Conversation

Replying to

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.

CitizenWrit

@citizenwrit

Nov 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?

CitizenWrit

@citizenwrit

Nov 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.

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

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

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.*

Replying to

and

Here’s the clip - admittedly,

@ErikVoorhees

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 👍🏻

youtube.com

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. ------...

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

Replying to

and

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

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

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

4:44 PM · Nov 1, 2022Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

So, to clarify, you are open to licensure requirements for DeFi GUIs offering services to normal USA users BUT opposed to KYC requirements for those same GUIs?

Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content

Show