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
Conversation
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
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
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 👍🏻
1
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
on-chain KYC was a *possible substitution* for GUI KYC that a GUI could *choose* to use
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
Show