Conversation

Replying to

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

2

2

Replying to

and

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

Replying to

- props for your engagement, sir. Unfortunately, I’m afraid I have a similar critique of you not double-checking what I said 😁 I didn’t say that you said protocols *should* be legally required to KYC. I said that you *seemed OK with it.*

1

Replying to

and

Here’s the clip - admittedly,

subtly added KYC to this convo which contributed to this appearance: youtube.com/watch?t=4898&v glad to hear that you aren't in support of this legal requirement 👍🏻

SBF vs. Erik Voorhees: How Do We Regulate Crypto?

A debate between two crypto titans on how to regulate crypto. Whether to regulate crypto? Where do we draw the line? Study and remember this one anon. ------...

1

Replying to

and

subtly though fairly -- I might add -- since I doubt there's a world in which licensure wouldn't also come with requirements like KYC

1

Replying to

and

that was only for *frontends*, not *on-chain*

3:36 PM · Nov 1, 2022Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

on-chain KYC was a *possible substitution* for GUI KYC that a GUI could *choose* to use

2

1

Replying to

and

you didn't think frontend licensure would kill DeFi & *seemed* open to it. Is that fair or correct? IMHO, license reqs would incl. KYC + most ppl interact via GUIs. Hence, my original point that u seemed OK w/ KYC for interacting w/ protocols I'm happy to have misheard you, sir

1

Replying to

and

ah so by "interacting with" you mean "using via GUI"? I wouldn't support that policy and think that the actual very specific things I've been pointing at as compromises are substantially more open than that

2

3

Show replies

Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content

Show