Topic: What is the IMF Qualms With Regulating/ Banning Bitcoin? (Read 204 times)

I think the IMF was not ready for Bitcoin and did not expect Bitcoin/other cryptocurrencies to become such a gigantic movement. They were not ready to implement anything which would go outside the current fiat regulatory framework and they are now playing for time while they figure out how to deeper regulate cryptocurrency. And the truth is they have no idea how to and are starting to become desperate.

I doubt that they will find a way to regulate Bitcoin effectively. Perhaps they have realized that and are now hoping on the introduction of CBDCs as some sort of alternative.

According to Janet Yellen, USA treasury Secretary, the government is delaying the regulation of cryptocurrency, so in support of the IMF managing director she added that cryptocurrency ban should be an option. If regulating it is difficult to achieve then opposing it as a legal tender should be a strong move for them. In my opinion or as stated by some twitter users, the government, and IMF are scared of what bitcoin would do to the financial economy of the world, that's why they launched the "Element of Effective Policies for crypto Assets" Paper, to annalyze and monitor cryptocurrency activities from defying the effectiveness of monetary policy. They may not be in charge anymore. And the G20 meeting  proofs how surprised Indian finance minister are about bitcoin, despite the multiple ban on the currency, in the way they expected, it didn't affect its growth. That's why they chose to warn El Salvador from utilizing bitcoin as a legal tender.



https://twitter.com/cryptonator1337/status/1628836277587001347/photo/1

Yeah, they're like any other bank. The worst they can do to a country that adopts Bitcoin as a legal tender is just decline their loan requests. They literally cannot do anything else as they have no executive power.


And meanwhile, banks themselves continue to dive into bitcoin-related financial projects of their own making and asking their governments to give them blessings for it.

But people likes Bitcoin. Now if they banned it, they will only be hated. If we are talkin about the high-class politicians then I think they aren't really bothered with that because they still have money to support their living. They have power/connection. That is something that we normal individuals doesn't have at the moment and that is why we are only depending on Bitcoin at the moment.

Maybe it's true that those who have a Bitcoin (lots of it) will be the high class of society in the future, once Bitcoin value pumps a lot and this is the reason why some governments banned Bitcoin because they can't accept that fact. They think normal individuals are now more powerful than them.

they want to ban bitcoin for people, more for the high class of politicians, no, those who will have bitcoin in the future will be the high class of society.

I think the deviation in opinion stems from the IMF being on one end of the spectrum, with investment banks, hedge funds and other large financial institutions on the other.

Some demographics seek an outright ban of bitcoin. While others such as large banks and hedge funds actively hold and trade bitcoin and other crypto assets. Banks around the world have been known to use bitcoin for cross border transactions for many years. Due to bitcoin's cross border capacity being faster, more efficient and lower cost in contrast to using banking institutional networks such as ACHs (automated clearing houses). In addition, there are likely large banks who hold billions of dollars of assets in stablecoins and assorted crypto. If they do not do this directly, it is done through subsidiaries.

There could be a few backroom discussions on the nature and future of crypto behind closed doors. Between several different parties of wealthy and powerful men. The IMF isn't the only financial institution with a vested interest in crypto. There are many other parties involved whose views and opinions could matter.

If you read this congressional report from December 2013 you'll have the answer you're looking for:

"Bitcoin: Questions, Answers, and Analysis of Legal Issues"

Another country is Nigeria, where the CBN has decided to keep crypto transactions out of banks by stating that if any individual account is discovered to be conducting crypto-related transactions, the account should be restricted. But it's reported that adoption of Bitcoin is high in Nigeria. Even if Bitcoin is banned in El Salvador, those who want to use it will do so; however, it will no longer be accepted as legal tender for most transactions.

Since the IMF stated that they have managed the risk since 2021 when Bitcoin was legalized in El Salvador and they believe the risk has not materialized due to the slow rate of adoption, they can get their regulations passed to help reduce the financial stability risk they are concerned about before use and adoption become widespread.

the IMF is just a loan company.
their "power" has nothing to do with not offering international reserve swaps. nor being the government

they just offer loans. and they are just saying if a country makes crypto a legal tender then the IMF will not give them loans.. and thats where most of their power ends

they can adjust a countries "credit rating" by making them a "risk" which ultimately is also a "dont give loan" threat

they are essentially a loan/credit rating advisor.. and thats it
so dont worry too much about IMF too much.
the IMF is like your credit card company saying to an american. "please dont start working remotely and/or getting euro income because we cant claw back euros if we have given you dollar debt previously because your income is no longer in our jurisdiction to clawback should you default"

by the way. most countries like US-UK-EU dont take loans from the IMF. so it does not matter for most. its the other counties like brazil, africa that take IMF loans because their own governments dont want to QE their own money as internal loans to themselves (CB<>g.bonds=debt)

---

as for the organisation that actually allows reserve swap settlements between countries. thats the BIS... which is saying 2% decentralised crypto and (currently not established) X% stablecoin holdings is going to be acceptable in their system of banking for the banks

I really want to know some numbers and stats on how well their Anti Money Laundering and Terrorism combating policies work.  It does nothing much more than restraining rights and Privacy for legitimate and sincere users of the economy.

There is of course a need for regulations.  But their purpose is not to make Bitcoin better.  It is to diminish Bitcoin's power and to try to destroy it.  This is why they take banning Bitcoin into account too.  I want them to show me how banning Bitcoin will have a more powerful impact on Terrorism and Money Laundering than banning Fiat would.  Though it sounds absurd, at the end of the day diminishing Fiat crime should in fact be the bigger focus.  This is all with a reason.  They do not care as much about combating Bitcoin crime as they care about attacking it due to how powerful it has become.

