Ah, remember those times that crypto was heralded as some sort of wedge against "2008-level government sponsored corruption? , That was a nice thought while it lasted.
Don't get me wrong though, I'd say 2008 was blamed a lot on an industry that largely played fairly outside of some truly revolting players. Letting too many bent actors get away with their misgivings emboldens the next generation, and you could certainly argue a lot of this next generation of bent actors are playing fast and loose in crypto.
> Ah, remember those times that crypto was heralded as some sort of wedge against "2008-level government sponsored corruption? , That was a nice thought while it lasted.
How did any of that change exactly?
That 2008 style Wallstreet corruption is bigger than ever, it's just a matter of time before the world sees that the upcoming/ongoing inflation is not actually "due to the war in Europe and Covid".
It's strange how as soon as criminal money starts going into campaign funds, we all get up in arms about how corrupt and awful pay-to-play politics is.
The same political conflicts of interest exist, regardless of whether the funding comes from a carbon Super-PAC, or a crypto con man... But you wouldn't be able to tell that from any of the blatantly partisan rhetoric around it. It's all very "We're not mad that campaign funding works the way it does, we're mad that the other guys got more of it."
Sure, but what do you do about it? I've never been able to formulate any rules that wouldn't have worse, unintended consequences. Running for a political office is essentially advertising yourself, and that takes gobs of money, existing fame, connections, or all of the above.
Trying to limit 'who' can contribute is fraught with violations of free speech or picking and choosing the definition of what a 'company' vs an 'organization' is.
I would go back to the Constitution that has a census to enumerate the people and expand the federal House of Reps, as intended. It would be so representative and so big they would meet on zoom or regionally. There would be way too many for the lobbyists to control them.
'The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3'
As it is now, they decided to stop.growing the House because ... big bribes to the controlled-by-lobbyists Reps.
Just a note, if it's The Block, he allegedly paid off the CEO, not the journalists who write there. It's a meaningful distinction. The CEO is a business officer, the EIC would be the one directing content.
What was murky about ProPublica? I thought SBF started a fund dedicated to pandemic preparedness, and ProPublica received a $5M investigative journalism grant from that fund (unrelated to crypto or financial regulation).
Beachfront properties, random companies, journalists... but no Lamborghinis.
Got it.