@ISIDEWITHQuestionsTechnologicalStarted 9mos agoActive 6 days ago

Should the government implement stricter regulations on the use of cryptocurrencies?

Crypto technology offers tools like payment, lending, borrowing, and saving to anyone with an internet connection. Proponents argue that stricter regulations would deter criminal use. Opponents argue that stricter crypto regulation would limit financial opportunities to citizens that are denied access to or can't afford the fees associated with traditional banking.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 383 Halifax voters.

56%
Yes
44%
No
53%
Yes
40%
No
3%
Yes, the government should screen cryptocurrencies before circulation to ensure legitimate value and exchange rates
3%
No, and underprivileged citizens deserve the same financial opportunities and services that traditional banks offer the wealthy
0%
Yes, and ban the use of crytocurrencies
1%
No, and citizens should be allowed to protect their savings from reckless fiscal policies or subjugation

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 383 Halifax voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 383 Halifax voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Halifax voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9RF48S4from Massachusetts  answered…7mos7MO

Crypto, just like art, is for laundering money for doing crime. Unlike art, crypto only has this one purpose

 @9MTKF53from Ontario  answered…9mos9MO

Cryptocurrency can be the future as the rate of it is increasing day by day. So investment in such can be a great prospect for people. The Government can take the initiative to regulate the currency.

 @9TMMVLNfrom Alberta  answered…5mos5MO

personally, I don't think the government should put stricter regulations on cryptocurrencies because investing your own money in them is a personal choice, and the government shouldn't interfere with how you manage your finances.

 @B2X8V2Kfrom Ontario  answered…6 days6D

No, it's their money they can decide how and where to spend their money, if it gets out of control than start supervising and regulate the users account.

 @B2VL9PLfrom Ontario  answered…1wk1W

Like all currency, cryptocurrencies manifest greed, hoarding and violence - exporting suffering and tragedy to the dissident voices within the dominant culture.

 @B2V8SXTfrom Alberta  answered…1wk1W

They should be monitoring for big, suspicious things and also keeping track of how much this is costing to generate the crypto.

 @B2TJXWJfrom Alberta  answered…2wks2W

No, only because cryptocurrencies are not seen as 'money' by banks and governments, cannot function the same way that traditional money can, and are altogether on a platform of their own and who knows how long they're going to last.

 @B2R5LFNfrom Ontario  answered…2wks2W

The government should make laws surrounding this issue because we have no way to criminalize people for crimes of this nature.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Jon Stewart Begs Democrats To ‘Please Stop Trotting Out Chuck Schumer!'

Jon Stewart criticized Democrats for repeatedly using Chuck Schumer as their spokesperson against Trump, calling his performances ineffective and monotonous.Stewart mocked Schumer's response to Trump's trade war threats, particularly his simplistic explanation about Mexican imports like Corona beer and avocados.The former Daily Show host expressed frustration at Schumer's basic observation that "guacamole is made of avocados" as a response to complex trade policy issues.Stewart sarcastically highlighted the Democrats' poor strategic choice in selecting Schumer to counter Trump, whom he described as "one of the most savvy presidential media manipulators in history."The comedian ridiculed Schumer's appearance and presentation style, particularly mocking his use of reading glasses positioned low on his nose.Stewart's criticism centered on the Democratic leadership's judgment in repeatedly choosing an "uninteresting" and "monotone" spokesperson.The commentary addressed Trump's threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico, though focused more on the Democratic response than the policy itself.Stewart used hyperbole to emphasize his point, stating that Schumer's speaking makes him "want to bomb Canada."The piece highlighted the perceived disconnect between Democratic messaging strategy and effective opposition to Trump's policies.Stewart's criticism suggested a broader frustration with Democratic leadership's media strategy and public presentation.

▲  4817 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1wk1W

Gavin Newsom Defends Immigrants With $25 Million

Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.

▲  1120 replies