Alexandra Elbakyan powers a big chunk of the worlds knowledge archiving almost singlehandedly. A tiny group of ringleaders powers who knows how much torrenting. The evidence I've seen so far is that coordinating a global blockade on anything tech is too expensive to manage. And getting more so as this more reliable alternative to the traditional banking system grows.
The economics here are not on the side of governments. The enforcement costs are high. The costs to individuals in acquiring and using crypto are low. The benefits of running a monetary system that bypasses the high costs of the global regulatory state are extremely high (in some sense, the outrageous costs of running the bitcoin network represents the implied drag of regulation). Even if being imprisoned is an inevitable result, there are a lot of people where the intervening high life of running a huge crypto exchange must be attractive.
The times are exciting. Unless we see capital controls the likes of which have never been tried (a possibility, the authoritarians must be stewing over crypto) might find these apparent victories by the regulator as Pyrrhic. Unlike most financial assets, once I've bought a cryptocurrency the only option they have is to come to my house and seize it. That isn't a feasible option at scale.
Crypto doesn't need to be enforced out of existence, it already cannot compete with other money, so it remains a niche thing. Enforcing things on niches is easy to some extent (or rather not even needed).
regulators don't have problem with crypto, they have problem with Crypto.
more seriously, there's zero problem with the technology. you can send money to anyone you want using a complicated game of crypto whisper phone, but everyone in the chain has to file tax returns or whatever is required in the jurisdictions along the path.
patio's piece opens with the insight that Crypto companies want to be eveywhere while being nowhere.
if Crypto wants to really be everywhere, then they can do what all big tech (and non-tech) inter-multi-continental conglomerate does, open branch offices, do the frustrating work of finding local regulation experts, navigating the immense labyrinth of global vs local realpolitik, etc.
they should/could have started with registering the fucking tokens.
it makes zero sense that they contested this, because they already do KYC for their own fucking anti-fraud purposes.
The economics here are not on the side of governments. The enforcement costs are high. The costs to individuals in acquiring and using crypto are low. The benefits of running a monetary system that bypasses the high costs of the global regulatory state are extremely high (in some sense, the outrageous costs of running the bitcoin network represents the implied drag of regulation). Even if being imprisoned is an inevitable result, there are a lot of people where the intervening high life of running a huge crypto exchange must be attractive.
The times are exciting. Unless we see capital controls the likes of which have never been tried (a possibility, the authoritarians must be stewing over crypto) might find these apparent victories by the regulator as Pyrrhic. Unlike most financial assets, once I've bought a cryptocurrency the only option they have is to come to my house and seize it. That isn't a feasible option at scale.