MEPs support bill to ban anonymous crypto transactions – IT Pro – News

The problem that @D-e-n points out, I think, is that those self-enrichers are not waiting for these kinds of measures, they want right as little government interference and supervision as possible. Many of crypto’s most outspoken supporters are also very critical of any form of government, especially when it comes to taxation, transparency and fighting issues like corruption and fraud. The banking sector does not want more such measures, as a rule it wants less supervision. Neither are the Silicon Valley types and the like.

The libertarians, neoliberalists and others in that corner are embracing crypto and the marketing around it precisely because it makes it easier to undermine that social safety net you describe. The hyper-rich do not want supervision of money flows, on the contrary: then they will soon have to pay all the taxes they owe.

Those huge amounts of money that have been reprinted that you’re complaining about? Direct result of the cry for help from those people in the banking world, who want to pocket the profits, preferably funneled tax-free to quasi-hidden accounts, but prefer to share the losses among the entire population. If you want to fight poverty, it is crucial that you have a picture of where those huge profits are, so that you can collect tax there to pay for your social services. If the self-enrichers manage to convince people that the prevention of such transparency is good for the common man, the common man will be put in front of the big money cart. Financial transparency is vital for a well-functioning society, in that sense, precisely to prevent the top layer of the elite from taking all power and resources to themselves, while the rest have to figure it out for themselves.

It never ceases to amaze me how often the interests of the elite are defended, under the guise of ‘protecting the population from the elite’. That’s an impressive piece of marketing, but it’s not true. Wealth tax, corporate tax, financial transparency, restrictions on political donations, all in the interest of ordinary citizens, but framed as a risk to democracy and/or society. Such ‘restrictions’ are crucial, precisely to protect that democracy, because they can make the playing field a little more level.

But maybe I understand @D-e-n completely wrong, of course that’s possible

–