Hacker News Reader

Comment by whatisweb3 | Hacker News Reader

This would only apply to centralized exchanges and intermediary payment processors. A user can still trustlessly and anonymously transfer 1 ETH or 1000 DAI to another person in exchange for some goods or services, as they would with a cash transfer under the table.

It is like asserting that marijuana could easily disappear if we just regulated it a little harder.

View on HN

Normal people don't engage in financial crime when the alternative is easier, faster, and cheaper. The outcome would be that people who are already trafficking would add new financial crimes to their charges.

Most people using crypto - actually running nodes, creating contracts, and sending messages on the blockchain - prefer it to dealing with traditional bank transfers and completely opaque centralized systems. It is often faster, easier, and cheaper to send USDC than USD, and it is far more programmable and extensible to develop an ERC20 contract than hope for a Stripe SDK or Shopify plugin.

People will still use it even if the government attempts to cut it off entirely. Net result is that legitimate users will be treated as criminal, and/or will be forced to use broken banking infrastructure.

They prefer it to systems that follow money transfer regulations. As soon as USDC transfers follow money transfer regulations, they become more expensive and slower than tradfi money transfers because decentralization has a cost. Net result is that crypto is only better if you ignore the law. The problem for crypto-suckers and crypto-hucksters is that the law won't ignore them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com