Here I will strongly disagree. By way of background, I've run fixed income trading desks handling funky derivatives and bonds on the street, I've been a portfolio manager for one of the largest ILS funds in the world, and I've run the reserves for a large stablecoin and been a CRO in the crypto space. There are a few reasons I don't think this works: 1 - We often hear "same activity, same rules", but the reality is that the activity is not the same. Certainly, the mechanics of the activity are not the same once you drill down. Otherwise, please tell me how we regulate transactions in the traditional space where people go to their broker-dealer and withdraw all their stocks into their private wallets? Or maybe when they peer-to-peer clear their bond trades using automated software instead of going through DTCC? How about the capital, risk, and credit exposure that bank market making desks should hold with regard to their deposits of corporate bonds and US dollars into AMMs? You can tell the tone there is somewhat sarcastic, as literally none of those things are possible in the current financial system, but that is the point. It's not actually the same activity, and there are not clear rules. The presence of self-custodial arrangements, automated clearing, and completely different trading structures does require new rules and new regulation. To say we don't need new rules and regulations on these point is to reject progress in improving market structure and say the post-2008 Frankenstein compromise holding markets together is actually the Platonic ideal of market structure and should never change. 2 - Many of the lingering, unsolved problems from 2008 because we lacked the technological or (to be blunt) intellectual capability to solve them can be trivially solved using blockchains. Want to know where all that CDS was being sold from, instead of having AIG just go completely nuclear in the middle of the banking crisis? Want to know that those NINJA loans were never going to be paid off because the cash flows were failing early? Want to know that LTCM had massively over-levered themselves? You may not need a radically transparent public blockchain, but even a consortium chain or permissioned partition on a public chain where regulators had visibility could have revealed these issues. Hell, even just resolving Lehman's bankruptcy could have been much easier because the "where the hell is everything" step would have been far less complex. This is before we get to radical market improvements like peer-to-peer simultaneous exchange to settle a trade that eliminates counterparty credit risk for spot. 3 - There are many questions we cannot answer due to the opacity of the current system! I want everyone to spend a little time researching the drama around PFOF and the fact that basically nobody can determine if it lowers or increases prices for end users in any rigorous way (which means we have zero idea how to regulate it, because we can't even tell what it is doing). To say we don't need new rules or regulations because of crypto is also ignorant of the fact that there are problems with current rules and regulations where we need new ones, much less when that stuff starts colliding with new technology. In closing, if you don't believe new rules and regulations are needed, please explain to me how trading against an AMM, using a private wallet, on a chain with MEV is regulated under the current rules and how all participants involved (AMM LPs, validators, the party trading against the AMM, etc.) should operate. Show your work.