Washington Turns Hostile on Crypto (axios.com) 83
A year ago, crypto successfully scraped and scrapped to get a foot in the door in Washington. But in the wake of crypto's winter, and FTX's spectacular collapse, that door has now slammed shut. From a report: Gaining legitimacy in Washington has been an essential part of the industry's push into the mainstream. But a series of recent announcements from the Biden administration suggest there's a crackdown ahead.
The vibes from the White House and federal agencies have been somber at best for anyone trying to run a cryptocurrency business. Over the last two weeks, government officials repeatedly gave crypto the cold shoulder. First, a crypto-friendly bank was firmly denied its request to join the Federal Reserve system. Custodia Bank, which believed it did everything by the book, was blindsided. On a larger scale, the Fed's rejection of Custodia was a major blow for an industry that's always envisioned disrupting traditional finance. To do that, it needs direct access to the systems that underpin it, including the Fed's payment network.
The vibes from the White House and federal agencies have been somber at best for anyone trying to run a cryptocurrency business. Over the last two weeks, government officials repeatedly gave crypto the cold shoulder. First, a crypto-friendly bank was firmly denied its request to join the Federal Reserve system. Custodia Bank, which believed it did everything by the book, was blindsided. On a larger scale, the Fed's rejection of Custodia was a major blow for an industry that's always envisioned disrupting traditional finance. To do that, it needs direct access to the systems that underpin it, including the Fed's payment network.
Re:running out of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: running out of money (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
There are conditions where that could be true, but we don't seem to live in a world like that. Instead we live in a world where cryptocurrencies are LESS stable that even the currency of an unstable government.
Re: running out of money (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, so I understand this argument is absolutely baked in the acceptance of dogma, but here goes.
If our little community has exactly 100 dollars to trade, and the goods we trade between us are facilitated by those dollars, what happens when the amount of goods we trade doubles? There's still only 100 dollars available to transact. Do we stifle trade to work within that limit? Or do we grow the money supply to accommodate the increased amount of goods in flight? Or do we try to arbitrarily devalue pricing by guessing the productivity difference and universally agreeing to track against it? Or do we hope the mystical hand of the market will cause pricing to magically float downwards to the point where trade is accomodated?
As long as productivity grows, the money supply probably has to. Switching to a currency style with a technically imposed cap may offer stability, but doesn't that come at a cost?
So suggests my paper-thin, archair-economist understanding.
Re: running out of money (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When corrupt governments overprint their currencies, crypto is a sigh of relief with an open ledger and hard coded limit of tokens. This limits corruption and is predictable and stable.
Bitcoin is stable? What obscene price range gave you that idea, or was it the current trading price that makes it so affordable against all fiat currency?
Bitcoin is predictable? As what? A ponzi scheme, or a money laundering operation for the purposes of tax evasion? A lot of people can make an accurate prediction about the future based on past performance. None of them scream "stable currency".
Bitcoin limits corruption? A $30 billion dollar Bahamian tax orgy helped co-fund the 2022 campaign for one o
Re: running out of money (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And dollars are never used for drugs or politics or corruption.
I wasn't the one making silly claims about either currency being immune to any of this. You were.
There are only three 1967 Ferrari P4s in existence. Only three were ever made. Even with a rather obvious way to verify a real product, it didn't stop someone from spending a lot of money making a fake one to try and sell. Just because something is rare or limited doesn't mean it's immune to Greed N. Corruption, as many victims of failed Bitcoin exchanges can attest.
Re: (Score:1)
Crypto is bullshit. We already have money. We can already buy, sell, invest, do anything financially that we want. Fake crypto money provides nothing that we don't already have. Its just another scam that a few people are hoping to profit from.
Ever wonder if propping up Bitcoin values is any less costly than propping up the value of USD, paid for with the blood of US soldiers? I sure as fuck don't. Veterans have been feeling rather scammed since the goddamn Vietnam War. The "justifications" for bloodshed haven't changed. They're just as shitty and corrupt today as they ever were.
Watching a tax-evading ponzi scheme shit itself in the Bahamas to the detriment of a billion dollars not being able to be donated to fuel more political fuckery for t
Send more bribes! (Score:2)
Crypto promoters have been sending lots of money to politicians. I think the recent scandals have put a damper on the politicians' enthusiasm. (I read that FTX is even asking politicians to return donations... good luck with that.)
