Is a regulation necessary for Bitcoin?
The president of the European Central Bank , Christine Lagarde, calls for a global regulation for Bitcoin in a statement given last week. Although some media presented the news as a catastrophe for Bitcoin, at no time was the word "ban" mentioned. Regulation is regulation. In theory at least, the intention of a regulation is not to destroy, but to strengthen. The press reacted quite strongly to Lagarde's statements, but the markets did not interpret the event as something particularly negative. The hype has not gone away and the increases are maintained.
The comments of the director of the European Central Bank coincided with a statement issued by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the UK regulatory body , which warned Bitcoin investors that they will prepare to lose all their money due to the high risk of the active.
Read on: Why has Bitcoin gone up so much?
What is the problem with Bitcoin? If we target the more liberals within the community, there is no problem with Bitcoin. In fact, its lack of regulation is arguably one of its most valuable attributes. One could talk about financial freedom, privacy, and the absence of censorship. Here we enter into debates about the authority of the Government over our money and issues related to our sovereignty. Should there be laws on money laundering? Should the Government track and / or censor our financial operations?
Of course, many of these ideas are aspirations. Like it or not, today's world has its ways. What for many is freedom, for others is chaos, abuse and crime. Not everyone in this world wants to live in a Wild West. Here we have the other side of the coin. For many, Bitcoin is not reliable, because it is a kind of No Man's Land. That same freedom that many consider their most valuable attribute is taken by others as their great fault.
In the libertarian universe, everything is a matter of individual responsibility. Fraud, manipulation, and crime are fought with individual responsibility. That is, you have to be skeptical and distrustful. Do the research. And, in the case of becoming a victim, suffer the consequences as a personal fault. In other words, the libertarian utopia is not for everyone. It is the Protestant ethic taken to the extreme. Individualism, personal responsibility, and autonomy. We are talking about a United States of the nineteenth century during the time of Thomas Jefferson and the farmer Yeoman. This is a world that only exists for a minority.
There are subjects with automatic weapons, self-sufficient farms, and signs on the door that say: “This land is my land. Get out of here, Feds. " That world exists, but they are not the majority. Most await protection from the authorities. He takes refuge in the laws. And regulation inspires confidence.
What does Christine Lagarde say about Bitcoin? Well, L agarde described this asset as "highly speculative" and assured that it has led to some "funny deals" and "objectionable money laundering activity" . Lie? I do not think so. We well know that Bitcoin is a highly speculative asset. That is its main attraction. But what does "highly speculative" mean? In the context of Lagarde's statements, it could mean volatile, risky, and manipulated. Lie?
Are the exchanges trustworthy? Can we trust your data? Is the price the price? Is it the volume is the volume? Are all the actors honest? We know that many exchanges engage in fraudulent activities and hide behind libertarian rhetoric in order to operate with impunity. And there is an issue that many in this community do not want to hear. Regulation will be good for Bitcoin. I'm not talking about stifling or excessive regulation. I'm talking about proper regulation. That market needs to mature. Exchanges must adhere to certain standards. In other words, they must begin to act with greater responsibility.
The arrival of institutional capital is marking a before and after for Bitcoin. Here we are talking about an essentially countercultural movement with libertarian and anti-system ideas that is being invaded by the big financial institutions, changing its composition, its narrative, and its values. What does a libertarian bitcoiner think about Bitcoin regulation? Surely, he thinks it is a system outrage. What does the manager of a hedge fund investing in Bitcoin think about regulating Bitcoin? Surely, you think it is something very necessary.
Of course, it is not a matter of regulation by regulation. It is about defining the rules of the game from the beginning. The creation of a clear and comprehensive legal framework is really necessary. In this way, large capitals can continue to invest in Bitcoin with greater peace of mind. That is positive because the rules bring confidence. And trust attracts capital. The idea of regulation, perhaps, is not very attractive to the most idealistic, but it is great for investors.
What can we say about the warning from the UK authorities about Bitcoin reaching zero? It seems to me that it is a rather prudent recommendation. As Bitcoin investors, we must prepare for that possibility. If we read in detail, the warning was not a decree or a prophecy. It was a recommendation to be prepared. Even the most devoted bitcoiners have made this recommendation at some point. It's on the list. Do not buy Bitcoin with credit. Do not use money that you will need. Understand that you can lose everything.
In other words, the market has done well not to interpret Lagarde's statements as negative. She did the planning to measure the reactions. And, surely, the issue will be included in the agenda of the G7 and then the G20. And I would say that these conversations will have the support of the new leaders of the Bitcoin community.
Read on: Not Libra anymore. Now it's Diem. What is the difference?
On the other hand, we must also say that state cryptocurrencies are inevitable. That comes, sooner or later. There will be a digital euro . But we cannot say that it will be in the same category as Bitcoin and the rest of the cryptocurrencies. Despite using blockchain technology , these new digital currencies will not be very different from today's electric money. They will remain fiat money under the control of central banks. A little more versatile and portable perhaps. But, essentially, legal tender fiat money.
In the Wild West of anarchists and libertarians, the word "regulation" is taboo. Of course, large capitals are not fans of excessive regulation, but investing in assets with no clear rules is quite reckless. That is the detail with the regulation. Anarchy is not good. Nobody wants chaos. But nobody wants bad regulation. What is wanted is adequate regulation.