Europe must ban Bitcoin mining to hit the 1.5C Paris climate goal, says Sweden(euronews.com)
euronews.com
Europe must ban Bitcoin mining to hit the 1.5C Paris climate goal, says Sweden
https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/11/12/europe-must-ban-bitcoin-mining-to-hit-the-1-5c-paris-climate-goal-say-swedish-regulators
53 comments
t0suj4(1)
If you're using up renewables that would be used by other energy consumers, you've probably just pushed a bunch of them onto non-renewables. Is that actually good? Maybe some % (20%?) of those customers will simply opt not to do whatever power-consuming thing they were going to do, but the rest...
I've heard that some bitcoin miners get started when there is an oversupply of energy to burn the excess power. I think this is the direction bitcoin mining could take.
Sure, you can start mining when there is an oversupply of energy. But why would you ever stop mining? Idle mining is a waste of money, so it will be running 24/7, and everyone else will need to conform and change their energy usage.
Yeah. But most BTC miners are energy buyers of last resort. Sucking up the dregs at the cheapest possible price. They aren't "using up" renewables. In fact, often it's this consumption that makes the renewable enterprises viable.
[deleted]
70% of Bitcoin mining is apparently already renewables, way ahead of most of the other industries.
Source?
It's nice to see that this is about proof of work mining specifically, as opposed to the blanket ban on all cryptocurrencies with environmental concerns being used as a thinly veiled excuse that we're seeing in some places.
I oppose carbon taxes (I don't want to get into that here); I also think bitcoin is stupid. But I see this kind of headline as an argument for a carbon tax. Trying to ban specific things is a silly political game of whack-a-mole - creating an exhaustive list of "bad" things is impossible and also overreach into telling people what to do. The better way (and I realize this is beating a dead horse) is to have the price reflect the externalities. Let people mine bitcoin or idle their car or whatever other thing they want, just make sure the cost they pay to do it properly reflects the all-in cost of the activity, and try to do it in a way that the poor are not disproportionately disadvantaged (whoops, that's a big part of my opposition).
> have the price reflect the externalities
> just make sure the cost they pay to do it properly reflects the all-in cost of the activity
The "just" here is hilarious, this is the problem that the minds of three generations have not yet been able to solve. Bringing in carbon taxes is excellent, but they are extremely difficult to do right, because any mismatch between price and externality is relentlessly exploited and arbitraged. The most successful schemes have been those that limit their scope to a particular kind of activity within a particular area, not "let people mine or idle their care or whatever other thing they want". You are asking us to levy a carbon tax on literally all human activity... this is truly bonkers. Best of luck administering the scheme.
Until someone manages to do it, we can still do whack-a-mole and ban things outright, in particular when an activity by its very nature so flagrantly backpedals every inch of our hard-fought progress, that any real carbon tax would inflate its prices so much as to immediately spell its demise. COP26 was centered around the "phasing down" (what a shame it could not be "phasing out") of coal-fired power plants. It is literally our best strategy right now, because all the enemies of the planet are still massive beasts of industries that should have to feel their legs crumbling beneath them and be spared no shelter in their collapse. One day, when all this fails and the beasts collapse too late, Earth's enemies will finally be the minor inefficiencies and minor choices, and you can assign them your little weights and measures then.
> just make sure the cost they pay to do it properly reflects the all-in cost of the activity
The "just" here is hilarious, this is the problem that the minds of three generations have not yet been able to solve. Bringing in carbon taxes is excellent, but they are extremely difficult to do right, because any mismatch between price and externality is relentlessly exploited and arbitraged. The most successful schemes have been those that limit their scope to a particular kind of activity within a particular area, not "let people mine or idle their care or whatever other thing they want". You are asking us to levy a carbon tax on literally all human activity... this is truly bonkers. Best of luck administering the scheme.
Until someone manages to do it, we can still do whack-a-mole and ban things outright, in particular when an activity by its very nature so flagrantly backpedals every inch of our hard-fought progress, that any real carbon tax would inflate its prices so much as to immediately spell its demise. COP26 was centered around the "phasing down" (what a shame it could not be "phasing out") of coal-fired power plants. It is literally our best strategy right now, because all the enemies of the planet are still massive beasts of industries that should have to feel their legs crumbling beneath them and be spared no shelter in their collapse. One day, when all this fails and the beasts collapse too late, Earth's enemies will finally be the minor inefficiencies and minor choices, and you can assign them your little weights and measures then.
any mismatch between price and externality is relentlessly exploited and arbitraged
If the carbon tax is more expensive than it needs to be, how would you exploit or arbitrage that?
