money laundering Bitcoin News

The badeconomics of Facebook’s Libra

Facebook issued a whitepaper on the new cryptocurrency that they’re issuing, the Libra. Now, the whitepaper lacks any technical details about their plans (composition of currency basket, the exchange rate, etc.) The sources that they use are bad. But I’ll try to focus on why the Libra is a bad idea, at least at addressing the unbanked who Facebook claims to support.
So how will it work?
Facebook takes your money, puts some of it in a bank and uses the rest to buy securities from various countries. They then “mint” a new coin and give it to the user. When people want their money back, Facebook just “burns” the Libra and sells securities. This means the Libra is based on a basket of securities and bank deposits (see: Money Market Funds and Currency ETF).
What’s Facebook’s plan?
Facebook plans on tackling two problems with the Libra. The first and most important is to “bank the unbanked”, aka providing people with access to financial services. The second is to help reduce remittance fees and make it easier to transfer money. The second point will probably be how most people use the Libra.
Some issues with the Libra:
It won’t help the unbanked
Facebook’s main plan is to help the “unbanked”. In the problem statement, they acknowledge that;
“those who remain “unbanked” point to not having sufficient funds, high and unpredictable fees, banks being too far away, and lacking the necessary documentation”.
It seems that they forgot about two other reasons that were given in the World Bank paper that they cited: some people don’t need a bank account (30% of people) and some rely on family members with bank accounts (26% of people). Even so Facebook’s system will only solve two of these problems (high fees and distance) and will do nothing about the biggest reason people don’t have a bank account, not having enough money (66% of people).*
David Marcus, the current head of Calibra, said this in an update;
“The very people who say they lack the money to open a bank account are actually not saying that they have no use for modern financial services. They’re just saying they can’t afford to access the system, so they remain on the fringes and are forced to use services that charge exorbitant fees and rates.”
I guess he never read the report used by Facebook, where excessive fees was a separate reason cited by 26% of respondents.
I also want to clarify the documentation issue. This usually refers to Know-Your-Customer and anti-money laundering laws, which vary in each country. Facebook will have to adhere to these same laws when setting up Libra unless they want to get tackled by every financial regulatory agency in the world. These laws typically require identity proof and address proof, things that many poor people are unable to provide. And that means they can’t help the unbanked.
*Note that people were allowed to choose multiple reasons, so the total adds up to more than 100%
How are people going to get their Libra?
If you look at the list of corporations and organizations partnering with Facebook, it’s not very hard to notice that some pretty important firms are missing; Banks. Which begs the question, how are people going to convert their hard-earned money into Libra? In the video that they showed, it looks like people can use credit and debit cards, but that doesn’t help the unbanked. You can hand someone cash in exchange for them sending you Libra, but that’s always risky. The World Bank report gives us some potential answers;
“People using digital payments need to be able to deposit and withdraw cash safely, reliably, and conveniently at cash-in and cash-out points”.
One example is a post office. However, post offices are probably not going to accept anything other than legal tender, which means no Libra. Physical infrastructure is important, especially to serve developing countries. Facebook seems to have forgotten about that.
They don’t have phones
Facebook refers to a statistic from the World Bank that 1.7 billion adults are unbanked, of which 1 billion own mobile phones and half a billion have internet access. Let’s just ignore that last number, as I have no clue where they got it from. The 1 billion strikes me as being quite high, and there’s a reason for that. The study that they used looked at mobile phones, not just smartphones. The rhetoric that they use in their whitepaper and in official responses from the company seems to imply that Libra can only be used through apps and web browsers.
This doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to use mobile payments on non-smartphone devices; there is a very popular mobile payment system in Kenya called M-Pesa that transfers money through texts. But it will be a while before an independent developer gets that working, if it ever happens. And until then, the 50% of people in developing countries without access to smartphones will not be able to use Libra.
It’s unstable
It’s true that the Libra won’t be very volatile. But as the exchange rates of the currencies backing the Libra fluctuate, the value of the Libra is going to change as well. Facebook mentioned it in their whitepaper, so it’s not like they don’t know about it. If exchange rates swing the wrong way, users could find themselves losing a significant portion of their initial purchase. And while it’s possible that banks and retailers might start to accept Libra in transactions or to pay off mortgages, until the government starts accepting taxes in Libra (aka never), people will always have to convert Libra into something else. As long as the need for conversion exists, there will be risk.
And while we’re on this topic, lets talk about those countries with unstable currencies. Many people from those countries will invest their money into Libra. But that just causes the local currency to depreciate in value, making the poor people without access to the Libra worse off.
Additional ranting
They use the price of a phone from Best Buy to show that people across the world can buy smartphones for $40 (it’s on sale for $28 right now if you were curious). They seem to have forgotten that the US is not the only country in the world (don’t worry, it’s a pretty easy mistake for us Americans to make). Now, admittedly it’s quite hard for me to find data for minimum phone prices for all countries in the world. But then again, I’m not Facebook. I would assume that households in developing countries would have to spend a larger portion of their monthly income to buy a mobile phone than households in America.
Honestly, looking at the sources that they cited, it seems more and more like some intern just used the first search result from Google instead of doing any actual research.
It’s not cryptocurrency
Yes, it is blockchain (it actually might not be, I just don’t understand crypto very well and it doesn't really matter for this sub). It’s considered to be a stablecoin, a cryptocurrency that is tied to other assets. But that’s about the only thing that makes it a cryptocurrency. Unlike bitcoin, it should be a decent store of value and has the potential to be a medium of exchange and a unit of account if retailers start adopting it. Which means it can actually be used as money. There’s a central reserve that fully controls the Libra. And unlike other stablecoins, the Libra is also backed by securities. As far as I’m aware, assets backed by securities are securities (at least that’s my definition).
If you really think about it, transacting in Libra is like paying for your groceries or the movies using shares from a money market fund. This should be considered capital gains (or losses), and would be taxed as such. Financial regulators are really going to love that.
No interest
Facebook’s plan is that “Users of Libra do not receive a return from the reserve.” Facebook will put a portion of the user’s money into a bank account. However, any interest earned will be kept as profits. This means that people who use the Libra can’t do anything about inflation without converting it to their local currency. This seems like a big oversight for company that seems to be betting on users holding on to their Libra and not exchanging it for their local currency.
Now, for people in countries that experience hyperinflation, this is not an issue. Libra would probably be less risky than the local currency and would protect their earnings. However, for the rest of the world bank deposits just seem like a better choice.
Conclusion
Now, this doesn’t mean that Facebook doesn’t have any valid concerns. Remittance fees are extremely high for people trying to transfer money anywhere. Having greater financial inclusivity would help reduce inequality and poverty. Digital technology is likely the best way for that to happen. But the idea that Facebook will help to “bank the unbanked” is a lie.
submitted by hubstar1453 to badeconomics [link] [comments]

