Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

Once again crypto investors have to be bailed out by the same government regulation they hate so much.

> Once again crypto investors have to be bailed out by the same government regulation they hate so much.

Are they being bailed out by the government? I didn't see anything that said the government is making the investors whole here, do you?

Prosecution of crime discourages further crime, so yes the ecosystem is being helped directly by the government regardless of whether these few investors get their money back or not.

And while it is too early to say in this case, the government has reimbursed crypto victims in several cases in the US (see https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2020/11/... and https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/18/22789507/crypto-scam-gov... as examples).

Especially in Bitcoin circles, the classical economic view of property rights is pretty much a cornerstone of the ideology. Many would argue defending property rights is one of the most legitimate utilizations of Government force. I'm not sure I understand your point, at all.

The ideas that:

• The blockchain is an immutable distributed source of truth outside the control of any central authority

and

• The government can pass judgement, seize your assets and give them to someone else

are fundamentally contradictory.

If you want the government to be the final arbiter of property rights then you are conceding that they control property allocation, not some global ledger.

Outside the control of something does not mean the same as outside the reach of. For a typical tech example consider e.g. owning a word processor vs using a word processing software as a service. In the former your usage of that is outside the control of any central authority, but certainly not outside their potential reach.

If the government deems your copy of that software is illegal, they may come for you [and it], but at the same time they can't simply whisk it out of existence - because they don't control it. By contrast, in the SaaS case - they can indeed simply whisk it out of existence, so far as you are concerned.

This also has nothing to do with conceding who "controls property allocation." It's all about control/ownership.

What pays for all the investigations to find the fraudsters and the funds? It's taxes, but a large proportion of people in crypto circles say that taxation is theft.

Income tax is slavery. Import duties, use taxes (diesel fuel to fund roads), and many sales taxes are legitimate.

So "no regulation" when it suits them. And "strong regulation" when it suits them. No different than any other industry, actually ;)

If you'd prefer im sure crypto investors would be happy to take justice into their own hands.

Somehow i think you wouldnt like private mercenaries running around hanging people that crypto bros dislike though

i actually think this is a valid point. Either enforce property right laws correctly or people will turn to vigilanteeism. Just because the property happens to be crypto rather than real estate or your car, doesn't mean it's any less deserving of due process.

When I read your post I interpreted it as the government making people whole out of the general tax fund. However, after reading the articles, it seems the government seized assets from fraudsters and then returned the assets to the victims.

This comment is not intended to argue about anything, just adding a clarification.

> Are they being bailed out by the government? I didn't see anything that said the government is making the investors whole here, do you?

Isn't the whole thing that code is the new law?

If you transfer ownership to your cryptos to that exchange, they should be the "legitimate" owner if you follow that logic. However it seems that all of this is just avoid the actual law when it seems convenient and cry back when it's not.

What value does this comment add to the discussion?

> What value does this comment add to the discussion?

Some of us advocate for a crypto tax to cover the cost of investigating, prosecuting and remunerating victims. This is currently borne by the public purse. Given the disproportionate contribution of crypto to fraud, and animated by the community’s general disdain for the law, this seems fair.

The standard expectation in the cryptocurrency space is that all problems are adjudicated via blockchain mechanisms (on chain, off chain, etc.) in a decentralized way. The fact that the government (a centralized, non-blockchain entity) has to step in to address a problem indicates a failure of the cryptocurrency ideal.

Is he saying that, or is he simply expressing a disdain for what he sees as anti-regulation crypto investors? He's overgeneralizing to suggest all crypto investors hate regulation, which no one believes is true. It's not even clear the majority oppose regulation in the crypto space.

Investors don't oppose regulation, they usually assume it.

The criminals running all the crypto ponzi schemes hate regulation.

But sell it to "investors" as though it's actually regulated and low risk.

Like the clowns running Voyager

https://www.americanbanker.com/news/fed-fdic-order-voyager-t...

Since you said it was a standard expectation, you can point to polls that show this sentiment, right? Leaders of major projects saying that blockchain means stealing is ok and the government shouldn't prosecute it?

Or is it a thing you made up to win an argument. It is, isn't it. You made this up.

Have you... ever used a blockchain?

The crypto ideal does not use custodial exchanges. Exchanges and brokerages have traditionally been regulated. They are convenient and not really the crypto ethos.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com