If the carbon tax is more expensive than it needs to be, how would you exploit or arbitrage that?
The problem always originates with the other kind of mismatch, but arbitrage works on two markets, if you have one market A where production of some good is taxed at 20% and another market B where production is taxed at 10%, all production soon shifts to market B. (Market here = market for production, you "buy" precursors + labour, you get goods.) Market A has set its taxes so high that nobody ever pays them, simply by moving it all elsewhere. If you have a local industry for that good, you kill it. So yeah, technically it is not due to a price/externality mismatch because there is no Market C where the gods trade carbon credits with perfect foresight. But from Market B's perspective, let's say the true externality cost is around 20% (and Market A is approximately correct, and so wouldn't go any higher), Market B has priced it beneath the externality cost, and this difference is exploited and arbitraged on Market A, whose leaders were honestly trying to do the right thing.
So NOBODY wants to tax this stuff unless everybody taxes the same stuff at the same rate and there's a closed system. It's really hard to find a closed system, but you can find them in e.g. electricity generation in one closed area without any electricity imported from elsewhere. Technically if you did this but didn't perfectly match the price to the externality (which would be very normal), it couldn't be exploited. But most markets cannot be that enclosed.
The problem can be seen a bit more easily by looking at carbon credits, where the price is supposed to reflect the value of a unit or emissions reduction. If you are Market A, and you value emissions reduction highly, then what tends to happen is: (1) Market B says it agrees with you, and develops a scheme for trading its credits with yours, (2) Market B allows for people to tell the government "hey, we were going to chop down this forest, and we decided not to!" and gives them credits (3) those people go and chop down a different forest, but not before they repeat the procedure ten more times (4) those people sell their credits to airlines and transport companies and anyone who wants to advertise themselves as carbon neutral (5) millions of clueless consumers tick the "carbon neutral" box when they book their flights, and money flows all the way to people who are now cutting down more forests than ever before, because the operation now finances itself with zero effort, and no difference is made to CO2e whatsoever. This is a description of the REDD+ credit scheme. It's a perfect example of the price being set too high compared to the actual CO2e changes, not on a tax, but on a credit scheme. With taxes, some of those numbers flip their sign, but it is ultimately the same problem.
Finally, think about what it would take for Market A to stop B's goods at the border and go... "Hang on, you produced X amount of CO2e to make these, I'm going to tax you on that!" Say Market A and B are sovereign States. B has deliberately set its taxes too low, so as to improve the profits its local companies can achieve in foreign markets like A's. Basically, B's companies can lie, and B will back them up. A can't really do anything about it. A would then think about incentivising industrial espionage, in order to impose taxes correctly, but if it accuses B of lying, it turns into a diplomatic dispute with B. So one malicious actor, especially an entire sovereign State, can really ruin the whole thing.
(Bringing this back to banning things outright, one big advantage of a ban over a tax is that it is much more difficult for a State to lie about the use of a banned thing, than it is for them to fudge some numbers in a spreadsheet.)
So NOBODY wants to tax this stuff unless everybody taxes the same stuff at the same rate and there's a closed system. It's really hard to find a closed system, but you can find them in e.g. electricity generation in one closed area without any electricity imported from elsewhere. Technically if you did this but didn't perfectly match the price to the externality (which would be very normal), it couldn't be exploited. But most markets cannot be that enclosed.
The problem can be seen a bit more easily by looking at carbon credits, where the price is supposed to reflect the value of a unit or emissions reduction. If you are Market A, and you value emissions reduction highly, then what tends to happen is: (1) Market B says it agrees with you, and develops a scheme for trading its credits with yours, (2) Market B allows for people to tell the government "hey, we were going to chop down this forest, and we decided not to!" and gives them credits (3) those people go and chop down a different forest, but not before they repeat the procedure ten more times (4) those people sell their credits to airlines and transport companies and anyone who wants to advertise themselves as carbon neutral (5) millions of clueless consumers tick the "carbon neutral" box when they book their flights, and money flows all the way to people who are now cutting down more forests than ever before, because the operation now finances itself with zero effort, and no difference is made to CO2e whatsoever. This is a description of the REDD+ credit scheme. It's a perfect example of the price being set too high compared to the actual CO2e changes, not on a tax, but on a credit scheme. With taxes, some of those numbers flip their sign, but it is ultimately the same problem.
