I find this funny - Dogecoin has as much value as Bitcoin. It still takes energy (and therefore money) to mine, and the resulting "coin" has value - that being how much someone is willing to sell it for, and how much someone is willing to buy for it, driven by factors such as mining cost as well as speculation. The only real difference being the name of the coin.
If they're worried about price influence by social media influencers, this is also a problem for other coins. Elon tweets, and the price of BTC varies. It's not just "meme coins" that's susceptible to this.
The logic that's been applied here is highly suspect to me.
Correct, and that is zero (or really negative) value. I see crypto as a plague on productive society. People think they can just get rich by investing in currency. It's insane. Value is being destroyed with all the attention wasted in the space. Governments need to step in and protect their citizens from this nonsense.
> Governments need to step in and protect their citizens from this nonsense.
Because citizens are being forced against their will to participate right? I don't know about the rest of you but I know I've held a gun to people's heads before and made them buy Bitcoin.
Edit: love the downvotes, fuck this place. Go ahead and hell ban me or something.
If we want to address significant negative externalities that have remain unaddressed for over a decade maybe we should look into how many people we bomb on a frequent basis. Or healthcare. Or corruption in politics. Or our crumbling society.
Thanks for your input! You have committed a subvariety of the classic tu quoque logical fallacy also sometimes colloquially known as "whataboutism". It is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Would you care to try again, and address the argument rather than deflecting?
You're implying that some financial regulations are unnecessary, but without saying it or giving reasons why. Yes, I think you have no provided an argument.
> What about adults that take advantage of other adults?
Well, there's a pretty big universe of meaning.
> Subprime
What is more wrong? Banks lending to people they know they can't afford it because they think the risk/reward ratio is worth it? Or governments not letting them feel the effects of the markets reaction?
> Insider trading
Honestly who gives a shit? This is the type of thing that would be quickly priced into the market.
> Organised crime
Are we talking about selling drugs? Or murder? Or sex trafficking. Because I have very different opinions between the first and the second two.
Please read and follow the site guidelines and please don't use this site for flamewar or political battle. We ban accounts that do those things. I'm not going to ban you right now because it doesn't look like you've made a habit of it, but if you keep posting like this or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27512975 we will have to, so please don't.
You know, people talk about "there should be some protection from yourself making bad decisions" and when someone says "no there shouldn't, let people make their own mistakes" you see responses like this, "so we shouldn't ban crime?" Its absurd. It is classic straw man garbage.
Of course stealing and fraud and such should be illegal. But if I want to squander my money on bullshit, that is my right.
The difference is you prosecute the criminal actor, you make the act of creating a scam illegal. No, I'm not against that regulation. And you might be surprised to find that that regulation already exists, if you're not surprised I don't see why you keep trying to make the same point. Yes, crime should be illegal.
That's not what you're arguing for though. You're arguing for laws against participating in risky behavior by participants, regardless whether that risky behavior is a scam or not, on the grounds that they could lose money.
We don't ban fraud because people lose money, we ban fraud because people are deliberately misled, their rights are violated and they are stolen from, deliberately.
"We should ban people from taking risks", "no, I don't think so", "oh so you think fraud should be legal?" It's exhausting honestly. You should be able to come up with a better argument than this.
That wasn’t my argument. But well done on successfully arguing with yourself. Bravo.
So if we “know” that USDT is a scam, and people are being deliberately misled then we should define it as fraud, or come up with some kind of new regulation. (By your own logic).
Right - so the OP originally stated that government should step in and protect its citizens. Which I agree with.
USDT is fraud. Which is illegal, so you are agreeing. Just you interpreted what they said as “introduce new law” whereas I interpreted it much more literally as public prosecutors should be taking action.
Since you're new here: this place is a leftist/large-government echo chamber (like the rest of the internet). It's pointless to try and have actual conversations with them.
It's basically Reddit but they think they're political and economic geniuses because they can reverse a linked-list.
The prices of these coins can and does get manipulated all the time. Real people will get burned, badly. You can't even depend on these exchanges to actually handle high trading volume when there are price crashes. It's honestly a joke that anyone trusts this system as it currently stands.
