Conversation

0xJoshua.eth (

)

@0xJoshuaSL

Oct 30

Replying to

@markjeffrey

@SBF_FTX

and

@ErikVoorhees

Watched this earlier today, it seemed like a productive discourse You can tell Erik has a stronger grasp, but showed deference to SBF in a “You gotta trust the person in the room” way I never felt like SBF was lobbying on my behalf, but under Erik’s influence, I do feel better

Replying to

and

I feel like Erik would blow an actual negotiation -- though I highly respect his thoughts and position. I don't think an absolutist, purist position is possible here. If we gambled with that, we'd all get nothing. SBF is practical. He's balancing many, many things.

Replying to

and

Let's be really clear... My suggestion to Sam wasn't to take an absolutist, purist position. That's a strawman. My suggestion was highly pragmatic and prudent: don't include defi in a bill that intends to regulate BSA-registered financial intermediaries.

140

Replying to

and

hm so I think you and I have fairly different priors on what would be interpreted in DC as 'absolutist' and 'purist' but idk maybe you're right! I'm guessing you've spent a bunch of time talking to lawmakers and regulators from both parties and gotten positive feedback?

Replying to

and

Purist = free-market capitalism. No regulations of voluntary transactions between consenting adults. Anything less than that is already a compromise. I have no doubt a great many compromises will be in the DCCPA. Nobody should accept targeting defi as one of them.

177

Replying to

and

don't think it does target DeFi, do you? If so, where/why? (Also what does 'targeting' mean?) I hear you on free markets! I think DC is more complex right now, but again, I'm probably just off-base here--how have your conversations with politicians gone?

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Replying to

So we are just supposed to trust Sam bc he is the one with ‘relationships’ in Capitol Hill? Isn’t that how we got to a pretty deplorable state of politics today? By trusting those who were supposed to “know better”?

Replying to

uh I'm saying the opposite--that you *don't* need to trust me because I'm taking a step back just hoping whoever comes in is able to find a way to effectively reach and talk with the relevant stakeholders in DC

Replying to

Thanks 🤝 you had me confused for a few tweets there (it seemed like you were implying something else) On “whoever comes in”, does that have to be a single person / entity? Could it not be a consortium of relevant industry leaders engaging with DC? Including you/FTX, naturally

Replying to

so I'll be 100% honest--I am very worried that many approaches here would be counterproductive and shooting DeFi in the foot and I'm not comfortable pushing for those but it's 100% other people's right to!

3:53 AM · Oct 30, 2022Twitter Web App

Replying to

And I'm very worried you will adapt to KYC/AML ect laws and push them in order to pull crypto away from the people and put the control in the hands of the government. This is a scary thought. Crypto was ment for the people uncontrolled by masters. Let's keep it that way.

Replying to

Governments are owned and operated by the central banks. To think they are just going to allow us to topple their entire house of cards and upset the global power structure is probably being a bit naive. Regulation is coming and we can’t do a damn thing about it.

Replying to

be true to what you see, twitter is twitter

Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content

Show