On the occasion of the Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime, Charles Randell, president of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), a body that regulates financial services companies (both wholesale and retail) in the United Kingdom, expressed in his speech: >… That there is currently a real problem with consumers entering the crypto sphere without due awareness of the risks. In addition to the above, the president of the FCA pointed out: >Why should we regulate purely speculative digital tokens? And if we regulate these tokens, will it make people think they are bona fide investments? In other words, will the participation of the FCA give them a 'halo effect' that creates unrealistic expectations of consumer protection? "
On one occasion I participated in a meeting to review the advantages of the application of new administrative software in a company for which I worked, many of the participants, used to the old system, did not agree with the implementation of a new system, although it offered many more advantages. The irony is that those who disagreed hadn't even bothered to review the advantages and disadvantages of it, so in the middle of the meeting I got some disapproving looks for stating that the problem was not the system, but the problems. users who criticized it without first reviewing it.  The same happens many times within the blockchain environment, many users and speculative investors lose money by relying on digital marketing campaigns, as well as the opinion of "influencers" who often support a project without even knowing it, which encourages the appearance of the "fear of missing out" (FOMO), pump-and-dump or scams with crypto assets, all this by following a vital rule when investing: knowing what is being invested.  ### Act for the right reasons
In my opinion, within the blockchain environment there are two types of investors: those who want to obtain quick dividends, invest in high-risk investments that offer very high profitability, and those who prefer to be part of medium and long-term projects that generate income constant, a little higher than those obtained by centralized means, but which generate a great sense of security to their capital. This behavior conforms to the famous economic law on "risk and return."
For Randell, one of the main objectives of regulatory standards should be focused on ensuring that blockchain companies are solvent and transparent, especially those that offer “stable coins”. Likewise, ensure that misleading promotions of crypto assets are not generated, promoted by companies or people who have a sufficient reputation to be able to influence people's decisions (in the end, nobody forces anyone). I think governments should spend less time trying to “slow down” the advancement of blockchain, which I highly doubt they will achieve, and focus more on educating citizens regarding the crypto environment, sponsoring serious projects focused on social development, apply sanctions to those who comment on fraud and understand that, instead of fighting against a very powerful tool, which has many more virtues than defects, it is much more positive to take advantage of all the advantages it offers. ***We keep reading!*** 
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta