Hacker News Reader

Comment by blep_ | Hacker News Reader

That kind of gets into philosophy of what governments are for: should they protect people who make bad decisions from themselves? Does the answer change if people are actively marketing the bad decision? Does the attempt at doing so suggest they're actively trying to keep poor people from getting rich?

(This comment is an explanation of a viewpoint, and not an endorsement.)

View on HN

I see it as the government should get out of the way of those who know what they are doing and the risks.

The problem is, these exchanges do not make you go through the same "vetting" processes traditional securities brokers/exchanges do before you can leverage up to your eye balls and lose everything.

They also go out of their way to make it "fun" to trade crypto - gamification at it's best - which reduces/removes the traditional apprehension of getting in way above your abilities.

We can liken a lot of these exchanges to gambling more than investing.

That is to say, an 18 year old with $500 in total assets shouldn't be eligible to leverage 20x or more. That's just a life-changing problem waiting to happen.

In the absence of a government, people would respond to fraud using violence. The government protects embezzlers and fraudsters from the violence of those they have cheated, but in turn creates non-violent consequences for such behaviors.

> That kind of gets into philosophy of what governments are for: should they protect people who make bad decisions from themselves?

Since governments usually have to enforce the consequences of those decisions, ye.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com