Molly White’s latest project, tracking political contributions of the cryptocurrency industry. White’s data shows these PACs dwarf even much larger industries in this political cycle.
Even so, if you click through she has another page that lists hybrid PACs. I have no idea if even that is the full picture; US politics are complicated. The project is open source so perhaps you can submit a PR to make it better.
(Molly here.) I added the “All PACs” page largely thanks to that Bluesky conversation with verdverm (thank you!) The “all PACs” page is the full picture.
It’s showing the same data that verdverm linked over at the FEC, which places Fairshake at #9 out of any kind of committee. Arguably ActBlue and WinRed shouldn’t really be listed there, since they are fundraising platforms that serve as an intermediary.
I've found that it requires self-discipline on both parties making an effort to break the pattern-matching/automatic-thinking to emotional pipeline that is so easy to fall into.
The fact that it is a Molly White project means take it with a basketball sized grain of salt. She has deeply held beliefs and keeps cherry picking until the data supports them.
I'm not sure the data supports crypto spending more than other industries in lobbying, I think they are just doing it via a single PAC rather than spinning up dozens of targeted PACs for each race.
> She has deeply held beliefs and keeps cherry picking until the data supports them.
That’s a big claim, but it’s presented without evidence. Do you have any examples?
On that note:
> I'm not sure the data supports crypto spending more than other industries in lobbying
What data are you using to support this belief? Do you have additional data that she left out? That would be a good way to support the allegation of cherry-picking.
> That’s a big claim, but it’s presented without evidence. Do you have any examples?
What do you mean? Her entire persona and relevance revolves around being anti-crypto. Of course she's heavily biased; this isn't even a remotely controversial claim.
> That would be a good way to support the allegation of cherry-picking.
The real story here is how much power individuals have over our political landscape. George Soros, for example, has injected more than $125M into the midterm race in 2022[1]. To be clear, this is not a partisan issue; the Kochs raised over $70M last year[2]. If you want to be critical of super PACs, crypto spending is literally a drop in the bucket and completely missing the forest for the trees. There is a story here, but crypto ain't it.
The more boring reality is that (like every nascent industry) crypto is going through some growing pains, so it makes sense a16z/Coinbase/etc. need to heavily lobby DC for favorable SEC rulings & legislation. This is, quite literally, business as usual.
> Her entire persona and relevance revolves around being anti-crypto. Of course she's heavily biased; this isn't even a remotely controversial claim.
As a generation, we really need to learn how to say: "I don't like this person and I believe they are biased and I hate their politics/tone/demeanour/ethos but that doesn't mean they are wrong about the facts."
The ability to make use of information and ideas from people we disagree with, and even agree with the correct findings or conclusions of people we dislike, is a skill we urgently need to learn.
Okay, what are the facts here? That crypto firms and VCs are lobbying politicians for favorable legislation? Um, okay. Everyone from farmers to auto-makers to tech companies do that. It's an absolute nothingburger.
Are the facts that there's over $200M injected in our political system by crypto firms? Um, okay. This doesn't even move the needle when compared to the billions injected by a class of ~30 ultra-rich individuals (both conservative and liberal) over the last 10 years.
At worst, this is misdirection, at best, it's gross ignorance of the ripple effects of the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling.
This is a political statement you're making. I get it: You want to assert that her work is about something else, and maybe Molly White wants it to be about something else as well. But that has nothing to do with the dataset.
When I look at that website I'm just looking at charts with numbers and breakdowns of those numbers. Sharing data is never "misdirection". It's just data.
The way to criticize her work is not to begin by attacking the person or their motives or the political or ethical implications of their work, but by describing and analysing her data.
Individuals can figure out for themselves if the data or its presentation is useful for them.
In general, you do your arguments a terrible disservice when you attack a person rather than engaging with their work. That approach makes one quickly lose the credibility they wish to assert that the person they're criticising doesn't have.
I'm not sure why you're being disingenuous here, it's clear as day she's not just "sharing data" (whereas Open Secrets, where the data is sourced from anyway, actually is). I mean, the title of the webpage is literally Follow the Crypto, but yeah, I'm sure no statement is being made here, it's totally "just data" ;)
But more saliently, as I said prior, the data isn't even that interesting. Wow, a16z and Coinbase are lobbying DC in an attempt to curry favors because they invested hundreds of millions in crypto startups, big whoop. It totally misses the larger problem with the data (namely that Citizens United, in its current incarnation, is a total disaster for democracy; crypto lobbying is a footnote).
