(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
That proposal included data-reporting requirements for token projects (good) but didn't place any prior restraints on entities that wanted to try something new (also good). Personally, I would love to see additional safe-harbor permissions for tokens with very low value, the sort that might be deployed for small-scale DAOs (decentralized autonomous organizations) or other truly community-driven projects.
But let's be realistic: Regulation that leaves substantial room for experimentation isn't particularly likely to come to fruition. In part, that's because Congress remains a bit of an ineffectual mess, ill-equipped to craft complex and rational new rules.
But more fundamentally, the SEC and other regulators just aren't set up to grapple with the truly mind-bending complexities of blockchain's crossover between technology and finance. That disconnect may be inevitable, because regulation implies a normative vision of the way things "should" be.
Embracing risk and chaos and figuring it out as we go is probably the only real way to find out the long-term potential of these innovations.
Growth and hucksterism
But that possibility has basically closed over the past two years, thanks to a combination of real growth and shameless hucksterism. Figures like Alex Mashinsky and Do Kwon conveniently disregarded the experimental nature of the products they were promoting to the general public, and real engineers and designers tinkering at the truly bleeding edge are poised to pay a completely undeserved penalty.
As these tighter constraints close in, it will be increasingly important to remember what's actually being targeted by stricter regulation. Ultimately, the problem is not cryptocurrency or blockchain itself, which are merely technologies. The problem is that they have been overhyped and exploited to further a much larger system in which promotion of high-risk investments yield big rewards, even if those investments are more likely to get vaporized.
The same dynamic is in play in the "regulated" venture capital industry. We recently saw the absurdity of another $350 million being handed to low-rent P.T. Barnum Adam Neumann, who became a billionaire in the course of destroying $11 billion of other people's money at WeWork. Is Neumann a smarter, better or more trustworthy person than Do Kwon? That seems like a stretch.
Of course, there is a potential upside as the crackdown ramps up: it could return cryptocurrency to its roots. The fat days of loose oversight removed incentives to build truly robust systems that could operate beyond government reach, in favor of fragile systems with superficial features that could be shilled to retail. Features like censorship resistance and true decentralization are about to get a lot more important, and in the long run, that could be the best outcome of all.
– David Z. Morris
EmoticonEmoticon