Daily analysis of cryptocurrencies 20190911(Market index 38 — Fear state)

Daily analysis of cryptocurrencies 20190911(Market index 38 — Fear state)

https://preview.redd.it/25xag2ahp5m31.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=af83a570993c5886035df96652253610b0368fb6

The Japan Financial Services Agency held the second round of the Encrypted Assets Roundtable, calling Libra the “alarm clock” According to the official website of the Japan Financial Services Agency on September 9, the Japanese Financial Agency revealed today that the agency had held the second round table on encrypted assets in Tokyo on September 6. The meeting brought together relevant financial regulators and international organizations to discuss and exchange experiences on the latest developments in cryptographic assets, including stable currency. The conference consisted of four main topics, namely: 1. The latest technological developments and challenges of cryptographic assets; 2. Supervision of crypto-equity trading platforms; 3. Investor protection and market integrity; 4. Participation of multiple stakeholders global cooperation. It is reported that the meeting is an invitation system and is not open to the public. At the meeting, the Japanese Finance Agency’s international deputy, Iwami, made an opening speech, saying: “Libra is like a ‘sounding alarm clock’ to all of us. The alarm bell has been ringing, which requires regulators and central bank officials to expand. Eyes, face up to the problem to face sooner or later. Many other clocks may be waiting for the next time.”
US Deputy Treasury Secretary: Libra will accept US anti-money laundering review On the 11th, Sigal Mandelker, deputy secretary of the US Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence, warned on Tuesday that Libra, the proposed cryptocurrency of Facebook (FB.O), must comply with US anti-money laundering standards in order to survive, even if its headquarters is in Switzerland. Mandelker said: “What we have pointed out to them many times is that they must deploy appropriate anti-money laundering and sanctions programs to combat terrorist financing. I think they are still at a very early stage of thinking about how to meet these requirements.”
Indian parliamentarian: cryptocurrency is more complicated than the Internet in the early stages of development Indian Congressman Rajeev Chandrasekhar said in an interview that cryptocurrency is much more complicated in the early stages of its development than the Internet. The growth and innovation momentum of encryption technology is almost like a perfect storm. Speaking of India’s position on managing encryption for the public, he cautioned that the Supreme Court has ruled that privacy is a fundamental right for all Indians. In addition, he added, there is currently no legislative and legal framework for innovation to allow people to collect data from consumers and to allow consumers to agree. He deliberately confused encryption and privacy because it currently does not have a policy framework.

Encrypted project calendar(September 12, 2019)

BNB/Binance Coin: Coin Security will stop providing services to US users on Binance.com on September 12th BCN/Bytecoin: Bytecoin (BCN) will release Copper v3.6.0 on September 12t HBT/Hubii Network: Hubii Network (HBT) hubii’s “Blockchain in Practice” campaign with Microsoft will be held on September 12th at the Microsoft office in Oslo. ETC/Ethereum Classic: ETC or will perform Atlantis hard fork on September 12th

Encrypted project calendar(September 13, 2019)

VET/Vechain: VeChain (VET) VeChain CEO Sunny Lu will deliver a speech at the Public Blockchain Symposium on September 13th. WABI/Tael: The Tael (WABI) project team will release the new Tael website on September 13.

Encrypted project calendar(September 14, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: The European Union will launch its name, Payment Services Directive 2 (PSD2), which will take effect on September 14. The new law includes banks implementing “strong customer certification”. In addition, according to previous news, PSD2 can obtain some of the functions of the banking industry, providing new payment solutions for encryption products. BNB/Binance Coin: Binance Coin (BNB) Coin’s overseas team will hold its first community gathering in Jakarta, Indonesia on September 14. OKB/OKB: OKB (OKB) OKEx Africa will hold a party in Accra, Ghana, on September 14th, and the first African blockchain project supported by OKEx will be released.

Encrypted project calendar(September 15, 2019)

TRX/TRON: Wave field TRON launches side chain plan Sun Network network three-phase release WAN/Wanchain: Wanchain (WAN) will hold a 3Q community conference call in mid-September AE/Aeternity: Aeternity (AE) æternity is expected to carry out the Lima hard fork upgrade on September 15th, and the third Ethernet AE token migration hard fork will take effect. NANO/Nano: Nano (NANO) NANO founder Colin LeMahieu will attend an informal community gathering in Austin, Texas on September 15th.

Encrypted project calendar(September 16, 2019)

LINK/ChainLink: Chainlink (LINK) Oracle will host the Oracle Code One conference from September 16th to September 19th, at which it will announce the launch of 50 startups with Chainlink. MANA/Decentraland: The Decentraland (MANA) community will host the SDK hackathon on September 16. WABI/Tael: Tael (WABI) “Tael Insider” campaign will be held on the new project website on September 16.

Encrypted project calendar(September 17, 2019)

ZEN/Horizen: The official team of Horizen (ZEN) will hold a community gathering in Strasbourg, France on September 17th.

Encrypted project calendar(September 18, 2019)

OKB/OKB: OKB (OKB) On September 18th, OKEx will hold an institutional meeting in London to share the regulatory environment issues facing encryption organizations.

Encrypted project calendar(September 19, 2019)

NRG/Energi: Energi (NRG) Energi will launch a trading competition on the KuCoin platform on September 9th. By September 19th, 800 NRG will be presented to the top 470 participants. ADA/Cardano: The Cardano (ADA) project official will host the Wyoming hackathon from September 19th to 22nd. KIN/Kin: The Kin (KIN) project team will host a community gathering in Toronto on September 19. BTC/Bitcoin: The 2019 Open Core Summit will be held in San Francisco from September 19th to 20th.

Encrypted project calendar(September 20, 2019)

NULS / NULS: The NULS 2.0 Beta hackathon will be held from September 20th to September 21st, 2019. AE/Aeternity: Aeternity (AE) will hold “Cosmos One” conference in Prague, Czech Republic on September 20th

Encrypted project calendar(September 21, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: The 6th FINWISE Global Summit Macau will be held from September 21st to 22nd. Distributed Financial Technology (DeFi) is the main topic of this conference. OKB/OKB: OKB (OKB) OKEx The Africa Cryptour series of talks in Kenya will take place on September 21 in Nairobi.

Encrypted project calendar(September 23, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: Bakkt, the digital asset platform led by ICE, the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange and the world’s second largest trading group, will launch a bitcoin physical delivery futures contract on September 23. EOS/EOS: EOS main network is expected to upgrade version 1.8 on September 23

Encrypted project calendar(September 24, 2019)

ENG/Enigma: Enigma (ENG) ENG main network token snapshot will end on September 24, the original start time is August 26.

