"Much of the criticism of DeFi, as well as crypto, is that it allows for people to operate without regulation. Many fear this will only increase the fragility of the system. This is a viable complaint as we saw with some the shenanigans that people are engaging upon."

I have all these things happen in my life and examples that i relate to other areas. I guess in this case i can relate one such example to defi. A plumber guy i knew who had been battling drug addiction over the years and went clean many years but got back using told me about how he felt the state and regulatory bodies should be involved with his drug use.

He believed that a person should be able to use drugs if like in his case they knew exactly how much drugs their body needed. So i engaged in the conversation and asked him how is it that he can determine exactly how much drugs he can take. Well like many people who are free spirited and believe they know better he stated he knew his body and felt he was more qualified to make the call in that it was his body.

So a week later not far from my home a person was found overdosed on drugs under a bridge. The first person came to mind was him. Sure enough it was him. He was dead and gone from a drug overdose. Clearly defi is not going to kill everybody but i find it interesting that there exist so many similar trains of thought. For example in areas like cryptocurrency. You hear alot of the people should do whatever they want spend their money however they want without regulation. It's holding people back.. let them do it.

So we let them do it.. They go out and invest in bitconnect and scammy fradulent nfts and pyramid schemes and defi's pump and dump to unsustainable prices. The problem is we don't take the "L" lol. When that happens the first thing everyone wants to do is get the authorities and prosecute everyone to the fullest extent of the law. Nobody goes if given the option to get their money back with authorities.. Let's just let it pass we'll deal with this internally. They don't do that and they aren't going to do that. So then what becomes the solution to that?

So when i was at my investment firm i remember constantly being on the side of the argument of don't allow regulation to stop people from investing in securities although just like in crypto that was happening there as well. People were investing in some high risk projects with very little info provided. Due to regulation the only ones really losing their shirts were the ones who could afford it or said they could.

Anyway i came to the conclusion that not everything has to be an either or situation. The idea of decentralization and consensus.. governance are all very broad ideas. There is no such thing as decentralization in the terms we think of it. I think bitcoin is probably one of the most centralized assets on the planet. The network is centralized in the form of wealth with 87% owned by 1%, by miners.. by development teams.. by exchanges etc., it's just such a misunderstood idea.

I created a distribution system with a special algorithim. So developers want to see what's under the hood. I told them no they can not. Interesting enough pi network created a project that has to date 18 million users a ton more than hive because they understand their market and they understand the end user. They understand what people want and need.

Both projects aren't allowing the space to see their code. My project and the Pi network. Now its a reason i'm saying all this. I say that to say this. To the space this means its not a decentralized project because they can't clone the code or they don't trust the team. However i think thats partly where the problem lies that we feel the idea of decentralization or cutting out the middle man . counterparty risk is our ultimate problem.

I think that can be a hinderance to the space. The thing is everything doesn't have to be A or B.. black or white. You can have hybrid systems that may have to allow for some trade offs but are quite efficient models and models with pretty good security.

Whereas it is true that Pi and Btcmyk can be looked at in some instances as not even being cryptos or being a hybrid. I'd probably call btcmyk a hybrid because the tokens occur on chains that follow the code. Whereas with Pi its their chain you can't see the code etc.,

So my overall point is saying something like defi cuts out the counterparty risk and that solves the problem. I think its so much more complex than that. The problem with defi is there is no way to educate people on its use.. it goes back to the plumber and his drug addiction should he have the right to engage in a dangerous activity for freedom sake and liberty. Maybe so, or maybe we're always going to have need of some process where people have to be looked after. Now as far as regulation and investment here's what i'd look for personally.

So when you're dealing with investments they require certain networth and financial literacy or i know in my business we'd not open the account as we were a more prestigious and reputable firm. however i would have suggested that we allow anyone to invest provided they showed certain levels of literacy. Now i know thats still decided by, whomever and maybe to that degree that could be put on a chain and decided.

In the Btcmyk model as it may be accurate to say it is a hybrid and there is some trust in the onboarding interface. I would move to say that unlike standard cryptos btcmyk platform is a system that you can't buy the tokens on the system and they are only earned through your merit. So there is risk to you but it is not financial risk. This is more similar to EOS voice in that we recognize that as soon as you allow a network to be bought that you can't have decentralization in any shape or form in my opinion. So i think voice had that right and i think btcmyk has that right. I think all this is relevant because we know how people want things both ways. They want freedom from regulation but they also want people to be held accountable for their actions. So a ton of uneducated people jumping into defi projects started by random people and required to buy this token to participate unlike us.. Well we know thats going to create alot of disaster. Now do we come out of the disaster with a defi product that works. Maybe.. or maybe it never works.. maybe we don't even use pow.. or pos in the future.

There are so many ideas for governance and consensus on the chain. Some use lottery systems or systems like you all use where the people with the most money buy the most of the network and people like Vitalik don't like it because he sees it as a security risk. There are so many ideas though about how to address this.. i stilll think the lottery method is one of the best. The lottery method you can't game it and its hard to make it less than equal and create stigmas i believe that will be the death of many chains.

So in conclusion many chains have come up with ideas that i think in the future will not only solve many issues but that the people once they become more educated wiill flock to. For example although electroneum has performed poorly one of their ideas involves the miners are charities. Now sure its reasons why we shouldn't trust every charity out there.. however i'd probably still rather trust charities over the groups in crypto i've seen in control of blockchains.

Posted Using LeoFinance ^Beta