By comparison, Wyoming now hosts over 17,000 businesses alone with “crypto” in their names, from “3 Guys Crypto LLC” to “YYZ Crypto Miners Inc,” according to the secretary of state. The vast majority still aren’t physically located in the state.
It looks like Wyoming already has regulations for Crypto. Things just keep moving along. Another company built on Crypto. A new exchange.
Well, they don’t have to catch up. They could refrain from doing anything to legitimize crypto. For that argument, see:
For the most part, crypto today is just a multiplayer online video game (like World of Warcraft). If virtually all the transactions remain internal to the crypto world without links to the real economy, the process might as well be occurring on Mars, leaving traditional finance unaffected.
The overriding goal of policymakers should be to keep crypto systemically irrelevant. The best way to do this is let it implode under the pressure of its unsafe and unsound business practices."
I love that albaby, that article really made me laugh. I hope they don’t do anything, stick their heads in the sand, because with 2 states already regulating crypto there is sure to be more to come. The genie is out of the bottle and Web3 is here. Get ready for it.
I can’t get ready for “it,” because no one seems to be able to describe what Web3 is actually going to do any differently than current processes.
We’ve talked about this a lot - and I appreciate your patience, since very few crypto enthusiasts are really willing to engage on the subject. But I still don’t have any sense of what crypto will be able to do that’s materially better than current processes. All of the projects that you keep mentioning are just companies that keep building the crypto “casino” (if you will) - the mechanisms for people to buy tokens and move them from place to place so they can speculate on which tokens will rise or fall in value.
I can see why established institutions might want to get in on that action. If people want to bet on crypto, then there’s money to be made helping them bet on crypto. Those investments don’t depend on crypto actually being useful for anything, much less important. I can see why JPM might file for a trademark on a crypto wallet back in 2020 (the second crypto boom/rush) - at that time, it sure looked like there would be an ever-increasing number of sucke… I mean, “customers” eager to spend their money on tokens. Again, though, that doesn’t mean the tokens are actually useful for anything - just that there’s money to be made accommodating peoples’ willingness to buy something, whether it’s useful or not.
But for crypto to be a thing - an “it” - it has to involve a more important use case than just speculating on the future value of those virtual tokens. If the story of crypto (not blockchain) is just, “it’s just like money, but easier to steal or lose by mistake or commit fraud with,” then it’s not going to last - no matter if any big names are dabbling in it right now in case it becomes the next big thing. I have yet to hear a compelling use case for crypto where the benefits of not having a trusted intermediary and legal system in the transaction outweigh the costs of not having a trusted intermediary and a legal system involved in the transaction.
Hold on Albaby, I never said I was a crypto enthusiast, I just said I want to understand what is going on. I am not taking sides on this but if you can’t see that they are building a network to start a new way of moving money than that is ok. I am not trying to get you to understand this or even agree with me, I am trying to help myself understand it.
That is because you have been trying to prove me wrong instead of having a discussion. I am not going to keep going over things we have discussed to try and prove this to you, if you think that everything I have shown you is only a crypto casino and a speculation on coins rising and falling, well I am glad that you have proven to yourself exactly what you came into this discussion with. It like Sykes saying that crypto is like beanie babies. LOL if you come into the discussion with that thought and never try to broaden your horizons you will never get past beanie babies.
What you don’t understand is that when everyone of these established institutions help build crypto it just pushes it further along. As more and more get on board the flywheel turns and when that gets far enough along it can’t be stopped. Especially when states start building regulations on it. I think we are there.
I’m sorry it’s coming across that way - just like you, I have an opinion about where crypto is going to go, and I’m sure it bleeds into the discussion.
But I really am genuinely curious about this. There’s lots of people arguing that this technology is going to be important, but not really saying why it’s going to be important. What it’s useful for.
Things like wallets and exchanges and currency platforms enable people to move tokens around - the “picks and shovels” of the tech. But I still haven’t heard a good, simple example of how having access to crypto would be an improvement over the status quo - at least, here in the U.S., where we have a stable banking system. I know it would be awesome for people who already own a lot of these tokens if people started using their tokens as money - but how does it benefit those other people?
One of the biggest things is creators will get paid for content with Web3. Currently the DMCA allows Google, FB etc to broadcast for free any content. Not to change the DMCA but to augment a way of paying for this currently free content matters in the business world.
I am also fascinated by the whole crypto/blockchain fad and my due diligence so far has led me to being very negative on this whole sector. In fact, I would favor regulating blockchain and crypto out of existence based on one single set of facts.
1 Visa transactions using conventional systems uses 0.001 kWh
1 Ethereum transaction using PoS blockchain uses 0.030 kWh
1 Bitcoin transaction using PoW blockchain uses 220,000,000 kWh
Even after the shift to PoS, ethereum is an order of magnitude less energy efficient than other non-blockchain databases. Crypto is an ecological disaster, at least until fusion power provides unlimited energy.
In addition, consider Visanet, the global non-blockchain network that controls Visa transactions. It averages about 2000 transactions/sec (tps) with a theoretical max of 65,000 tps. Compare this with current Bitcoin and ethereum transaction speeds of between 7-20 tps. Clearly not ready for primetime.
What this means is that blockchain is not scalable based on current technology, and even if it was scalable the energy waste would be enormous. The solution being pushed by advocates is blockchain sharding, a technology still in its infancy. By breaking the blockchain network into smaller “shards”, one can in theory greatly increase tps. The cost is a much more complex network that probably compromises security and transparency, and there is still the issue of it guzzling energy.
In summary, there is much uncertainty as to whether blockchain can actually do the things proponents claim, much depends on new technology that has yet to be tested. And in a world faced with the simultaneous challenges of increasing energy demand and Climate Change, the energy wastefulness of blockchain is a major negative.