If all people were honest and kept their word, there would be no need for laws or regulations and much less for discernment between right and wrong. Due to the lack of common sense of some, normally, most end up being penalized.
Freedom cannot be confused, under any circumstances, with the term "I do what I want because I am free!". Freedom, in the modern concept, is restricted to laws and regulations.
This, of course, is due to the fact that a minority, whose egocentrism is greater than the social vision, always misrepresents most technological inventions and innovations.
The need for regulation, whatever you want to call it, is imperative.
But, as the critics of regulation put it, and not without a certain amount of reason, depending on who writes the regulation, it can also be contaminated by people who want to use the regulation to gain advantages over those who are not being regulated or to maintain innovations "under control".
In the middle of this is always the truth.
In these terms there are four participants: who writes, who demands, who supervises and to whom the laws are applied.
Those who write, in addition to having common sense and knowing exactly what they want to regulate, must remember that the text must be clear, not generic, without contradictions and, in general, follow a legal language such that a judge, who does not know about regulation, have no doubts about the limits imposed on the freedom of others.
This text will also contain the implicit intention of what one wants to protect, restrict or release under conditions.
Also, in this sense, the best regulations are usually built taking into account the other regulations so that a general condition of pacification of issues is harmonized, without allowing those who oversee and apply self-determination and invested authoritarianism.
When this does not happen, usually for social issues, you are one step away from a dictatorial government.
If the rules are not clear, they open gaps for misinterpretation by those who inspect and, in this context, those who inspect will invariably create situations of injustice and systemic imbalance. In this way, those with lesser deleterious issues may suffer heavier punishments than those who know how to live almost by the rules and deliberately break them.
When standards are applied, there are two users of it: those who demand it and who are under them.
For the first, the norms must serve to protect the object/scope of the norm from aggression: whether it is private, with regard to rights of copy, sale, transactions and property guarantees and their pricing (here not only monetary, but moral and of intangible values), whether public, which defines collective rights, their duties and obligations towards society.
Therefore, regulation must foresee and reach both aspects, to the plaintiff, so that its business, its property, its ideas and whatever else is protected, respected, duly valued and used in an appropriate way.
For the second, the one who submits, there is a lot of difference between public and private regulations. Public ones, in a definitive legal form, are obligations that govern, in a broad way, as far as people's rights go and what is expected as obligations. Disrespecting them, normally, means confronting the constituted society and coming face to face with justice.
The private one is established in the form of a contract and, in general, its obligation only occurs if there is a need or mutual interest. The disrespect, at first, is private and can be decided between the parties.
In any case, confusion arises when whoever writes the regulation neo has clear, self-serving, and protective goals. Or, when one has objectives to tend to a certain class or to deliberately unbalance the balance of power between those who demand and those who are demanded by the norms.
Everyone claims, for the cryptocurrency ecosystem, that the smart contract prevents this imbalance.
In fact, no, just like a kitchen knife, which is normally used to cut meat and to help with gastronomy issues, it can also be used to harm a person. For both cases, cutting cards or cutting a human being, it is efficient and does what it proposes to do: shear soft tissue!
The smart contract only guarantees equality and balance of guarantee between a financial transaction, but it does not mandate that the parties using the smart contract be honest or that the object of the transaction is legalized!
Proof of this are malicious tokens, deceptive DefIs and manipulated ICOs.
But, depending on how regulation is written, the cryptocurrency ecosystem will lose efficiency and become an underutilized imitation of the traditional financial market.
To make matters worse, it can be used - as is already happening - to sponsor financial wars between nations, eager for the financial amount and agility that cryptocurrencies provide.
In the deep web, this brazen war is already taking place. In addition, cryptocurrencies finance weapons for rebels, against intelligence without tracking the money.
It is a veritable tax haven of money laundering for the purpose of financing regional wars and political power struggles between ideologies, between technologies and, no longer for the minds of citizens, but for the pockets of those citizens.
From the beginning of the 21st century it was understood that ideology was also subject to economic power.
For good or for bad, whatever the ideology, thought or current of thought.
But, as at the beginning of this article, the question remains: for problems of a minority, which are neither few nor low-impact, normal people are penalized with restriction of possibilities that they could have.
Furthermore, they are judged as if all people who use cryptocurrencies are terrorists, for example.
The construction of national regulations on cryptocurrencies must be monitored by citizens.
If monitored, monitored and discussed with society, the chance of imbalance becomes smaller! Become fair!
The problem is that the majority of the population, so connected to the traditional economy, takes a long time to see this and that's the danger: the laws pass without debate and without questioning.
In matrix, the film, there is exactly this discussion. And right at the beginning of the 21st century, making a straightforward reading of regulatory issues: choice and control!
In any case, whether in cryptocurrencies, in the traditional market, in laws, in technical standards or in digital or physical private contracts, the seed of confusion will always be in the ambiguity and contradiction of whoever writes the regulation, law or contract.
That's why you should read the terms of use and privacy of everything you are going to sign.
By not agreeing, if possible, you either reach a middle ground, or accept and subject yourself or not.
Regulations will come!
It is necessary to monitor so that it is not unbalanced!
Whether for cryptocurrencies or for website use!
Stay vigilant!
related previous article about:
Adam smith series about regulation
capabilities-and-opportunities
