Skip to content

SEC says it will deregulate cryptocurrencies with 'Project Crypto'

Technology
142 74 22
  • In a Thursday speech, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chairman Paul S. Atkins announced “Project Crypto,” an initiative to modernize the country’s securities rules and regulations to move financial markets on-chain.

    “Under my leadership, the SEC will not stand idly by and watch innovations develop overseas while our capital markets remain stagnant,” he said at an America First Policy Institute event in Washington D.C. His plan includes measures to reshore crypto businesses that have left the country and to ensure that “archaic rules and regulations do not smother innovation and entrepreneurship in America.”

    Crypto makes it easier to launder dirty money

  • In a Thursday speech, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chairman Paul S. Atkins announced “Project Crypto,” an initiative to modernize the country’s securities rules and regulations to move financial markets on-chain.

    “Under my leadership, the SEC will not stand idly by and watch innovations develop overseas while our capital markets remain stagnant,” he said at an America First Policy Institute event in Washington D.C. His plan includes measures to reshore crypto businesses that have left the country and to ensure that “archaic rules and regulations do not smother innovation and entrepreneurship in America.”

    Those greedfuck assholes. Never fucking learning anything.

  • Genuine question, is crypto good for anything other than gambling at the moment? I don't ever hear of anyone buying anything with crypto, only exchanging it out for USD. NFTs are basically a punchline now... what is it actually good for?

    Its good for evading the law.

  • In a Thursday speech, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chairman Paul S. Atkins announced “Project Crypto,” an initiative to modernize the country’s securities rules and regulations to move financial markets on-chain.

    “Under my leadership, the SEC will not stand idly by and watch innovations develop overseas while our capital markets remain stagnant,” he said at an America First Policy Institute event in Washington D.C. His plan includes measures to reshore crypto businesses that have left the country and to ensure that “archaic rules and regulations do not smother innovation and entrepreneurship in America.”

    Whoohoo Viva Ponzi baby!

    Edit: But also very little is being said here.

  • after learning that in China 200 years ago people used non-uniform money, that is, all kinds of coins, some literally ancient still in circulation, and somehow that worked

    I'm talking about valuation pegged paper money, not hard value currency. This old strawman is getting old too.

    The coins worked because they were still tangible material with assigned value (ie metals value by weight or marking).

    The local bank paper money was different, and pegged to hard value materials (gold standard).

    Cryptocurrency works like the second because, like the paper money, crypto doesn't have inherent tangible value (technically even less than paper since it's completely intangible).

    It doesn't work like the fucking Chinese coins (which, btw, still relied on a very centralized government existing anyway) because you can't hold or do anything with 0s and 1s, nor can you physically keep it around.

    because, like the paper money, crypto doesn’t have inherent tangible value

    That's wrong, "owning a number" is tangible value. That's also why there are no (working) offline cryptocurrencies, double spending is a problem.

    If by "works like the second" you mean that it doesn't have physical form, then yeah, that's in the name.

    which, btw, still relied on a very centralized government existing anyway

    A few of them, different ones, each making their own coins. So no.

    because you can’t hold or do anything with 0s and 1s, nor can you physically keep it around.

    Yeah, that's a problem, but "fucking Chinese coins" in their value also were worth more than the metals they were made from. Sometimes those metals were not very meaningful for Europeans.

    And using a mix of non-uniform coins for transactions was a thing for much of history in Europe too.

    In any case, in absolutes of course nothing is like any other thing. If your argument fits under that, then don't bother, it's boring and useless.

    In relatives - you can have a "half-offline" cryptocurrency, where you don't need all the network (or good enough majority of it) to be accessible, just one partition (or even just portion) of it, to make a transaction. In theory. This can even seem like a "partitioned blockchain", LOL. A tree of blockchains.

    There are so many cryptocurrencies so honestly I don't know if such has been made, but it would be useful.

  • It rebounding and crashing by hundreds in value like a meth head on caffeinated cocaine laced with LSD is what doesn't make it a currency.

    No one wants a shit currency where one day a donut costs 1000 and the next 2000 and on the weekend it's either 599 or 3999.

