When it comes to the world of finance and regulation, few topics have stirred as much debate as the role of the SEC and its current chair, Gary Gensler. A
I can’t say something about this politician, but cryptocurrencies aren’t securities, at least most of them. These are decentralized networks, meaning that the classification as securities would effectively ban them in the US as there would be no realistic way for most crypo money to be regulated by the SEC. Acquiring the SEC license is also time-consuming and costly, which means that only a few players in the financial markets would be able to fund crypto projects and/or exchanges, which would again undermine the idea of decentralization.
Cryptocurrencies are volatile and awful for the environment
Yes, volatility is bad and likely one reason why it will take a long time until crypto becomes a widely accepted means of payment, and that what it is to me. I consider crypto more as a means of payment (rather than an asset to invest in), and blockchain a good tool for introducing complementary currency systems.
Yes, its not good for the environment, but we should also discuss GAFAM’s data centers, let alone artificial intelligence (which consumes much more energy - Microsoft even announced its plan to use small modular nuclear reactors to help them with their AI ambitions back in the fall).
I feel there is a need for a broader public debate on the ecological impact of our digital life, there is almost no data and research about it. But in principal I agree, we needed to discuss the environmental impact also of blockchain.
I can’t say something about this politician, but cryptocurrencies aren’t securities, at least most of them. These are decentralized networks, meaning that the classification as securities would effectively ban them in the US as there would be no realistic way for most crypo money to be regulated by the SEC. Acquiring the SEC license is also time-consuming and costly, which means that only a few players in the financial markets would be able to fund crypto projects and/or exchanges, which would again undermine the idea of decentralization.
I can see why Bitcoin is not considered a security but this seems to say most others are
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/what-makes-crypto-asset-security-us-2023-06-07/
I don’t really see this as a bad thing. Cryptocurrencies are volatile and awful for the environment
Yes, volatility is bad and likely one reason why it will take a long time until crypto becomes a widely accepted means of payment, and that what it is to me. I consider crypto more as a means of payment (rather than an asset to invest in), and blockchain a good tool for introducing complementary currency systems.
Yes, its not good for the environment, but we should also discuss GAFAM’s data centers, let alone artificial intelligence (which consumes much more energy - Microsoft even announced its plan to use small modular nuclear reactors to help them with their AI ambitions back in the fall).
I feel there is a need for a broader public debate on the ecological impact of our digital life, there is almost no data and research about it. But in principal I agree, we needed to discuss the environmental impact also of blockchain.
That’s good, environmentally. That ensures it won’t be increasing demand for fossil fuel energy by relying on the grid suppliers.