I'd argue it's not so much crypto having an "incest" problem, it's that finance has an incest problem. For example, I think Credit Suisse was nearly insolvent in the last year from issues stemming from a few family offices making gigantic bad bets.<p>The difference with traditional finance and crypto is this.<p>> Traditional finance is more well-established and with far deeper pockets and most of the clowns have long since been killed off, so it takes a lot longer for issues to pop up in traditional finance.<p>> Unlike Crypto, traditional finance has an incestuous relationship with government officials and they get bailed out by daddy government when they fuck up. This creates a perverse incentive for shady actions because they know they'll either win a bet or get bailed out either way.<p>> Crypto is more publicly transparent than traditional finance. A central crypto exchange can try and publish addresses of their holdings in an attempt to at least partially prove assets and solvency, and I think there's a few systems being engineered to mathematically prove their entire assets and liabilities to prove complete solvency in a trustless manner. But as far as I know, there's no real mechanism for this in traditional finance other than various levels of semi-bullshit "independent audits". And I'd bet at least some traditional finance systemic problems can be swept under the rug for quite a while. The system allegedly has rules against naked shorting and other things that are clearly ignored by the SEC, as just one of many tiny examples.<p>PS: What's with the clickbait headline? LMAO. What next? "Crypto gives blind orphans cancer".