Removing Moral Hazard From Finance

Hey JessBlockchain Believers

I make it no secret that I'm an advocate for blockchain, I would never preach it but I'm happy to answer any questions people have and I've had plenty of conversations with no coiners in the past. There are a select few, a minority that are genuinely interested and you can tell by the types of questions they ask and then there are those who are trying to take apart your story and do their best to show you it is a scam.

These arrogant arseholes are often the majority of no-coiners wanting to engage in debate with me, sadly their arguments run paper-thin pretty quickly.

Crypto is for criminals

One of the biggest issues no coiners point to is the ability fo anonymity and how this can drive up crime and criminal trade through cryptocurrency and yes that is possible if two parties want to use this as a medium, by all means, we cannot and should not stop people from trading with one another.

Cash is no different and has been used for an illicit activity for years, remember cryptocurrency is only 10 years old and is hardly mainstream with only 1% of the world holding this asset class.

Fiat money and gold have been used far more to fund criminal activity and these KYC and AML laws have done very little to stop it, due to moral hazard.

Image source: - ethicssage.com

Moral hazard

Moral hazard is defined as is a situation where a party will have a tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk. We see this with how the respective government of the world chose to allocate new money creation as well as how they are willing to bail out the institutions within their financial system, instead of simply allowing for them to fail.

Normally moral hazard could be mitigated by punishing criminal actions, but instead, moral hazard was reinforced through the clear display of the dominance of the financial industry over world governments.

Governments around the world have displayed their nepotistic nature but also their willingness to sacrifice the very laws that govern them for a small, elite class of people and industries.

I think this moral hazard is far more disastrous and also encourages criminal activity on a large scale rather than mitigating it and this is why decentralised systems are needed.

Moral relativism

I've spoken about moral relativism before and how paper-thin one's morals really are since they aren't tested. We see morality doesn't count for much as people are placed into positions of power and this is how malinvestment and syndicates thrive in our current economic system.

It only takes a few people in certain positions to accept a bribe or look the other way or be incompetent at their job for billions or even trillions to be stolen. These shadow banking tactics can be done without much press coverage as people are too concerned with their own shit to see coffers being plundered and even if one press-titute decided to turn and expose the story its hardly enough to provide any legal or social pressure on the parties involved.

In blockchain land, however, the community has consenses and if the illicit activity were to be found consensus can be taken to stop future transactions and the data is all there. You cannot find or bribe miners, perhaps you could with dPos but you cannot force all miners to agree or win over a blockchain if you're doing something illegal.

Having all transactions out in the public domain also makes it harder to hide activity and simple forensic software can trace transaction data giving the public oversite into how their chains are being used and how is trying to misuse their public network.