Anyone who seriously believes in a future of cryptocurrency should be calling this crap out instead of brushing everything bad about it under the rug and labeling it as FUD. The problem: very few people actually believe in cryptocurrency, most are looking for a quick buck instead.
I just want to say I like cryptocurrency, but there are some real problems with some of your points I just had to point out.
> welcome to the game.
Is this a game, or something useful, a currency system? If it's a game all your opponents are right. Truth is, some people get burned with every risk that people take, and everyone gets burned by some risk they take at some point, it is why most of us are risk averse. People get burned crossing the street.
> If they're centralized
Find me a single decentralized exchange that has the liquidity to handle high trading volume.
> It's easy to distrust a system that you don't understand
You're assuming detractors don't understand. It is self supporting fallacious logic, "if you don't agree with me that's because I know more about it than you"
As far as unaddressed points, to talk about crypto getting manipulated and pretend that heavily regulated markets like the housing market or stock market don't get manipulated is hilarious. Every market gets manipulated, but people pretend like the government solves that and cryptocurrency is the only market where this happens.
All in all I like cryptocurrency, and I don't like regulation for the most part. Before someone out there decides that this means I don't think murder should be illegal, I do, so no sense going down that line of discussion. But I don't think protecting people from predators is the same as protecting people from themselves, one is within the realm of a justice system and the other is not.
Why is it you think the government should be involved in this when they are demonstrably incompetents in keeping our basic Credit Cards and Checking Accounts safe from scammers and fraudulent attacks? Especially not keeping our elderly population safe.
They can't even keep public emails safe from a certain Secretary of State.
They can't keep a single man in a Prison safe from 'suiciding' while waiting for the court case of the century.
They can't even keep the phone companies accountable to the Do Not Call list for spam calls.
They cannot keep telco and cable companies from price gauging consumers for internet while at the same time enforcing lock downs that keep people at home- with children- that require internet access and lots of bandwidth. Many states holding the state residents hostage from any sort of options of providers.
If the crypto rush is the new gold rush and it is a burgeoning market, why should - or how could, the government save people from their personal decisions. Crypto itself is not fraud. We have laws against fraud if one specific instance is found to be fraudulent. Why should we make new laws to save people from their bad decisions? Honestly, those bad decisions started with the elected officials that aren't held accountable to the public as it is. So we're going to let incompetents govern incompetently for what exists and ask them to govern competently for NEW things? How peculiar.
So we're going to let incompetents govern incompetently for what exists and ask them to govern competently for NEW things? How peculiar.
Believing the government to be incompetent is a self-fulfilling prophecy:
- Only the incompetent or apathetic will choose to work for government and take the hit to their personal reputation.
- Underfunding leads to underperformance which leads to perceptions of incompetence which leads to underfunding.
- True incompetence, corruption, etc. start getting ignored as just "that's how the government is," so nobody tries to fix anything.
- Those who have a financial interest in reducing the capabilities of government will "starve the beast" and make it progressively more incompetent.
There are many functions of government that, though they could always do better, make the world better than it would be in their absence: fire departments, paramedics, infrastructure management (in areas where this is actually done reasonably well), utilities, financial crimes enforcement, agricultural and pharmaceutical quality enforcement, etc.
We're already pretty far down this road of destruction of competence, so I'm not sure how to turn things around, but that doesn't mean we have to keep driving forward into the land of feudalistic anarchocapitalism.
> Underfunding leads to underperformance which leads to perceptions of incompetence which leads to underfunding.
Incompetence leads to underfunding. If they would get their shit together I would be fine with funding them (obv not for regulating the crypto market but just in general).
Your argument basically boils down to "they'll do well if we just have faith in them" which is not convincing. I can see how in some instances lack of faith in public institutions compounds their failure, but it never starts with lack of faith. Nations create governments because they want them and they think they can work, if a couple generations later they no longer do, it is because the government is not functioning as intended. The incompetence precedes the pessimism, not the other way around. Negative sentiment can compound the failure, but it always begins with failure, not negative sentiment.
I don't really get the argument here. Various parts of the government have issues (including parts not at all related to finance), so we should throw our lot in with immutable chains that give zero consumer protection?
The U.S. govt, banks, and credit card companies have issues but there are also a lot of protections for the average person. The govt does get involved when it comes to finance, and that's fine. Things like tobacco and alcohol get regulated, and that's fine.
Cryptocurrencies aren't this magical thing that can't (or shouldn't) be touched by government. It was always a matter of time before the slow machine caught up.
> why should - or how could, the government save people from their personal decisions.
Because having a non-trivial amount of citizens losing their life savings on snakeoil, get-rich-quick schemes is a net negative for society. Plenty of laws and regulations exist -precisely- to prevent or save people from their bad decisions. That's what a government and society is -for-, not to say "too bad, kid, you should've known".
Crypto is the thinking person's equivalent of an MLM.
Fiat works because a government for and by the people backs it. The government provides protection, services, and a means for the citizens to be productive.
Crypto provides none of this. Only a pyramid shape for the early adopters to get rich off the latecomers.
Nobody elects crypto whales or maintainers. You can't force them out of office. That's a bad structure for society.
Crypto is far from equitable and democratized. It's just a bunch of "finance bros" with code and cryptography, and all the power is at the top. It even lacks the release valves that fiat has.
> People think they can just get rich by investing in currency. It's insane.
Here's the problem - replace [currency] with any of many other things and the statement is still valid. You need to explain why crypto specifically deserves more hate than, say, Forex or options trading.
I'm guessing you as an individual would have no problem trading coins though, right? Even if they firewall the country, all you need is any vpn to make transactions.
I mean this is a uncommon opinion. I'd appreciate a few sentences because I was curious. But whatever, I won't lose sleep. I don't know if you think it's because of the energy waste, or invoking speculative rampage, or something else.. It's the something else I'm more curious about.
I see smart people watching charts like pornography addicts instead of engaging in productive business activities, that is all. I see money that could be invested in the community going into scams like Chainlink.
A quick check of the price charts demonstrates that millions of people disagree that the value is zero.
If you feel strongly about it, you should short Bitcoin. I wouldn't recommend doing so, but if that is your conviction you have the option to put your money where your mouth is.
Based on my light understanding of crypto related things, I think Bitcoin very obviously has a purpose and a mission while Dogecoin was literally created as a joke and happened to take off...that would be understanding of their “objectives” as referenced in the article.
I personally think dogecoin is dumb, but I also don't think originalism is very useful to judge most creations. Plenty of creations take on a life that is nothing like the originator intended.
Maybe, but it’s not like Bitcoin had a mission and it’s now completely different, it still pursues a more decentralized world view. In similar light, it’s not like Dogecoin is now any less of a joke than it was when it was created, it’s just speculated upon more.
The developers who made the joke are no longer associated with any ongoing development. And just because something is unserious does not mean it lacks value or objectives.
A thing doesn't derive it's value or purpose from the intent of their creator, but how it's used going forward.
Bitcoin for example was created to be electronic cash, but today most people treat is as a "digital gold" and a store of value, but not as something to be used in regular day-to-day transactions.
And Dogecoin was indeed created as a joke, but it doesn't stop it from being used to buy things (3% of all BitPay purchases[1]), and in contrast to Bitcoin the community wants to keep it affordable. So in a way, you can argue that Dogecoin follows Satoshi's vision more than even Bitcoin does.
Dogecoin is also based off an ancient fork of Litecoin. My understanding is its no longer actively maintained and very insecure and concentrated compared to Bitcoin or Ethereum
Cost is not driven by mining cost. Labor theory of value is tempting but wrong here and anywhere else. You have your causality backwards. Mining cost is driven by value.
Preventing legitimate institutions from allowing transactions involved with the purchase of the coin effectively bans it. It doesn't matter if consumers can still use it, if businesses can not.
How will they prevent transmitting it to brother Pichai in another country who can convert it to cash and send it back? Or how will they prevent exchanging it for goods, or even exchanging it directly for cash? They will have to ban cash.
This moves it into a niche for criminal activity, rampant speculators, and gamblers.