Finally, think about what it would take for Market A to stop B's goods at the border and go... "Hang on, you produced X amount of CO2e to make these, I'm going to tax you on that!" Say Market A and B are sovereign States. B has deliberately set its taxes too low, so as to improve the profits its local companies can achieve in foreign markets like A's. Basically, B's companies can lie, and B will back them up. A can't really do anything about it. A would then think about incentivising industrial espionage, in order to impose taxes correctly, but if it accuses B of lying, it turns into a diplomatic dispute with B. So one malicious actor, especially an entire sovereign State, can really ruin the whole thing.
(Bringing this back to banning things outright, one big advantage of a ban over a tax is that it is much more difficult for a State to lie about the use of a banned thing, than it is for them to fudge some numbers in a spreadsheet.)
>I also think bitcoin is stupid.
Yeah, perhaps. Is it more or less stupid than almost every country having a military, some of which alone cause more CO2 pollution than BTC? Some of which have the capability of destroying all humans in 30 minutes? Some of which are actually trying to improve that capability right now?
I mean sure, the waste of mining is pretty dumb, but it's gonna be replaced with less wasteful methods at some point. But when are we gonna replace militaries?
Yeah, perhaps. Is it more or less stupid than almost every country having a military, some of which alone cause more CO2 pollution than BTC? Some of which have the capability of destroying all humans in 30 minutes? Some of which are actually trying to improve that capability right now?
I mean sure, the waste of mining is pretty dumb, but it's gonna be replaced with less wasteful methods at some point. But when are we gonna replace militaries?
I agree with you in pure idealistic principle... but it would be stupid for every single major country to disband their military, without an ironclad guarantee that the rest would do the same.
I once looked for a reputable source (meaning, not people with an interest in denying climate change, etc) on what global warming would cost in a few decades and tried to equate it to dollars per gallon of gasoline.
The implication was that, yes, the price of gas in the US is too low. But it also suggested the price of gas in Europe is already roughly including the estimated cost of fossil fuels. Plus or minus a couple dollars per gallon.
What I don't see people grappling with, is if you talk about externalities, that inherently means there is an objective number, even if it's uncertain and imprecise, that captures the value of avoiding climate change (and other environmental damage) to society.
And there is a completely independent number stemming from peoples' supply and demand curves, which captures the additional cost of fuel that will meaningfully slow or prevent climate change.
If [externalities] <<< [price that will stop people from using fossil fuels], then we've painted ourselves into a corner.
I think some people may be implicitly aware and not admitting it, which is a logical reason for micromanaging the economy rather than going for carbon taxes. I'm not sure everyone is aware though.
Understand, I'm not saying I know the numbers, or that I would accept economic dogma that would say we should do nothing about climate change.
I'm saying that using the language of "externalities", is potentially a trap, given the agreed-on goal. It's such a popular word, but that's when it's not tied to an actual number. Specific numbers can be inconvenient.
The implication was that, yes, the price of gas in the US is too low. But it also suggested the price of gas in Europe is already roughly including the estimated cost of fossil fuels. Plus or minus a couple dollars per gallon.
What I don't see people grappling with, is if you talk about externalities, that inherently means there is an objective number, even if it's uncertain and imprecise, that captures the value of avoiding climate change (and other environmental damage) to society.
And there is a completely independent number stemming from peoples' supply and demand curves, which captures the additional cost of fuel that will meaningfully slow or prevent climate change.
If [externalities] <<< [price that will stop people from using fossil fuels], then we've painted ourselves into a corner.
I think some people may be implicitly aware and not admitting it, which is a logical reason for micromanaging the economy rather than going for carbon taxes. I'm not sure everyone is aware though.
Understand, I'm not saying I know the numbers, or that I would accept economic dogma that would say we should do nothing about climate change.
I'm saying that using the language of "externalities", is potentially a trap, given the agreed-on goal. It's such a popular word, but that's when it's not tied to an actual number. Specific numbers can be inconvenient.
I think you have a good point, and I don't have a solution.