The obvious solution is for them to increase the bribes. That will buy them time to continue their scams.
Re: (Score:2)
The obvious solution is for them to increase the bribes. That will buy them time to continue their scams.
Yup. When politicians turn hostile to some industry, what they're really saying is "where dat money at?" Once the right palms are greased, those regulatory hurdles become a lot less daunting.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? So, they just wanted more bribes from the tobacco industry when they started shutting it down?
Or maybe - I know this is an absurd thought - they started when they were getting screamed at by the people who *vote* for them to do something?
Re: (Score:2)
Big Tobacco gave up on Big Tobacco. The parent companies all moved on to other things. Cigarettes were a dying business and they knew it. By the end when the government all but outlawed cigarettes, the parent companies didn't even care anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet I still have coworkers that smoke and you can still buy cigarettes at the grocery when you go through checkout. They sure showed them!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Um, let's see: Beto O'Rourke returned the donation *before* the FTX meltdown. Other Dems are looking at returning the money.
GOP? What? Oh, look, see the Jewish Space Lasers over there!
Re: (Score:2)
FTX donated $262,200 to a few of the GOP Rino's. They donated $40 Million to the Democratic campaigns. The $1 Million that Beto O'Rourke returned was a drop in the bucket. Symbolic? Yes, but will not amount to much for the $8 Billion lost to investors.
But by all means, use it to denigrate the the GOP who were, in effect, not involved with the scandal.
The grand master plan of crypto (Score:2, Interesting)
The plan for all cryptocurrencies isn't what they want to make you think it is. It's more sinister than the egalitarian image the crypto boys portray for it.
After the 2008 financial meltdown, cryptocurrencies were born out of it, declared to be the means by which people could be freed from banks/governments, and promised to avoid any such future meltdowns from happening ever again.
But the crypto boys watched closely the result of that meltdown, and formulated their plan: create a new form of currency, and
So-called "industry" (Score:2)
Take note, there is no such thing as a per se financial industry. Financial services industries provide services including loans and insurance.
Likewise, static cryptographic ledgers such as "BitCoin" (BC) have absolutely no need for 3rd parties to be involved in a transaction. If two parties were interested in transferring "BC" credits (denominated in units of 1/1e8 BC, or one hundred millionths) they simply exchange signatures and wait for the public ledger (not a concrete third party, but rather a pure a
Re: So-called "industry" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We discussed this in the format I've presented it during 2006 - 2007, pre-release. "Braid of strands" is known by the common word "whip". The story of the money changers isn't explicitly elucidated in the book and it is difficult to find reliable sources from two millennia or so ago. Our ideas were though that one thing never changes: humanity and our base emotions and desires. The author of the sourcecode said he was interested in moving on to Linear A [wikipedia.org] which to date lacks a viable deciphering.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to explain my understanding of it to the best of my current knowledge, nonetheless.
The money changers were offering coupons that were useless outside the temple. The livestock and goods sellers were selling materials required for an offering to be made at the altar within the tabernacle. Much like bringing your own soda and popcorn to a theater, temple patrons bringing their own offerings were turned away outside the "marketplace" by "third parties" obviously completely unassociated in any way what
Re: (Score:1)
The fun thing is that in Roman times it was perfectly normal to do business in temples. If you needed a loan, you'd go exactly there, for that's where you knew you could find lenders. They were nice and safe places, being holy and all, and in that sense provided a(n additional) public service. Not unlike the sanctuary churches still offer, now and then.
Not saying the guy was wrong to kick 'em out, just that the cultural setting was a bit different back then than we're used to now. (Romani ite domum.)
Or, t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing sucks. You could make it suck less with third parties, but its kind of like strapping a engine form a 93 honda civic on a catfish. No part of that makes sense. It is n
Re: (Score:2)
The author told me he was "moving on to other things" which was quite a lot of change from the excited "it works!" I'd heard. The general idea is reasonable and that was really what we'd wanted to sell. I disagreed immediately once I heard of the "proof of work" in detail, albeit I didn't mind the idea that burning diamonds for BC was nearly as humorous as burning fossils to propel your Flintmobile. In the end, although humanity was doing well enough destroying precious non-renewable resources I felt that t
Re: (Score:2)
I'd need to ask whoever that alias belongs to.
