Comment by jmyeet
3 hours ago
The financial system has evolved over 5000+ years and is like an endless series of Chesterton's Fences at this point. Here we find another: the ability for a regulator or a bank to freeze assets is once again proven to be a feature not a bug.
Managing a wallet where there is no recourse if your wallet is compromised is simply too difficult when even crypto exchanges get hacked and otherwise sophisticated people get compromised when taking cautious measures (eg [1]).
Crypto really is and always was a race to the rug pull.
[1]: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/about-3-5-million-los...
You know what isn't a Chesterton's fence? Payment processors being able to dictate what I can or can't spend my money on.
This by itself is a reason to push for more crypto acceptance, in my eyes.
I must live a very vanilla, sheltered life because I’ve never bought anything and wondered if a payment processor would object to it.
The payment processors don't object to you. They usually object to the store or the platform you're getting things from.
It's invisible, insidious censorship. They don't hit your hands with a ruler and say "stop, no buying that, bad". They make it so that what they don't like doesn't get to be on the store shelves in the first place. Hard to buy what isn't being sold, isn't it?
As for why they do it - it's unclear, but there's speculation that payment processor leadership might be in part ideologically captured by the usual "think of the children" moralizers and puritans. The same types that used to spurn moral panics, rally against D&D and later GTA, and are the first in line to propose sacrificing freedoms for imaginary safety - now allowed to wield covert influence over most of the payments that happen online.
1 reply →
Yeah but what if I hacked that money fair and square? Why should anyone have the right to block my hard earned not-cash?
Frozen assets are still a wallet with no recourse.