for example
for the crypto vs sec scenario
it is often portrayed as “bad crypto” vs “bad gensler/sec”
however both parties are simply doing the things that either one must do as
an interpretation of mandate
or
within the interest of a group
discretization occurs when there are many conflicting decision makers within a company, group, or agency
when the in-group makes a decision
the “consensus mechanism”
for weights in determining a choice or action pathway between A, B, C etc
may be vanishingly small
51% for choice/pathway A va for 49% choice/pathway B
after an in-group decides internally
many times the in-group wants to provide a united front
when presenting the decision to out-groups
so the out-groups never know how hotly or deeply contested a decision was once the in-group decides what to do and out-groups become aware of the decision
an SEC decision regarding crypto is notably always followed by a dissenting Hester opinion
hence in what many may interpret as the evil SEC disregarding rule of law or making dumb enforcement decisions
may just be a form of strategic ambiguity
to cast greyness into a free zone of regulatory non-clarity
to buy time
so that politicians and congressional lawmakers
can figure out how to set up rules and incentives
for an ever expanding and evolving area
that nets out into how top-down paternalistic government ought to be
vs bottom-up laissez faire
the core crux in question boils down to
do i let the children sort out any problems or conflicts
or do i get involved?
these are not centuries-long questions and even millenia questions
these challenges of parental intervention vs non-intervention
are threaded through parables, mythologies, religious texts
what many fail to notice is that there are questions with no resolved answers
yet circumstances dictate discrete decisions, actions, rules, laws, incentives, enforcements, interpretations and so forth