2kanzure1yIt's interesting how many of these questions are about regulators. I wouldn't
have expected that. I think that what's most important is progress, innovation,
followed by safety and quality assurance testing, and then getting things out
into the markets, followed by fitting it into the forms that regulators expect &
working with regulators to create a sane environment for innovation.
Having worked in regulated fintech, I strongly believe that the only way to do
good work is by doing good high quality work. Yeah, sure, sometimes you luck out
and you get a regulator that understands what's going on and how to do things
well. But often you just get precautionary principle stuff from the regulators
instead of good help doing QA/testing. Sometimes you can impress them with
systems that aren't archaic/legacy and they appreciate the effort you put into
doing things well with modern tooling, even if it doesn't conform to the archaic
expectations enforced by other regulators. etc. There's some hope here, but not
a lot.
What brings me some hope is to think about permissionless innovation. Ultimately
you don't have to ask for permission to start a family or birth a new child.
Biology is the north star of decentralization. Every single person is a
biological lifeform with their own cellular material and DNA. Technological
progress means turning our intelligence and thoughts inward and modifying our
DNA and our self-defining programs over time. This is not even a matter of free
speech, it is a matter of personal agency and freedom to try to fix ourselves or
be better or achieve whatever other goals we each have for ourselves and our
futures.
At the end of the day, you really don't want a totalitarian government
regulating people such that they can't move forward and self-actualize.
Thankfully biology is already pretty decentralized and widely available. DNA is
one of the most successful technologies of all time.
what are some examples of beating regulations when it hinders innovation?