The failed Libertarian experiment: how Crypto's disastrous self regulation led to its own downfall

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's charges against media company Impact Theory for illegally issuing $30 million in crypto asset securities represents the latest action in what has become an onslaught of overdue regulatory crackdowns on the once radically freewheeling cryptocurrency industry.

Impact Theory portrayed its "Founder's Key" non-fungible tokens as conferring ownership stakes in the company, claiming buyers would profit tremendously if Impact Theory succeeded in becoming an entertainment behemoth on the scale of Disney or Marvel. The company failed to register these NFTs as securities or prove an exemption from registration applied, running afoul of longstanding securities laws.

Crypto's experiment with avoiding meaningful oversight through radical self-governance is a collapsing house of cards. For over a decade, the crypto industry fiercely resisted regulation and supervision, preferring to pursue a libertarian model rooted in the cypherpunk ethos of decentralization and anonymity.

In theory, effective governance and shared standards would have emerged organically from the collective coordination of network participants without burdensome state interference or bureaucratic red tape stifling permissionless innovation. Self-regulation promised to let crypto bypass legacy financial guardrails crafted before Satoshi Nakamoto conceived Bitcoin.

But in practice, the industry's experiment with near-total autonomy has backfired catastrophically. Largely unchecked bad behaviour proliferated across the ecosystem, including rampant fraud, market manipulation, pump-and-dump schemes, outright scams, constant hacks and exploits, theft, money laundering, sanctions violations and a complete absence of consumer protections.

The combination of digital assets' pseudonymous nature and the industry's allergy to oversight meant limited accountability for wrongdoing. Voluntary promises of crypto companies to self-comply with ethical practices frequently needed teeth or enforcement. Few meaningful incentives existed to self-police when projects competed ruthlessly for profits and market share during the industry's uncontrolled expansionist growth at all costs phase.

As the total crypto market ballooned from obscure digital curiosities into a sprawling $1 trillion industry deeply intertwined with mainstream finance, the destabilizing consequences of ineffective self-governance became impossible to ignore. The reputation of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology lay in tatters, widely perceived as enabling and tacitly endorsing criminality, misconduct, and abuses of power concentrated in the hands of "crypto bros."

The collapse of the TerraUSD algorithmic stablecoin from its $40 billion peak, evaporating untold user funds in a matter of days, epitomized the recklessness and risk of an unregulated asset class directly integrated into mainstream finance. Over the years, multiple "crypto winters" have been exacerbated by the lack of investor protections. High-profile blowups like Celsius Network's bankruptcy and FTX's implosion have further cemented the alarm.

Combined with the immaturity of computer code being relied upon to control billions in assets, it can't be surprising that regulators eventually lost patience. The warning signs were everywhere, from Mt Gox to QuadrigaCX to OneCoin. The crypto community's response was mainly finger-pointing and marketing slogans.

Eventually, the chaos reached the point where a regulatory reckoning was inevitable. Crypto's behaviour left regulators little choice but to intervene heavy-handedly, bringing fears of overregulation to reality.

Spooked by crypto's meteoric growth and fearful of the myriad ways decentralized digital assets could undermine and erode national controls over finance, money laundering, tax evasion, capital flight, and other bedrock regulatory spheres, governments are now rushing to contain and regulate what had previously been allowed to grow with abandon.

The new regulatory reality includes requirements for exchanges to register with financial authorities, enforce KYC rules, and build proper protections against hacks and fraud. Reserve and capital requirements for stablecoins are aimed at preventing collapse. Enhanced consumer protections include a clamp down on rampant misleading claims and scams, with disclosures no longer considered sufficient. And anti-money laundering enforcement has been heightened to mitigate illicit financing.

In retrospect, the crypto industry could have ducked the current existential regulatory threat if ecosystem players had more openly acknowledged earlier that responsible, measured government oversight could coexist with core decentralization principles. Regulation-phobia is not encoded in Satoshi's Bitcoin whitepaper; with more foresight, the crypto community could have self-initiated basic consumer protections and anti-fraud measures years ago to diminish risks on its own terms.

Crypto's pathological avoidance of oversight empowered its worst tendencies. Most developers focused solely on tokenized use cases rather than revamping flawed incentive structures, enabling scams and criminality. Outright lawlessness became a point of libertarian pride. The lack of guardrails led to a tragedy of the commons, removing any incentive for voluntary self-restraint.

@Westenberg logo
Subscribe to @Westenberg and never miss a post.