There are times when humanity does something that makes me think we aren't completely doomed. There is Federal Reserve rule-making proposal with the title:

Prohibition on Use of Reputation Risk or Other Supervisory Tools To Encourage or Compel Banking Organizations To Engage in Politicized or Unlawful DiscriminationProhibition on Use of Reputation Risk or Other Supervisory Tools To Encourage or Compel Banking Organizations To Engage in Politicized or Unlawful Discrimination

Since being published in February of this year, it has received more than 12,000 public comments:

The result is that the Fed’s staid website now features letters from throngs of people describing sexual desires, fetishes and other sensitive interests, such as a fan of “risqué pinup-style” drawings complaining about how financial firms keep stymying his attempts to commission art from Japan. Other writers span a variety of subcultures, including furries seeking access to erotic animal costumes or cartoon drawings (as one explained, “like those in Zootopia 2”).

The Fed’s proposal to do just that [stop encouraging financial firms to cut ties with customers whose pursuits are legal but might pose a “reputation risk.”] has ignited a burst of public involvement rarely if ever seen in its modern rulemaking. Its draft regulations typically attract a few dozen comments, or occasionally hundreds. Tally up every letter currently on the Fed’s website about other matters over the past decade and the total is less than 3,500.

But then came the anti-debanking measure, which has drawn more than 12,000 responses so far. It began with a flood of letters in March, continued through April and kept trickling in through May, even as the Fed’s deadline passed. Almost all of the commenters expressed opinions supporting the proposal (a Bloomberg review identified only a few dozen clearly opposed).

Commenters describe losing access to financial services after engaging in legal activities, while others expressed fear of being targeted for exercising free speech or pursuing the arts. Among people who specified a type of expression, more than 1,200 mentioned pornography or erotic drawings, literature and games.

But the stakes are high for debanking, too. Some artists and entrepreneurs described how they or acquaintances struggled to make rent or buy food after financial firms rejected them directly or threatened the online marketplaces where they sell goods.

Vocal constituencies also include people reporting a crackdown on LGBTQ culture or worrying about access to firearms. Comments on religion were split between protecting it from suppression or blaming it for debanking.

Both sides are also realizing they can be debanked. The Christian Employers Alliance, representing “faith driven” businesses and organizations, wrote in a comment letter that its beliefs and “moral conviction” may be labeled as too controversial or considered high risk. It said firms should stick to financial criteria, not ideology.

Likewise, banks shouldn’t be allowed to thwart gun sales, eroding the right to bear arms, Mississippi Treasurer David McRae wrote in a comment letter. “Access to our financial system and the ability to freely express our constitutional rights should never hinge on the political preferences of Wall Street,” he said.

I feel that Bitcoin has really missed on this one. These are exactly the people who's problems we should be figuring out how to fix. If they took the time to write a comment on the Fed's message board for this rule-making, they are perfect for orange-pilling.

On the other hand, perhaps we all would be better off if there was more debanking. It would make the lines very clear and I think that such a thing might help Bitcoin adoption more than most other things.

archive link