Because, unlike at the stock market, the government provides no assurances regarding any part of the crypto trade that is being made. When things go south, fraud happens in crypto, government is pretty much zero help in most countries of the world at most times.
I imagine if it turned out you never possessed any AMD or Nvidia stocks and all of that was just fake number on a fake piece of paper there would be serious government involvement pretty much everywhere.
Also on more practical note, a single sale of crypto can really be a 50 sales to 50 people at various prices. Calculating gain is virutally unworkable. Especially between crypto pairs where the value of one or the other isn't really known.
When you sell NVidia stock and buy AMD it's a sale and a purchase. But if somebody gave you some AMD stock for your NVIDIA stock, there's no sale or purchase and the value of each is only a guess.
That's why reasonable countries decided it's way better to tax stuff on exit to fiat, via conversion or purchase. And it works just fine. When it's crypto it remains Miki Mouse money, but when it exits to fiat and there's more of it than was put in, there's real and taxable gain.
The lack of comparable regulation isn’t a good argument for (or against) regulation. All regulation was born at some point. It’s not all-or-nothing.
You example about trading equities (gifting? sharing?) is wrong. You owe tax on trading your stock for another stock. Even if you circumvent a broker and deal in literal certificates. This is a disposition in the eyes of every major tax authority. There are very few exceptions (rollovers or corporate reorganization are some examples). Difficulty in calculating the FMV of the disposition is entirely your problem.
I should have added “sometimes”. It worked fine that way with most games (I have the same CPU), but Cyberpunk 2099 in particular really doesn’t like that configuration.
If you have self-referential columns you are going to have to name them something else, like `parent_id` and tell your model code about the discrepancy.
I was left with the somewhat opposite feeling. I still don’t know what OPA actually is or does. It has a nice paragraph describing it without saying anything at all.
OPA solves the problem of defining and enforcing policies across a system. Some examples:
- How do I enforce that inbound API requests come only from trusted sources?
- How do I enforce fine-grained access to user records?
- How do I enforce a set of naming conventions for a data update?
Many such policies may come from regulatory requirements, may be regional in nature, and may change in otherwise stable codebases. And it's even harder when you're applying this to a highly-scalable production internet service. As a result, defining policy at an organizational level with auditing is a challenge for large enterprises. OPA helps enterprises administer and enforce policies.
That's still not saying what it is, though. Is it a thing you put in front of your backend to allow/deny requests? Is it an endpoint something like nginx calls with an auth token and the http verb and url that responds with 200/403 that nginx can react to? Is it a library you embed in your application? Is it an agentic AI?
It's as though you're describing a car to someone who's never seen a car before by listing all the places you can go in a car.
I guess I’m familiar with the general concept/domain it’s in. I haven’t used it myself, but having it spelled out was enough base knowledge for me to grab on to.
Looking again, I see your point. If you don’t know what it is having the acronym spelled out doesn’t help much at all.
Still it clears the low bar provided by those announcements that just say something like:
“BEOTZ’s developers are joining Flmp.io. As well all know BEOTZ is popular and Flmp.io is a top provider to enterprises. We look forward to exciting things coming soon.”
If I sell Nvidia stock to buy AMD stock, I need to pay tax on my Nvidia stock gains.