> The real story here is how much power individuals have over our political landscape. George Soros, for example, has injected more than $125M into the midterm race in 2022[1]. To be clear, this is not a partisan issue; the Kochs raised over $70M last year[2].
I fully agree with you that the broader problem is Citizens United and the ability for corporations and the super wealthy to pour this much money into politics. In fact, I mention this here: https://www.followthecrypto.org/about/faq#what-about.
I think projects like mine would be extremely valuable for all industries, and I'm enormously grateful to groups like OpenSecrets that do excellent work making a far broader swath of the data more legible. But I am one person without the research team, time, or funding that would be necessary to analyze the data this deeply across industries, and so I focus on crypto (the subject of much of my research and writing).
The code is all open source, and I would be delighted if other projects like this one sprung up. It seems it would be a bit more productive to actually shine a light all the kinds of spending that happen throughout industries and across individuals, rather than using that other spending as a sort of whataboutist argument to dismiss projects like this one that (necessarily) focus on a subset of spending.
> If you want to be critical of super PACs, crypto spending is literally a drop in the bucket and completely missing the forest for the trees. There is a story here, but crypto ain't it.
As this project highlights,[1] crypto is far from a "drop in the bucket" when it comes to super PAC fundraising this cycle. The industry has dramatically ramped up its spending compared to previous election years, which is a large part of why I felt it was important to keep an eye on the spending.
Okay, you don’t like her. Cool, nobody’s required to but that’s a feeling, not data, and the accusation I responded to was a specific claim of dishonesty of the sort which, if true, could easily be supported by logic and evidence, not just emotion.
Wait what? I think she's doing a great job exposing crypto grifts/scams/hacks/etc. and I check her web3 feed at least once a week, but she does have a persona to uphold. Why would I pretend she's some platonic ideal of objectivity? For reasons mentioned, I do think this SuperPAC stuff is a bit reaching, but that's neither here nor there.
The claim that she is cherry picking data is quantifiable, not just a subjective assessment. If that’s true, especially given the public records available, it should be possible to back the claim up with examples.
> That’s a big claim, but it’s presented without evidence. Do you have any examples?
I am not OP but yes, I sent some information to her via their different contact mediums and she never got back, she is not responsive and could have at least said: "I am not interested".
"[She] keeps cherry picking until the data supports them" certainly sounds a lot like you saying the data and/or code is flawed. What "fantastic claim" am I making that you don't think I'm addressing?
Yes, this and her previous projects have started to look more of a crusade to me, than a critique of "cryptocurrency", whatever that is, bundling them all together rather than analysing the merits and faults of each.
Mind you, given the deep bias HN has against cryptocurrencies of any shape or form, I feel here she has her ideal audience here and we're the ones swimming against the current.
Where is the "crusade"? This just shows political donations. Is the FEC engaging in a "crusade" by publishing details on PACs?
There are constantly HN commenters on a crusade to extol and defend the alleged virtues of various "crypto" projects. We could accuse these folks of having a "bias against government-backed currency".
Perhaps HN has a bias _for_ true stories of fraud, corruption and crime rather than a bias _against_ all crypto projects.
Perhaps. HN also has stories of random software libraries and deep discussions of those. Whenever a mismanaged business in other sectors is discussed its only about that business, not the entire sector that business operates in. Whenever a devastating hack occurs directly on an end user, its a discussion of the browser and tools that can be improved to thwart it.
Crypto sector has many libraries that power it too with extremely active discussions in other tech forums, and thats totally missing from HN in favor of discussion of random mismanaged businesses and phishing attacks as representative of the entire concept of crypto. When that’s further from reality, as the tooling has improved a lot and is constantly evolving. There are many best practices that are actively discussed and worked on, elsewhere.
While the crowd on HN peculiarly acts completely segregated from that with a blissful ignorance filled with glee over frauds in the crypto sector, an extremely strange and impossibly different standard then how everything else is discussed.
> HN also has stories of random software libraries and deep discussions of those. Whenever a mismanaged business in other sectors is discussed its only about that business, not the entire sector that business operates in.