As far as I know the alias was inspired indirectly by discussion related to anime, specifically I recall "one piece", "evangelion" and a number of other series coming into a discussion I had near zero interest in. My point of view was that Japan is, well, kimochi warui, and it was a fad likely to re-surge in the 2010s and onward similar to the 1980s. Discussion turned at points to how Japan was leading the western decline of birthrates and recession in the early
Re:So-called "industry" (Score:4, Informative)
What is being rejected is the money changers in the temple!
I agree with what you've said, but I'd like to address the scripture verse (Matthew 21:12–13, John 2:15–16) posted here because it's absolutely incredible when the cultural context is incorporated...and there are several.
So, first up, let's go back to Exodus 12:4 where the sacrifice of a lamb is first established: " Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household." This is corroborated in Leviticus 1:1 when the law regarding sin offerings is established: "Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household." The commandment indicates that it's supposed to be a lamb from one's own flock, about a year old, with no broken bones. Sin was transferred from the man (representing his household) to the animal, and the animal's death covered the sin of the household. This animal tended to be more of a pet than regular livestock; its death for the sin of the household held significance. One of the things Jesus was objecting to was the temple giving people the ability to buy an animal on the spot, basically allowing the wealthy to pay for their sins to be atoned for by writing a big enough check and walking away. That...didn't work.
Next up, those money-changer tables were set up toward the front of the temple, creating a choke point to ensure that only the 'right' people could enter the outer court of the temple. While Levitical law had many, many entries relating to 'foreigners living among you' that only had a handful of exceptions (a converted Jew couldn't become a high priest, for example), those tables were set up in a way that made it far more difficult for the 'wrong' people (e.g. the Samaritans) to be able to honor God. This...was a problem for Jesus.
Then, there was the added fun of how they ran business. Suppose you did, in fact, bring a lamb for sacrifice that satisfies the requirements of Leviticus 1. It wasn't uncommon for them to find some random dirt patch or 'evidence of a broken bone' and say the lamb was unfit for sacrifice...but they'd buy it for $1 in 'store credit' for one of the lambs they had for a sacrifice that was appropriate. Then, they'd do the same thing to the next guy, and miraculously, the lamb that was unfit for the man who brought it, was suddenly acceptable for the man they sold it to.
Finally, there was the money changing itself...if you've ever exchanged currency at an airport, you know the racket...now do that with temple currency where the people at the tables were setting the conversion rates for 'temple currency', which was the only acceptable money with which to buy a sacrifice.
I'm sure by now, it's pretty obvious what was going on...which is why Jesus responded in that way.
I'm sure I'll get modded off-topic (which is fair; TFA is about Cryptocurrency), but I appreciated having an opportunity to share this because it makes so much more sense in context.
One last thing, to the mods: Can we please stipulate "Washington, D.C." when referring to the capitol of the United States, and "Washington State" when referring to the northwest province of the nation, home to the Space Needle and Microsoft's HQ and the Washington Commanders?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Brah, the Commanders are the former Redskins, they play in Landover MD which is now where near Washington State, but is proximal to Washington D.C.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, religious people just love to post these long made-up fairy tales about biblical interpretations they just came up with (if anyone enjoys this, places like SE Christianity is all this every day). There's no citations of support about these claims for practices of treating sacrifices as pets, or tables as chokepoints, or anything. And somehow it gets upvoted because people are impressed by seeing a lot of verbiage, I guess.
they'd buy it for $1 in 'store credit' for one of the lambs they had for a sacrifice that was appropriate
Obviously there's no way that can be literally true. As just one highlight from t
Re: (Score:1)
I bought some BTC when it was 16k, now it is at 23k. Getting almost 1/3 of a return in less than a month is something no other investments are offering. So, I wouldn't be surprised if it hits 100k by end of the year, and 30k by March. Mainly, even though Washington may not like it, too much of the world's economy depends on BTC, and it will go up regardless of what regulators think.
There is a reason why wise states like Texas woo Bitcoin mining companies. Those are not going anywhere, as BTC is too wide
Re: (Score:2)
I bought some BTC when it was 16k, now it is at 23k. Getting almost 1/3 of a return in less than a month is something no other investments are offering.
