The purpose of this post wasn't to change any short-term direction. It was to simply recognize that optimizing the exchange business is a short-term strategy for a larger long-term goal.
There are so many choices for future work / direction that failure to take stock of product / market fit can be a disaster.
Was your post in response to the "Security Panic" we see from governments and individuals who are blaming encryption for the terrorist attacks?
Risk based approach to policy would say that because the odds of dying in a terrorist attack are something like 20,000,000 to 1, and the odds of being struct by lightening or getting in a car accident are much higher, the probability should set the policies rather than emotions.
Unfortunately I think a lot of politicians and people in law enforcement wait for a terrorist attack to push for policies they've been trying to push for years. Backdoors in encryption which would make us all less secure, or banning encryption, these policies aren't based on the statistics. The danger from a terrorist attack doesn't quantatatively justify the level of sacrifice to civil liberties they are demanding.
If the situation were different and suddenly terrorist attacks were becoming much more frequent, with much higher death tolls, then I would understand their policies and crack downs, but so far no terrorist attack that I know of has been directly funded primarily by Bitcoin, or any cryptocurrency, and as far as I know terrorists have always had encryption and value transfer.
Hawala has existed for a long time. And encryption itself was invented in the regions which are now involved in terrorist attacks. If we look at any of the World Wars or the Cold War then we find encryption was used. Law enforcement never before had the ability to decrypt everything and monitor everyone, and in war the NSA is supposed to have those capabilities.
My conclusion is that for the most part it's political. Any time when decisions are made in the heat of them moment, where emotions are high, then you could get less than rational policies and outcomes. This isn't to say that ISIS can't hurt us or that there is no risk at all, but more that the reactions and threat of a crackdown are not rational because their own documents say so.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/468210/UK_NRA_October_2015_final_web.pdfSo when marketing certain features, it should be known that:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/youre-55-times-likely-killed-police-officer-terrorist.htmlhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818The statistics reveal the true security situation. If the statistics don't show an increasing risk, maybe it's imagined.