The purpose of banning a type of financial transaction is to avoid stories where a retiree, or other vulnerable person loses their life savings because they got hooked into a get rich quick scheme. These bans only make sense when it's deemed utterly irrational to participate in the transaction for either all buyers or all sellers.
It's pretty easy to understand why someone who has a modest nest egg/retirement portfolio could be pushed into a bet the house situation if they don't understand what they are buying and aren't particularly financially literate.
Yeah I totally understand where you are coming from. But to be fair, there is a little uncertainty everywhere today wouldn't you say? Who is to say that the stock market / housing / bond market is the only "allowed investments"? The government of Thailand I guess! But isn't there a bit of a conflicted interest? If you ban everything except for stocks, guess what happens to stocks? They go up cause a bunch of people are now forced to switch over. I am actually all for what they have done, but it still looks a bit like kicking it while its down. DOGE ain't so hot today and this isn't the reason.
This is an SEC policy decision that affects only "digital asset exchanges", i.e. companies that already fulfill a buttload of compliance and auditing requirements. If push comes to shove, law enforcement knows exactly who is involved and what bank accounts hold the company's liquid assets.
Can't they just enforce the blocking at the ISP level? They could do the same for VPNs in the country. If someone tries a VPN in another jurisdiction, that can be blocked from a more legal perspective. Local LE can try to access these NFT sites or w/e via different VPNs and then shut them down legally. It seems like it is mostly a question of legislative desires.
Read TFA and the press release linked therein. If you're a "digital asset exchange" operating in Thailand, offering your customers to trade the banned items will lose you your license, and if you continue operating I imagine at some point the police will show up at whatever physical presence you have and arrest people, and your assets (including bank accounts) will be seized.
No, that is not 100% effective in stopping people from trading these coins, but it doesn't have to be, and it' not even necessarily the intention - note that it's not even a law but an SEC decision.
This is one of those ideas that may sound good in theory, but will be impossible to apply fairly. There are many "meme" coins that are now dedicating a portion of each transaction towards charity - saving apes, funding animal shelters, etc. Is that enough utility? And there are plenty of ERC20 tokens that are not meme coins that, debatable, serve no real purpose except to enrich their creators and early investors.
And while I'm no fan of NFTs, they seem as to have as much inherit value as any piece of art (whatever someone is willing to pay).
In the US it's illegal to print your own currency and use it for commercial purposes. This doesn't preclude the ability to legally exchange goods in a foreign currency because, while there may be a whole lot of potential currencies, it's not that difficult to create an allowlist of approved currencies.
I personally think this is a pretty stupid decision, but iit should be pretty easy to fairly apply so long as the Thai SEC lays out clear guidelines on which currencies are approved.
And, I am avoiding making any sort of comment on whether currencies are worthy of being on that approved list. It's Thailand and the sovereign government has the right to make currency regulation decisions as arbitrarily as it wants.
There are plenty of private currencies in the U.S [1]. Printing them and using them are just fine as along as A) you do not attempt to pass it off as Federal currency and B) you do not refused to accept renumeration in Federal currency (the "for all debts, public and private" part) without pre-stated agreement. We agree you will mow my lawn and I will pay you 50 Disney Dollars, that is fair and legal. That said, the person doing the mowing the law owes income tax on the fair market value of the Disney Dollars.
I tend to look at charity (especially in small coins which suck up a bunch of electricity for basically no gain for anyone) as an excuse to validate their existence. Just because TOMS give a pair of shoes to a poor person every time you buy a pair doesn't automatically make TOMS a good company, it just means it has dope ass marketing.
How does a coin suck up energy? Aren't most of them just ERC20 tokens on the ethereum block chain? Operating the Ethereum network with an additional token doesn't use any more energy.
And before internet, you wrote letters to your parents to let them know how "camp" was. Or to your friends when you moved away or vacation letters when you're travelling or send a postcard to wish happy birthday.
It just got easier and quicker. But in general, people won't put their private life on display, just what they want to share and "impress" with or nag about.
If you want to see damage to lives where things get shared in public, it's something like revenge p** where the government will protect the victim through the legal system and their actual private life was shared by harmful actors.
