BUIDLing after a collapse

It's like a dream come true for the antagonists of cryptocurrencies as they've been having a field day on cryptocurrencies due to the scandalous collapse of FTX exchange. For some of them they simply couldn't resist the urge to add insult to the injury by labelling the entire crypto ecosystem as a huge ponzi and taunting those who lost funds with "I told you so".

The consolation for those who truly believe in the future of cryptocurrency is that every dark cloud has a silver lining. For such people the fall of FTX is another opportunity to learn about how and where not to invest although a bitter pill to swallow at the present time.

But like the timeless saying goes

'this too shall pass'.

Whether the critics of cryptocurrencies like it or not, it has come to stay and has potential for immense growth and development. Why else would the big players in the tech space such as Google and the likes be paying any attention to it as a payment solution? The earlier these critics rethink their stance the better for them else in no distant future they'd find it difficult to catch up with the crypto train which waits for no one.

That aside, there are still so many questions that remain unanswered with the FTX scandal which has prompted some observers to opine that there's more to the matter than meets the eyes. One of such issues which is rather odd is the way mainstream media (MSM) had been reporting the role of SBF in the saga.

If you've been following the headlines from MSM, some have been so sympathetic to a guy that has not only done damage to the crypto industry as well as individual investors , that at some point one is forced to ask is SBF the victim or the individuals he defrauded because of their manner of reportage which appears to be biased.

Another pertinent question begging for answers is why crypto platforms who ought to know better were so exposed to FTX. This is particularly mind boggling because as individuals we know how much research we do before investing in any project so as not to fall victim to a scam. Thus why on earth did these platforms not do same especially when individuals deposited their funds with them on trust.

The revelations about the composition of the defunct FTX board and other bizzare issues should have been things these platforms should have spotted if they bothered to do the needed background checks. Another possibility is that they chose to ignore the red flags because there were mouth watering or irresistible offers that they simply couldn't resist.

These questions begging for answers has prompted some to opine that the FTX saga was an elaborate hoax which had two major objectives.

First , damage the trust or confidence which people were beginning to develop in the crypto space.

Two, Use the crisis as an entry point or excuse to push the government regulation agenda to the fore. This second objective seems to be gathering support especially amongst those who lost funds due to the collapse of FTX.

The above objectives are not mutually exclusive but are rather intertwined. Make the absence of regulation the scape goat for the collapse then present strong regulation as the solution to prevent future collapses. For most who are new to the crypto space , this trick may likely work but for others who have years of experience under their wings, such proposition is dead upon arrival.

The reason for this is that most of the major collapses that have had damaging effects on the crypto industry have been centralised entities which have some level of control or regulations in place with user's funds being controlled or access to such funds being somewhat at the mercy of the operators of the CEXes. On the decentralised space though not without its fair share of misdemeanors by unscrupulous characters has steadily developed over the years with some known platforms doing remarkably well in terms of innovative products and securing investor's funds.

What should be on the front burner is for people to be educated on why their assets should not be in centralized exchanges when there's no pressing need for it and the need to have limited interaction with exchange tokens especially those of centralised origin.

Thank you for reading.