This is the title of an article[1] that I wanted to share and to discuss with you. I find it full of FUD and misleading that is why I wanted to show you the article and get your sentiment on the topic discussed. As written, it was stated that:
- Bitcoin is rarely used for legal transactions
Explanation:
Bitcoin was created to overcome the existing monetary and financial system. In 2008, the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto published the concept. Since then, Bitcoin has been marketed as a global decentralised digital currency. However, Bitcoin's conceptual design and technological shortcomings make it questionable as a means of payment: real Bitcoin transactions are cumbersome, slow and expensive. Bitcoin has never been used to any significant extent for legal real-world transactions.
My Reaction:The author simple generalization of Bitcoin usage is mediocre. He jump in a conclusion without doing any research of his own topic. If he could have known how to type and search legal company that accept Bitcoin, he would be ashamed of what he just stated.
One major proof to refute the claim of the author about Bitcoin never been used for legal-transaction is the number of company that accept Bitcoin. Some of them are already listed on this article:
https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin/who-accepts/ and many more unmentioned company and retail stores that accept BTC.
- Regulation can be misunderstood as approval
Large investors also fund lobbyists who push their case with lawmakers and regulators. In the US alone, the number of crypto lobbyists has almost tripled from 115 in 2018 to 320 in 2021. Their names sometimes read like a who's who of US regulators.
But lobbying activities need a sounding board to have an impact. Indeed, lawmakers have sometimes facilitated the influx of funds by supporting the supposed merits of Bitcoin and offering regulation that gave the impression that crypto assets are just another asset class. Yet the risks of crypto assets are undisputed among regulators. In July, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) called for crypto assets and markets to be subject to effective regulation and supervision commensurate with the risks they pose - along the doctrine of "same risk, same regulation".
My Reaction:Who cares about Government regulation, what matters is the adoption of masses since Bitcoin is already fair as it is and does not need the approval of the government to operate. As a matter of fact, the mediatory action of government often messed up a system that is fine in itself. And Bitcoin is fine as it is but government wanted to have a piece on the pie reason why they intended to regulate Bitcoin in order to milk it either of tax or rob it via confiscation.
Furthermore, regulation has two function, either regulation to ban it or regulation to limit and coexist with the Bitcoin system. The latter is the acknowledgement of Bitcoin and approval of its existence with some tweak via implementing regulation to the Bitcoin influence. So my take, regulation is a double standard word where one is to totally limit it while the other is to compromise and approved Bitcoin existence by limiting the objects influence.
- Promoting Bitcoin bears a reputational risk for banks
Since Bitcoin appears to be neither suitable as a payment system nor as a form of investment, it should be treated as neither in regulatory terms and thus should not be legitimised. Similarly, the financial industry should be wary of the long-term damage of promoting Bitcoin investments - despite short-term profits they could make (even without their skin in the game). The negative impact on customer relations and the reputational damage to the entire industry could be enormous once Bitcoin investors will have made further losses.
My Reaction:This one I agree, despite of his reasoning, Promotion of Bitcoin expose banks of its shortcomings and how they cheat their client so YES! Promoting Bitcoin bears a reputational risk for banks because they will be exposed of their fraud.
All in all the writer is obviously anti-Bitcoin but his explanation on the selected topic to convince people are all moot. So what is your take on the subject of discussion? Do You agree with what the author stated?
[1]
THE ECB BLOG | Bitcoin’s last stand