Whoever makes the first 'secure enough' (for IP industry lobby) DRM solution that uses NFTs for access management of digital content is going to make a ton of money.
The hard part isn't the tech (DRM can't be perfect, but it doesn't stop other solutions from being sold), its getting buy-in from the IP industry lobby. They probably cringe at the idea of digital access rights being resold or traded as it erodes their monopoly pricing power.
Being able to trade movies and songs at release sounds fun, and I'm sure wallstreetbets style traders would pile in if the ecosystem develops enough confidence. Would also allow content creators to recoup investment much faster at the expense of long tail royalty type earnings - which some may find very attractive.
NFTs by definition shouldn't be banned....I get the bullshit being peddled is little more than garbage, but obviously the underlying purpose is better akin to things like deeds and ownership of physical properties via certificate.
106 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 161 ms ] threadIf they're worried about price influence by social media influencers, this is also a problem for other coins. Elon tweets, and the price of BTC varies. It's not just "meme coins" that's susceptible to this.
The logic that's been applied here is highly suspect to me.
Correct, and that is zero (or really negative) value. I see crypto as a plague on productive society. People think they can just get rich by investing in currency. It's insane. Value is being destroyed with all the attention wasted in the space. Governments need to step in and protect their citizens from this nonsense.
Because citizens are being forced against their will to participate right? I don't know about the rest of you but I know I've held a gun to people's heads before and made them buy Bitcoin.
Edit: love the downvotes, fuck this place. Go ahead and hell ban me or something.
Let me know when you learn about your next word of the week.
We ban and heavily regulate plenty of financial stuff so that people don't get taken advantage of. Payday loan regulations/bans are a good example.
Subprime? Insider trading? Organised crime?
They are all adults making decisions… why even have police? How much crime is committed by kids anyway?
Well, there's a pretty big universe of meaning.
> Subprime
What is more wrong? Banks lending to people they know they can't afford it because they think the risk/reward ratio is worth it? Or governments not letting them feel the effects of the markets reaction?
> Insider trading
Honestly who gives a shit? This is the type of thing that would be quickly priced into the market.
> Organised crime
Are we talking about selling drugs? Or murder? Or sex trafficking. Because I have very different opinions between the first and the second two.
> why even have police
See above.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Of course stealing and fraud and such should be illegal. But if I want to squander my money on bullshit, that is my right.
Ponzu schemes are a crime… are you against that regulation?
That's not what you're arguing for though. You're arguing for laws against participating in risky behavior by participants, regardless whether that risky behavior is a scam or not, on the grounds that they could lose money.
We don't ban fraud because people lose money, we ban fraud because people are deliberately misled, their rights are violated and they are stolen from, deliberately.
"We should ban people from taking risks", "no, I don't think so", "oh so you think fraud should be legal?" It's exhausting honestly. You should be able to come up with a better argument than this.
So if we “know” that USDT is a scam, and people are being deliberately misled then we should define it as fraud, or come up with some kind of new regulation. (By your own logic).
So we agree.
USDT is fraud. Which is illegal, so you are agreeing. Just you interpreted what they said as “introduce new law” whereas I interpreted it much more literally as public prosecutors should be taking action.
The driver Out Of Position 2 airbag test comes to mind as one that causes worse airbags/safety, and increases cost.
It's basically Reddit but they think they're political and economic geniuses because they can reverse a linked-list.
Anyone who seriously believes in a future of cryptocurrency should be calling this crap out instead of brushing everything bad about it under the rug and labeling it as FUD. The problem: very few people actually believe in cryptocurrency, most are looking for a quick buck instead.
This is known.
> Real people will get burned, badly.
Welcome to the game, there is a learning curve.
> You can't even depend on these exchanges to actually handle high trading volume when there are price crashes.
If they're centralized, you mean.
> It's honestly a joke that anyone trusts this system as it currently stands.
It's easy to distrust a system you don't understand.
> Anyone who seriously believes in a future of cryptocurrency should be calling this crap out
If you interacted with anyone in crypto you'd realize that they do.
