funds independent accountant audits" but links to attestations (example: https://assets.ctfassets.net/jg6lo9a2ukvr/3ZfEIugZkOLsArm4JK..., "conducted in accordance with attestation standards").
"Well yes, we might be pulling most of our money out of thin air, but at least we're not pulling all of it out of nothing like the new guys do".
Based on that, I wouldn't be surprised if the next thing is that something even more sketchy and handwavy than algorithmic stablecoins will appear and continue the scam.
Self-collateralized stablecoin futures?
Multi-pegged multi-chain coins with auto-arbitrage?
Probabilistic stablecoins?
I have no idea...
Why not just make the next one obvious and call them 'Holy Stablecoins' ...
Except there is no more fervent pursuit than the pursuit of the greater fool. So that race will continue until laws finally catch up and close the staggeringly massive incentives to continue to lie, cheat and steal from those who believe themselves one step removed from the greatest fool.
I'm done with crypto. Scamming is so easy that its almost incentivized.
0: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/01/11/south-african-p...
There's no "undoing a crash" by putting good money behind bad money.
The original reporting was done by Maeil Shinmun (Daily Newspaper), which is an old (1950s) but otherwise not particularly notable paper out of Daegu.
Here is the original article https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/088/0000761820?sid=10...
You sorta give up your right to be treated decently by society at that point.
It's a very specific joke that's only relevant for a very specific person. It would've been the same joke if his name was Connor, race is not relevant at all for this joke.
But yes, "all jokes" is probably too broad of a statement.
Not saying we should throw him in jail without a trial, but I see no reason to feel bad for him in any way.
The tone of the article is unprofessional, sure. But, respectfully, so what? Kwon’s own actions have sullied his name more than any blog title ever could.
Yes.
Con man = Kwon man
I’m not sure how a rhyming pun is offensive, could you elaborate on why it is? Would it be racist if he was a European person named Walter Kahn and the headline had Kahn Man in the title?
Edit: for more cultural background I think maybe it’s because there are common French family names literally translating as “Thefat”, “Chicken”, “Myass”, “Thegay”, “Sausage”, “Thewhite”… so it’s learned early in school to be respectful of others names.
Joke was a reference to South Park.
_edit_ ~ Sounds like I'm wrong here by the general sentiment, was taught not to use name's as puns :(
Maybe it’s generational, but I was taught to avoid using names in puns. I definitely grew up with people who would make last name puns like this to put undue emphasis on race.
If folks doesn’t even see why that would be a problem these days, I’ll take it as a win for society - but I think the question was in good faith.
“Bernie Madoff with my money”.
That out of the way, I generally agree that it's poor taste. I was taught not to poke fun at things people didn't choose and can't change - their smile, laugh, handicaps, color, name, etc. Low hanging fruit, and potentially really devastating to people.
It results in terribly tasteless, low-brow "jokes" such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaOkTKfxu44
If I made a pun about a guy named John is that racist? The only way that could be justified is if you somehow think it's shameful to be named John for some weird racial reason.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/04/29/prosecutors-search-deuts...
Yet crypto, a very small industry in comparison to other sectors, is despised and singled out as if technology by itself is suspect.
Do Kwon may be a scammer and those that believed in a 20% guaranteed return may have been rubes. But crypto is a technology and financial crime existed well before the advent of crypto and will continue to exist whether crypto keeps existing or not.
I think there is a certain myopia among technologists because crypto intersects so openly with economic activity whereas the traditional financial sector is opaque and wrapped in credentialed white collar employees wearing suits. Human nature - greed, ambition, desire, and all - exists regardless of the time and technology.
One reason I am so intrigued by crypto is that for the first time engineers can hack on finance without any permission, licenses, approvals, regulations, borders, etc. This may turn out to be a bad thing. But I believe technology is neutral and overall I want to see how this experiment turns out.
And as you are seeing with Do Kwon, and hundreds of other cases brought by the SEC and other regulators, criminals can be discovered and brought to prosecution even in the crypto space. This is not an industry that is immune to prosecution.
So I’m apt to let the space develop. As engineers you are not required to work in the space just as you are not required to work in any other. Crypto has incentivized the research and improvement in decentralized systems, consensus, decentralized governance, advanced crypto specifically zero knowledge proofs and new curves not corrupted by government cryptographers. I am intrigued by what is happening and am not afraid by the negative events.
I wouldn’t be opposed to forcing everyone who wants to buy crypto to sign a letter saying (paraphrased) “I’m an idiot and if I lose everything I deserve it”. I’d rather you let the individual gamble rather than ban all speculation and risky endeavors.
Every day I'm watching my coworker spend all his "the boss is not around" time looking at the black screen of the Binance charts. It's sick.
Schwab or Ameritrade won't just let you trade forex and commodities futures, futures options, and stock/etf options unless the application has been reviewed and the investor discloses they know the risk. It should be the same for crypto IMHO.
Maybe that's not a problem for you.
Only heroin is in the sweet spot of strong kick, immense pain relief and extremely cheap. People take cheap drugs because they're poor, not because they don't want to get their hands on pure colombian coke.
I absolutely loved and adored bitcoin as a technology from a technical perspective and all the ways it could change things for better. But what it had become is an abomination.
Also, “engineers hacking on finance” would've been very noble 20 years ago in a world where engineer/hacker was reminiscent of free software, mozilla, gnu, linux, wikipedia, etc.
Sadly it has fallen far from the tree, as they say, and became another Internet grift.
There are also clueless people who bought SNAP stock the day before it dropped 45%.
There are also clueless people who paid $200k for degrees from top tier universities and are now in debt up to their eyeballs with no way to repay.
There is simply no way to protect people from cluelessness without banning our freedom.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/29/who-got-rich-before-terra-st...
> In its Q1 earnings filing, Galaxy noted that the largest contributor to its net realized gain on digital assets of $355 million was sales of luna.
There's a misplaced belief that all regulations around money just popped out of nowhere.
In reality, all those regulations were built up over time in response to different scams and schemes. And crypto wants to erase all that learned experience and start from scratch.
A bigger overnight loss for ordinary investors than Madoff's entire scam, and you still want to wait and see how it turns out?
Yes, people should be able to play with this stuff, no it's clearly not in a state where anyone should be able to advertise any of these services to the general public.
Sure, let the space develop, but take action to prevent people being scammed, and certainly take action to prevent, for instance, investment into crypto tokens by the regulated finance industry. Keep pension funds away by force of law.
I can play this game all day. Why do we let the poor go to casinos? NYC is about to open a massive casino in Manhattan, guaranteed to ruin lives and families.
You may know what’s best for you, but not what’s best for me.
Cool, lets remove all laws and regulations around everything then, after all, government is just other people saying they know what's best for you. Job done.
Your argument is also fallacious in its assumptions that I don't think those other things are bad or require action.
We shouldn't. Many other countries don't allow that. Putting profits above human wellbeing is how the US got to this place. The US even allowed open MLMs like Amway. The people shilling these scams have immense amount of lobbying against any kind of financial regulations, which is exactly what crypto is doing
For the people who actually went through the process of opening a Coinbase account, depositing USD, buying UST, transferring to an Ethereum wallet, bridging to a Terra wallet via shuttle bridge, and depositing in Anchor protocol… they knew full well the risks involved.
If you read any crypto forum, the people there know very well that their investment could go to zero.
The SEC’s “accredited investor” laws are often criticized as discriminatory, since they legally restrict some of the best investment opportunities to only the 1%. In the same vein, while the crypto space needs more regulation, I think it would be a mistake to ban all retail investors from buying crypto.
Note: the “accredited investor” restrictions are for US persons. I think foreigners don’t have the same restrictions (although the max 500 investors rule is likely to kick in instead if too many small foreign investors). For example[1] “The Investor is: (i) an ‘accredited Investor’ as such term is defined in Rule 501(a) of Regulation D under the Securities Act; or (ii) not a U.S. person within the meaning of Rule 902 of Regulation S under the Securities Act.”
[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1693656/000110465919...
This omits why it's singled out: at current proportions, the sheer amount of fraud in the cryptocurrency space would dwarf everything that we see in conventional finance, were cryptocurrency to grow to the same size.
Minuscule scale is not in itself important (other than being a hallmark of under-delivering); what matters is proportions.
And lest this be used to claim that I think Deutsche Bank's fine is perfectly sufficient: they ought to have paid back every single cent they laundered, plus fines. But I won't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, particularly when the "perfect" in this instance is the same group of tools, just not wearing suits.
Yet crypto should be banned? When we are throwing them in jail?
"Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." -Donald Rumsfeld, 9/10/2001 https://web.archive.org/web/20100301161721/http://www.defens...
I was in the 1st CAV Comptroller's office as a budget officer when this headline first started circulating. It was during the initial GFEBS onboarding, and the push to produce GAAP-compliant auditable financial statements was coming out for the first time in the DoD. You have to understand what that entails. Historically, before GFEBS existed, all purchases and funds transfers were recorded in one of many distinct information systems that were independently procured and not interoperable. Many of those were just "receipts in a filing cabinet somewhere."
The effort to get records from all of these disparate legacy systems into GFEBS, which is the government's custom version of an SAP ERP procured from Oracle, involved manual export of records into a human readable form, then that human typing them into GFEBS. For paper records, it involved digging into filing cabinets and doing the same thing, manually transcribing records into GFEBS. We were asked to do all of this in the same year the sequester happened, which involved having the entire civilian budget office staff furloughed. That meant soldiers had to do it. Except those soldiers also had to do stuff like train to be soldiers and deploy to Afghanistan.
So yeah, we didn't meet the deadline. I'm very sorry that the three-person staff I had couldn't find and transcribe every record from a universe of legacy systems that largely may not even be accessible without special hardware, plus filing cabinets in the attic of the division headquarters, while also being asked to do their normal job, too.
It's not that the records don't exist. It's not that no one actually knows where that money went. It's that transcribing into the current system of record involves probably millions of labor hours that Congress doesn't want to fund, but wants us to do anyway. Rumsfeld isn't wrong here. It's inefficient and stupid and shameful that we have this universe of legacy record-keeping systems that don't use any kind of standard format and don't interoperate with each other digitally. But fixing that involves more than just paying Oracle a bunch of money to produce one ERP to rule them all. The existing records still need to be transcribed, and there is no way to get around the human labor that requires.
But it's quite a far cry from "receipts and approval records for transactions only exist in a complex web of outdated information systems that don't interoperate and require manual human labor to transcribe between" to saying $X trillion "disappeared." The money wasn't lost.
on the blockchain, it's anyone who knows how to use a block explorer.
Clearly you know more than me about this so I think I'll let you read it and you tell me if anything changes. Then I'll see about reading the rest of your comment.
Sure. The difference is, crypto has no other useful use except crime.
> for the first time engineers can hack on finance without any permission, licenses, approvals, regulations, borders, etc.
Regulations exist for a reason. Even beyond regulations, one of the (many) appalling aspects of crypto is it's rediscovering rules that have been extremely well known and documented for decades, or centuries. Terra-Luna is a perfect example of a death spiral, for example.
> I want to see how this experiment turns out.
Isn't it clear already how this experiment is turning out? How many more time do we need?
False. Anyone has always been allowed to issue their own magic beans, crypto has nothing to do with this.
1989 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigiCash
1996 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold
The real difference is that now a lot more gullible people have computers.
I'm not saying if that perception is correct or not, but it's real. Question for people in the cryptocurrency space is a) why and b) how do you fix it?