    That's why it's at best a speculative asset, except it's dumber than that because it's intangible. It's like the long term stupidity of fiat mixed with insane instability, all while using way more resources.

    Same thing happened to the Argentine peso, let's not pretend if you make a government currency it's magically stable

  • The comment you're responding to linked to a page giving statistics about the Lightning network. The number of channels peaked in 2022 and has been going down ever since then.

    Number of channels is decreasing, but the money in each channel increased. In BTC terms the money decreased, but in real terms the money increased.

    Real terms being 2022 dollar value

  • I used to buy a lot of pizza and burgers with bitcoin when I did night shifts. Still use it to buy electronics at least once a month.

    It's also the best way to donate to nonprofit projects. I can just send ~ $10 of value, one time. No need to risk accidentally signing up for a monthly subscription or being bombarded by spam.

    If you don't keep 100% of your monthly budget in BTC, you don't really care about the volatility either, because long term it always goes up.

    None of your examples are examples of what it is good for, since they can all be done by other means.

  • In a Thursday speech, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chairman Paul S. Atkins announced “Project Crypto,” an initiative to modernize the country’s securities rules and regulations to move financial markets on-chain.

    “Under my leadership, the SEC will not stand idly by and watch innovations develop overseas while our capital markets remain stagnant,” he said at an America First Policy Institute event in Washington D.C. His plan includes measures to reshore crypto businesses that have left the country and to ensure that “archaic rules and regulations do not smother innovation and entrepreneurship in America.”

    Oh Boy, it's Great Depression 2: Electric Boogaloo!

  • So to match the fraudulent government, the USA is going to have an entirely fraudulent market and soon after an entirely fraudulent currency.

    soon? it always has been. Does no one remember the whole CDO shit? buying insurance on bullshit loans or packaged loans/debts of quite literally shit? no one knew what the fuck was in those things, literally no one. The rating agencies would rate these things and have no fucking clue what the hell they were. They handed loans out like halloween candy to Americans just to get more shit into these things.

    the US Market has been fraudulent for decades.

  • Same thing happened to the Argentine peso, let's not pretend if you make a government currency it's magically stable

    The Argentine peso crashed and then stayed down. That's actually a sign of stability, because it's remaining at a constant, not jumping up and down wildly.

    It didn't crash only to go back to original value to the decrease by half and undulate like a wave, like Bitcoin and other crypto does.

  • I mean, global economy really. Crypto has the potential and already fucked a few banks when it shit itself which could've led to awful bank runs.

    If/when it destabilizes the American banking system the entire global economy will follow its lead down, at least a bit.

    Like I don't think people understand how devastating letting a scam like this into proper finance can be. Finance itself already has way more latitude than it should- wait until this just splits everything wide open.

    For some, that is the point.

  • If/when it destabilizes the American banking system the entire global economy will follow its lead down

    One of the nice things Trump has been doing has been decoupling the US domestic market from the global chain. If we can keep ourselves propped up for another couple of years, the collapse will remain contained to ourselves and our immediate allies. I mean, case in point, Russians and Iranians and N. Koreans and Cubans are so sanctioned to shit that they don't really care if the dollar takes a tumble.

    Like I don’t think people understand how devastating letting a scam like this into proper finance can be.

    2008 was the hard lesson. Too Big To Fail means the scammers are the only ones who walk away from the mess.

    Yeah I had arguments with my late brother about this, but 2008 could have been the perfect time to let banks fail or be completely federalized, and directly bail out home dwellers and implement universal basic income at the same time to make the “payment systems and retirement funds will vanish” argument invalid.

  • Number of channels is decreasing, but the money in each channel increased. In BTC terms the money decreased, but in real terms the money increased.

    Real terms being 2022 dollar value

    No it hasn't. Again, according to that link I provided, the total capacity of Lightning peaked in December 2024. These are not the graphs of a growing layer 2, it's been stagnant for many years.

