Innovation is often met with discomfort because it forces people to either leave the old for the new or update the old to the new. This is especially true for the users of a revolutionary product. But it’s fairly easy to educate them and bring them up to speed.

However, if on the opposing side is an entity that is all-powerful, is adhering to relatively rigid rules, and is feigning this “ideal” of “protecting” people from the “negative effects” of the innovation without understanding what these effects are, then it’s a whole new problem.

Becoming a protector of users’ interests sounds good, but it’s useful to actually protect their interests and not disregard them under a false pretence.

• But what if an organisation’s debt reaches almost 2% of a country’s GDP and its users are left hanging in the middle paying an exorbitant amount of money for the below-average quality of products that the organisation offers? Are the regulators protecting the users then?
• Or what if an organisation — that runs on collecting its billions of users’ data — decides to go home with a 0% tax rate and save more than $39B leaving the regulatory authorities in limbo?

What about these precious users in cases like these?

But I’m sure that the guardians of these users’ investment must be ensuring that they either get what they have paid for or get their money back. They are, right?

Because they’ve been chasing after some protocols within the crypto industry, and either suing their founders or putting them in a position where they are left with few options. In fact, the entire industry and innovations are being questioned. And this is happening even when:

• They ask the tough questions, the team behind the projects is here to answer.
• They want more clarity about the ecosystem, the teams are here to answer.
• They need to know if users’ money is safe, the teams are here to answer.
• They want to know how protocols are built, run, and protected from attacks, the teams are here to answer.

The question that should be asked is, are they ready to listen? For how long will our industry sit around and see fellow protocol developers and researchers getting sued by the govt.? And for what?

What started as a delightful invitation to “come sit down, let’s have a chat” is slowly turning into a full-blown attack. We as an industry don’t have many alternatives left.

So, what should the innovative founders and developers do? Instead of throwing back a punch or cowering away (or even continuing to evade the authorities), they should initiate dialogue at a different level, spread awareness about what they do, and hopefully arrive at meaningful conclusions.

I truly appreciate Ryan Selkis’ effort in becoming the front for crypto that we need. You’ve got my back, mate.

The industry is stepping up

And rightfully so. By joining hands with the political forces, they aren’t fighting the devil here. Instead, they are simply saying that there’s no need to fight in the first place.

Such massive and inglorious clouds of regulatory uncertainty over their heads are prompting some within the industry to create a bridge that helps us exchange thoughts and have meaningful conversations.

The industry wants to do this not for the authorities, but for the users.

For the record, a vast majority of crypto protocols aim to provide a much better user experience to the users. The world of crypto and DeFi is as capitalist as it gets. Every protocol is competing against each other to create a better financial ecosystem for the users. And they are doing this without giving any false notion or saying that they are the unspoken vanguard of the users’ interests. The users of these protocols know as much about them as the team building the protocols.

Its a Coalition, Not War

Picking this up from the thread I posted earlier (you can read it below), I think what is needed at a much higher level is a coalition between the authorities and the industry, because that equates to a win-win situation.

Currently, there are over $173B assets locked in DeFi. The global crypto market itself is $2T, which is as much as most top-tier investment banks such as JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs manage.

The entire industry came all the way here on the basis of its grit, passion, and an unflinching desire to offer the best to its users. If this isn’t innovation then what is?

And in addition to the millions of users who use various protocols/defi applications daily, institutional investors are also equally interested to enter the space.

• Take Microstrategy, for example, which is constantly adding on to its BTC investments.
• Twitter is looking to get decentralized.
• Billion-dollar companies around the world are utilizing blockchain technology for various purposes.

Imagine what would happen if the traditional financial banks move in to the space? What’s the word for it…kaboom.

The entire crypto industry, by its nature, is aiming to provide alternative and sometimes even better (think unbiased, egalitarian, high yield) financial services to its users. The SEC (or for that matter any regulatory authority in the world) is aiming to protect its massive “voter base” from fraudulent investments.

The government is by the people, for the people, and of the people.

DeFi protocols are here to serve the users and give them the best experience.

The aims of both entities are similar, so they must keep their work to build a unified financial ecosystem.

Like the above thread 👆? I uncover one intricate topic each week and share my findings. I’m @mohakagr on Twitter.