The narrative that new financial products are "innovative" is often used to argue against regulation, echoing the same rhetoric that led to the 2008 crisis. This skepticism towards "innovation speak" is crucial as Silicon Valley's language infiltrates finance.
Technology in finance is a double-edged sword. While it can increase access, it can also be used to gamify trading, encourage impulse spending with 'buy-now-pay-later' schemes, and circumvent traditional consumer protection laws.
The narrative of AI doom isn't just organic panic. It's being leveraged by established players who are actively seeking "regulatory capture." They aim to create a cartel that chokes off innovation from startups right from the start.
Many FinTech innovations, from crypto to payday lending apps, don't succeed because their technology is superior. Instead, their primary value comes from designing business models that exploit or circumvent existing financial regulations, giving them an unfair advantage over incumbents.
A regulator who approves a new technology that fails faces immense public backlash and career ruin. Conversely, they receive little glory for a success. This asymmetric risk profile creates a powerful incentive to deny or delay new innovations, preserving the status quo regardless of potential benefits.
Innovation doesn't happen without risk-taking. What we call speculation is the essential fuel that allows groundbreaking ideas, like those of Elon Musk, to get funded and developed. While dangerous, attempting to eliminate speculative bubbles entirely would also stifle world-changing progress.
Maja Vujinovic posits that Gary Gensler, despite his pro-crypto past, was strategically positioned by banks to slow innovation. This regulatory friction gave traditional financial institutions the necessary time to understand the technology and formulate their own digital asset strategies before competing.
Speculation is not an evil byproduct of innovation but its necessary component. Groundbreaking ventures like SpaceX are impossible without investors willing to bet on seemingly crazy ideas. The goal for policymakers shouldn't be to eliminate speculation, but to manage its excesses without killing the innovation it fuels.
Silicon Valley's economic engine is "permissionless innovation"—the freedom to build without prior government approval. Proposed AI regulations requiring pre-approval for new models would dismantle this foundation, favoring large incumbents with lobbying power and stifling the startup ecosystem.
High-stakes industries like finance have a 'moral statute' that raises the bar for innovation. This deters many well-intentioned actors, leaving the field to those with either no moral compass or founders like Jack Bogle who possess extreme, near-prophetic conviction in their ideas.
The intense state interest in regulating tech like crypto and AI is a response to the tech sector's rise to a power level that challenges the state. The public narrative is safety, but the underlying motivation is maintaining control over money, speech, and ultimately, the population.