With respect to the article though, i feel like there are two possibilities (maybe more): (a) energy is "cheap" and we can only use it for "approved" things, ie we're not really buying it, or (b) it has a higher "sustainable" cost and we decide how much to buy based on the utility we see in it at that cost. As you say, it's hard to put a price on those costs (and even if we taxed it it introduces a whole other set of challenges - this is why in my original comment I said I don't like carbon taxes, but I didn't want to get into a side debate about that, it's a complex discussion). But some "externality" pricing is preferable to option (a) where some power specifies what we're allowed to to with energy.
All told, it's not an easy problem that we can solve with something blunt like banning bitcoin mining. My personal view is that a technological solution is the only actually practical way forward and that's what we should be pursuing, but that's another discussion.
With respect to the article though, i feel like there are two possibilities (maybe more): (a) energy is "cheap" and we can only use it for "approved" things, ie we're not really buying it, or (b) it has a higher "sustainable" cost and we decide how much to buy based on the utility we see in it at that cost. As you say, it's hard to put a price on those costs (and even if we taxed it it introduces a whole other set of challenges - this is why in my original comment I said I don't like carbon taxes, but I didn't want to get into a side debate about that, it's a complex discussion). But some "externality" pricing is preferable to option (a) where some power specifies what we're allowed to to with energy.
All told, it's not an easy problem that we can solve with something blunt like banning bitcoin mining. My personal view is that a technological solution is the only actually practical way forward and that's what we should be pursuing, but that's another discussion.
If [externalities] <<< [price that will stop people from using fossil fuels], then we've painted ourselves into a corner.
Are you trying to say that it might be cheaper to simply let climate change happen than to prevent it?
Are you trying to say that it might be cheaper to simply let climate change happen than to prevent it?
I'm trying to say that if it is cheaper to let climate change happen, because externalities are determined to be $X and taxed away, but people value energy more, then climate change will happen. Which is bad if one doesn't want it to happen.
My conclusion, then, is it may be bad to talk about externalities. At least as economics jargon, and it's confusing to use it otherwise.
It's a tool that isn't bound to doing what people want it to do.
My conclusion, then, is it may be bad to talk about externalities. At least as economics jargon, and it's confusing to use it otherwise.
It's a tool that isn't bound to doing what people want it to do.
So carbon tax and dividend.
It sounds like your argument is to make fuel and power more expensive? How does that not disproportionately harm poor communities, and how is that not just a carbon tax with extra steps?
EDIT: I'm not trying to be an ass or "Getcha", just trying to see where you're coming from.
EDIT: I'm not trying to be an ass or "Getcha", just trying to see where you're coming from.
Part of the tax income being directed towards income support for the least wealthy people.
I think we need to take Money from those who have done the polluting, to their private financial gain, at the expensive of the public of our planet, since a certain timeframe-- such as 1950.
Those who have made decisions leading to massive pollution expulsion while they profited... those are the ones who should pay first.
People such as:
- The Koch brothers
- The Military and the politicians, bureaucrats, and Weapons company executives associated with bases & machines that have spilled the most pollutants
- Executives of Fossil Fuel companies
See, it's like we're playing this game where... a window was open and these executives were able to loot the house and escape. And now they are trying to close that window and run off with their loot.
Nope, bring them back. Hold them accountable. Take the assets they (their family, their estate) earned while polluting our planet.
Do that, before looking at the little guy and saying "Pay your fair share!"
Because my question is "What about those evil sociopathic polluting fat cats who not only got away, but lobbied and legislated to allow their escape"
Those who have made decisions leading to massive pollution expulsion while they profited... those are the ones who should pay first.
People such as:
- The Koch brothers
- The Military and the politicians, bureaucrats, and Weapons company executives associated with bases & machines that have spilled the most pollutants
- Executives of Fossil Fuel companies
See, it's like we're playing this game where... a window was open and these executives were able to loot the house and escape. And now they are trying to close that window and run off with their loot.
Nope, bring them back. Hold them accountable. Take the assets they (their family, their estate) earned while polluting our planet.
Do that, before looking at the little guy and saying "Pay your fair share!"
Because my question is "What about those evil sociopathic polluting fat cats who not only got away, but lobbied and legislated to allow their escape"
[deleted]
I suppose this could be solved by having non-linear energy pricing. I.e. if you use up to whatever your total consumption should comfortably be as a person, you pay the regular rate. Once you hit what would be considered unrealistic consumption, you pay twice the rate or so.
Means testing has never been a positive thing for poor people.
