cody on Nostr: Don’t disagree with your sentiment. One general problem I see in the ...
Don’t disagree with your sentiment. One general problem I see in the counter-messaging to Warren’s bill/views (and others like it) is too much emphasis on the principles behind crypto, and not enough on the reality of what can be done to address the bill’s concerns.
Government tries to solve problems (real or imaginary) that it believes (rightly, wrongly, or duplicitously) the public is incapable of solving itself. I want to see more messaging and discussion that is literally as direct as possible—e.g. “How Bitcoin stops terrorist financing” or “Why crypto is a better alternative to eliminate terrorist financing than the government and big banks.” Even the Blockchain Association’s November 15 letter to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee was lukewarm—only stating that proposed regulations would be “counter productive” to national security interests with a citation to a single WSJ letter to the editor from a different crypto lobbyist that effectively said “blockchains are public, so terrorists don’t like using them.” True or not, it’s too abstract.
Legislators that barely know how to use google need to be persuaded by offensive messaging and education that is tangible, which means discussing and demonstrating the utility of solutions to the problem they’re confronting. It’s against these concrete backdrops that the more ethereal appeals to freedom, equality, etc., can be contextualized—and against which the government’s alternatives can be evaluated.
Government tries to solve problems (real or imaginary) that it believes (rightly, wrongly, or duplicitously) the public is incapable of solving itself. I want to see more messaging and discussion that is literally as direct as possible—e.g. “How Bitcoin stops terrorist financing” or “Why crypto is a better alternative to eliminate terrorist financing than the government and big banks.” Even the Blockchain Association’s November 15 letter to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee was lukewarm—only stating that proposed regulations would be “counter productive” to national security interests with a citation to a single WSJ letter to the editor from a different crypto lobbyist that effectively said “blockchains are public, so terrorists don’t like using them.” True or not, it’s too abstract.
Legislators that barely know how to use google need to be persuaded by offensive messaging and education that is tangible, which means discussing and demonstrating the utility of solutions to the problem they’re confronting. It’s against these concrete backdrops that the more ethereal appeals to freedom, equality, etc., can be contextualized—and against which the government’s alternatives can be evaluated.