I think IMF is more focused on the implementation of a traditional monetary system where the currency used is issued by the government.  Since Bitcoin has no centralized authority, IMF possibly think that it is easier to manipulate by ill-intentioned people.  Aside from that, IMF is also concerned for the possible victim of market volatility since Bitcoin prices frequently go up and down in a high note.  I do understand where IMF is coming from but I think IMF should consider thinking deeply and learning about Bitcoin and its economy first before getting hostile to it.

The IMF cannot ban BTC, and the Chinese government have banned things like BTC mining, but they haven't made the possession of BTC illegal. We may not like governments and what they do, but to be honest if a big country like China, U.S, U.K, etc, bans BTC, it would have weighty consequences, by banning it i mean making its possession illegal, the consequences would be weighty because even if there are some ways to use BTC even when banned, it becomes a crime to do so, and if many people get convicted for it, after sometime many people would totally stop using it in that country and it would be bad for BTC adoption.

The purpose of every business enterprise is for them to make profit in the end. No business opens to be at a lose after there days work except for some NGOs that operates a charity scheme. Hence, its not difficult to see the direction at which the IMF tends to see things why neglecting what goods that have birth from the system. You don't want to go out of business, would you!

As true as it may seem, sending of funds to terrorist groups in ways that makes tracing difficult is soke of the flaws of bitcoin but, have they done any better in cutting the process while using fiat? Certainly not. Good enough, bitcoin don't need a lot of authorisation to operate and we cool as it is.

What a bunch of pathetic clowns! They can't ban or stop Bitcoin, it's simply not possible. You can slow it down, yes, but you can't stop it completely. And I don't think any additional regulation or transparency is needed. You know that nowadays the definition of terrorism can be adjusted and almost any individual or company or country can be called a terrorist for little to no reason (just because it can profitable for someone?).

The IMF boss is just playing the role of the boss of the International Monetary Fund cause it won't be nice for her to mute about the El Salvador decision to make Bitcoin legal tender mind you she's one that once advised the Central Bank to think about creating CBDC that Bitcoin is inevitable in the year 2019 when she took into office.
Meanwhile, the El Salvador President never consider her statement about the use of Bitcoin as a legal tender but I believe they are working on AML/CFT since the country President and CZ are somehow close.

I don't think this aim for regulation/banning of bitcoin is well-meaning at all, even if they argue about bitcoin being used for money laundering or all that stuff. In any case, I think the reason as to why they wanted bitcoin in chains is to force the people to these unlivable and only worsening conditions of living brought about by inflation and all these economic struggles. It makes sense when you consider the fact that bitcoin in some countries act as a fresh economic start for some people. Its high volatility rate even working in their favor and making their pennies worth more. This is something that you simply couldn't do in a single lifetime when you're stuck with the current economic system, with the rich feeding off of the poor's gullibility.

The IMF has been having a problem with El Salvador's Bitcoin-friendly policy for a while, I believe. It's not about an attitude to El Salvador, of course, but about Bitcoin being a legal tender. The reason the IMF is against it is, apparently, because they believe "crypto assets should not be granted official currency or legal tender status in order to safeguard monetary sovereignty and stability". It's true that it goes directly against monetary sovereignty, which is "the right of a state to issue a national currency" and employ its monetary policy. It is truly disruptive when it comes to traditional state of affairs, but that doesn't mean that the state of affairs is fair and that countries should not give up monetary sovereignty. The point of the IMF, though, is to stabilize economies, it's listed by them as one of the top facts about the organization. So I think it's understandable why they are against cryptos as legal tender. franky1 also has a good point about loaning and how Bitcoin doesn't play well into that.

the IMF is a LOAN company for the central banks

if a country uses deflationary currency. three things happen:
a. countries take a IMF loan at 2% invest it in deflationary currency and then pays it back and keeps the profits (after all bitcoin swings are more then 2% a year)
(IMF is already tightening up its rules/contracts where countries have to show good use of funds and not used for investing)

b. by countries avoiding IMF and investing in deflationary(saving) they wont need loans eventually..(soon)

c. with the BIS moving towards CBDC no one will want the old fiat "dollar" reserves system of loans from the IMF

in short the IMF is losing power and grasping to stay relevant

central banks WANT crypto. if you read BIS reports (BIS do the actual funds swaps between countries(not loans)) the central banks have asked for allowance to internally invest 5% of collateral in bitcoin which the BIS draft for a proposed rule for 2025 is so far a 2% allowance

which means if a CB has 20trillion. it can hold 400bill in bitcoin

which means when bitcoin moves by 5%-10% in weeks-months they wont need loans from the IMF

The IMF has no power to ban Bitcoin anywhere, and all it can do is give advice or blackmail those who are thinking of doing the same or something similar to El Salvador. Their negative attitude is nothing that should surprise us, because it would be really incredible if they said otherwise.

To think that such organizations will "promote" Bitcoin in any way is not at all logical, because they will protect the system at all costs.

IMF interest is mainly centred toward things that they are able to control or at the very least a predictable economic condition. We need to be aware bitcoin is beyond their control, it is out of their league. It is expected and likely certain that regulation is the way to go, the inherent characteristics within the true cryptocurrencies that are less likely to be controlled by centralized entities force them to recommend a barrier that bridge between authority figure with cryptocurrencies worlds.

There are few things that the cryptocurrency communities could do but to stick with the inherent nature of cryptocurrency spaces. Any regulation or limitation would come sooner or later, whether we like it or not.