The major difference seems to be that there doesn’t seem to be anything in the entire crypto industry that isn’t fraud or crime. And a lot of vague promises that typically turn out to be just more fraud in a year or two. It’s not prejudice if it’s true.
the libraries don’t have anything to do with fraud, crime, vague promises
the governance proposals don’t have anything to do with fraud, crime, vague promises
the software standards don’t have anything to do with fraud, crime, vague promises
same for nodes, consensus mechanisms, package management, type safety, languages, operator instructions, smart contract auditing space, financial auditing and transparency space, block and transaction indexing, legislation that leverages the technology to reduce redundancy, and the list goes on
its an approach and what I would expect to see on HN more often regarding the crypto asset space
Almost every “Show HN” that’s about a library has someone ask what the library actually does and why is it useful. If the only answer is “crpyto” and essentially all crypto is fraud, I can’t imagine why people aren’t more excited.
I think vague promises is exactly how you could sum up most crypto-related libraries as well. There’s supposedly some useful usecase, but right now it only contributes to North Korean nuclear program.
Nakamoto consensus (the combination of longest chain rule for consensus and PoW for sybil resistance) was a minor innovation in distributed computing, specifically state machine replication. That had previously been solved in the late 1990s in the permissioned setting with BFT-type protocols (such as PBFT).
What's new in crypto is permissionlessness which enables decentralisation [1]. That has
a) basically no benefits that cannot be achieved through (permissioned) distributed computing, except censorship resistance, or, as normal people call it, regulation dodging, and
b) it comes at enormous costs (in terms of inefficiency, cumbersomeness, etc.)
Crypto is systematically and inherently designed for and suitable for crime.
[1] You can claim that LCR also expanded the design space in the partially synchronous model from always consistent and eventually available to always available and eventually consistent, but again, not a huge benefit.
so, your main supposition about crypto being all fraud is inaccurate, and the standards you present apply to fields you respect as well. for example, north korean expropriation and fraud is happening across the entire tech space, even a bunch of remote roles in the US are and were filled with north koreans, hence supporting the nuclear program [1]
this is a common theme I’ve seen that reinforced my perspective: the criticism applies to things the critic respects and the critic saying it doesn't seem to know that, and they also don’t seem to even be aware of other benign things in the crypto space that are working fine and fit the social contract of all participants. I don't know if thats you, but it is applicable to the responses you chose
so that observation, in combination with how so many intelligent researchers and programmers take a different approach ultimately towards improving the crypto space due to its malleability, keeps me interested and confused by the unsubstantive and reductive nature of HN consensus on this one topic
> so, your main supposition about crypto being all fraud is inaccurate
Sure, but what are some actual generally useful non-fraud uses? I know Marc Andreesen failed to come up with a single credible one after investing billions into the industry.
> for example, north korean expropriation and fraud is happening across the entire tech space, even a bunch of remote roles in the US are and were filled with north koreans, hence supporting the nuclear program
The difference is again the share of North Koreans working remotely in the US tech industry vs the amount of fraud in crypto.
the use cases for me are where DTCC and the transfer agent industry are disintermediated as an option for people that want an option, and there are a lot of competitors trying different approaches using distributed ledgers. that's useful for me and I use that every day, and I don't expect financial plumbing to be "actual generally useful" to everyone else. most people go their entire lives unaware of DTCC and the transfer agent industry.
the settlement time of 1 block is great for me.
chaining transactions within 1 block creates trading opportunities that are otherwise reserved for banks participating in the Overnight Reverse Repurchase Agreement facility
I don't really think you not being the target audience is an "actual useful" goal post to determine whether something is worth discussing on a tech forum, since the question is about non-fraud, but your bar is something that has to then be debated per use case based on whether you unilaterally derive utility from that.
the observation is that there is a group of people that have caked yourself in layers of news only about fraud, and my observation is that that's not the only news there is. that's the aberration in this tech community that's otherwise more discerning, I mean - crypto people are absolutely here - the contributors to all those parts of the stack are here and have been for over a decade. Brian Armstrong initially posted about Coinbase here. Its just the consensus is odd and has only chiseled away, while people have continued to build and grow the industry just in other forums.
> The difference is again the share of North Koreans working remotely in the US tech industry vs the amount of fraud in crypto.
Why is Marc Andreesen the voice of cryptocurrencies? He is ONE voice. A loud one for sure, one I do not like either, but he's got no more authority than a random joe in Indonesia, for example.
