Central Bank of rain water or sunshine is pointless as well. I see no difference to be honest. Money is what we make it to be.
One of the main reasons governments will want to have rain water reserves probably would be:
- To have reserves against dry seasons
- To purify the rain water
- To prevent criminals from drinking water
- To prevent criminals from terrorizing people with water.
- To sell the water for profits
- To help distribute the water, etc
By the way, I thought we already have digital currencies managed by national central banks?
Hopefully, central banks of decentralized cryptocurrencies do not lead to the banning of the real thing.
That would be like trying to ban rain
Topic: Central Bank Cryptocurrencies Are Pointless, Says Ex-Federal Reserve Chairman - page 2. (Read 211 times)
November 14, 2019, 09:07:58 AM
November 14, 2019, 09:05:36 AM
they are always against it at first and only as long as they are not doing it themselves. maybe they don't see the profit in it right now and want to see others go ahead and get burnt first before they themselves jump in. otherwise in the end after this experimental phase ended and a couple of bank shitcoins were created, everyone else jumps on board too and create their own centralized shitcoin.
November 14, 2019, 08:23:48 AM
I agree with his statement, crypto issued by the central bank can't be called crypto. people who want to use crypto are those who hate centralization. so if the central bank releases their coins, I'm sure it won't work because no one will use it.
November 14, 2019, 07:33:20 AM
I think it's not pointless if the Central Banks are creating cryptocurrencies that base in Blockchain, Maybe it can be helpful to drive adoption since cryptocurrencies was promoted by the government itself. The innovation that started by cryptocurrencies will be published if every countries in the world will make there own Blockchain base cryptocurrency the governance is not an issue here maybe it was centralized or decentralized form.
November 14, 2019, 07:01:09 AM
Do you agree with Alan Greenspan’s statements about central bank cryptocurrencies are being pointless?
Let aside crypto promotion, which central banks don't want to do, central bank cryptocurrencies are not pointless.
They would offer an alternative - a more trusted one if implemented correctly - to all the known stable coins, existing (USDT, GUSD, ..) or not (LIBRA).
November 14, 2019, 06:41:13 AM
This will be a kind of Libra crypto currency. A virtual coin that is based on blockchain, but is still centralised and fully controlled. I do not see any purpose in such currencies, especially in XRP, Libra and coins that are under a total control.
November 14, 2019, 06:36:54 AM
The perceived inevitability of central bank-issued digital currencies on a global scale has been a hot topic of discussion for a while now. With China reportedly going ever so close to releasing the world’s first nationalized digital currency, central banks in most major economies are under immense pressure to follow suit — or at least evaluate the feasibility of any such move.
However, if we’re to go by Alan Greenspan’s take on the issue, the underlying concept of national digital currencies is pretty redundant and serves no useful purpose.
Read here for the full news article
I have a question to all of you guys here. Do you agree with Alan Greenspan’s statements about central bank cryptocurrencies are being pointless?
For me, central bank cryptocurrencies does promote the industry that we’re in. However, “central” is the main concern where “Big Brother” is always watching unlike being decentralized.
Let me know about your opinion or thought about this one peeps! I know some of you might agree, others won’t, and others might be mixed reactions. Feel free to share it here guys! Thanks!
Jump to: