@ISIDEWITHQuestionsTechnologicalStarted 10mos 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 241 Dartmouth - Cole Harbour voters.

54%
Yes
46%
No
50%
Yes
44%
No
2%
Yes, and ban the use of crytocurrencies
2%
No, and citizens should be allowed to protect their savings from reckless fiscal policies or subjugation
1%
Yes, the government should screen cryptocurrencies before circulation to ensure legitimate value and exchange rates
1%
No, and underprivileged citizens deserve the same financial opportunities and services that traditional banks offer the wealthy

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 241 Dartmouth - Cole Harbour voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 241 Dartmouth - Cole Harbour voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Dartmouth - Cole Harbour voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9RF48S4from Massachusetts  answered…8mos8MO

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

 @9MTKF53from Ontario  answered…10mos10MO

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…6mos6MO

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.

 @B3K9X78from Ontario  answered…6 days6D

It depends but I think it should be both in the sense of monitoring cryptocurrencies and allowing citizens or anyone to have the opportunity to have better financial standards because of income displacements and laws being passed, so there should be a way to bring structure on both sides of the table.

 @B2VL9PLfrom Ontario  answered…1mo1MO

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

 @B2V8SXTfrom Alberta  answered…1mo1MO

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…1mo1MO

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…1mo1MO

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…4mos4MO

Peace Over Party: Arab American Leaders Stun Democrats with Mass Trump Endorsement

Former President Trump earned endorsements from "highly respected" Muslim leaders and Imams during a campaign rally in the battleground state of Michigan. Trump, speaking to a crowd in Novi, Michigan, on Saturday afternoon, called the group of Muslim leaders "highly respected," before bringing them onstage."I’m thrilled to accept the endorsement of these highly respected leaders," Trump told the thundering crowd.The group of leaders cited Trump’s commitment to ending wars and ensuring global peace as a primary reason for their support, describing him as a leader who "promises peace, not war.""We, as Muslims, stand with President Trump because he promises peace, not war!" Imam Belal Alzuhairi said. "We are supporting Donald Trump because he promised to end war in the Middle East and Ukraine," Alzuhairi said. "The bloodshed has to stop all over the world, and I think this man can make that happen. I personally believe that God saved his life twice for a reason.""We're going to stop the wars, we're going to make the United States safe again, and we're going to make the world safe," Bazzi said."What a nice endorsement," Trump said after Bazzi’s speech. "These are great people."The Muslim leaders official endorsement came after Amer Ghalib, the mayor of the Detroit-area suburb Hamtramck, announced his support of Trump in a Facebook post on Oct. 20."Though it’s looking good, he may or may not win the election and be the 47th president of the United States, but I believe he is the right choice for this critical time," Ghalib wrote in Arabic on his Facebook page. "I’ll not regret my decision no matter what the outcome would be, and I’m ready to face the consequences. For this, and for many other reasons, I announce my support and endorsement for the former, and hopefully, the next President of the United States, Donald Trump."Ghalib’s endorsement of Trump comes after the two met in Flint earlier this week for a private 20-minute conversation. Ghalib told The Detroit News that Trump "knew a lot about me before the meeting." "We talked about various topics including the debates, the polls updates, the statistics of votes in Michigan and Wayne County, the Arab American concerns and the Yemeni Americans in particular. We also talked about the situation in Yemen," Ghalib said.

▲  622 replies

Active 15hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3mos3MO

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  2019 replies5 agree1 disagree6