1-2. ETFs are not uses for crypto. They’re a vehicle to hold crypto, not a usecase. Blackrock doesn’t even use the blockchain and doesn’t have custody of it’s own keys. It’s a bit of an own goal as far as crypto adoption goes.
3. Tether totally has $110+B in holdings, though they’ve never produced a financial audit and they try to pass off attestations and non-financial audits as such to believers. Both times they’ve been forced to open their books, they turned out to be unbacked. Also, Circle and Tether are centralized entities who have full control of their currency and can and will censor transactions and block accounts, just like a regular bank.
4. Sure, cool, but is it actually used for anything anywhere or is that more of a “vague distraction”
Commenting sporadically on a forum in favour of cryptocurrencies is not being a crusader.
On the other hand, building and paying for (in resources and time) two websites against crypto, buulding your entire social media persona around it and being recognizable by name for that effort, you will have to agree is a couple orders of magnitude more effort and "involvement" in a cause, compared to a disinterested anonymous coward like me.
I kind of wish Molly White spent more time researching and disseminating information on CBDCs — the PACs to me are emergent behavior due to popularity and rise of crypto ETFs so there's not much of a story there.
ETFs aren't really financial instruments that the mainstream public will likely interact with or directly invest in, but CBDCs will probably proliferate wildly throughout the global economy in a matter of years so it's a bit of a missed chance for the public to weigh in on them.
> White’s data shows these PACs dwarf even much larger industries in this political cycle.
How does it show that? It suggests there was 200 million raised for the 2024 election, but that doesn't seem to be in comparison to anything. The US government borrowing alone is multiple trillions per year; people would be expected to spend way more than a few hundred million to influence it.
Presidential campaigns alone can run into a billion dollars.
Here's a breakdown by industry for 2024: Finance largest at $50mm, healthcare at $30mm, agriculture at $20mm.
I'm not familiar enough with the details to claim that the numbers in OP take the #1 spot but they're definitely in the top 3 and that's very significant as we've seen with the recent change of tone from parties
I was looking at https://www.opensecrets.org/industries because this site inspired me, it suggest finance/insurance/real estate spent $1,249,076,508 so far in the 2024 election cycle which seems a lot more plausible than $50 million. The risk-reward here suggests industries should be pumping billions into elections. The payoffs for regulatory capture are huge and the crypto people are novices compared to anyone else in finance.
OpenSecrets doesn't make it as easy as it could to analyse all this, but I suspect what that is really telling us is that most of the money doesn't enter the race through PACs. Super PACs [0] seem to be different [1] and bring in about 2x as much money. So I don't think the industry PACs are giving a clear an impression of where money is coming from.
My guess is the crypto community isn't outstanding in terms of spend as much as being naive about how to get the money to politicians in a way that gets them the regulation they want. And the players in this game might put some effort into subtlety.
Everytime I see this kind of discussion I remember that there are companies not breaking the law whose only way of surviving is bitcoin, because the big two payment circuits (visa and mastercard) have decided in concert, to not process their payments. Gab and Parler come to mind.
And that's just a particularly high-profile example; smaller organizations and individuals routinely face this sort of thing from centralized payment processors. Said risk is nonexistent with any competently-developed cryptocurrency (and even most incompetently-developed ones).
Free speech as in speech protected by the 1st amendment? That's very specifically meant to curtail the government's powers, not the powers of merchants who decline to do business with others.
You could make a pretty strong argument that overly stringent regulations that result in sex workers, etc., being unable to process payments are a violation of that, but I'm not aware of why Visa/Mastercard don't support Gab & Parler. If it's that, you have a point. Otherwise, not really.
It's a reasonable assumption to make when someone invokes the term "free speech" in a majority-American forum. (I'm making some assumptions about visitors of HN here, who are probably more international than most places I'm in, but still.)
They didn't, back in the days. I remember diatinctly the only way to send money to Gab / Parler was Bitcoin. Maybe now they do, but that's not very important.
Never determine there’s a “vibe shift” based on one HN story. It’s equally likely that some folks got riled up on social media and decided to comment on this story.
Wikipedia: > In the United States, the fee averages approximately 2% of transaction value.[2] In the EU, interchange fees are capped to 0.3% of the transaction for credit cards and to 0.2% for debit cards, while there is no cap for corporate cards.