To the contrary, lots of investments offer random noise.
Re: (Score:2)
You could have bought Carvana stock in the past month and made 200%. SNAP over 30% in the past month. Plenty more examples of real companies in regulated markets where opportunities to win (or lose) abound.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought some BTC when it was 16k, now it is at 23k. Getting almost 1/3 of a return in less than a month is something no other investments are offering.
So, speculation worked for you this time around. Tell the story to those who bought when it was $50+K.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only worked for him if he sells now. If he keeps holding....well, it may get better or it may get worse. Or he could end up losing everything.
N.B.: This is true of EVERY investment (including dollars). So how you bet depends on your risk assessment. But I don't own any bitcoin, which is a statement of part of my risk assessment.
Re: (Score:2)
too much of the world's economy depends on BTC
Wow, the crypto kool-aid is some strong stuff. And that echo chamber you are living in, yikes. The amount of money tied into cryptocurrnecy is a tiny blip compared to what gets moved around in other markets. The fed and the EU could completely ban it tomorrow and the markets would shrug it off.
I feel so sad that people are so desperate to gain wealth. But instead of calling for better regulation of the housing markets to ban practices that are keeping prices inflated (and builders out of the markets),
Real reason (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And it still isn't happening.
$2,159.99 -- NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Founders Edition Graphics Card
https://www.amazon.com/NVIDIA-... [amazon.com]
What a surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Washington and financial regulators have been hostile to crypto since day one. They have no incentive to support alternatives to centrally backed fiat currencies.
That being said, I think there are three things at play here and we should be clear which we're talking about. First is crypto as a currency. I buy and sell stuff using Bitcoin instead of dollars. This is not what gets the headlines and it's still kind of a fringe thing. It's also not clear how that could be regulated. Second are companies providing digital wallets so I don't lose my coins because I lost a password. I don't think anyone gives a hoot about that, although it undermines the "crypto is private and anonymous" sales pitch. Finally there are crypto trading companies which trade crypto as an asset, much like stocks, gold, and options. That's what is getting the attention and ire of regulators. That's more reasonable than I'd like to admit: companies offering essentially Bitcoin mutual funds should probably follow the same regulations as a company offering port belly funds. But TBH, I think this is the least interesting part of crypto and kind of wish it would go away.
Re: (Score:3)
The fatal flaw was crypto proponents using the tech to try and supplant the USD which was always silly and pointless and crypto is nowhere near such a task, that's where all the crypto as asset garbage comes from even though ironically they sell assets based on USD.
The more boring but maybe realistic goal would be for it to take on payment processors and just accept that crypto "value" will always be measured in "actual" currency.
Almost every place I have seen or used BTC for a transaction pegs the price to
Re: (Score:3)
The original intention wasn't in fact to "supplant" the United States Dollar, but rather provide a new, completely online, theoretically anonymous (given anonymous IP like a 2007 macdonalds/starbucks WiFi) medium of exchange. What if you wanted to pay someone to rip and offer that torrent? What about that questionable cracking or programming job? What if you were Russia and wanted to access western markets you'd been banned from?
Providing this alternative was the original intent. The idea was that currency
Re: (Score:2)
It's a chicken and the egg issue though. Even pegging to energy, well, energy is priced in USD.
If crypto was always just essentially a black market transaction method then great, it works for that, but let's all stop pretending it's anything else.
Having a means of exchange is based on stability of value and all crypto is miles away from that.
Should probably remind the majority of the crypto scene the intention was never to supplant USD because they are all still huffing that copium.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean pegging? Ancient tribes used seashells or grains of corn for exchange, it just wasn't very practical to trade 12 tonnes of corn for a horse and saddle.
Energy has the issue that all known processes (see special relativity) involving energy <> mass are lossy in terms of entropy expanding outward and being lost. What we'd need to achieve "AD" is some new physics that would allow that transmutation at approximately 100% efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
In a small agrarian society the value of a shell or a grain of corn can be settled amongst each other in the community, there's a common frame of reference for what a shell is worth in commodity form. Crypto doesn't have that without existing fiat currencies. Overcoming the history and stability of existing currencies in a global marketplace is an almost impossible task.
