institutions enabling anonymous people to cooperate
Is it an imperative?
little or no need for “government” or “state”
What about the positive role of a state?
Why is it perceived that state is inhrently coercive or intrusive?
there is a need for a sound legal framework, clearly defining the regulatory treatment of all crypto-assets that are not covered by existing financial services legislation
Crypto has been designed in a way where regulation is either not possible or technically not feasible, then dont u think it will create a peculiar dichotomy where even with a regulatory framework it will continue to be subsided by the fleeting technological advancement?
Thank you.
What do you mean? My definition of the word "enabling" pretty much excludes the idea of in imperative ... If it's "enabling", it cannot be imperative, can it? Do I get it wrong?
What about it? It has a hugely positive role, I certainly do not contest that. But there is a price to pay and there are caveats.
Because that is its very "raison d'être". Have you read much ? Thomas Hobbes explains the need for coercion to stabilise society. After "Leviathan", I recommend Max Weber - he defines the state as "the monopoly on legitimate violence". Violence. Literally. In. The. Definition.
Yes, that is basically what I describe in the previous episodes. The whole approach is ... questionable at best ... But this is what MiCA says, I'm quoting.
Yes, it certainly looks like a "whack-a-mole" attempt driven by the banking lobby who is playing for time and trying to stall or chase away innovation. It's the bankers who want to stay fat and do not hesitate to hurt the European consumer for that, with the complicity of the legislators.