Encrypted project calendar(September 26, 2019)

ADA/Cardano: The Cardano (ADA) Cardano community will host a party in Washington, DC on September 26.

Bitcoin price is slowly declining and recently broke the $10,000 support area against the US Dollar. The price is facing an uphill task and it might continue to struggle near $10,250 and $10,300. There is a major bearish trend line forming with resistance near $10,250 on the hourly chart of the BTC/USD pair (data feed from Kraken). The price could continue to slide as long as it is trading below the $10,400 pivot level in the near term. Bitcoin price is under pressure below $10,250 against the US Dollar. BTC may perhaps accelerate decline as long as there is no close above the $10,400 and $10,500 levels.
Review previous articles: https://medium.com/@to.liuwen

Telegram: https://t.me/Lay126
Twitter:https://twitter.com/mianhuai8
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100022246432745
Reddi:https://www.reddit.com/useliuidaxmn
LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/liu-wei-294a12176/
submitted by liuidaxmn to u/liuidaxmn [link] [comments]

Facebook’s Libra Currency Could Threaten the Global Financial System. Here’s How

This week, both the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee grilled Facebook’s David Marcus, head of the Libra cryptocurrency project. Lawmakers bluntly laid out a variety of doubts about the Libra proposal, including whether the system could prevent money laundering, and whether Facebook should be trusted to collect transaction data, given its shoddy history of handling user information.
But perhaps the most high-stakes question on legislators’ minds was whether Libra might introduce a new kind of systemic financial risk. Though often derided for their speculation-fueled volatility, bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are largely disconnected from the mainstream financial system, and represent a relatively tiny slice of global value. Libra, by contrast, is designed in a way that could make it very large, and very closely entwined with things like national currencies and even small local banks.
If and when Libra gets up and running—Facebook has said it will launch in 2020—it would have a built-in base of nearly 2.5 billion Facebook users worldwide, or roughly one third of the entire global population. Facebook and Marcus have said that reaching unbanked people is a major goal for Libra, and pointed towards close integration between Libra and Facebook tools such as Messenger. The social network, then, plans to push hard to get its users to convert funds to Libra. Rep. Michael San Nicolas (D–Guam) yesterday speculated that Libra could easily attract $100 billion in deposits—about one tenth of the assets held by Goldman Sachs—and potentially much more.
Funds converted into Libra by users would be placed into a “Libra Reserve” made up of conservative instruments like treasury bills and national currencies. The value of Libra will not be ‘pegged’ to any single currency, and will instead ‘float’ in a global market, much like most national currencies. David Marcus nonetheless described its structure as “1 to 1” backing, in the sense that the reserve funds will not be lent out, decreasing risk.
But there’s no real guarantee the Libra Reserve would be stable in practice, especially when broader conditions get rough. The problem, according to numerous experts, boils down to this: What looks safe on paper can hide unpredictable risks.
“We’re talking about finance, which is inherently fragile,” says Columbia Law School’s Katarina Pistor, “And subject to crisis, time and again.” Pistor studies the legal structure of financial systems, and testified before the Financial Services hearing Wednesday. She thinks the idea that Libra can be insulated from crisis is based on “very strong assumptions that probably will prove to be wrong.”

The Libra bank run

One of those assumptions is simply that certain currencies are ‘safe.’ “In the last decade, we’ve seen even the Euro under very significant pressure,” points out Lars Seier Christensen, an experienced currency trader and founder of Saxo Bank, a Danish investment bank.
Even without the risk of lending out its reserves, Pistor says she “would not exclude the possibility of a run on the Libra,” as one slumping currency in its ‘basket’ could trigger a collapse of faith, causing holders to scramble for the exits. Because its value would float in the market, a sudden global rush to sell Libra would potentially mean a big (if temporary) hit for the last holders to exit. It doesn’t take much to trigger such a run: Pistor points out that the Reserve Primary Fund, a ‘safe’ money market fund, had less than 2% of its assets in Lehman Brothers when Lehman collapsed in 2008. Yet it caused a run, ultimately forcing Reserve Primary into liquidation.
Libra’s possibly huge size would make it a threat to more than just its own holders. “Let’s say one of these [Libra Reserve] assets began to fail, for whatever reason,” Christensen says. “Presumably, if people began to reclaim the counter value of the Libra, [the Reserve] would actually have to start wholesaling the other assets for the shortfall in the original failing asset.” A large enough selloff, even of national currencies and short-term government bonds, could be a shock to the broader market.
A scenario along these lines seemed to be on the minds of House Financial Services Committee members on Wednesday. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), for instance, recalled the “absolutely terrifying” unfolding of the 2008 financial crisis, and argued that if even 10 percent of Facebook users began using Libra, “that would absolutely make [Libra] a systemically risky financial institution, and we would expect FSOC [the Financial Services Oversight Council] to designate you as such,” subjecting Libra to heightened ongoing scrutiny by regulators.

The moral hazard of the Libra Reserve

These risks are compounded by one of the most worrisome elements of Libra’s proposed structure. Even many conservative instruments that might be included in the Libra Reserve return a percent or two of interest. Those returns, according to the Libra proposal, would not go to depositors, but to Libra Association members and other investors in the system. Despite the notional pledge that the Reserve will only hold the most conservative instruments, Christiansen finds this structure deeply problematic.
“If all of the interest value falls to the consortium,” he muses,“Would there not be a slight temptation to go just a little bit higher on risk than you might if you didn’t have an upside? Would not the incentive be to move the yield from 100 [basis points] to 150 or 175?”
That troubling dynamic collides with a hard truth: “Safe assets are not infinitely available,” says Pistor. “You could argue even today we have a scarcity of safe assets.” So even if not out of greed, the administrators of the Libra Reserve could find themselves extending into less safe territory as the currency grew. This again has shades of the 2008 financial crisis, when heightened demand for mortgage-backed securities led to increasingly dicey loans being bundled into them.

Disrupting global monetary policies

On July 11, U.S. President Donald Trump commented about virtual currency, including Libra, on Twitter. “We have only one real currency in the USA,” he said in part. Libra is clearly anticipating this sort of anxiety, with Marcus taking pains in his Banking Committee testimony to say that “The Libra Association . . . has no intention of competing with any sovereign currencies or entering the monetary policy arena.”
But Libra’s very structure and mission may inevitably disrupt government monetary policy, says Pistor—especially in countries with less stable currencies. When Libra is sold by a local agent in a country like Kenya, for instance, the Kenyan shillings traded for Libra would in turn have to be traded in for something acceptable to the Libra reserve. “This could have an effect on the exchange rates of local currencies, and their stability,” says Pistor.
Further, the conversion of local currencies for Libra could interfere with local banks’ ability to provide credit, for instance to local small businesses. Pistor says even cryptocurrencies that make no claim to stability—for instance, bitcoin—have seen significant uptake in places with weak money, making these impacts entirely plausible.