Entropy of energy is way over concept for the economic issue being discussed, replace energy with widget Without referencing any fiat c
Re: (Score:2)
Those are all part of the entropy of the complete system. We don't have any means of transmutation like Star Trek Replicators, as of yet. That said, the efficiency must be low for the scheme to work in the sense of advantage to early adopters. This obvious fact is one reason I didn't like the design, but it seems others insisted that such was a requirement for a functional system to materialize at all.
I still can't exchange any of these tokens for material goods or services without at some point exchanging
Re: (Score:2)
Pegging, currency wise, is when one currency is supposed to be fixed in valuation in relation to another.
So, I could print off some "money", call it "dinero". Say that its value is 1:1 with USD, given that I have a vault of USD and will hand out $1 per dinero. As long as my vault holds out (it'll help if I can also get a bunch of merchants taking dinero so that the first stop isn't exchanging it for USD all the time), it's 1:1. Pegged. Though it doesn't matter if the ratio is 1, 10, 100, or 7.6259.
You c
Re: (Score:2)
Methinks ye've missed out on the most important sort of peggin', there, partner.
Re: What a surprise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a few main pushes for cryptocurrencies:
* Its decentralized. Yes, and no. Problem is that it can take a while for a BTC transaction to go through the blockchain, and the transactions are very energy consuming.
* It is anonymous. Wallets are, but once a transaction is done, it is now linked, and with all the money thrown at hunting connections between wallets, even using tumblers may not be sufficient, and there is always the issue of tainted coins. You might be able to move to and from a curre
Re: (Score:2)
For those who aren't up on financial regulations (Sorry ctilsie242),
KYC: Know Your Customer
AML: Anti Money Laundering
Basically, KYC is intended to prevent banks from servicing criminals such as terrorists and the bigger drug dealers. AML is intended to prevent criminals, such as terrorists and drug dealers and such from "whitewashing" their money.
Ergo, the modern banking system is quite anti-privacy. Well, average people have quite a bit of privacy from people they'd realistically care about, because the
The basically have dubty (Score:3)
They basically have a duty to ban Crypto.
As long as the Republic stands, its hard to see how it would possibly promote the general welfare for competing currencies to exist.
or if its a commodity - what possible reason is having virtual commodities good? We have plenty of commodities you can speculate on already, at least by virtual of them being some real thing speculation in them triggers some production interest an society gets something it can eat, build with, heat with etc for its inputs.
We already have practically limitless synthetic financial instruments on top of that real stuff to lube up financial markets, well beyond where we even understand the interconnections. Crypto is basically issuing your own scrip, we don't let banks do it, we don't even let States do it. Why on earth would we let some-guy-on-the-internet do it? I am about as much the radical-free-market-capitalist as you'll find but even I recognize issuing money is pretty much a fundamental role of government.
Re: (Score:1)
I am about as much the radical-free-market-capitalist as you'll find
You like to think that you are but, as is almost always the case, you aren't committed to it in principle you just support it when you think it benefits you. Outside of that you are against it. This isn't limited to the free market, it happens for free speech, drugs, freedom of association, taxes, war, environmentalism, etc etc.
There are a small number of people out there who are actually committed to free market capitalism in principle. Not a single one of them would support government banning a free ma
Re: (Score:1)
Capitalism without regulation simply doesn't work. Adam Smith knew it, Milton Friedman knew it, every economist today knows it.
There's a small number of people because Anarcho capitalism is a paper ideology that is pants on head silly outside thought experiments.
Np such thing as a "free market", never has been.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on the more "free" end of the scale, personally.
Thing is, I'm for real world results, not ideology. So I mix and match on the basis of my knowledge for how things should work.
And I run into the problem that no individual has time to do all the "due diligence" required in an utterly free market to make sure that they're buying what they're paying for in all the daily transactions, fully vetting all contracts, etc.
So I prefer a sort of "standard contract" in the form of regulations that covers "most" tra
Re: (Score:2)
Money is a system, and comp sci people are good at figuring out what the essential mechanisms of systems are and how to code them up. For example, you can code up value-stabilizing monetary policy, democratic money-system-change-governance rules, etc. etc.
