If you believe those things, you should be asking for crypto to be outlawed, not disingenuously regulated for the underhanded purpos of outlawing it.

You do understand that banning something is a form of regulation, correct? I don't know how much more explicit I can be with a phrase like "regulate into the dirt."

> I don't know how much more explicit I can be with a phrase like "regulate into the dirt."

"regulate it into the dirt" is commonly understood to mean the very real practice of placing so many restrictions/conditions on something that it becomes impractical to operate within the industry of whatever "it" is while explicitly not actually banning it outright.

I tend to agree that there's no reason it should exist, but I'm open to the idea that maybe there's a worthy purpose out there that I'm missing.

Normally if the policy outcome you wish for is for X to be non-existent, then it would be more precise and explicit to say "we should ban X". The word regulate implies to some degree that we want X to exist, just in a way that is more constrained for better outcomes. Think about the mechanical meaning of the word regulate. To try to ban something under the guise of regulation makes it seem like you are wishing for a bad-faith effort to use regulation to make something fail rather than function.

I think I've been very precise. But if it isn't to your liking, here's another formulation: I believe that cryptocurrencies should be banned.

But then again, what if what I mean by ban is a "partial ban." Opportunities for misinterpretation abound!