Also… It’s Facebook

One of the most striking takeaways from this week’s hearings was how little credence legislators gave to Facebook’s claims that it would not control Libra once it launches. For instance, Facebook has gathered a consortium, including the likes of Visa and Uber, that would, in theory, come to oversee Libra through a Swiss-headquartered nonprofit. But as Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio) pointed out, the fact that Facebook has gathered those parties could give the social network outsized power.
Facebook’s role clearly has legislators particularly suspicious of Libra’s general trustworthiness. So much so, in fact, that they’re already preparing to block it ouright. The Finance Committee has posted a discussion draft of a bill, referred to as the “Keep Big Tech Out of Finance Act,” that would explicitly make it illegal for “a large platform utility” (read: Facebook or Google) to “establish, maintain, or operate a digital asset” (read: Libra). Such a sweeping prohibition seems unlikely to gain traction, but its very existence shows just how much Libra worries the people in charge.

More must-read stories from Fortune:

—Meet the A.I. landlord that’s building a single-family-home empire
—You might have longer than you think to invest for retirement
Will the Fed cut interest rates to prevent recession? 6 predictions
—Schwab’s ‘Project Bear’ uses A.I. to predict when investors are getting nervous
—When the next recession hits, four good things could happen
Don’t miss the daily Term Sheet, _Fortune_‘s newsletter on deals and dealmakers.
* More Details Here
submitted by acerod1 to Business_Analyst [link] [comments]

The United Nations set up a digital group research blockchain. Ma Yun Gates is co-chairman.

The United Nations set up a digital group research blockchain. Ma Yun Gates is co-chairman.
The United Nations established a digital group research blockchain, and Ma Yun Gates served as co-chair of the group
The UN News Center announced on July 12 that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres established the "United Nations Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation" and clearly proposed to put blockchain technology on the agenda of the group.
It is reported that the group will bring together 20 celebrities from all walks of life to strengthen cooperation in the digital field by governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, technology and academia, and other relevant stakeholders. According to the news, the Secretary-General has announced the appointment of Melinda Gates (Mr. Bill Gates, Chairman of the Bill & Melinda Gates Fund Opportunity) and Ma Yun as co-chairman of the group.
The United Nations has been exploring the application of blockchain technology in humanitarian applications.
In April of this year, the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) began using blockchain technology to assist Syrian refugees, benefiting 10,000 people. In addition, the United Nations has implemented a digital identity system based on blockchain technology to combat global trafficking in children.
Gates keeps a distance from Bitcoin, but Microsoft has a long-term layout of the blockchain.
During Reddit Ask Me Anything in February this year, Bill Gates sneered at the cryptocurrency. Gates attacked the anonymity of virtual currency because they hindered the identification of anti-money laundering, anti-terrorist financing, and anti-tax evasion. In an interview with CNBC's Squawk Box, he said, "If there is a simple method, he will short the bitcoin."
But on the other hand, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been supporting blockchain projects, especially in Africa. In 2015, the foundation donated $100,000 to the Kenya Bitcoin merchant payment platform Bitsoko. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been driving the development of virtual currency in Africa because they can provide low-cost trading services for the poor.
In addition, Microsoft's layout in the blockchain field is also deep. In 2015, Microsoft launched the "Azure Blockchain as a Service (BaaS)" program. The program introduces blockchain technology to the Azure cloud computing platform to serve financial industry customers using Azure cloud services, allowing users to tailor their blockchain services to their business and innovation needs. In 2016, Microsoft further relied on Azure cloud services to launch the “Open, Modular Blockchain Component” program, using Microsoft's own architecture to create a blockchain enterprise ecosystem, and open a series of blockchain agreements to address early cross-spans. The problem of industry blockchain users is integrated in terms of platform openness, user identity, key management, privacy security, operations management and interactivity. In May of this year, Microsoft released the Azure blockchain work platform at the Global Developers Conference, which has been used by hundreds of companies. In June of this year, Microsoft acquired GitHub, a world-renowned software hosting platform, with a $7.5 billion Microsoft stock. GitHub is an important gathering place for blockchain projects, with more than 80,000 blockchain projects. In addition, Microsoft has expanded its strategic partnership with R3 to integrate R3's distributed ledger platform, Corda and R3Net, with Azure. Microsoft has also strengthened cooperation with super-books, the United Nations, and Cornell University's blockchain research groups to conduct blockchain research.
Ali is also actively trying blockchain business, Ant Financial is a pioneer
In July 2016, Ant Financial Services joined the blockchain technology in Alipay's love donation platform; in October 2016, Ali Financial Cloud and Yicheng Interactive jointly launched “Yunyou Mall”; in the same month, with Microsoft, Xiao ant, Fa Da, etc. Co-developing “Law Chain”; cooperating with PricewaterhouseCoopers in March 2017 to build a traceable cross-border food supply chain; investing in Symbiont in May 2017; and in August 2017, Ali Health and Jiangsu Changzhou will cooperate The joint + blockchain pilot project; in October 2017, Ant Financial CTO first disclosed the "BASIC" strategy, B is the blockchain; in November 2017, Tmall International announced the upgrade of the global origin traceability plan; the same month, Ali built the digital Xiong'an blockchain implementation platform; in January 2018, the ant blockchain was launched, and Xiong'an built a blockchain rental application platform; in February 2018, the rookie and Tmall International enabled blockchain technology tracking Logistics full link information on imported goods; in June 2018, AlipayHK launched the world's first blockchain-based e-wallet cross-border remittance service.
Among them, the most important thing to ignore is the breakthrough of Ant Financial in the cross-border remittance service of e-wallet based on blockchain. As early as 2016, Ma Yun proposed eWTP to make Ali's business worldwide, which requires worldwide data flow, capital flow, and material flow. Aliyun is responsible for data flow, rookie logistics is responsible for material flow, and cross-border flow of funds is the task of Ant Financial.
In fact, Ant Financial's use of blockchain technology for cross-border remittances is a part of Alipay's globalization. In the form of acquisition or investment or cooperation, Ant Financial has covered Alipay's globalization strategy to more than 70 countries and regions. For example, in the eight countries of Southeast Asia, support local Alipay wallets: Touch’n Go in Malaysia, Emtek in Indonesia, GCash in the Philippines, Paytm in India, Easypaisa in Pakistan, BKash in Bangladesh, AscendMone in Thailand, and Hellopay in Singapore. There are also Kakao Pay in Korea and Telenor in Norway.
In addition, Alipay's international partners include Worldpay in the UK, Concardis and Wirecard in Germany, Ingenico in France, Recruit in Japan, ICB and KICC in Korea, Supay in Australia, Magic Compass and IE money in New Zealand, Webmoney and Qiwi in Russia, and Boleto in Brazil.
All in all, Alipay's globalization strategy has begun to take shape. From AlipayHK's launch of the world's first blockchain-based e-wallet cross-border remittance service, the use of blockchain technology to support cross-border remittances may be around the world. Each country's “local Alipay” node builds a blockchain solution for cross-border remittance services.
Invited to serve as co-chair of the UN High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation, Ma said that in the DT era, data and technology are more widely available, which is an opportunity for all young people, small businesses and women. He is happy to join and promote global cross-disciplinary cooperation to create a digital future for universal young people.
https://preview.redd.it/z3h92sq26aa11.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=929cd1312ab7be0c61bc4f2cb217f2dba6012a7b
submitted by LotoBlock to LotoBlock [link] [comments]