Right now, we're only in the Cambrian Explosion (lots of rapid evolutionary exploration of alternative structures and mechanisms) phase of cryptocurrency and decentralized finance. So it is
Re: (Score:2)
Money is a system, and comp sci people are good at figuring out what the essential mechanisms of systems are and how to code them up. For example, you can code up value-stabilizing monetary policy, democratic money-system-change-governance rules, etc. etc.
"A friend showed Pauli the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli's views. Pauli remarked sadly, 'It is not even wrong'"
Re:Not even wrong (Score:2)
The crypto community would be (Score:2, Funny)
To be clear - there have been lying hucksters on the democratic side as well. Remember that democrat who tried to sell a senate seat? Or the one that was caught with a freezer stuffed full of cash?
But, at the moment, the Republicans seem to have the lead on brazen, unapologetic falsehoods and corruption.
Re: (Score:3)
You have to explain why it's a "scam", just calling it one does not make it so.
"misinformation" [Re: The crypto community wo...] (Score:2)
I notice his username is "misinformation," so it's not surprising he posts misinformation.
Re: (Score:3)
Biden is sending $100 billion a year to Ukraine. Pretty sure nothing compares to that scam.
Worth every penny just as a big fuck you to the pathetic little man in the Kremlin.
Blagojevich? He was in prison for it... (Score:1)
This guy, Blagojevich? https://www.nbcnewyork.com/new... [nbcnewyork.com]
Pardoned by: https://www.foxnews.com/politi... [foxnews.com]
Don't forget Biden wasn't friendly to cryptography (Score:1)
Clipper chip anyone?
Biden has moved farther left since the 90s, which means he doesn't mind if people have personal cryptography anymore.
But I'm surprised he hasnt been more aggressive to regulate cryptocurrency.
Re: (Score:2)
Crypto currency has nothing to do with the technology underpinning modern cryptography?
Has AES or other known protocols been cracked? Did PGP go away? Has Biden taken an anti-cryptography stance? What are we talking about here besides you think left=bad?
Re: (Score:2)
Biden has a history of not wanting people to have the technology to make decisions that affect institutions, but trusts regulated businesses. And cryptographic hashes have everything to do with cryptocurrency. I made that distinction in my previous post, so not sure why you're confused about that. This history has shown in his ages-long voting record, but also most recently in this thread topic.
What kind of BS reporting is that? (Score:5, Interesting)
Custodia Bank did not get into the Federal Reserve System because they did not even begin to fulfill the requirements. That they "believed", they "did everything by the book" just means excessive arrogance and incompetence on the side of this "bank". Here is a hint for them: Just calling yourself a "bank" and being able to fill out an application is not enough.
Blind as a bat (Score:2)
There's so much money in crypto, those in charge in corrupt nations might ride it up, sell, hassle it back down, buy, make it easy again. Repeat.
Pay attention to the funds of the politicians here, their spouses, their kids, their "blind trusts", etc.
Of course, it wouldn't happen here. Nope. So don't bother.
Politics Pulling Strings (Score:3)
FTX was not just the most fantastic collapse of yet another crypto laundering agency, but it was also THE laundering agency who was responsible for basically co-funding the political campaign in 2022 to decide how power and control may be maintained by one of the most powerful political parties on the planet.
That same political party has now chosen to demonize those types of highly profitable and effective laundering operations to ensure that their political enemies would not be allowed to abuse the same against them in the future.
Much like mass layoffs at liberal companies, crypto was never going to be a target in Government until after critical elections happened and voters were used for their votes.
They didn't read the last Slashdot article (Score:2)
If they did, they would know that cow shit is the latest hot commodity! Crypto was soooo 2021, manure is the new hotness now.
In completely unrelated news... (Score:2)
(2) FTX: We want our political donations back or we may sue [wraltechwire.com] Just saying.
Pirate Chain and AtomicDEX (Score:1)
Crypto has had thier heyday (Score:2)
Arms length and break away (Score:2)
They didn't care before because it didn't impact anything they care about. If a bunch of stupid people want to throw their money away and get fleeced who are they to stand in the way, not their problem.
The FTX implosion showed two things however:
1) That Crypto and normal markets are *currently* insulated enough that taking down the one won't impact the other.
2) It highlighted this fact, but also showed some limited crossover (where legit normal market business invested heavily into Crypto), and just that gl