Why You Don't Need to Worry About a Bitcoin Ban

Worried about getting banned? Then You Need Bitcoin More Than You Think

Skeptics often argue that when Bitcoin becomes too important and threatens U.S. sovereignty, the government will ban it. At least these critics understand the importance of Bitcoin, and the power exerted by the US currency monopoly. What they don't understand is the power of distributed open source technology and the game theory the United States faces in making these decisions. TLDR: Bans are ineffective, they simply cede global technological power to peers. The U.S. government is more inclined to try retrogressive regulations. If you live in this type of regime, you need Bitcoin more than you think.

Self-regulation is the most important component of a distributed open-source technology like Bitcoin. The supply of Bitcoin is pre-set with a hard limit of 21 million units. Blocks are mined every 10 minutes on average. Miners are rewarded with new Bitcoins. The increase in supply is halved every 4 years. Anyone can By running a node to view and verify transactions, no one can be censored out of the network if they have internet access and follow the consensus rules. No matter what you, me, or US regulators think, these principles will not change. The U.S. government can try to ban its citizens from using the network, but Bitcoin will continue to operate on the Internet. Hester Peirce of the Securities and Exchange Commission recently made this point, concluding that "governments are foolish to ban Bitcoin".

Xinhuo Technology: No capital exposure in Genesis: According to news on November 17, Xinhuo Technology stated that Xinhuo Technology and its subsidiaries have no capital exposure in Genesis. Xinhuo Technology also added: In this FTX incident, Hbit, a subsidiary of Xinhuo Technology, has a certain amount of capital exposure to FTX. We are actively taking various solutions to this, including taking legal measures to recover losses as soon as possible. At the same time, we hope to be responsible for the platform customers with the attitude of priority payment and simultaneous recovery. Mr. Li Lin, the major shareholder of the company, has reached an unsecured zero-interest financing agreement with Xinhuo Technology, and the company is operating normally. For details, please refer to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange announcement issued by the company on November 14. In addition, Xinhuo Technology and its subsidiaries do not have any financial exposure to Genesis. [2022/11/17 13:18:35]

A ban is ineffective and probably impossible

The first digital collection in Tibet was successfully released online: news on July 22. On July 21, the first digital collection in Tibet was released online under the joint guidance of the Lhasa Municipal People's Government, the Economic and Information Department of the Tibet Autonomous Region and the Management Committee of Liuwu New District. The ceremony was held in Lhasa. According to reports, Tibet's first digital collection "Songtsan Gampo's Horse Head Sacred Silver Pot" is based on a copy of the original cultural relic made by Dop Ciga, a master of arts and crafts in the Tibet Autonomous Region and a representative inheritor of Tibet Autonomous Region-level intangible cultural heritage. Second creation.

The original of Tibet's first digital collection "Songtsan Gampo's Holy Silver Pot with Horse Head" is preserved in the Jokhang Temple, which is a witness of the exchanges and integration of various ethnic groups in Tibet. Digital collections can realize authentic and credible digital distribution, purchase, collection and use. On the same day, "Songtsan Gampo: Horse Head Sacred Silver Pot" was made into a digital collection, and 10,000 copies of the collection were sold to the public at a price of 18 yuan per copy, which has been sold out. (Xinhuanet) [2022/7/22 2:31:48]

Even if the US were to ban Bitcoin, it would be ineffective. The U.S. government banned alcohol during Prohibition, but alcohol is still widely available there. Bitcoin isn't even a physical entity, so how are governments going to seize it? It's very difficult to ban people from using code on the Internet. In the U.S., the legality of any potential Bitcoin ban is even a question mark, since Bitcoin is ultimately code, which may be a protected category of free speech under the First Amendment.

OlympusDAO's vote to split the securitization market Olympus Pro and rename it to Bond Protocol has been passed: Golden Finance News, the algorithmic stablecoin protocol OlympusDAO split the securitization market Olympus Pro and renamed it to the Bond Protocol vote has been passed, Olympus Bond Protocol will be used for bond protocol operations, and Bond Protocol will have functions such as a permissionless market, combinable bonds (tokenization), and a modular auction interface. At present, the official Twitter of Olympus Pro has completed the name and icon changes. In addition, the OP tokens accumulated by the original Olympus Pro in Optimism will remain in the Olympus vault. [2022/7/18 2:20:15]

Banning bitcoin would be foolish and ineffective, but the US could certainly increase the barriers to entry. Regulators could enforce KYC and AML requirements, or raise taxes, which could slow Bitcoin adoption. However, it is hard to believe that the U.S. government would enforce stricter policies on Bitcoin than other financial assets. While the U.S. government has crossed the line with Bitcoin before, there is no precedent or incentive to do so. Also, are they willing to live with the consequences if they do? While other nations embrace this powerful technology, do the world's major powers want to reject it? Republican policymaker Kevin McCarthy commented on this geopolitical trade-off in a recent interview:

Web3 network WeatherXM completes USD 5 million seed round financing, led by Placeholder VC: June 30 news, Web3 network WeatherXM completes USD 5 million seed round financing, led by Placeholder VC, with participation from Metaplanet, ConsenSys Mesh, Protocol Labs and Border Capital cast.

