2026-01-19 08:34:26

The real case for government oversight isn't about more control—it's about the right kind. You need proper frameworks to keep power from concentrating in the wrong hands. Without any guardrails, the people with the most leverage become the de facto overlords. That's not freedom, that's just a different flavor of tyranny. Smart regulation beats the free-for-all.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

14 Likes

Reward
14
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TokenStorm

· 5h ago

Sounds good, but on-chain data speaks for itself, so I still reserve my opinion.

View OriginalReply0

GasBandit

· 5h ago

This argument seems balanced, but it actually hides risks. Who defines the "correct regulatory framework"? Throughout history, every expansion of power has started under the guise of protecting the public. Cryptocurrency is originally a rebellion against existing power structures. Now, embracing the same mechanisms of power is not a compromise; it's suicide. The real issue is not the binary opposition of "no rules vs. smart regulation," but that decentralized systems themselves are the best checks and balances—transparent, auditable, and trustless third parties. The power constraints you desire have already been implemented at the protocol level. Government intervention will only turn crypto into another set of financial regulation tools.

View OriginalReply0

SellLowExpert

· 5h ago

Regulatory frameworks are indeed about balance, but who will regulate the regulators?

View OriginalReply0

DataOnlooker

· 5h ago

Regulation is indeed necessary, but who will regulate the regulators?

View OriginalReply0

GoldDiggerDuck

· 5h ago

The issue of checks and balances makes sense, but who defines the "right kind" is the key.