    Bitcoin simply wasn't designed for this sort of application, and Bitcoin's foundation layer is absolutely frozen due to the ideology of its users and developers so I don't expect the situation will improve. If you want to do a layer 2 then why not use a blockchain that's specifically designed to support it? If you use Ethereum you can even use token-wrapped Bitcoin as your medium of exchange. There's $14.4 billion dollars worth of WBTC on Ethereum available for exchange, as opposed to the $440 million worth in Lightning channels.

  • The Argentine peso crashed and then stayed down. That's actually a sign of stability, because it's remaining at a constant, not jumping up and down wildly.

    It didn't crash only to go back to original value to the decrease by half and undulate like a wave, like Bitcoin and other crypto does.

    What are you talking about? It crashed, then crashed again, then crashed again. How is that stable?

  • No it hasn't. Again, according to that link I provided, the total capacity of Lightning peaked in December 2024. These are not the graphs of a growing layer 2, it's been stagnant for many years.

    Bitcoin simply wasn't designed for this sort of application, and Bitcoin's foundation layer is absolutely frozen due to the ideology of its users and developers so I don't expect the situation will improve. If you want to do a layer 2 then why not use a blockchain that's specifically designed to support it? If you use Ethereum you can even use token-wrapped Bitcoin as your medium of exchange. There's $14.4 billion dollars worth of WBTC on Ethereum available for exchange, as opposed to the $440 million worth in Lightning channels.

    If bitcoin is worth more, you need to move fewer bitcoins to achieve the same result. If there USD value moved in lightning never increases then I would agree it's a failure

  • What are you talking about? It crashed, then crashed again, then crashed again. How is that stable?

    You mean all crashes then? The 3 that have happened in over ONE HUNDRED YEARS?

    You can't be fucking serious to compare that fluctuation with Bitcoin's

  • It's easy to transfer to other countries. Ever tried to send $20 to another country like Kazakhstan? It's a nightmare

    easy to transfer to other countries

    Also easy to transfer with IBAN and relatively cheap ... so I guess other countries that do not rely on IBAN?

  • the Ethereum blockchain

    Ah, yes. The fine folks that gave us NFTs.

    No pump and dumps to be found over there

    To be fair, the concept of an NFT was very cool when it was first imagined, but then all people used NFTs for was stupid gifs to be sold like trading cards or fucking pogs...

    But the concept is cool if you actually use it for something. For instance, you can create an NFT as a digital key (like a literal key that unlocks something) or as a legal deed that proves ownership of something. Then you have a digital asset that can be resold or folded into a smart contract, where the digital item actually controls something physical. For instance, you could design an NFT to be the actual key that can unlock and start a car. If you sell this digital asset, you will not be able to start the car, but the new owner will. That is cool, monkey gifs are stupid bullshit. And if you try to convince people to buy bullshit, that makes you a scammer.

    But Etherium didn't invent the stupid bullshit, they just created a system that made more interesting things possible. And then with the power to do anything, some people made the stupidest shit in the world. It's like, you can hand someone a pencil and paper and some people will use that to prove a theorem, some people will sketch a landscape, and some people will draw a huge cock and balls... But you don't blame the people that created the pencil and paper.

  • To be fair, the concept of an NFT was very cool when it was first imagined, but then all people used NFTs for was stupid gifs to be sold like trading cards or fucking pogs...

    But the concept is cool if you actually use it for something. For instance, you can create an NFT as a digital key (like a literal key that unlocks something) or as a legal deed that proves ownership of something. Then you have a digital asset that can be resold or folded into a smart contract, where the digital item actually controls something physical. For instance, you could design an NFT to be the actual key that can unlock and start a car. If you sell this digital asset, you will not be able to start the car, but the new owner will. That is cool, monkey gifs are stupid bullshit. And if you try to convince people to buy bullshit, that makes you a scammer.

    But Etherium didn't invent the stupid bullshit, they just created a system that made more interesting things possible. And then with the power to do anything, some people made the stupidest shit in the world. It's like, you can hand someone a pencil and paper and some people will use that to prove a theorem, some people will sketch a landscape, and some people will draw a huge cock and balls... But you don't blame the people that created the pencil and paper.

    the concept of an NFT was very cool when it was first imagined

    Going to have to agree to disagree.

