Topic: [2019-10-18] Bitcoin Has Failed But Global Stablecoins a Threat, Say BIS and G7 - page 2. (Read 438 times)

crazy, right? tether and bitfinex have a real knack for poking the bear, or in this case poking the dragon. https://tether.to/tether-now-supports-offshore-chinese-yuan-cnh-launches-cnht-stablecoin/

the circulating supply is pretty small right now; only 25,000,000 CNHT have been issued. still, we've seen how quickly that can change. https://etherscan.io/token/0x6e109e9dd7fa1a58bc3eff667e8e41fc3cc07aef


i'm still a unclear on the exact dynamics between the CNY and CNH markets. is offering a CNH stablecoin somehow less threatening to china's public stance?

I'm leaning towards this interpretation... (so you might be wasting your time listening to me guessing, in other words)

Cryptocurrencies are an intelligence agencies power-grab. Whether they were satoshi or not isn't relevant, they will have been watching/participating in the early cypherpunk movement in the 90's, were almost certainly mining BTC early on and very likely still behind many mining operations and, assuming this is a power grab, they're actually working towards making cryptocurrencies strong, not weakened with backdoors. The reasoning is pretty simple: it's been long speculated that cryptography and computer science could be used to develop currencies like Bitcoin, and the intelligence agencies are world experts in both, cryptography especially. If it can be done, trying to hold back the tide is a waste of time, better to either win the race, or failing that, ride the waves.

The financial industry (and especially the IMF & central banks) are probably highly suspicious of the intelligence agencies right now, assuming I am correct. But what could they do? It all comes down to who is best placed with the big 3 military powers, intelligence or the banks (UK/France etc don't count, or are essentially part of the US military). The intelligence people could conceivably have the upper hand there, either through loyalty or blackmail material. And if I was in the military command, I think I'd choose the scientists and psychologists over the a bunch of crafty bean-counters.


So how could such a powerplay affect stablecoins? Intelligence agencies infiltrate everywhere, that's their job. Playing the right games to keep stablecoins running should be pretty easy, simply tell high-ups at banks and financial regulators that you're setting up an operation to catch some big fish etc etc, just keep coming up with new bullshit until it stops working, then come up with a completely new angle How do you think the crypto exchanges have stayed open so long, when it's functionally equivalent to the banks watching their own suicide in slow-motion? The banks like a bit of fair and honest competition, right?



they're doing what?

that would be huge. Without the DPRC giving party approval, that sort thing must be either super difficult or impossible, I am amazed to hear that. Although if Hong Kong banks have kicked Bitfinex out, you've gotta ask yourself exactly who's backing the Cayman Islands. Logically, it's the US, so maybe it is possible that Bitfinex are circumventing Chinese approval, but I somehow doubt it. I think the Chinese gov certainly will need to publicly disapprove of CNY stablecoins, as their public stance otherwise is explicit heavy control of the yuan in every way possible, CNY stablecoins fly in the face of that. But in private, this might (but not in the short term, volumes need to be colossal) be at least one useful scapegoat in the event that currency markets suffer a shock.

This is what I don't want about international organizations they conclude on something they really don't even have the whole story yet. You know why not let the people speak for themselves if they have the same views as them that Bitcoin isn't a "reliable and attractive means of payment or store of value" since for all I know the people who are already in the industry and even not part of it are still interested in having other options aside from the traditional payments we have which will most likely have banks, payment processors, and remittances giving people added costs and making this bigger corporations even fatter by the minute. This isn't really a good conclusion for a study if you consider it because they only view it one-sidedly  and obviously it will all just give Bitcoin a lot of negative comments.

Firstly, I'm not surprised with the words said by the  G7 and Bank for International Settlements because they are always after their own benefit and most of them don't like the fact that cryptocurrency was liberation for the masses which is the reason why they only see the problem cryptocurrency had while they ignore the problem they ought to fix to make the economy better for every individual.

Bitcoin was created 10years ago and have performed beautifully while the G7 and institutions only give us lame excuse about fixing the economic meltdown. So, we shouldn't expect them to say something good about bitcoin and the genuine stable we have in the market.

What are your thoughts on the prospects of that? The apparent focus on stablecoins has everyone thinking about Libra but I'm increasingly wondering about US and Chinese government interest in Tether as its market cap continues to grow, and as they establish their CNH stablecoin.


It seems like they were banking in Hong Kong a year ago. The latest I heard was that they were banking from the Cayman Islands. I imagine they'll bank wherever they can.

