When industry leaders compromise on regulatory clarity, there's a real cost. Some in crypto are willing to hand over autonomy to securities regulators in exchange for perceived legitimacy—even embracing proposals from vocal critics. This calculus betrays the core premise behind Bitcoin and the broader decentralization movement: financial systems shouldn't require permission from centralized gatekeepers. The question becomes whether regulatory acceptance is worth sacrificing the freedom that crypto was designed to protect. There's nothing liberating about trading one form of control for another, no matter how official the paperwork looks.
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.
9 Likes
Reward
9
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GateUser-a180694b
· 9h ago
Honestly, kneeling to regulators is a betrayal of Bitcoin's original intention. What's the point?
View OriginalReply0
MetaverseMortgage
· 9h ago
Compromising with regulation is a betrayal of the original intention, and there's nothing wrong with that.
View OriginalReply0
GasOptimizer
· 9h ago
Why do we have to kneel to regulators again... This is just outrageous.
View OriginalReply0
RamenDeFiSurvivor
· 9h ago
It's the same old compromising act, I just laughed directly.
View OriginalReply0
OnchainDetective
· 9h ago
According to on-chain data, I had already guessed the compromise patterns of these big players... The truly interesting part is who is secretly interacting frequently with regulatory authorities, with wallet addresses speaking for themselves.
---
It's obvious—trading freedom for compliance. Isn't this a classic case of drinking poison to quench thirst... We need to track those institutional addresses that suddenly change their stance.
---
Through multi-address tracking, it’s found that the funds behind this wave of compromise are really suspicious. After analysis and judgment, the transaction patterns of certain "industry leaders" are extremely abnormal.
---
Selling out their original intentions for a "legitimate identity," and then what? Still trapped in a new cage... The interesting part is who profits from this.
---
We've already identified several suspicious wallet behaviors. This tactic of abandoning autonomy for legitimacy... I've seen it too many times in historical transactions.
---
It's just a power play, just with a different disguise. Regulatory agencies have never been friends.
View OriginalReply0
SatoshiNotNakamoto
· 9h ago
Basically, compromise is self-destructive; capitalists all want to whitewash themselves.
When industry leaders compromise on regulatory clarity, there's a real cost. Some in crypto are willing to hand over autonomy to securities regulators in exchange for perceived legitimacy—even embracing proposals from vocal critics. This calculus betrays the core premise behind Bitcoin and the broader decentralization movement: financial systems shouldn't require permission from centralized gatekeepers. The question becomes whether regulatory acceptance is worth sacrificing the freedom that crypto was designed to protect. There's nothing liberating about trading one form of control for another, no matter how official the paperwork looks.