> The problem: very few people actually believe in cryptocurrency, most are looking for a quick buck instead.
Why is that a problem? The ecosystem needs technologist and "market makers" (including individual traders in this) to function.
> welcome to the game.
Is this a game, or something useful, a currency system? If it's a game all your opponents are right. Truth is, some people get burned with every risk that people take, and everyone gets burned by some risk they take at some point, it is why most of us are risk averse. People get burned crossing the street.
> If they're centralized
Find me a single decentralized exchange that has the liquidity to handle high trading volume.
> It's easy to distrust a system that you don't understand
You're assuming detractors don't understand. It is self supporting fallacious logic, "if you don't agree with me that's because I know more about it than you"
As far as unaddressed points, to talk about crypto getting manipulated and pretend that heavily regulated markets like the housing market or stock market don't get manipulated is hilarious. Every market gets manipulated, but people pretend like the government solves that and cryptocurrency is the only market where this happens.
All in all I like cryptocurrency, and I don't like regulation for the most part. Before someone out there decides that this means I don't think murder should be illegal, I do, so no sense going down that line of discussion. But I don't think protecting people from predators is the same as protecting people from themselves, one is within the realm of a justice system and the other is not.
Do you not think the current economic system is a game? Because it is.
> single decentralized exchange...
Uniswap had no liquidity issues for blue chips with the recent crash.
Clearly there can be more liquidity in the market, but that’s not the argument.
> detractors don’t understand
Why would I think differently when they never do?
Assuming the rest of the response isn’t directed at me.
Why is it you think the government should be involved in this when they are demonstrably incompetents in keeping our basic Credit Cards and Checking Accounts safe from scammers and fraudulent attacks? Especially not keeping our elderly population safe.
They can't even keep public emails safe from a certain Secretary of State.
They can't keep a single man in a Prison safe from 'suiciding' while waiting for the court case of the century.
They can't even keep the phone companies accountable to the Do Not Call list for spam calls.
They cannot keep telco and cable companies from price gauging consumers for internet while at the same time enforcing lock downs that keep people at home- with children- that require internet access and lots of bandwidth. Many states holding the state residents hostage from any sort of options of providers.
If the crypto rush is the new gold rush and it is a burgeoning market, why should - or how could, the government save people from their personal decisions. Crypto itself is not fraud. We have laws against fraud if one specific instance is found to be fraudulent. Why should we make new laws to save people from their bad decisions? Honestly, those bad decisions started with the elected officials that aren't held accountable to the public as it is. So we're going to let incompetents govern incompetently for what exists and ask them to govern competently for NEW things? How peculiar.
Believing the government to be incompetent is a self-fulfilling prophecy:
- Only the incompetent or apathetic will choose to work for government and take the hit to their personal reputation.
- Underfunding leads to underperformance which leads to perceptions of incompetence which leads to underfunding.
- True incompetence, corruption, etc. start getting ignored as just "that's how the government is," so nobody tries to fix anything.
- Those who have a financial interest in reducing the capabilities of government will "starve the beast" and make it progressively more incompetent.
There are many functions of government that, though they could always do better, make the world better than it would be in their absence: fire departments, paramedics, infrastructure management (in areas where this is actually done reasonably well), utilities, financial crimes enforcement, agricultural and pharmaceutical quality enforcement, etc.
We're already pretty far down this road of destruction of competence, so I'm not sure how to turn things around, but that doesn't mean we have to keep driving forward into the land of feudalistic anarchocapitalism.
We don't.
> Underfunding leads to underperformance which leads to perceptions of incompetence which leads to underfunding.
Incompetence leads to underfunding. If they would get their shit together I would be fine with funding them (obv not for regulating the crypto market but just in general).
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-30-vw-18804-...
Look at the scam surrounding tether and all of the warnings that have been put out to warn crypto holders.
One of the roles of the SEC is to protect against piramid schemes and crypto has a lot of similarities with it.
Ps. Crypto is not "new", it's more than a decade old.
The U.S. govt, banks, and credit card companies have issues but there are also a lot of protections for the average person. The govt does get involved when it comes to finance, and that's fine. Things like tobacco and alcohol get regulated, and that's fine.