We cant still be sure if the government doesn't take bitcoin more serious these days due to the statement made by the G7 and Bank for International which clearly shows they are planning to create some kind of FUD in the market but I believe that the Libra issue was what triggered the gathering.

remember too that e-gold and Liberty Reserve were USD denominated services, hosted in Central American countries that are officially not US states, but in practice are heavily controlled by the US. It was probably within the US gov's control to shut those 2 down very quickly, but they couldn't afford to do so without revealing exactly how much influence they have in Central America. So simply using them to collect user data wasn't such a bad option for a few years, before they could raid them in a more politically expedient manner (apparently sending in the FBI, to a country foreign to the US )

whatever leverage the US can gain over Bitfinex to shut down Tether, it's not going to be quite so easy. The situation in Hong Kong (where it seems pretty likely that Bitfinex holds it's dollar accounts) no doubt complicates things more...

The statements about Libra being a stable coin is a thread to financial-economic blablabla is massively exaggerated, it's nonsense. Libra coin will be pegged to major sovereign currencies to maintain its value, to use it people have to comply with KYC to fulfill AML policy, not a threat to the international monetary systems obviously.
On the other hand, bitcoin is a decentralized system that has been proven successful as a means of payment (borderless) and a store of value (it starts from cents to $8K atm), although it's not attractive like they claim.

They are saying that Bitcoin failed to become a popular payment method or a store of value, and they are right, but this doesn't mean that Bitcoin is dead, it's an unpopular payment method that grows at its own pace, it's not going to disappear.


There's not much problems for central banks, stablecoins require permissions to operate, otherwise the underlying company will get fined and closed down. Bigger coins like Libra won't even see the day's light, smaller coins can be eventually taken down. Do you remember Liberty Reserve or egold? Stable coins are just like them.

If Bitcoin doesn't meet the approval criteria of the establishment, that's a win in my book.  If you view it from a fundamentally flawed mindset, of course it's not going to look how you think it should.  But if you understand why fiat currencies inevitably collapse given sufficient time, Bitcoin starts to look pretty damn sensible.

Another few years of "failure" like the last 10.75 would be quite welcome.  😂.  

I quite like an appreciating store of value vs one that is having its value inflated away every year like fiat.  Under their definition, fiat has failed as a store of value since you lose value every single year.

If bitcoin is to reach a "stable" value it will do so in the upper six or low 7 figure USD range. Then it will appreciate slower than in the past so it will be still increasing in value vs inflating away.

What failure? They are comparing 2 completely different things. A decentralized currency that was literally made to be unstable and uncontrollable, to future speculative stablecoins that are likely going to be controlled and created by governments.

Central banks are going to get a lot new problems with this new wave of stablecoins. Libra was the matyr and took the blame for everything so now we can see a wave of stablecoins eventually take over. Unlucky Facebook, I really don't think Libra will be getting anywhere when these new stablecoins launch...

Okay, let's just agree to the assessment of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) that Bitcoin failed miserably as a form of currency and store of value. This is a big good news, actually. Why? Because had Bitcoin succeeded as such in their point of view then they will categorize Bitcoin as a big threat and should be controlled if not entirely blocked and eliminated. So let's just follow along with this evaluation anyway BIS has no pull and influence with the industry and certainly has no effect on Bitcoin's price in any way.

The message of this released statement is quite clear: Bitcoin is fine but Libra is not. How will Libra able to convince member governments of the European Union can be a story to watch and learn. Will Mark embark on a journey to talk to the heads of these governments and explain to them one by one why Libra should be allowed to operate in their jurisdictions or will he group them together, throw a big party, bring in big entertainers from Hollywood and promise them anything they wanted just for Libra to make a launch without hitches?

The most important thing is that Bitcoin is okay, not a threat and therefore can go on developing more of itself as a currency and a store of value.

Bitcoiners are the weirdos to get suckered in and pay the price for their believe in something that most banksters in the world tried to combat. Congratz to you all!

So long as banksters and all other nay-sayers *falsely* try to convince you that Bitcoin doesn't work, won't ever work, and is a fraud, you can be assured that they 1) aren't done accumulating, and 2) we haven't even remotely seen Bitcoin's impact on the financial system as we know it.

If central banks do consider stablecoins a threat, which they can be, then it's fantastic that Tether is shifting from Omni to ERC20, which means that Bitcoin will have even less attack surface. Ethereum on the other hand....... Say hi to Vitalik and mr Lubin!

I also am very content with Bitcoin's "failure", there must be something wrong with me

Cool, some big governments don't take Bitcoin seriously today, and I'm happy with that, it means there's far less chances that it will get banned or regulated by them, so we can still enjoy our wild west for a while. I remember how not so long ago people here were theorizing that Libra was just a ploy to ban Bitcoin by bringing regulator's attention to cryptocurrency as a whole, but maybe it's actually the opposite - Libra distracted them from looking at Bitcoin, and some officials even praised Bitcoin when it was compared to Libra.

The G7 and Bank for International Settlements took a jab at Bitcoin in their latest report, saying it has "so far failed to provide a reliable and attractive means of payment or store of value."

They seem much more concerned about oversight of stablecoins. The report seems like another nail in Libra's coffin.