Agustín Carstens, General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS, the central bank of central banks) on Cryptocurrencies today

I'd like to hear your thoughts on his lecture held today at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany.
Read the full transcript here or via pdf link. https://www.bis.org/speeches/sp180206.pdf
1/10 Money in the digital age: what role for central banks? Lecture by Agustín Carstens General Manager, Bank for International Settlements House of Finance, Goethe University Frankfurt, 6 February 2018
Introduction Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for that kind introduction, Jens. I am very happy to be here at this prestigious university and to be part of this impressive lecture series sponsored by Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE), the Center for Financial Studies (CFS) and the Deutsche Bundesbank. I would also like to thank Professor Brigitte Haar for being such a generous host today. It is an honour to discuss money at an event organised by the Bundesbank, which has been a beacon of stability since its foundation some 60 years ago. As Jens can attest, being a central banker is a fascinating job. In fact, it is a privilege. During the last decade it has been anything but quiet in the central banking world. We have been confronted with extraordinary circumstances that have required extraordinary policy responses. In such an environment, it has been of the utmost importance to share experiences and lessons learnt among central banks, creating a body of knowledge that will be there for the future. One of the reasons that central bank Governors from all over the world gather in Basel every two months is precisely to discuss issues at the front and centre of the policy debate. Following the Great Financial Crisis, many hours have been spent discussing the design and implications of, for example, unconventional monetary policies such as quantitative easing and negative interest rates. Lately, we have seen a bit of a shift, to issues at the very heart of central banking. This shift is driven by developments at the cutting edge of technology. While it has been bubbling under the surface for years, the meteoric rise of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has led us to revisit some fundamental questions that touch on the origin and raison d’être for central banks: • What is money? • What constitutes good money, and where do cryptocurrencies fit in? • And, finally, what role should central banks play? The thrust of my lecture will be that, at the end of the day, money is an indispensable social convention backed by an accountable institution within the State that enjoys public trust. Many things have served as money, but experience suggests that something widely accepted, reliably provided and stable in its command over goods and services works best. Experience has also shown that to be credible, money requires institutional backup, which is best provided by a central bank. While central banks’ actions and services will evolve with technological developments, the rise of cryptocurrencies only highlights the important role central banks have played, and continue to play, as stewards of public trust. Private digital tokens posing as currencies, such as bitcoin and other crypto-assets that have mushroomed of late, must not endanger this trust in the fundamental value and nature of money.
What is money? “What is money?” is obviously a key question for any central banker, and one on which economists have spent much ink. The answer depends on how deep and philosophical one wants to be. Being at a university, especially one named after Goethe, I think I can err on the side of being philosophical. Conventional wisdom tells you that “money is what money does”.1 That is, money is a unit of account, a means of payment and a store of value. But telling you what something does does not really tell you what it is. And it certainly does not tell you why we need or have money, how it comes about and what the preconditions are for it to exist. In terms of the “need” for money, you may learn that money is a way to get around the general lack of double coincidence of wants. That is, it is rare that I have what you want and you have what I want at the same time. As barter is definitely not an efficient way of organising an economy, money is demanded as a tool to facilitate exchange. What about the other side of the coin, so to speak? How does money come about? Again, conventional wisdom may tell you that central banks provide money, ie cash (coins and notes), and commercial banks supply deposits. But this answer is often not fully satisfactory, as it does not tell why and how banks should be the one to “create” money. If you venture into more substantive analyses on monetary economics, things get more complex. One theory, which proposes that “money is memory”, amounts to arguing that a “superledger” can facilitate exchange just like money. This argument says a ledger is a way of keeping track of not only who has what but also who owes, and is owed, what. I will come back to this later. Moving beyond this line of thought, other scholarly and historical analyses provide answers that are more philosophical. These often amount to “money is a convention” – one party accepts it as payment in the expectation that others will also do so.2 Money is an IOU, but a special one because everyone in the economy trusts that it will be accepted by others in exchange for goods and services. One might say money is a “we all owe you”. Many things have served as money in this way. Figure 1 gives some examples: Yap stones, gold coins, cigarettes in war times, $100,000 bills, wissel (Wechsel), ie bills of exchange or bearer notes, such as those issued by the Bank of Amsterdam in the first half of the 17th century. It includes an example from my own country, Aztec hoe (or axe) money, a form of (unstamped) money made of copper used in central Mexico and parts of Central America. 1 See J Hicks, Critical essays in monetary theory, 1979. 2 See D Lewis, Convention: a philosophical study, 1969.
Common to most of these examples is that the nominal value of the items that have served at one time as money is unrelated to their intrinsic value. Indeed, as we know very well in the case of fiat money, the intrinsic value of most of its representations is zero. History shows that money as a convention needs to have a basis of trust, supported by some form of institutional arrangement.3 As Curzio Giannini puts it: “The evolution of monetary institutions appears to be above all the fruit of a continuous dialogue between economic and political spheres, with each taking turns to create monetary innovations … and to safeguard the common interest against abuse stemming from partisan interests.”4 Money can come in different institutional forms and colours. How to organise them? The paper by Bech and Garratt in last September’s BIS Quarterly Review presented the money flower as a way of organising monies in today’s environment.5 It acknowledges that money can take on rather different forms and be supplied in various ways. The money flower Allow me to explain, noting that we do not sell seeds to this money flower! 3 Fiat means “by law“. So, in principle, it should be said that money exists by convention or by law. But if trust in money does not prevail, the legal mandate that conveys value to money becomes meaningless. 4 C Giannini, The age of central banks, 2011. 5 M Bech and R Garratt, “Central bank cryptocurrencies”, BIS Quarterly Review, September 2017, pp 55–70.
The money flower highlights four key properties on the supply side of money: the issuer, the form, the degree of accessibility and the transfer mechanism. • The issuer can be either the central bank or “other”. “Other” includes nobody, that is, a particular type of money that is not the liability of anyone. • In terms of the form it takes, money is either electronic or physical. • Accessibility refers to how widely the type of money is available. It can either be wide or limited. • Transfer mechanism can either be a central intermediary or peer-to-peer, meaning transactions occur directly between the payer and the payee without the need for a central intermediary. Let us look at where some common types of money fit into the flower, starting with cash (or bank notes) as we know it today. Cash is issued by the central bank, is not electronic, is available to everyone and is peer-to-peer. I do not need a trusted third party such as Jens to help me pay each of you 10 euros. Let us try another one: bank deposits. They are not the liability of the central bank, mostly electronic, and in most countries available to most people, but clearly not peer-to-peer. Transferring resources from a bank deposit requires the involvement of at least your own bank, perhaps the central bank and the recipient’s bank. Think here not only of commercial bank deposits but also bills, eg non-interest bearing (bearer) certificates, issued privately, as in the case of the Bank of Amsterdam mentioned earlier. Local or regional currencies are the ones that can be spent in a particular geographical location at participating organisations. They tend to be physical. The túmin, for example, was a local currency circulating (illegally) for some time around 2010 exclusively in the Mexican municipality of Espinal. What does digitalisation mean for the flower? Digitalisation is nothing new: financial services and most forms of money have been largely digital for many years. Much of the ongoing transformation is just adding a mobile version for many services, which means that the device becomes a virtual extension of the institution. As such, there is not a new model. The money flower then also easily accommodates these forms.
