This is an interesting turn of events no doubt. The whole idea of a DEX, at least in my view, is that it's not affected by the same laws that govern custodial services, so when I read the news, I could not help but to be confused. Is it not a DEX then?
Unlike most of the people who got involved with BTC in the early days, I don't particularly recoil in terror when the notion of regulations is brought up. Yes, It doesn't make me smile, but I think it's almost inevitable if this whole "crypto thing" is ever to truly take off.
Why? Because as far as I know, there's been no macro examples of anarcho capitalism, and since we are aiming for macro, we must face the music. That being said, I never expected a DEX (decentralized exchanges) to ever be touched by any mortal law, since there's no custodial services to begin with. Of course, there's always going to be liabilities, but in a DEX the guilty parties are just poorly written code, and not a badly administered company.
When Binance announced that their newly launched DEX would be blocking IP addresses from countries with heavy handed regulatory entities, I must confess I laughed a bit, but dug in a little deeper, to find out a plausible why. As it turns out, an Ethereum DEX, Etherdelta, is currently in the crosshairs and this might just be CZ playing it real safe.
At any rate, there's always VPNs and I don't think this is going to stop the growth of the exchange a whole lot. Even with the hack, and all the FUD, they've kept on keeping on and show no signs of slowing down, so why would they stop now.
MenO
