Skip to content

SEC says it will deregulate cryptocurrencies with 'Project Crypto'

Technology
143 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.

  • 1k Stimmen
    182 Beiträge
    8k Aufrufe
    F
    You sound like a bully in some 1980s comedy. Lol Keep telling me how mad you are. I love it.
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    7 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 357 Stimmen
    65 Beiträge
    616 Aufrufe
    V
    Boss makes a dollar, I make a dime. That's why I poop on company time.
  • Firefox 140 Brings Tab Unload, Custom Search & New ESR

    Technology technology
    41
    1
    234 Stimmen
    41 Beiträge
    528 Aufrufe
    S
    Read again. I quoted something along the lines of "just as much a development decision as a marketing one" and I said, it wasn't a development decision, so what's left? Firefox released just as frequently before, just that they didn’t increase the major version that often. This does not appear to be true. Why don't you take a look at the version history instead of some marketing blog post? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/ Version 2 had 20 releases within 730 days, averaging one release every 36.5 days. Version 3 had 19 releases within 622 days, averaging 32.7 days per release. But these releases were unscheduled, so they were released when they were done. Now they are on a fixed 90-day schedule, no matter if anything worthwhile was complete or not, plus hotfix releases whenever they are necessary. That's not faster, but instead scheduled, and also they are incrementing the major version even if no major change was included. That's what the blog post was alluding to. In the before times, a major version number increase indicated major changes. Now it doesn't anymore, which means sysadmins still need to consider each release a major release, even if it doesn't contain major changes because it might contain them and the version name doesn't say anything about whether it does or not. It's nothing but a marketing change, moving from "version numbering means something" to "big number go up".
  • Microsoft’s new genAI model to power agents in Windows 11

    Technology technology
    12
    1
    30 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    108 Aufrufe
    ulrich@feddit.orgU
    which one would sell more I mean they would charge a lot of money for the stripped down one because it doesn't allow them to monetize it on the back end, and the vast majority would continue using the resource-slurping ad-riddled one.
  • Why Decentralized Social Media Matters

    Technology technology
    45
    1
    388 Stimmen
    45 Beiträge
    380 Aufrufe
    fizz@lemmy.nzF
    Yeah we're kinda doing well. Retaining 50k mau from the initial user burst is really good and Lemmy was technologically really bad at the time. Its a lot more developed today. I think next time reddit fucks uo we spike to over 100k users and steadily grow from there.
  • Why doesn't Nvidia have more competition?

    Technology technology
    22
    1
    33 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    223 Aufrufe
    B
    It’s funny how the article asks the question, but completely fails to answer it. About 15 years ago, Nvidia discovered there was a demand for compute in datacenters that could be met with powerful GPU’s, and they were quick to respond to it, and they had the resources to focus on it strongly, because of their huge success and high profitability in the GPU market. AMD also saw the market, and wanted to pursue it, but just over a decade ago where it began to clearly show the high potential for profitability, AMD was near bankrupt, and was very hard pressed to finance developments on GPU and compute in datacenters. AMD really tried the best they could, and was moderately successful from a technology perspective, but Nvidia already had a head start, and the proprietary development system CUDA was already an established standard that was very hard to penetrate. Intel simply fumbled the ball from start to finish. After a decade of trying to push ARM down from having the mobile crown by far, investing billions or actually the equivalent of ARM’s total revenue. They never managed to catch up to ARM despite they had the better production process at the time. This was the main focus of Intel, and Intel believed that GPU would never be more than a niche product. So when intel tried to compete on compute for datacenters, they tried to do it with X86 chips, One of their most bold efforts was to build a monstrosity of a cluster of Celeron chips, which of course performed laughably bad compared to Nvidia! Because as it turns out, the way forward at least for now, is indeed the massively parralel compute capability of a GPU, which Nvidia has refined for decades, only with (inferior) competition from AMD. But despite the lack of competition, Nvidia did not slow down, in fact with increased profits, they only grew bolder in their efforts. Making it even harder to catch up. Now AMD has had more money to compete for a while, and they do have some decent compute units, but Nvidia remains ahead and the CUDA problem is still there, so for AMD to really compete with Nvidia, they have to be better to attract customers. That’s a very tall order against Nvidia that simply seems to never stop progressing. So the only other option for AMD is to sell a bit cheaper. Which I suppose they have to. AMD and Intel were the obvious competitors, everybody else is coming from even further behind. But if I had to make a bet, it would be on Huawei. Huawei has some crazy good developers, and Trump is basically forcing them to figure it out themselves, because he is blocking Huawei and China in general from using both AMD and Nvidia AI chips. And the chips will probably be made by Chinese SMIC, because they are also prevented from using advanced production in the west, most notably TSMC. China will prevail, because it’s become a national project, of both prestige and necessity, and they have a massive talent mass and resources, so nothing can stop it now. IMO USA would clearly have been better off allowing China to use American chips. Now China will soon compete directly on both production and design too.
  • U.S.-Sanctioned Terrorists Enjoy Premium Boost on X

    Technology technology
    5
    1
    90 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    57 Aufrufe
    M
    Yeah but considering who's in charge of the government, half of us will be hit with that designation sooner or later.