Although Molly may or may not believe that, this site doesn't seem to be capturing that thought. It is just interesting to see how different interest groups interact with the political sphere (reminding me that I should spend more time reading about such things - https://www.opensecrets.org/industries deserves a glance).
The post you are replying to did not state that they were. You can easily look up practical application of cryptocurrency by looking up stablecoin usage over time.
It's not. The FDIC is ultimately collateralized by the entire US economy and will change the rules on a whim to collateralize ineligible depositors as seen in the silicon bank fiasco. On paper there is a limit but in practice it is as high as the rich and powerful like.
It's not even a problem if they run out of imaginary money because the fed can simply ease in more to the FDIC via debt shell games.
USDC just holds 90% in government treasuries custodied by blackrock & 10% in cash in a "too big to fail" US bank that's systemically important.
Your local bank has a 0% reserve requirement[1]. Ofc it'll most likely get bailed out by the FDIC (by taxpayers) in case of emergency but US regulated stablecoins are in no way more risky than US banks
Problem is that's held by a private entity, and if coin holders are defrauded no one will be bailing them out, unlike bank depositor or Treasury note holder.
Who says it is a flex? It is simply reality, he who holds the central bank will tilt it and insuring institutions to favor powerful depositors, it's almost an axiom of governance and another reason why founders hated and warned against central banks.
While some currencies from developing nations fail, it just doesn't happen with those from rich countries, because the country has the assets to intervene if there's trouble. With stablecoins, when things get bad it just dies and goes to nothing.
There are incidents where a national currency winds up getting devalued, like when Soros bet against the UK pound. But proportionately that's a small decrease in value, the pound didn't go to zero like failing stablecoins do.
I'd hope that all stable coins have a shorter life than the currency they are connected to; but that website is silly. Tether is by far the largest stable coin, has been around as long as anything on that list and has been shockingly resilient under pressure so far having survived 2x depeg events, positive real interest rates, a couple of market crashes and anything else I missed along the way. It has outlasted names like Credit Suisse, Silicon Valley Bank and Venezuela.
It is only a question of time until it fails like everything else does, but so far so good.
You're gonna convince people there are practical applications of cryptocurrencies outside of grift and crime when they actually see them and find them useful in their own lives, and not before.
At least in the US inflation seems to be cooling down and only experienced a 3% yoy inflation rate last month.
Monero in the same time frame technically only experienced just over 1% inflation but from June to July this year is experiencing 12% inflation and then had nearly 19% deflation a few months back. Just crazy volatility compared to USD. Would be pretty hard for the average person to make ends meet in that kind of environment.
And wars are definitely fought using or even over crypto these days.
> Monero in the same time frame technically only experienced just over 1% inflation but from June to July this year is experiencing 12% inflation and then had nearly 19% deflation a few months back
That doesn't sound right; annual inflation in the Monero blockchain is order of magnitude 200k new coins / 18,000k coins total ~= 1% annual and dropping. it isn't really feasible to get 12% inflation over a month with fundamentals like that. So while it is volatile, the changes in price aren't being caused by inflation. It is just supply-demand fluctuations in a relatively niche asset. Inflation is the trend in value change caused by longer term changes in supply.
I think there is conflating that inflation can only be new money printing. The value of monero compared to a basket of goods from June to July changed by 12%. You can buy 12% fewer things today than in June. That is the same way the USD inflation is calculated. Yes supply of the dollar has an impact but if I were to buy groceries in monero today I would need 1.12x more units.
A) If you're going to make a point of defining inflation as something other than inflating of the money supply, why should people care? The only reason anyone pays attention to it is because of the long term downward trends - which are pretty much 100% due to monetary creation. Otherwise why, in practice, would the value of a currency drop? And why would this sort of "inflation" in Monero be an issue?
B) The [whatever]:XMR exchange rate is quite volatile, but that is measuring real fluctuations in the value of Monero depending on what is happening in the market today. Real value fluctuations are, by definition, not called inflation.
It is like saying the price of bananas experienced 12% inflation when there is a hurricane and a banana shortage. That isn't the right term - that sort of volatility isn't inflation.
I’m not trying to be disingenuous, we simply have different opinions about the definition of inflation. Honestly I have not heard that inflation is just the increase in money supply before. With us having different definitions we are clearly talking at cross purposes here.
Inflation is a long term measurement, short term events like a hurricane causing supply shocks can all add up to impact the rate of inflation over time but individually it doesn’t. It is fair to not count month to month fluctuations so I will give you that.
