@ISIDEWITHQuestionseconomy3yrs ago

Should the technology of our financial system transition to a decentralized protocol, that is not owned or controlled by any corporation, similar to the internet?

Decentralized Finance (commonly referred to as DeFi) is a blockchain based and cryptographically secure form of finance. Inspired after the financial crisis of 2008, DeFi does not rely on central financial intermediaries such as brokerages, exchanges, or banks to offer traditional financial instruments, and instead utilizes smart contracts on blockchains, the most common being Ethereum. DeFi platforms allow people to verify any transfer of ownership, lend or borrow funds from others, speculate on price movements on a range of assets using derivatives, trade cryptocurrencies, insure against…  

Read more

Answer Overview

Response rates from 40 Russia voters.

40%
Yes
60%
No
10%
Yes
45%
No
12%
Yes, but only if it’s truly decentralized and cannot be manipulated by any person, group, or government agency
15%
No, and I don’t understand the concept of decentralized finance
10%
Yes, but I would prefer if the protocol was created and secured by a government agency instead of a decentralized protocol
7%
Yes, this would reduce wealth inequality by providing more transparent, affordable, and inclusive access to financial services

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 40 Russia voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 40 Russia voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

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

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Starmer Throws Netanyahu Under the ICC Bus: UK Backs Arrest Warrant for Israeli PM

Sir Keir Starmer has backed the International Criminal Court (ICC) after it issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.When asked about the issue, Sir Keir’s official spokesman said the Government respected the independence of the court.He declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.The spokesman said: “We respect the independence of the ICC, which is the primary institutional institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes in relation to international law.“This Government has been clear that Israel has a right to defend itself in accordance with international law. There is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy and Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah, which are terror groups.“We remain focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire to bring an end to the devastating violence in Gaza.”Under the Conservatives, the British government had told the court it intended to challenge the plans for the arrest warrants.However, weeks after coming to power, Sir Keir’s government reversed that position and said it would not object.Downing Street also declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be welcome to visit Britain in the future.Sir Keir’s spokesman said: “We never comment on future international visits but my position on the Prime Minister’s support for Israel in terms of its right to defend itself in accordance with international law is very clear.”The spokesman repeatedly declined to “go into hypotheticals” about whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.He added: “It’s not up to the Prime Minister to determine other world leaders’ travel schedules. He engages and will continue to engage with the prime minister of Israel in support of Israel’s right to defend itself.”Pressed on what he meant by his comments about the court, the spokesman said: “It means that we respect the independence of the ICC. We respect the fact that the ICC is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern.”The spokesman went on to say the Government’s “focus” remained an end to the violence in the Middle East, which has been ongoing for more than a year after the Oct 7 terror attacks by Hamas.

▲  148 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Biden will issue a pardon of his son Hunter Biden

President Joe Biden has decided to issue a pardon for his son Hunter and is expected to announce it Sunday night, according to a senior White House official with direct knowledge of the decision.The decision marks a reversal for the president, who has repeatedly said he would not use his executive authority to pardon his son or commute his sentence. The pardon comes ahead of Hunter Biden’s Dec. 12 sentencing for his conviction on federal gun charges. Hunter Biden also is set to be sentenced in a separate criminal case on Dec. 16, after pleading guilty in September on federal tax evasion charges.The pardon is expected to cover both Hunter Biden’s gun charges conviction and guilty plea.The senior White House official said Biden decided over this weekend to grant his son a pardon and began to inform his senior aides on Sunday. Using his pardon power to assure Hunter Biden does not spend time in jail comes as the 82-year-old president is near the end of his term in the White House and has no future election to face. In recent months Biden has said he would not pardon his son or commute his sentence.“I will not pardon him,” the president said of his son in June after a jury found him guilty on three federal gun charges.President Biden has discussed issuing a pardon for his son with some of his closest aides since at least Hunter Biden’s conviction in June, two people with direct knowledge of the discussions about the matter said. They said a decision was made at the time for the president to publicly say he would not pardon his son even though doing so remained on the table.White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters earlier this month that the president’s position has not changed.

▲  1713 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

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.

▲  2016 replies3 agree1 disagree

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3 days3D

Biden bans new offshore oil drilling along most of US coastline

President Joe Biden announced a ban on new offshore oil and gas drilling along most of the US coastline on Monday in a move designed to bolster his environmental and climate legacy as he prepares to leave office.The order will protect 625mn acres of ocean on the US east coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific coasts of Washington, Oregon and California, as well as portions of the Northern Bering Sea in Alaska, the White House said on Monday.“My decision reflects what the coastal communities, business and beachgoers have known for a long time: that drilling off these coasts could cause irreversible damage to places we hold dear and is unnecessary to meet our nation’s energy needs,” Biden said.The executive action will not prevent oil and gas companies obtaining leases in the central and western parts of the Gulf of Mexico, areas that produce almost 15 per cent of the nation’s oil supplies. Nevertheless, the move is expected to complicate the policy agenda of incoming president Donald Trump, who has vowed to “drill, baby, drill” and boost US oil production, even though it is already at a record level.The Trump transition team said it was a disgraceful decision designed to exact “political revenge on the American people” and the incoming president said he would immediately “unban” Biden’s prohibition on new offshore drilling.“I have the right to unban it immediately . . . we can’t let that happen to our country. It’s our greatest, it’s really our greatest economic asset,” Trump told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt in an interview on Monday.Biden’s action will probably be challenged by the oil industry in court and face pushback from Republicans in Congress. But overturning the order could prove challenging and may require an act of Congress, according to legal experts.Biden is using his authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, to protect the areas from drilling — the same mechanism which former president Barack Obama used previously to ban offshore drilling in some Arctic and Atlantic waters in 2016.In 2019, a federal judge ruled that an executive order by former president Donald Trump that lifted an Obama-era ban on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Ocean was unlawful.

▲  1910 replies