Some quick takeaways from last week's episode with & .
1-Both are legit concerned that regulation could completely stifle the industry. SBF's response is more pragmatic, Erik's more idealistic.
Conversation
2-The discussion hinged on whether or not requiring licensure for DeFi frontends would be a terrible outcome so long as backend protocols remain permissionless.
SBF didn't seem to think it would be terrible; Erik predictably thought it would be a disaster.
1
3-Along these lines, I truly believe that -- even if licenses are required for frontends -- crypto's general composability and global liquidity will still be revolutionary to finance.
1
4-Conversation was frustrating in that both parties seemed to talk past each other at times... I legitimately am still struggling to understand why that happened. Both seemed smart and genuine. I don't know why they couldn't address each other's points more directly.
1
5-The Good: both were civil & want the best for crypto, both adamant that L1s & code must stay permissionless (that's big)
The Bad: both get a C- at steel-manning each others' arguments
1
6-The Ugly: Erik hadn't read latest version of DCCPA, SBF was literally stammering when asked about how permissioning/licensure for frontends is diff than permissioning/licensure for email frontends in how it would kill the innovation.
1
7-Conclusion: I am sympathetic to SBF's pragmatism, but I agree with Erik that SBF is conceding too much. I also don't understand why SBF has faith in regulators when even SBF admitted even he's not sure what to do.
Crypto is ALREADY, highly regulated - why cripple it further?
1
BONUS: SBF seems to think a world in which KYC is certified on-chain & then required legally to interact with other protocols is OK.
Sounds like a path to dystopian, Orwellian finance in my book. Idk how he can't see that & I can't support FTX in good faith after hearing that.
1
Replying to
uh that's definitely not what I said!
I said that KYC on-chain could be useful, *not* that protocols should be legally required to use it
where did you get the sense that I thought it should be legally required? I'll definitely correct that there if so!
if not -- maybe worth double checking before coming to such a strong conclusion
2
1
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Show