Cryptocurrencies aren't this magical thing that can't (or shouldn't) be touched by government. It was always a matter of time before the slow machine caught up.
> why should - or how could, the government save people from their personal decisions.
Because having a non-trivial amount of citizens losing their life savings on snakeoil, get-rich-quick schemes is a net negative for society. Plenty of laws and regulations exist -precisely- to prevent or save people from their bad decisions. That's what a government and society is -for-, not to say "too bad, kid, you should've known".
Who's going to tell him?
Fiat works because a government for and by the people backs it. The government provides protection, services, and a means for the citizens to be productive.
Crypto provides none of this. Only a pyramid shape for the early adopters to get rich off the latecomers.
Nobody elects crypto whales or maintainers. You can't force them out of office. That's a bad structure for society.
Crypto is far from equitable and democratized. It's just a bunch of "finance bros" with code and cryptography, and all the power is at the top. It even lacks the release valves that fiat has.
Here's the problem - replace [currency] with any of many other things and the statement is still valid. You need to explain why crypto specifically deserves more hate than, say, Forex or options trading.
If you feel strongly about it, you should short Bitcoin. I wouldn't recommend doing so, but if that is your conviction you have the option to put your money where your mouth is.
Bitcoin for example was created to be electronic cash, but today most people treat is as a "digital gold" and a store of value, but not as something to be used in regular day-to-day transactions.
And Dogecoin was indeed created as a joke, but it doesn't stop it from being used to buy things (3% of all BitPay purchases[1]), and in contrast to Bitcoin the community wants to keep it affordable. So in a way, you can argue that Dogecoin follows Satoshi's vision more than even Bitcoin does.
[1]: https://bitpay.com/stats/
~2000 for dogecoin.
Most of the purchases are gift cards ( a method for money laundering)
That kinda sums up how useful it is to add crypto to your e-commerce.
There are less than 10 x amount of purchases through crypto than amount of different crypto.
Bitcoin is more similar to Gold in scarcity.
The purpose of banning a type of financial transaction is to avoid stories where a retiree, or other vulnerable person loses their life savings because they got hooked into a get rich quick scheme. These bans only make sense when it's deemed utterly irrational to participate in the transaction for either all buyers or all sellers.
It's pretty easy to understand why someone who has a modest nest egg/retirement portfolio could be pushed into a bet the house situation if they don't understand what they are buying and aren't particularly financially literate.
asdf78as6df7sda67f6das7f6dafdfads7fdafd6sa7
It's mine now.
No, that is not 100% effective in stopping people from trading these coins, but it doesn't have to be, and it' not even necessarily the intention - note that it's not even a law but an SEC decision.
And while I'm no fan of NFTs, they seem as to have as much inherit value as any piece of art (whatever someone is willing to pay).
I personally think this is a pretty stupid decision, but iit should be pretty easy to fairly apply so long as the Thai SEC lays out clear guidelines on which currencies are approved.
And, I am avoiding making any sort of comment on whether currencies are worthy of being on that approved list. It's Thailand and the sovereign government has the right to make currency regulation decisions as arbitrarily as it wants.
You can't make people accept your own currency, but you can print it and use it for commercial purposes if people want to accept it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_i...
It just got easier and quicker. But in general, people won't put their private life on display, just what they want to share and "impress" with or nag about.
If you want to see damage to lives where things get shared in public, it's something like revenge p** where the government will protect the victim through the legal system and their actual private life was shared by harmful actors.
The hard part isn't the tech (DRM can't be perfect, but it doesn't stop other solutions from being sold), its getting buy-in from the IP industry lobby. They probably cringe at the idea of digital access rights being resold or traded as it erodes their monopoly pricing power.
Being able to trade movies and songs at release sounds fun, and I'm sure wallstreetbets style traders would pile in if the ecosystem develops enough confidence. Would also allow content creators to recoup investment much faster at the expense of long tail royalty type earnings - which some may find very attractive.
https://www.livebitcoinnews.com/crypto-exchange-in-thailand-...