This is probably where most pro/anti crypto people break down in communication is us not using words the same way. You taught me a new definition of inflation today, I don’t think that’s right, but since we were using words differently that explains our disagreement.
This is a disingenuous comparison because the US dollar and most fiat currencies never increase in value medium to long term / "deflate" by design. The decreases in the value of the dollar are never offset, so if a basket of goods goes up 5% we bake that in forever.
In the UK I can't really think of a time when inflation has stopped or reversed for even a few months.
By contrast Monero goes both up and down. So sure, it's unstable, but it doesn't have "higher inflation", it's just more volatile.
Which is why feds need to allow crypto derivatives securities to be sold in tradfi to hedge this volatility. They claim crypto is an unstable asset but then make it harder to stabilize your crypto wealth, it is maddening.
Not american, so I don't really get it. As far as I understand, everyone spends to influence the US elections, in one direction or the other. Why is this special?
Which is plausible and expected, since crypto is all about a smaller state which doesn't control money. On the contrary, most of the other players in the big tech sector exhibit a clear leftward bias. Why is crypto special? Because it's right wing? Or because it's crypto?
right-wing doesn't mean "smaller state," but rather a state more conservative of extant victors. That may mean "smaller" if, for example, the EPA threatens capital accumulation, or larger if, for example, policing maintains an exploitable labor pool.
> most of the other players in the big tech sector
I see it as a more existential and political problem.
Crypto = weakening the hold the state has over citizens, allows people to circumvent political and geographical boundaries, trading with anyone anywhere = good, great eventually for humanity as a whole
AI = spam/killing jobs/killing the Internet/concentrating more power in the hands of the few/stronger existential threads to humanity = bad, might turn catastrophic for humanity
I do not own crypto yet and do not use AI, but to my anarchist self, crypto is the only concrete measure we have against a surveillance state. The sad thing is that like the vast populace, most HN readers do not care about privacy and using technology to push against politicians that want to control every aspect of our lives.
Crypto weakening the hold the state over citizens? WTF kind of paint thinners are you smoking?
Who are the main stakeholders in crypto?
- A consolidated pool of few miners (some of whcih are state owned because they are the only ones who own the electricity plants)
- Russia, North Korea, China, the mafia?
- A consolidated set of finance individuals who have a perverse incentive to take advantage of lax financial regulations
- A series of exchanges run by proven scum
- the largest owner what being the FBI and the US government?
- A series of undemocratically elected scum who openly print fake money from Bermuda (Tether?)
A type of currency where people can lose their savings on a dime, have openly no protections and ridiculous levels of fees whilst simultaneously destroying the planet.
For the people my arse, the people involved should be lychned given how 90% of it just supports slavery, drug trade, war and crime.
Which is wrong because in order to make money in AI, you have to raise money from VCs or make money selling products. In crypto, you just sell unregistered securities using unregulated exchanges.
By your shill logic, AI will become good when the crypto scammers move on to something else. Are you hoping they'll move back to crypto, so all the money you invested in crypto won't go down the drain?
It's laughable how you think shills have so much more power to make or break a technology and give it practical real world applications, merely by hyping up a technology, even more than the actual scientists who have dedicated their lives to it, and the companies like NVidia who produce hardware for it, and the companies like OpenAI who produce software for it. You really have a lot of faith in shills.
By your logic, were shills responsible for the success of the Internet too, and not the people and companies who designed TCP/IP, web browsers, ssh, ajax, network routers, wifi, cellular, mobile phones, smartphones, etc?
Depends on your worldview doesn’t it? For me, having a transaction system that isn’t controlled by either my own government or corporate America is useful. If it’s not useful to you then you don’t have to use it.
it doesn't really maximize individual liberty, ultimately almost anyone would end up with less liberty in practice, except for people choosing to centralize power i.e. rejecting anarchism
The rest of the people in your country don't want it because if your money is stolen, there is no way to get it back. If it's detrimental to society, I will make laws against it. That's how government works.
If the money was obtained illegally, the government can get the money back for the victim. This is not true for unregulated international money transfer. That's why North Korea and Russia like to promote cryptocurrency usage among Western rubes.
The government is a well intended representative of the people. The government has a solution to money and currency already. The government makes choices on monetary policy with the best interest of the citizenry in mind. Crypto is not good. The government is good.