I don’t believe you can have capitalism without rampant global warming. We should already understand these dystopian proposals are just asking for failure.
I don’t believe you can have capitalism without rampant global warming. We should already understand these dystopian proposals are just asking for failure.
You pair the tax with a redistributive dividend to ensure that the change is neutral for the least well-off.
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/why-carbon-divi...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dividends-...
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/why-carbon-divi...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dividends-...
So, means testing?
As implemented in Canada, no; all carbon tax dividends (less an amdminisrration fee?) are distrubuted equally to citizens. At least that’s my understanding. I haven’t studied it deeply.
The net result is that the people with the lowest carbon footprint make a profit and the ones with the most take a loss. Seems like a reasonable approach to me.
The net result is that the people with the lowest carbon footprint make a profit and the ones with the most take a loss. Seems like a reasonable approach to me.
What you describe is effectively a tax on carbon emissions
More a tax on energy use as that seems to be the measure he's using. Carbon tax would measure carbox output which is actually 0 (directly) from Bitcoin miners and more from power plants.
I like that it would incentivise reduction of power use, I don't like that it shifts the blame lower on the economic scale.
I like that it would incentivise reduction of power use, I don't like that it shifts the blame lower on the economic scale.
No that doesn't work well because it penalizes the consumption of electricity created by wind the same as electricity created by coal.
Taxing the point at which the CO2 is created makes the most sense, then you don't have to try back or forward tracking penalties or incentives through the chain to incentivize carbon efficiency.
What makes you think polluting power plants would not pass on costs to consumers?
Taxing the point at which the CO2 is created makes the most sense, then you don't have to try back or forward tracking penalties or incentives through the chain to incentivize carbon efficiency.
What makes you think polluting power plants would not pass on costs to consumers?
Tracking where it's created seems like a difficult process, many different sources of emission. I do agree that a penalty across the board would be a net incentive towards cheaper polluting power plants.
I'd propose instead a tax at the point of extraction. Our issue lies In the fact that we are adding to the carbon cycle faster than geologic processes can sequester it back into the Earth. Disincentivizing mining and drilling operations, and creating incentives for sequestration, are the only solutions that stick on the scale of a lifetime.
I'd propose instead a tax at the point of extraction. Our issue lies In the fact that we are adding to the carbon cycle faster than geologic processes can sequester it back into the Earth. Disincentivizing mining and drilling operations, and creating incentives for sequestration, are the only solutions that stick on the scale of a lifetime.
> Tracking where it's created seems like a difficult process
It isn't easy.
> I'd propose instead a tax at the point of extraction.
Is this based on anything serious? The problem is greenhouse gas emission into the atmosphere, not extraction of chemicals containing carbon from the ground.
Where does biological methane emission from farming or GHG release from clearing forests figure in the "extraction"? Why should natural gas that's used to manufacture "blue hydrogen" incur as much tax as that which is burnt directly?
> Our issue lies In the fact that we are adding to the carbon cycle faster than geologic processes can sequester it back into the Earth. Disincentivizing mining and drilling operations, and creating incentives for sequestration, are the only solutions that stick on the scale of a lifetime.
The issue is entirely atmospheric GHG, so taxing at the point of emission is the most efficient way to reduce that, all else being equal. If there are specific cases that are much easier to account at downstream consumption or upstream production then at some point it would be more efficient to account those and pass costs along, but you wouldn't go all the way back to extraction if you could avoid it (e.g., gasoline or domestic natural gas producers or distributors may incur the tax rather than individual people burning it, but probably not the wells).
It isn't easy.
> I'd propose instead a tax at the point of extraction.
Is this based on anything serious? The problem is greenhouse gas emission into the atmosphere, not extraction of chemicals containing carbon from the ground.
Where does biological methane emission from farming or GHG release from clearing forests figure in the "extraction"? Why should natural gas that's used to manufacture "blue hydrogen" incur as much tax as that which is burnt directly?
> Our issue lies In the fact that we are adding to the carbon cycle faster than geologic processes can sequester it back into the Earth. Disincentivizing mining and drilling operations, and creating incentives for sequestration, are the only solutions that stick on the scale of a lifetime.
The issue is entirely atmospheric GHG, so taxing at the point of emission is the most efficient way to reduce that, all else being equal. If there are specific cases that are much easier to account at downstream consumption or upstream production then at some point it would be more efficient to account those and pass costs along, but you wouldn't go all the way back to extraction if you could avoid it (e.g., gasoline or domestic natural gas producers or distributors may incur the tax rather than individual people burning it, but probably not the wells).
