[ad_1]
"Unlike their Gemini display slogans, cryptography does not need rules," said Cameron Winklevoss, "rather they are companies that deal with crypto-currencies that require" thoughtful "oversight, especially in the light of the recent QuadrigaCX fiasco.
Winklevoss: Crypto does not need rules, but …
It is no secret that the Winklevoss twins defended the "disinfection" of cryptocurrency. With their "fully regulated" Gemini exchange, their goal is to change the image of the Wild West region into the nascent sector, plagued by hacks of exchange, scams and fraudulent security offers.
At the same time, it was not surprising that their "Crypto Need Rules" billboard campaign was strongly criticized by Bitcoin users in particular.
Indeed, running your own complete node is the only way to apply the rules – the rules of the Bitcoin protocol. In fact, Bitcoin has been specifically designed so that people can make transactions without having to trust anyone – even in the presence of bad actors.
"Some people wondered why Gemini thought the Revolution needed rules," said Cameron Winklevoss last week.
Answer: Crypto does not need rules, but the companies that rely on them need them.
He cites an excerpt from the third report of the court-appointed monitor before the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on the defunct QuadrigaCX, which has lost millions of dollars in client funds.
Some have wondered why @Gemini believes that revolution needs rules. Answer: Crypto does not need rules, but the companies that rely on them need them. See the excerpt from the third report of the Court-appointed Monitor (Ernst & Young) before the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia regarding the QuadrigaCX case pic.twitter.com/Dvw8Am5H9M
– Cameron Winklevoss (@winklevoss) March 14, 2019
Indeed, although use of the Bitcoin blockchain requires little or no trust, its Byzantine fault tolerance becomes irrelevant once the funds are transferred to a third party custodian, in the manner an exchange.
It's here that trust back in the photo, which according to the Winklevii is their "product" that they are trying to build with their exchange Gemini.
"QuadrigaCX was in the process of amending its own internal registry to transfer client funds to special accounts controlled by insiders, who were authorized to trade with these funds and even to transfer cryptocurrency to external portfolios", said Cameron.
For example, businesses that provide custody services that contain client bitcoins, for example, should be regulated to prevent another QuadrigaCX, Mt. Gox and so on. to reproduce. Cameron added:
To date, every crypto incident has been / would have been avoidable with proper rules and thoughtful regulation.
Incidents: a "human problem, not a crypto problem"
Reference to the failure of QuadrigaCX and Mt. Cameron Winklevoss, Gox Fiasco, Discussed Problems with the New Industry at the Recent South by Southwest Conference in Austin, Texas:
We saw and learned many carcbades on the road to crypto. In the end, it's really a problem of trust. You need some kind of regulation to promote positive results.
Fortunately, the Winklevoss twins announced mbadive growth in just three years. Talk to an audience of more than 700 participants in a A conference entitled "To help build the future of money," Cameron and Tyler highlighted the maturity of the sector.
"As crypto has grown a lot, Gemini too. We went from 25 to 200 employees …In 2016, crypto was a niche – today, it's something. Tomorrow will be everything, "wrote Cameron Winklevoss in a blog post, recapping the event.
Bitcoins will exceed the $ 7 trillion mark of the gold market, say Winklevoss twins
This rapid growth means that the stakes are more and more important with the last QuadrigaCX fiasco, for example.
Therefore, it is time to regulate "in a thoughtful way" the sector, according to the Winklevii. Reiterating that "trust is our product", Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss believe that even without trust Cryptocurrencies will still require relationships with trusted third parties because many people will exchange financial sovereignty for practical reasons.
Some argue that the protocols themselves have enough "rules". We agree, but the protocols only govern the movement of funds within systems; they do not provide control or oversight for the entrepreneurs and businesses that rely on them. To date, every crypto incident has been a business (or human) problem, not a crypto problem.
In other words, the twins do not see the advent of digital gold as the end of the vaults, which the Winklevii are more than happy to provide.
Do you agree with the Winklevoss twins that cryptography companies still need rules? Share your thoughts below!
Images courtesy of Shutterstock
[ad_2]
Source link
