Conversation

1) Whelp, that was an interesting few days. A retrospective.
273
1,304
2) NOT LEGAL, REGULATORY, OR FINANCIAL ADVICE THOUGH MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF SPECTACLE ADVICE AT THE END Also: note that most of the below is about the *US* policy landscape. Other countries may differ.
4
158
3) First off—a huge thanks to everyone who gave constructive feedback, comments, and criticism—notably and but too many more to name. I’ve revised my post some already, and will continue to do so.
5
290
4) Thanks particularly to everyone who highlighted the core of crypto: economic freedom. The freedom to own your own assets; to own your own data; to build your own programs
9
352
5) None of this works if you need active permission to do everything: commerce grinds to a halt. If you show up at 7-11 to buy a bagel, and next thing you know you’re pulling out a passport and social security number and taking selfies, something’s gone wrong.
14
325
6) On the DCCPA: a bunch of the comments the DeFi community is making are extremely important. Here’s where it stands:
2
117
7) The core goal of the bill is to regulate *centralized* crypto venues. The main *DeFi* touchpoint is: *how can a regulated centralized entity interface with DeFi?*
10
167
8) In particular, it is *not* making claims about what DeFi devs, smart contracts, and validators must do. It’s looking to eventually establish guidelines about how e.g. FTX’s platform--or Fidelity's--could interface with DeFi contracts.
6
195
9) This gets right what the infrastructure bill a while ago got wrong: that devs and validators aren’t platforms, and shouldn’t be regulated as such. Which is a huge step forward! But again we’ll have to see the final language; I’d only support a version that gets this right.
10
240
Replying to
'course--and thanks for constructive engagement; in the end that's what'll determine whether we can push forward as a community
1
4
Show replies