@Brett_FTXUS First, I dislike when others interpret my views in a way that I didn’t intend them to be interpreted. It seems I unintentionally did that with you, so apologies. I read your thread as wanting an outcome but it appears you laid out what you believe is the likely outcome. My bad.
@Brett_FTXUS (Note that a lot of what you seem to think I was attributing to you was simply my view of the positions people who support permissioned DeFi take rather than your view of permissioned DeFi, though I guess it came across as me implying you had many of those views.)
@Brett_FTXUS Second, I do believe that conveying an acceptable view of permissioned DeFi, especially one that is premised on the likely outcome of legal/policy issues, harms permissionless DeFi. People read what someone respectable like yourself writes and follow it to the logical conclusion.
@Brett_FTXUS The logical conclusion here is that permissioned DeFi is the right DeFi policy choice w/o harming the true nature of DeFi, including its benefits. But, as I laid out, permissioned DeFi cannot fulfill the promise of DeFi, though certain aspects of it may be better than CeFi.
@Brett_FTXUS Third, we seem to have different views on the likelihood of permissioned DeFi being needed. The safe bet is that it will required but I think that with sufficient education and effort policymakers will understand permissioned DeFi is unnecessary and hurts consumers and investors
@Brett_FTXUS Fourth, we are 100% in agreement that it is worth discussing the likelihood of future DeFi regulation, and I don’t want to chill those discussions. I look forward to seeing more of your thoughts on it.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
