[frankohn]

I would say that normally, to face "very complex fintech" the goverment should set a solid set of fundamental rules that ensure security for the people, then it should ensure seriously that they are respected. That should be something like, "do whatever creative fintech you want as long as you respect these rules".

It seems to me that not creating and enforcing such a system of rules, or doing poor rules that leaves doors open for abuse or errors, is a failure of the government and of the political estabilishment.

[BobaFloutist]

Right but then they have to litigate every new fancy attempt to dodge the rules individually, and they don't have the staff or the funding for that.

The Supreme Court has, for decades, been carving down regulatory powers to only exactly cover explicit, specific, literal interpretations of confessional law, so now we get thousands of potential cases that amount to "Stop touching the customer's money" "I'm not touching it, the atoms in my hand are getting close enough to the money to affect it with atomic forces, but nothing can be truly described as touching anything, if you think about it."

Solid fundamental rules don't work if the Court takes every possible chance to redefine every single term to make them not apply.

[bdangubic]

you should watch state of the union when they pan out to show congress(wo)man and senators and see about roughly their age based on how they look (or even easier, see it online). average age is like 87.7 :) how are they going to set fundamental rules about very complex fintech while talking to their grand-granddaughters on their nokia’s…

[UltraSane]

Unfortunately Government regulations are almost never proactive, always reactive. Honestly a lot of these new fintech companies feel like they exist mainly to get around current regulations.