That is also the case for the digital, account-based forms of money that central banks traditionally have made available to commercial banks and, in some instances, to certain other financial or public institutions (ie bank reserves). It would also be the case if the central bank were to issue digital money to the wider public for general purposes. Each central bank will have to make its own decision on whether issuing digital money is desirable, after considering factors such as the structure of the financial system and underlying preferences for privacy. The central bank community is actively analysing this issue. A potentially important and leapfrogging digital-related development, however, is distributed ledger technology (DLT), the basis for Bitcoin. Many think DLT could transform financial service provision, maybe first wholesale, then possibly retail. For example, it could enhance settlement efficiency involving securities and derivatives transactions. A few central banks have conducted experiments in this area, for example the Bank of Canada, the Bundesbank, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Bank of England.6 Yet doubts remain regarding the maturity of DLT and the size of associated efficiency gains relative to existing technologies. Moreover, their robustness, including to cyber-risk, is still to be fully understood and ascertained. Still, there are potential benefits, and I expect that central banks will remain engaged on this topic.7 For now, DLT is largely used to “create” bitcoin and other digital currencies. Such cryptocurrencies can be placed easily in the money flower. Nobody issues them, they are not physical and they are peer-to-peer. But beyond that, how should one think about them? What constitutes good money? Just because we are able to find a place for bitcoin in our money flower does not mean we should consider it as “good” money. As I mentioned before, trust is the fundamental tenet that underpins credible currencies, and this trust has to be earned and supported. There are many lessons from history and institutional economics on the earning of trust that we can use as we move further into digitalisation.8 Over the ages, many forms of private money have come and gone. It is fair to say that the same has happened with various experiments with public money (that is, money issued by a public entity that is not the central bank). While some lasted longer than others, most have invariably given way to some form of central bank money. The main reason for their disappearance is that the “incentives to cheat” are simply too high. Let me give three historical examples: one in Germany, another in the United States and the last one in Mexico. In Germany, the Thirty Years War (1618–48), involving small German states of the Holy Roman Empire and neighbouring regional powers, was associated with one of the most severe economic crises ever recorded, with rampant hyperinflation – just as happened three centuries later during the Weimar Republic – and the breakdown of trade and economic activity. The crisis became known as the Kipper- und Wipperzeit (the clipping and culling times), after the practice of clipping coins (shaving metal from their circumference) and sorting good coins from bad. This morning, we are launching a BIS Working Paper, by Professor Isabel Schnabel and BIS Economic Adviser Hyun Song Shin, which further details and explains this experience, as background to my speech. 6 See Bech and Garratt, op cit. 7 See Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures, Distributed ledger technology in payment, clearing and settlement: an analytical framework, February 2017. 8 See D North, Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, 1990.
While episodes of currency debasement have occurred throughout history, this one stands out for two reasons. First is the severity of the crisis and its rapid regional spread. Debasement proceeded at such a pace that public authorities quickly lost control of the downward spiral. Second is how the debasement was brought under control. This occurred through standardisation of wholesale payments by public deposit banks, for example the Bank of Hamburg and the Bank of Amsterdam. These were in many ways examples of the precursors of modern central banks. As the working paper argues, monetary order could be brought to an otherwise chaotic situation by providing reliable payment means through precursors to central bank money, which at the end means the use of a credible institutional arrangement. In the period in the United States known as the Free Banking Era, from 1837 to 1863, many banks sprang up that issued currency with no oversight of any kind by the federal government.10 These so-called free bank notes did not work very well as a medium of exchange. Given that there were so many banks of varying reputations issuing notes, they sold at different prices in different places, making transactions quite complicated. And as supervision was largely absent, banks had limited restraint in issuing notes and did not back them up sufficiently with specie (gold or silver), thereby debasing their values. This era of “wildcat banking” ended up being a long and costly period of banking instability in the history of the US, with banking panics and major disruptions to economic activity. It was, after some further hiccups, followed by the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Let me present a final example, from Mexican monetary history. A little known fact is that Mexico had the first series of hyperinflations at the beginning of the 20th century. My country had a revolution from 1910 to 1921, in which no central government existed in an effective way, with many factions fighting and disputing different territories. A winning faction would arrive in a territory, print its own money and make void previously issued cash. So different bills issued by different factions coexisted, leading to chaos and hyperinflation. To give you an idea of the disorder, in 2015 four trunks full of bills were returned to Mexico after having been appropriated by the US Navy in 1914, when the US occupied the port city of Veracruz. In the trunks, the Bank of Mexico discovered dozens of types of bills that the central bank had not even known existed.11 At the end of the conflict, a new constitution was drafted, having as a central article one which gave the Bank of Mexico the appropriate institutional framework, designating it the exclusive issuer of currency in the country. Once this was in place, hyperinflation ceased, illustrating the importance of controlling fiscal dominance (which tends to be the result of the abuse of publicly issued money). Based on these experiences, most observers, and I suspect all of you here, would agree that laissez-faire is not a good approach in banking or in the issuance of money. Indeed, the paradigm of strict bank regulation and supervision and central banks overseeing the financial and monetary system that has emerged over the last century or so has proven to be the most effective way to avoid the instability and high economic costs associated with the proliferation of private and public monies. 9 I Schnabel and H S Shin, “Money and trust: lessons from the 1620s for money in the digital age”, BIS Working Papers, no 698, February 2018. 10 See G Dwyer, “Wildcat banking, banking panics, and free banking in the United States”, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, vol 81, nos 3–6, 1996; A Rolnick and W Weber, “New evidence of the free banking era”, The American Economic Review, vol 73, no 5, December 1983, pp 1080–91; and C Calomiris, “Banking crises yesterday and today”, Financial History Review, vol 17, no 1, 2010, pp 3–12. 11 See Bank of Mexico, “La SRE entregó al Banco de México un acervo de billetes de la época del porfiriato”, press release, 1 June 2015, www.banxico.org.mx/informacion-para-la-prensa/comunicados/billetes-y-monedas/billetes/%7B3A41E6F8-FBD8-2FA7-DA0B-66FCCE46430A%7D.pdf.
The unhappy experience with private forms of money raises deep questions about whether the proliferation of cryptocurrencies is desirable or sustainable. Even if the supply of one type of cryptocurrency is limited, the mushrooming of so many of them means that the total supply of all forms of cryptocurrency is unlimited. Added to this is the practice of “forking”, where an offshoot of an existing cryptocurrency can be conjured up from thin air. Given the experience with currency debasement that has peppered history, the proliferation of such private monies should give everyone pause for thought. I will return to this shortly. We have learned over the centuries that money as a social institution requires a solution to the problem of a lack of trust.12 The central banks that often emerged in the wake of the private and public money collapses may not have looked like the ones we have today, but they all had some institutional backing. The forms of this backing for their issuance of money have differed over time and by country.13 Commodity money has often been the start. History shows that gold and other precious metals stored in the vault with governance (and physical) safeguards can provide some assurance. Commodity money is not the only or necessarily sufficient mechanism. Often it also required a city-, state- or nation-provided charter, as with the emergence of giro banks in many European countries. Later, the willingness of central banks to convert money for gold at a fixed price (the gold standard) was the mechanism. Currency boards, where local money is issued one-to-one with changes in foreign currency holdings, can also work to provide credibility. The tried, trusted and resilient modern way to provide confidence in public money is the independent central bank. This means legal safeguards and agreed goals, ie clear monetary policy objectives, operational, instrument and administrative independence, together with democratic accountability to ensure broad-based political support and legitimacy. While not fully immune from the temptation to cheat, central banks as an institution are hard to beat in terms of safeguarding society’s economic and political interest in a stable currency. Where do cryptocurrencies fit in? One could argue that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies’ attractiveness lies in an intelligent application of DLT. DLT provides a method to broadcast transactions publicly and pseudonymously in a way that achieves in principle ledger immutability.14 Who would have thought that having people guessing solutions to what was described to me by a techie as the mathematical equivalent of mega-sudokus would be a way to generate consensus among strangers around the world through a proof of work? Does it thus provide a novel solution to the problem of how to generate trust among people who do not know each other? If DLT provides the potential for a superledger, could bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies then substitute for some forms of money?15 We do not have the full answers, but at this time the answer, also in the light of historical experiences, is probably a sound no, for many reasons. In fact, we are seeing the type of cracks and cheating that brought down other private currencies starting to appear in the House of Bitcoin. As an institution, Bitcoin has some obvious flaws. 