Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/law-policy
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Gus
@gus
I think AI founders and investors can learn important lessons (what to do/not to do) from the last 10 years of the crypto regulatory wars. Agree? What do you think are the key lessons? Will share more as I flesh out.
3 replies
3 recasts
12 reactions
Sarah Shtylman
@shodyesq
Don’t assume existing laws do not, will not, or should not apply just because the tech is novel. Not everyone in the industry, but the crypto industry as a whole lost in both years and reputation/credibility by making this assumption.
1 reply
1 recast
3 reactions
Gus
@gus
That is a great lesson. In AI, we've argued that existing laws not only *do* apply but *should* (this from our AI Action Plan submission):
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Gus
@gus
I think one difference between AI and crypto in this regard is: we needed new law in crypto because the SEC was using existing law to put all tokens in the securities bucket, which if successful would have tamped down or eliminated most of the benefits of onchain transactions. But we don't need much new law in AI, because most of the harms people worry about are covered by existing law—with the possible exception of federal preemption, to get the states to cool it with a proliferation of expensive, local, potentially innovation-killing regulation.
2 replies
0 recast
3 reactions
Sarah Shtylman
@shodyesq
I think the SEC *could have* used existing law to promulgate crypto specific rules, but since they didn’t, congress and courts have needed to step in. IOW, I’m not convinced new laws were an inherent necessity so much as a practical necessity, based on - as you say- the approach selected by the agency.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Gus
@gus
Completely agree. In fact, the work we see the SEC Crypto Task Force doing now proves that point. The main benefit of market structure legislation now is preventing a return to scorched earth enforcement.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
