Bitcoin: a new attack from the IMF
I wonder how many hours the analysts of the International Monetary Fund spent preparing another study, which begins with obvious facts, in order to draw the usual conclusion: more regulation is needed.
The study begins with an obvious, but nevertheless proven assumption: the adoption of cryptocurrencies (although it is unclear how the actual ratio was calculated) will be higher in those countries where there are more restrictions on the movement of capital and where corruption is perceived as higher. What all our readers should have already learned, given that Bitcoin and other crypto assets are becoming increasingly popular in Venezuela, Turkey, Nigeria and many other countries, where the role of the regulator is obviously played by a consortium advocating the status quo, and where for the rules that she set for herself the authorities, only citizens are responsible.
Something obvious, but leading (in the ideal IMF style) to a conclusion that has no connection with reality or with the problem itself. If we assume that this is a problem, because people, let’s say, not with high empathy, but ordinary people, should rejoice that citizens of countries with no rights today have access to a solid alternative, which the predatory claws of the state authorities of certain jurisdictions cannot grasp.
But no, following the old American proverb that when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail, the IMF launches another hasty call for the strictest regulation of cryptocurrencies at the international level, and, in particular, for the speedy adoption of CBDC, that is, digital currencies issued directly by the central bank, which also I could manage their wallets and program them.
It’s obvious, isn’t it? Citizens are fleeing countries where regulation makes them unsuccessful, and the solution to the problem is to give the regulator even more power. We must admit that this is puzzling, and we believe that our readers, after reading the article, will come to the same conclusions as we do.
Among other things, this is an indirect recognition of intentions: after all, if the fact that citizens now have the tools to confront certain governments causes irritation, then the IMF’s intentions become especially clear.
The (intentional) misunderstanding between CBDC, Bitcoin and cryptocurrency continues.
Although this article is delightfully brief, it also has room to repeat the narrative that CBDC is an alternative to cryptocurrencies and Bitcoin. This, of course, is not the case. On the contrary, CBDCs will give governments and national economies even more power over their citizens.
The power from which, as the article itself admits, they are trying to escape by resorting to that delightful technological conglomerate that Bitcoin and its network are. But in the IMF, as we already know, all roads lead to Rome. Or rather, all roads lead to the absolute necessity of transnational regulation, which will exhaust the possibilities of Bitcoin once and for all.
The simplest explanation most often turns out to be correct. And the simplest explanation for such persistence, not justified by the facts and figures of the IMF, lies in the enormous power that they risk losing.