    It was always vaporware. A bunch of empty promises that predicted a digital monoculture. Feel like I have to carve "Ready Player One was a Dystopia!" on a baseball bat and hit people with it.

  • Twitter in EU and UK

    Technology technology
    34
    2
    268 Stimmen
    34 Beiträge
    246 Aufrufe
    thegreenwizard@lemmy.zipT
    You're right, I just couldn't resist
  • Samsung to buy US healthcare services company Xealth

    Technology technology
    1
    25 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • AI Leaves Digital Fingerprints in 13.5% of Scientific Papers

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    163 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    25 Aufrufe
    F
    So they established that language patterns measured by word frequency changed between 2022 and 2024. But did they also analyse frequencies across other 2-year time periods? How much difference is there for a typical word? It looks like they have a per-frequency significance threshold but then analysed all words at once, meaning that random noise would turn up a bunch of "significant" results. Maybe this is addressed in the original paper which is not linked.
  • 73 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    176 Aufrufe
    W
    ...and it's turned them into the state with the highest standard of living in the US....right?
  • 90 Stimmen
    20 Beiträge
    188 Aufrufe
    W
    At least with AI it's easy to see how shitty it gets as the codebase grows working on even a toy project over a week. Then again, if you have no frame of reference maybe that doesn't feel as awful as it should.
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    2k Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • France considers requiring Musk’s X to verify users’ age

    Technology technology
    20
    1
    142 Stimmen
    20 Beiträge
    171 Aufrufe
    C
    TBH, age verification services exist. If it becomes law, integrating them shouldn't be more difficult than integrating a OIDC login. So everyone should be able to do it. Depending on these services, you might not even need to give a name, or, because they are separate entities, don't give your name to the platform using them. Other parts of regulation are more difficult. Like these "upload filters" that need to figure out if something shared via a service is violating any copyright before it is made available.
  • Why Japan's animation industry has embraced AI

    Technology technology
    12
    1
    1 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    111 Aufrufe
    R
    The genre itself has become neutered, too. A lot of anime series have the usual "anime elements" and a couple custom ideas. And similar style, too glossy for my taste. OK, what I think is old and boring libertarian stuff, I'll still spell it out. The reason people are having such problems is because groups and businesses are de facto legally enshrined in their fields, it's almost like feudal Europe's system of privileges and treaties. At some point I thought this is good, I hope no evil god decided to fulfill my wish. There's no movement, and a faction (like Disney with Star Wars) that buys a place (a brand) can make any garbage, and people will still try to find the depth in it and justify it (that complaint has been made about Star Wars prequels, but no, they are full of garbage AND have consistent arcs, goals and ideas, which is why they revitalized the Expanded Universe for almost a decade, despite Lucas-<companies> having sort of an internal social collapse in year 2005 right after Revenge of the Sith being premiered ; I love the prequels, despite all the pretense and cringe, but their verbal parts are almost fillers, their cinematographic language and matching music are flawless, the dialogue just disrupts it all while not adding much, - I think Lucas should have been more decisive, a bit like Tartakovsky with the Clone Wars cartoon, just more serious, because non-verbal doesn't equal stupid). OK, my thought wandered away. Why were the legal means they use to keep such positions created? To make the economy nicer to the majority, to writers, to actors, to producers. Do they still fulfill that role? When keeping monopolies, even producing garbage or, lately, AI slop, - no. Do we know a solution? Not yet, because pressing for deregulation means the opponent doing a judo movement and using that energy for deregulating the way everything becomes worse. Is that solution in minimizing and rebuilding the system? I believe still yes, nothing is perfect, so everything should be easy to quickly replace, because errors and mistakes plaguing future generations will inevitably continue to be made. The laws of the 60s were simple enough for that in most countries. The current laws are not. So the general direction to be taken is still libertarian. Is this text useful? Of course not. I just think that in the feudal Europe metaphor I'd want to be a Hussite or a Cossack or at worst a Venetian trader.