Crypto technology offers tools like payment, lending, borrowing, and saving to anyone with an internet connection. Proponents argue that stricter regulations would deter criminal use. Opponents argue that stricter crypto regulation would limit financial opportunities to citizens that are denied access to or can't afford the fees associated with traditional banking.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Political party:
Voting for candidate:
These active users have achieved advanced knowledge of the terminology, history, and legal implications regarding the topic of Cryptocurrencies
No, but the government should screen cryptocurrencies before they circulate to ensure they have legitimate monetary value and an exchange rate
Yes, the government should place restrictions on how much individuals can invest in high risk securities and means test the investor ensuring they are gambling with money they can loose.
It should be regulated in a way that encourages growth in the sector so the USA isn’t left behind in the sector and cede the market to china etc
It very riskyh and volatile market, yet it gives citizens an option to stretch their money in a different perspective than traditional government funded entitites.
The government should not look to implement either stricter or looser regulations, it should look to more effectively regulate cryptocurrencies.
Ban crypto it has no unification and not made by treasury of a country to lead fair and just. Too many crypto types.
It depends if cryptocurrencies are considered another financial investment or become more legal tender. No, if just another financial investment. Yes, if legal tender.
The entire point of cryptocurrency is that it is not tied to any financial system at all. Therefore, the largest coin out there, bitcoin, makes this thing free. This is like putting regulations on the dollar bill. Against scams? Yes, however, leave crypto alone.
@9SLBHH29mos9MO
Yes, but only for extreme cases of "pump and dump" that cause ordinary citizens to lose vast sums of wealth
Citizens should have equal financial opportunities but cryptocurrency should be screened to ensure it is legitimate.
Cryptocurrencies are already being mocked out of relevance, there's no real need to step in, nor would it be an effective use of time.
Cryptocurrencies need regulation, but not abolishment. There should be consequences for straight up fraud, but not for an innovation disrupting established industries. ACH is old and slow.
Yes, as long as those regulations target criminals and not lower-income citizens who are utilizing alternative services to traditional banks
Yes, but I don't think there is a need for stricter regulations, regulations equivalent to normal currency should be sufficient
I do not understand cryptocurrency, without regulations it seems there could be more opportunity for fraud and abuse. I do not know enough to take a stand.
Yes, but only if those regulations target criminals and the wealthy and not underprivileged citizens seeking alternative financial services to traditional banks
@9K99V29 12mos12MO
I guess??? at least to an extent that still allows individuals near or complete autonomy in their use
Yes, but target criminals and the wealthy instead of blanket regulations that harm lower-income users
Yes, if there is significant evidence that there is a net economic harm related to the use of cryptocurrencies.
Yes, but people should still have the right to buy it, even though I don’t agree with the use of cryptocurrency. It’s their money, they can spend it how they want.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