> Is this based on anything serious? The problem is greenhouse gas emission into the atmosphere, not extraction of chemicals containing carbon from the ground.
If a large portion of carbon greenhouse gas emission is from burning of extracted chemicals, and a large portion of extracted chemicals are burned it seems to me simply taxing the chemical extraction itself is a good start, as it is simple to implement. I agree that taxing exactly at the point where emission occurs is ideal, but if that's too complicated to do right away starting with something simpler with a similar result is a good idea.
If a large portion of carbon greenhouse gas emission is from burning of extracted chemicals, and a large portion of extracted chemicals are burned it seems to me simply taxing the chemical extraction itself is a good start, as it is simple to implement. I agree that taxing exactly at the point where emission occurs is ideal, but if that's too complicated to do right away starting with something simpler with a similar result is a good idea.
[deleted]
What is wrong with playing whac-a-mole? The fact that we can't whack every mole doesn't mean we can't whack some of them. A targeted ban can eliminate Bitcoin mining entirely rather than just reduce it and can do so without much effect on uninvolved people. I can think of no market-based approach that can do that. If the markets were rational, no money would have been invested in Bitcoin mining in the first place.
To be clear, Sweden does not say this. The head of the institution responsible for market stability says this. [0]
[0] https://www.fi.se/en/about-fi/what-we-do/
[0] https://www.fi.se/en/about-fi/what-we-do/
That's very misleading title, Sweden per se can't say anything even it's president says this.
FWIW, I'm a cryptocurrency skeptic, and generally pessimistic about where the world economy is heading for the next decade. I assume crypto's popularity, like the US housing market, is largely an artifact of low interest rates and massive government deficit spending, which I also assume will run into some limits, in the next few years... In other words, I expect crypto to crash hard, and languish for at least a decade. If it does return, it'll be fully co-opted & tamed by governments and Big Finance.
So I believe that the carbon footprint issue will resolve itself, relatively soon.
I really do hope I'm wrong about where the world economy is heading. It's honestly got me feeling pretty terrified.
So I believe that the carbon footprint issue will resolve itself, relatively soon.
I really do hope I'm wrong about where the world economy is heading. It's honestly got me feeling pretty terrified.
Low interest rates are the result of low inflation and low velocity of money. Housing and crypto are up because land and crypto have no opportunity costs. They are highly speculative even with high interest rates.
Also, modern government deficit spending is just plain tax cuts. The government doesn't actually release additional money into the economy. Republicans and democrats don't want Biden's spending packages.
Also, modern government deficit spending is just plain tax cuts. The government doesn't actually release additional money into the economy. Republicans and democrats don't want Biden's spending packages.
Head of Power Generation at Sweden's government owned energy company thought otherwise: https://twitter.com/ercwl/status/1457114531314995206
I'd trust engineers before politicians.
I'd trust engineers before politicians.
The argument rests entirely on Sweden having abundant renewable energy, so their use of mining to make their grids more efficient doesn't literally cause emissions. Why would they ban it for themselves, an engineer might ask? The same question is asked every day in different forms in every single climate discussion: why should a state which is ahead of the game in emissions reduction make any further commitment? The answer is so that other states feel pressure to make commitments too. Sweden should ban it and instead focus on selling its apparent excess of renewable energy, because then all the places where cheap fossil fuel is literally getting a full-scale rebirth feel extra guilty. Advanced nations making sacrifices is the only thing that has worked at all so far. I wouldn't expect an engineer to understand that whatsoever.
Shut down this scam already!
People who argue for cyptocurrency do not seem to care about environmental issues.
They will point to some other societal problem and say, "Solve that first." This makes no sense because crypto is just adding a new problem. Whereas before we had one, now we have two.
It is like those who argue for "tech" companies. When faced with the threat of regulation they point to other industries and say "Regulate them first".
This sort of argument is not at all convincing.
They will point to some other societal problem and say, "Solve that first." This makes no sense because crypto is just adding a new problem. Whereas before we had one, now we have two.
It is like those who argue for "tech" companies. When faced with the threat of regulation they point to other industries and say "Regulate them first".
This sort of argument is not at all convincing.
Or nuclear.
But how would this be enforced?