It is reported that WeatherXM is a network that uses cryptocurrency incentives to improve the accuracy of weather forecasts. (The Block)[2022/6/30 1:42:31]

U.S. policymakers have expressed concern about the possibility of ceding the initiative to China. This type of regulatory competition has pushed Miami Mayor Francis Suarez to embrace Bitcoin as he encourages tech-savvy capital to flow into his city.

Perhaps positive Bitcoin regulation is as likely as negative regulation?

Feiyang Group launched the digital cultural and creative collection platform "Feiyang Universe": On April 26th, the listed company Feiyang Group (01901.HK) announced that the company's main operating entity in China, Zhejiang Feiyang International Tourism Group Co., Ltd., recently officially Launched the "Flying Universe" digital cultural and creative collection platform, which is mainly engaged in the issuance and sales of "digital + physical" cultural and creative collections (blockchain contract uniqueness certification). (Gelonghui) [2022/4/26 5:12:30]

If all countries could coordinate and implement a ban simultaneously, its impact would be even greater. But in a world of fractious geopolitics, how likely is global coordination? The UK is busy arguing with the EU, and the US is busy arguing with China. Neither of them can ban Bitcoin at the same time. The multipolar worldview outlined by Marko Papici in his recent book Geopolitical Alpha reinforces my belief that the geopolitical conditions needed for a coordinated global strike against Bitcoin do not exist.

Moving from macro factors to micro factors, is the US willing to destroy Bitcoin companies within its own borders? If we think about Coinbase, Gemini, and others, we realize that Bitcoin is becoming entrenched, especially in the world's largest economy, the United States. Most countries in the world have exchanges, businesses hold Bitcoin on their balance sheets, CME offers Bitcoin futures, and people in the U.S. Congress are direct supporters of BTC. Former U.S. regulators have joined Binance and BlockFi in recent weeks, underscoring the growing relationship between bitcoin-related businesses and the government. There is a good chance that many politicians hold bitcoin themselves.

I suspect bitcoiners have a stronger, more organized, and more vocal lobby than their opponents.

Most countries have adopted a wait-and-see attitude because they do not know exactly what to do with Bitcoin technology. They hope that innovation, jobs and economic growth will emerge, and they believe the industry is too small to pose a real threat. The longer they wait, the more entrenched the industry will become and the less likely negative regulation will be. This factor becomes even more meaningful when you consider the economic and political rise of millennials.

According to the Fall 2020 Blockchain Capital survey, 55% of millennials are likely to buy Bitcoin in the next 5 years, compared to only 19% of those in the 55-64 age group. Millennials are three times as likely as their parents to own cryptocurrencies, as they are more familiar with new technologies and are comfortable with intangible assets, likely viewing the asset as an opportunity for them to create a healthier financial future. Over time, this generation has moved closer to seats of political power. At least they will be considered by vote-hungry politicians.

Maybe you need Bitcoin more than you think?

invalid? Yes; impossible? Yes; however, a Bitcoin ban is still possible.

But governments that ban new technologies tend to share a certain profile. Such governments tend to be more authoritarian and do not support individual liberties, as in Venezuela. It is in these countries that Bitcoin is most needed. Venezuelans don't care what the government says - they need Bitcoin to protect themselves from hyperinflation. Afghans and Belarusians need access to digital bank accounts that free them from government control. Turkey and Nigeria are good recent examples where Bitcoin has become a need and a must. In the past month, Erdogan’s government in Turkey has announced measures to prevent merchants from accepting bitcoin, while Nigeria has clamped down on exchanges. In response, interest in bitcoin has soared to record highs in both countries.

the

Turkey and Nigeria are already bitcoin hotspots because people in those countries know their governments don’t protect the value of their currencies (the U.S. dollar is up 450% against the Turkish lira and 170% against the Nigerian naira since 2010). Explain that these government measures to control Bitcoin have not discouraged people's interest in it.

The moral of the story is that if you thought the US government would ban Bitcoin, you need it more than you think.

At some point, the U.S. government may be threatened by the Bitcoin ecosystem. The possibility of looming regulation is understandably a hurdle for potential investors. If we dig into the underlying scenarios, we find that the most effective response to Bitcoin from the U.S. government is the same as yours: Embrace it. In this case, the U.S. government can at least try to extract as much tax revenue as possible from this booming industry. A ban is foolish unless the US government can re-coordinate globally. Only the most backward governments will prevent their citizens from interacting with this powerful technology, and it is in these countries that the demand for Bitcoin is strongest. Everyone needs to decide where they are on this spectrum, but don't take too long to decide. The stakes are too high, and the opportunities too great, to let the threat of regulation deter action entirely.

This article was written by Rob Price and the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC, Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.

Original: Bitcoin Magazine

Tags：

SAND