Anyone speculating in crypto shouldn't get backstop by government. Wasn't the whole DeFi argument that fiat/government could be bypassed?
Anyone speculating in crypto shouldn't get backstop by government. Wasn't the whole DeFi argument that fiat/government could be bypassed?
We can quibble about fiat/currency vs banking, but technically the government owns all money.
Granted, retail and last-mile banking seems a poor fit for government control.
Although from memory Japan offers retail banking services through their postal service? (for historical quirk reasons, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Post_Bank )
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/emergency-banki...
Title 2 above seems to describe a government appointed regulator in case of failure.
Receivership is different from nationalisation. It’s aimed at winding down or disposing of the asset on a short timeline. For comparison, we’re FTX in receivership, its assets would be controlled by a third party whose job would be to protect it for users’ benefit.
But if you feel there’s no difference between stocks (an enforceable legal claim on the real property and intellectual property of an on going enterprise), housing (real property) and crypto (nothing, literally nothing) then there’s no point in discussing it.
Crypto is cauterised. There were inklings of institutionalisation, but the Fed raised rates before that took hold. This means the people and wealth in crypto can vanish without compromising much else, a statement I cannot make about most industries or assets.
I would also venture that most people suggesting we not backstop crypto were also opposed to bailing out banks. But unlike with banks or housing, there is no broader interest in crypto.
Which means, errors get caught before compounding too much. It also means knowing that no decision is made with the greater good or lining my pockets mantra solely. It is a combination of both.
Most who are getting fucked by this fiasco are retail who have never touched DeFi.