12 See M King, “The institutions of monetary policy”, speech at the American Economic Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, 4 January 2004. 13 See Giannini, op cit. 14 See Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures, op cit. 15 See N Kocherlakota, “Money is memory”, Journal of Economic Theory, vol 81, pp 232–51, 1998. In fact, he shows in a very stark setting that having a costless means to record the memory of all economic actors, both present and past, can do as much as money, and sometimes more. Conversely, money effectively functions as memory by providing an observable record of past transactions – that is, agents can tell whether a potential trader is running a current deficit or surplus with society by looking at the money balances that trader is carrying. The finding, however, is theoretical and not robust to slight changes in assumptions, including the risk of loss of data.
Debasement. As I mentioned, we may be seeing the modern-day equivalent of clipping and culling. In Bitcoin, these take the form of forks, a type of spin-off in which developers clone Bitcoin’s software, release it with a new name and a new coin, after possibly adding a few new features or tinkering with the algorithms’ parameters. Often, the objective is to capitalise on the public’s familiarity with Bitcoin to make some serious money, at least virtually. Last year alone, 19 Bitcoin forks came out, including Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Diamond. Forks can fork again, and many more could happen. After all, it just takes a bunch of smart programmers and a catchy name. As in the past, these modern-day clippings dilute the value of existing ones, to the extent such cryptocurrencies have any economic value at all. Trust. As the saying goes, trust takes years to build, seconds to break and forever to repair. Historical experiences suggest that these “assets” are probably not sustainable as money. Cryptocurrencies are not the liability of any individual or institution, or backed by any authority. Governance weaknesses, such as the concentration of their ownership, could make them even less trustworthy. Indeed, to use them often means resorting to an intermediary (for example, the bitcoin exchanges) to which one has to trust one’s money. More generally, they piggyback on the same institutional infrastructure that serves the overall financial system and on the trust that it provides. This reflects their challenge to establish their own trust in the face of cyber-attacks, loss of customers’ funds, limits on transferring funds and inadequate market integrity. Inefficiency. Novel technology is not the same as better technology or better economics. That is clearly the case with Bitcoin: while perhaps intended as an alternative payment system with no government involvement, it has become a combination of a bubble, a Ponzi scheme and an environmental disaster. The volatility of bitcoin renders it a poor means of payment and a crazy way to store value. Very few people use it for payments or as a unit of account. In fact, at a major cryptocurrency conference the registration fee could not be paid with bitcoins because it was too costly and slow: only conventional money was accepted. To the extent they are used, bitcoins and their cousins seem more attractive to those who want to make transactions in the black or illegal economy, rather than everyday transactions. In a way, this should not be surprising, since individuals who massively evade taxes or launder money are the ones who are willing to live with cryptocurrencies’ extreme price volatility. In practice, central bank experiments show that DLT-based systems are very expensive to run and slower and much less efficient to operate than conventional payment and settlement systems. The electricity used in the process of mining bitcoins is staggering, estimated to be equal to the amount Singapore uses every day in electricity,16 making them socially wasteful and environmentally bad. Therefore, the current fascination with these cryptocurrencies seems to have more to do with a speculative mania than any use as a form of electronic payment, except for illegal activities. Accordingly, authorities are edging closer and closer to clamping down to contain the risks related to cryptocurrencies. There is a strong case for policy intervention. As now noted by many securities markets and regulatory and supervisory agencies, these assets can raise concerns related to consumer and investor protection. Appropriate authorities have a duty to educate and protect investors and consumers, and need to be prepared to act. Moreover, there are concerns related to tax evasion, money laundering and criminal finance. Authorities should welcome innovation. But they have a duty to make sure technological advances are not used to legitimise profits from illegal activities. 16 See Digiconomist, “Bitcoin energy consumption index”, digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption.
What role for the central bank? Central banks, acting by themselves and/or in coordination with other financial authorities like bank regulators and supervisors, ministries of finance, tax agencies and financial intelligence units, may also need to act, given their roles in providing money services and safeguarding money’s real value. Working with commercial banks, authorities have a part to play in policing the digital frontier. Commercial banks are on the front line since they are the ones settling trades, providing real liquidity, keeping exchanges going and interacting with customers. It is alarming that some banks have advertised “bitcoin ATMs” where you can buy and sell bitcoins. Authorities need to ensure commercial banks do not facilitate unscrupulous behaviours. Central banks need to safeguard payment systems. To date, Bitcoin is not functional as a means of payment, but it relies on the oxygen provided by the connection to standard means of payments and trading apps that link users to conventional bank accounts. If the only “business case” is use for illicit or illegal transactions, central banks cannot allow such tokens to rely on much of the same institutional infrastructure that serves the overall financial system and freeload on the trust that it provides. Authorities should apply the principle that the Basel Process has adhered to for years: to provide a level playing field to all participants in financial markets (banks and non-banks alike), while at the same time fostering innovative, secure and competitive markets. In this context, this means, among other things, ensuring that the same high standards that money transfer and payment service providers have to meet are also met by Bitcoin-type exchanges. It also means ensuring that legitimate banking and payment services are only offered to those exchanges and products that meet these high standards. Financial authorities may also have a case to intervene to ensure financial stability. To date, many judge that, given cryptocurrencies’ small size and limited interconnectedness, concerns about them do not rise to a systemic level. But if authorities do not act pre-emptively, cryptocurrencies could become more interconnected with the main financial system and become a threat to financial stability. Most importantly, the meteoric rise of cryptocurrencies should not make us forget the important role central banks play as stewards of public trust. Private digital tokens masquerading as currencies must not subvert this trust. As history has shown, there simply is no substitute. Still, central banks are embracing new technologies as appropriate. Many new developments can help. For example, fintech and “techfin” – which refers to established technology platforms venturing into financial services. These are changing financial service provision in many countries, most clearly in payments, and especially in some emerging market economies (for example, China and Kenya). While they introduce the possibility of non-bank financial institutions introducing money-type instruments, which raises a familiar set of regulatory questions, they do present scope for many gains. Conclusion In conclusion, while cryptocurrencies may pretend to be currencies, they fail the basic textbook definitions. Most would agree that they do not function as a unit of account. Their volatile valuations make them unsafe to rely on as a common means of payment and a stable store of value. They also defy lessons from theory and experiences. Most importantly, given their many fragilities, cryptocurrencies are unlikely to satisfy the requirement of trust to make them sustainable forms of money. While new technologies have the potential to improve our lives, this is not invariably the case. Thus, central banks must be prepared to intervene if needed. After all, cryptocurrencies piggyback on the institutional infrastructure that serves the wider financial system, gaining a semblance of legitimacy from their links to it. This clearly falls under central banks’ area of responsibility. The buck stops here. But the buck also starts here. Credible money will continue to arise from central bank decisions, taken in the light of day and in the public interest. In particular, central banks and financial authorities should pay special attention to two aspects. First, to the ties linking cryptocurrencies to real currencies, to ensure that the relationship is not parasitic. And second, to the level playing field principle. This means “same risk, same regulation”. And no exceptions allowed.
submitted by stellan0r to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

How To Launder Bitcoin  Silicon Real Money laundering, Bitcoin, and the Wild Wild West! Churches linked to money laundering There is No Cryptocurrency Regulation in Kenya - Joe Mucheru, CS, ICT, Kenya Money laundering fears for virtual currency Bitcoin - BBC ...

Safaricom, during the November hearing defended its decision to cancel service for the Lipisha money transfer operator, saying it failed to adhere to the anti-money laundering law. The Central Bank of Kenya has warned people against using digital currencies, like bitcoin. The Central Bank said these currencies can be used for money laundering and to finance terrorism. In the ... His policy proposal would streamline Taiwan’s laws with the EU’s own Anti-Money Laundering Directive. Should the law pass, the onus would be on local cryptocurrency exchanges to prevent money laundering from taking place on their platforms. On the part of cryptocurrency exchanges, they will be required to keep transaction records and report anything suspicious to officials in order to ... Currently in Kenya there are less than five merchants accepting bitcoin, all of them are based in Nairobi.Surprisingly, only a few online travel booking companies and small tech companies accept Bitcoin transactions. Statistics say that Bitcoin trading volumes have been very slow to grow in Kenya from 2013 to the end of 2016. However, 2017 has seen a substantial increase in peer-to-peer ... Bitcoin adoption has no brakes in Kenya . The Blockchain Association of Kenya has estimated that more than $1.5 mln has been already transacted in BTC with over 40,000 people using the coin (for comparison, Kenya has 5.28 mln unbanked adults). On a global scale, these numbers are minuscule, but, in fact, Citibank earlier estimated that Kenya has the fifth biggest number of Bitcoin holders per ...

[index] [40425] [28467] [13177] [5742] [20291] [26746] [38702] [8578] [27796] [44579]

How To Launder Bitcoin Silicon Real

Ivan Mazour & Hugh Halford-Thompson talk Bitcoin in London ... Asian School of Cyber Laws 2,419 views. 7:19. How does money laundering work? - Delena D. Spann - Duration: 4:47. TED-Ed 3,629,552 ... The digital currency Bitcoin has been making headlines this week after a huge increase in value, but ministers are to introduce tighter regulations on the vi... Churches linked to money laundering #LiveStreamKenya #KenyanNews #LiveinKenya SUBSCRIBE to our YouTube channel for more great videos: https://www.youtube.com... According to the Cabinet Secretary of ICT, Joe Mucheru, the Kenyan law does not recognize cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. This means that they cannot be regulated within the law. Mr. Mucheru was ... This video tutorial will explain you the concept of bitcoin and explain to you with a practical example of how money laundering is being done via bitcoin. For more please go through the below ...

#