Bitcoin Forum

Janet Yellen does not like bitcoin and the cryptospace, we certainly know this already. However, why has she presently changed her opinion and began telling everyone through her speeches that crypto is transformative technology? I am very skeptical of this. I speculate that there might be a magic trick in the end where something like every American user in the cryptospace cannot sell their coins for fiat might occur hehehe.

https://i.ibb.co/g9FP8rX/DB4-E7-D69-58-B9-445-A-AEF8-9874934-EBD15.jpg
Devil woman

Speaking to attendees at an American University event, Yellen highlighted the extreme divergence of perceptions about crypto, saying that’s often the case with “transformative” technology.
“Some proponents speak as if the technology is so radically and beneficially transformative that the government should step back completely and let innovation take its course,” she said. “On the other hand, skeptics see limited, if any, value in this technology and associated products and advocate that the government take a much more restrictive approach.”

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/04/07/treasury-secretary-janet-yellen-calls-crypto-transformative-in-wide-ranging-speech/

coindesk is sister company to coinbase. which hates all regulation as it means more work. so there is some bias.

instead of reading coindesks snippits. actually try to read all the quotes that are said

EG
"Regulation should be tech neutral,” Yellen said. Drafting rules for crypto “should be guided by the risks associated with the services provided to households and businesses, not the underlying technology."

many twitter nuts try to convert snippets of certain things and then exaggerate them to mean something else. EG a new draft US law had taken out a 120day  thing in regards to implementing new rules that are not yet law.

twitter idiots read this as if yellen can now implement any rule she likes without a 120 notice
yet the reality is.. before the draft, the SEC could make a proposal law and implement its requires immediately 120days before its voted on.. and then extend it if the vote doesnt happen..
but with the new draft if accepted. taking out this 120day thing. means that they cannot enforce a proposal 120days before its even voted in.

yep the twitter nuts got things the wrong way round. the draft which certain idiots are pretending is bad, actually has benefits. it actually stops the SEC from implementing things at a whim and instead makes them have to only do things within existing, voted in law, seeking guidance from multiple departments if its fair and lawful before doing so

other twitter nuts are pretending that new laws are suggesting that software developers miners and full node users need to KYC each other. yet reality is that is not the case. only SERVICE PROVIDERS(financial brokers(EG exchanges)) need to be regulated and do KYC. not individuals that are not doing financial transfers as a business for a commission/fee

She doesn't say that crypto is "transformative technology".She says that other people (the hardcore crypto supporters) are saying that crypto is transformative technology.This is a big difference.
I believe that she will always be anti-crypto,just like every central banker around the world.
She's just pretending to be neutral towards it,but that's hypocrisy.


She isn't even sharing her opinion about crypto,she's just saying what other people think.
This is just another clickbait news article,telling us nothing specific.
It would be great,if the US crypto regulations remain truly neutral,rather than hostile towards blockchain technology and the cryptocurrency industry in general.
The crypto industry should be treated as equal to the fiat financial industry.There shouldn't be any discrimination in the legislation and regulations.

This statement is a two edges sword! It could very well be translated into two different meanings. Is it a technology that will transform the financial space for good or for bad??

While we, the community members believe that cryptocurrency is a good technology that can disrupt the current banking based financial system. We have see some examples during Hong Kong crisis and we are seeing it now during Rus-Ukraine war. People are becoming less dependent on banks and more eager to control their own finances through cryptocurrency.

Then, there is government who believes cryptos can disrupt the current banking based financial system and take away the power from their hand to the end user. So they are seeing it as a threat.

So it all depends on which side you are! Janet Yellen is way too small when it comes to cryptospace and its scope. I don't think we need to give a lot of weight to her statement.

I do not trust her as a representative of the established power and the fiat system of infinite debt, regardless of the claims she may make about Bitcoin.

In this case, like others we have seen, it is one more of "if you can't beat them join them". The only thing they are trying to do from the public authorities is to tolerate Bitcoin but trying to control it as much as possible with KYC/AML regulations and the collaboration of centralized exchanges.

Even in the small part you posted, I don't see any signs of her opinion about bitcoin being changed at all!

All she said is "technology" is good. In other words we may soon see the US government issuing a centralized shitcoin called something like cUSD where c stands for cryptocurrency. With US dollar's dominance being threatened and many countries dumping it from their reserves the chances of it is actually pretty high. So there needs to be some groundwork where after years of them spreading FUD about bitcoin they have to start praising the underlying technology as a separate thing so that their own FUD doesn't backfire.

Little do they know that centralized shitcoins are still shitcoins regardless of how much they praise the technology.

Good God, I hope that never happens. The lady is just confused I guess.  Just like those millions out there who are not able to decide in between whether they should buy it or leave it. Just being rich does not mean they are smart investors, the richness could be hereditary. Lolz. But smartness needs to be obtained.

She is wat far from home when she speaks like that about bitcoin. She is not the first anyways, we have Buffet too. Many millionaires and billionaires say one thing but do another. Could be one of the market manipulation tricks. 

For instance, this lady might have some hidden investment which she wants to grow and that’s why she started making positive news about it. Could be anything from A to Z.

Hey even Jamie Dimon lately told everyone, his investors I guess, that Bitcoin and blockchain are real stuff,,, not just made up fantasy internet money. Now this was very different from many years ago.

We have to remember that these rich guys became rich from being wise in investment. No need to trust them, but trust that if they want Bitcoin dead, they will do all they can to defeat it BUT when they realize it is futile eventually they will give in,,, just like Dimon.

Obviously, when you have grasped the knowledge, the praise/criticism of the field is itself an assessment of their point of view. Personally, I don't like to blame anyone when I myself have not done well. There is no possibility to complain about their opinion. We can listen, but it is our right to apply it. This woman, too, I am not sympathetic to the view of this market being too negative because anything has two sides to it. Don't impose your personal opinion on others.

Regarding her opinion about the bitcoin now. She, maybe have seen the future about it and knows what will come of it in the near future. Criticism about bitcoin always fail at the end of the day. They can now see that bitcoin has so much value and can’t fade away just like that because of its decentralised way of operation. Regardless of what she thinks or have in mind about it and others who don’t like it, the bitcoin market is already in safe hands and it won’t fall no matter the pressures mounted on it.

Any university speaker who is not speaking about research is a clown not worth listening to. Especially in western universities. I say this because the western world has transformed universities into political moral camps and uneducated philosophy gatherings.

A bachelor in science cannot even be compared to something as worthless as economics.

This woman should understand that Bitcoin is a thorn in the eyes of the government and it cannot be removed or controlled. Even if the worlds countries all become like north korea and humane lives become a thing of the past, Bitcoin will still not cease to exist as long as there is a single miner in the world.

She can say whatever she wants about Bitcoin, but the reality is that Bitcoin adoption cannot be stopped. No matter how many negative stuff that we hear about Bitcoin, or saying that “Bitcoin is dead” many times, no one can stop it from getting adopted because it is highly “contagious”. We understand the opinion of others about Bitcoin, it’s just that they aren’t educated or informed enough about Bitcoin while other famous personalities, companies, institutions and crypto-friendly government have understood more than Janet and the other naysayers out there.

It may not be that she has something against Bitcoin, but she simply doesn't understand it or understands it very well, but official policy in the US has always defended the national currency at all costs - why would Janet be different from everyone else?


This is nothing new that has not been discussed countless times, and in fact it is very easy to do if the law banning all crypto exchanges in the US is passed, there is no more legal crypto trading. It's not that it will just happen, but as one of the measures that politics has up its sleeve, it should always be taken into account that they can decide on that move.

I generally don't trust politicians, especially those who are known for dirty games, so I'm not too worried about what this woman thinks. Besides, didn't she do a good promotion of Bitcoin when that banner appeared behind her back?  8)

https://i.imgur.com/TrmxQ63.png

I expect to see Bitcoin recognition if it ever happens. I can't look forward to using Bitcoin, knowing the torment I'm avoiding. Especially when cash, which is yet the most private way to transact, is replaced by such nonsense.

All the black economy will move into cryptos, lol.

Also,

The truth is that the lady, if you have a face to be a bad person, and the sudden change is not because maybe she already creates in a good way in BTC and Crypto, it is because there is always a particular interest, it is getting a good interest participation taking advantage of the boom of all this, the boom of cryptomoneds has been raised in a very good way worldwide, they can no longer say that BTC or Crypto is bad, and governments know very well that they can not go against the cryptomoneds, is a much greater economic technology and stronger than the economy presented today, and this lady clearly knows a lot of information that very few know, for me is to just a simple assembly to start the regulation of BTC and Crypto, for that somehow as good corrupt politician take benefits from it.

In this other information, it also evidences:

Source: https://www.barrons.com/articles/yellen-crypto-regulation-first-speech-digital-assets-51649328772 (https://www.barrons.com/articles/yellen-crypto-regulation-first-speech-digital-assets-51649328772)

I think Janet Yellen is old, today she says Negative tomorrow she says positive about Bitcoin, even though she is currently the US Secretary of the Treasury.

I've seen on CNBC March 22, 2022, about Janet Yellen saying, about the benefits of crypto.

Now he says.

I believe Janet Yellen's words, cannot be held and have no effect on the development of Bitcoin.
Bottom line: how influential is Janet Yellen, on the world of technology and crypto, I think 0%, I believe Janet Yellen's statement about Bitcoin will disappear like salt in the rain.

She has never said anything positive about bitcoin and she will never do so.
There isn't a single mention of bitcoin in her speech. I am sure she doesn't even know how bitcoin works.

She and all other politicians who talk about cryptocurrencies only know that it's new thing and think that they can use this innovation to prevent their national currency from collapsing.
They think they can combine their centralized currency and blockchain (not real blockchain, the blockchain they like) and have a new shape of currency which is still in their full control. They think people will prefer their stable coin to bitcoin. But I don't see any difference between fiat and a stable coin issued by governments.

You over-inflate horror stories behind whatever she said. She's the secretary of the treasury. Of course that her aim is to protect US Dollar. Of course that her rhetoric will be more against Bitcoin than pro Bitcoin. What you'd expect?! Somehow I don't understand why in 16 posts nobody said it already: her statements and views are almost certainly biased.

All this being said, I too find this statement of her, strangely, more balanced and objective than many others'...


However, I see no reason for freaking out. It doesn't mean that her perception/vision would have changed... Like the saying: just one flower doesn't make it spring.

Btc is more than a decade and since the time of it's existence till now there has been countless negative comments from government and none government officials trying to discredit it to no avail.
In that case, I will consider this statement as one of those negative comments on btc that won't hold any effect.
Between, I don't think this is the worst statement that has ever been made about btc, I don't see why it should be given any importance.  @op i think your title is a bit harsh.

People should stop that praise of CBDC means praise of crypto, because it's usually the opposite - CBDC is governments version of crypto that they want to create as an alternative to both crypto and privately-owned payment networks. The goal of CBDC is more control over finance by the government, which is obviously the opposite of what crypto aims to achieve.


Sensationalist misrepresenting titles and crypto journalism, name a more iconic duo

Could not agree less with you.

Do you think crypto cares, the community cares, the free people cares about what she or anyone one else who are trying to keep crypto down for ages? That's an old women with old mindset, speaking garbage. Does she even know how to use a smartphone, or a laptop. I bet she even don't know which are called internet browser LOL

Crypto survived over 10 years. Nothing stopped its value to go over $65K and I do not think anyone would ever stop it. In fact their printed money are losing it's value. In Sri Lanka it seems plain papers have higher value than a bank note.

By now, no expert or self-proclaimed expert even influential people can bring bitcoin down.
We survive throughout these years, with so many trolls, influential people or rich people giving their own predictions or speculations.
She can give her own opinion but we know that the market doesn't revolve from somebody else's opinion.
Most are giving their opinion based on what they perceive about bitcoin market, or it is about protecting their interest.
But at the end of the day, bitcoin market will move according to the sentiments of the people using it.

I tend to agree with and I don't care about her and for sure no one will care about of what she said.

I don't know what is the reason for the recent dropped in Bitcoin price but for sure this isn't about her the reason why it drops.  Maybe she was trying to become a famous woman trying to seek attention from anyone (I even dont know her).  One thing in my mind, this could have a hidden agenda from her that we don't know that someday we realized.

The skeptical me thinks that she is only trying to make the American government appear that it is not a threat to the cryptospace. This is very different from their stance 2 years ago. Maybe this is a new strategy to make everyone feel safe before they begin their real agenda which will certainly be more bans and more control hehe.

Jamie Dimon is a known economic "hit man" terrorist who personally operated and profited from the American Collapse of 2008. He is an international banking criminal and of course fabulously rich from Americans loss and suffering

Even though this woman has said publicly that she doesn't like bitcoin, I think this woman has a goal of lowering the price of bitcoin or losing investors' confidence in bitcoin but that won't happen even if this woman rants about giving negative issues about bitcoin.

Yes,,, but he is not at all the only hit man in this regard and not even the most famous. I am not sure what your point is here, we are talking about people who are against Bitcoin at first only to change their minds later. They usually are people from traditional finance.

Remember, not everyone who has worked against Bitcoin is necessarily a criminal or terrorist as you put it.

I smell that this is something to do with the CBDC, talked about the technology which means blockchain so the opinion is still same about bitcoin but government may introduce CBDC in near future so the work for manipulation started already, basically they are confusing the next generation so they just go with the government when it comes to money.

Janet Yellen is for regulating the whole cryptocurrency industry and all players have to toe the line...especially if the federal government can be able to pass laws for the same purpose. Because the government needs more funds to sustain its spending on many big projects, it has to have many sources of tax revenues and they are now looking at the cryptocurrency industry as a good addition to new sources of money. In the end, we are hoping that there can be a win-win formula that will help the industry grow into the future and not killing it while the government gets the money it is hoping to squeeze from the people and firms into the crypto space.

You quoted someone else instead of me. 😉

Very true. Bitcoin is very big now to be stopped by any powerful authority. Don't bother this old school woman. The decentralized concept is getting popular. People do not want anything, any service, data to be in a centralized server. They know the legal risk, what can the authority do. Blockchain technology created new opportunity, new ideas to access data, to store data, to use data without listening to a single party or being dependent on them. The internet is more diversify and more secure because of blockchain idea.

It's just matter of time to see the digital world is changing. Today's science fiction is tomorrows' reality.

The current weakening of the bitcoin price I think is closely related to her first speech at the American Treasury last week, I think this woman is truly a two-faced devil because she has previously stated that cryptocurrencies now play a major role in America financial decisions, but she is now this is subtly in his statement continuing to be skeptical of developments and the benefits that can be taken if applied to the financial system.

This might be true if you look in that direction but on the other hand when the talker is him I'm not too sure if he means a better direction for bitcoin :D
Maybe for now he is still quite vocal in saying that he is neutral about this but on the other hand I still quite believe and even really believe that he will still be anti-crypto and will remain like that

The only time she uses that neutrality card is when her next sentence is about regulation. Those of you who think regulation is the only way I'd like to remind that we need acceptance, not regulation. The government always wants to treat things like their own, instead of allowing things to take their own course. Bitcoin was there when they ignored it, when they ridiculed it and it's going to be there when they work their asses off to regulate it.


Maybe that's why she's fighting bitcoin so much. Still remembers being pranked by a bitcoiner.
They fired the poor guy as far as I remember.

Yeah, that is what the haters goal but we don't know maybe she is not really a hater? But, she is like the others out there that have a hidden desire with bitcoin. They will say negative stuffs only to lower the price of bitcoin and then they will be the first to buy it when its price drop.

That trick works before when people have a less confidence with bitcoin but I think not anymore because people already see that bitcoin is a strong coin and people have figured out that there are people that spread lies or fuds only to damage the reputation of bitcoin. This woman can said whatever he wants with bitcoin but our decision will never be changed, sorry.

She does! Let's consider her an ambassador for Bitcoin 😉

Any type of publicity ultimately helps bitcoin to spread out no matter it's good or bad publicity. Wise people hear about it and then they do their own due diligence. And when you spend time on bitcoin then you realize you were in dark before. They wanted to keep you in dark to pocket their benefit. The rest is done automatically. This become just a matter of time to get involve with bitcoin.


The current weaken? Are you saying price of each piece is around $40k is weak? Besides you are saying bitcoin never had price fall and from the beginning it was like $65k and now it's $40K. You really need to watch before saying. Get your concept right. 1 Bitcoin = 1 Bitcoin.

Maybe he's changed because the bitcoin market is so hot right now that he's stuck alone with his negative thoughts so he's blind to see what's going on with bitcoin until now.

There are many haters like him, even they are backed by strong funds, but this has never succeeded in stopping cryptocurrencies, sometimes investors come from negative news, including me who was interested from 2014 until now because initially heard that bitcoin is only used for illegal transactions, terrorist funds , avoid taxes and so on.

We call her Janet (Butthurt) Yellen, because she is still butthurt over the whole "Bitcoin guy" incident. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/12/someone-held-up-a-buy-bitcoin-sign-during-yellens-testimony-to-congress.html

So, she will take her revenge on Bitcoin, when she gets the the opportunity to do it.  ::)  This was a big issue and a embarrassment for her ... so it is just natural for her to act against something like this. She is also part of the old school financial (Fiat) system, and those old farts will not easily be converted to support Crypto currencies. (Warren Buffett  and Charles Munger)  ::)

I don't believe that she is such an evil and grumpy old granny who would take revenge on a personal level because of such things - because she is in the service of politics, and she only says what is the official position of the same politics. I'm not aware of what happened to that guy, although I was convinced that two people were responsible for that incident. Either way, dismissal is the least evil that could have happened to them given everything that is happening in that country.

---

Why not, every opportunity should be taken, and when that evil woman realizes what Bitcoin really is, the force would become stronger in her and she would come out of the darkness :)

https://i.imgur.com/gyFbGSN.jpg

When I read this snippet you posted, I can't really disagree with much of it. On one hand proponents of the technology tend to praise it like it's the second coming overly emphasizing and sometimes over-exaggerating the importance of crypto. It's definitely a good idea and it's a good starting point, but it's far from perfect. On the other hand, I doubt that a fully restrictive approach by the government is the solution. A middle ground should be explored, and both sides will have to make compromises and meet somewhere in the middle.

On the video, she's talking about CBDC and its potential impact, and that Biden's order is to investigate the potential impact. And she does say that US citizens benefit from the dollar due to the part it plays in the global economy. Then on the longer one about the lessons she is talking about technologies and the importance of financial regulations, importance of accounting for risks. So, honestly, from her words, I don't even see anything pro-crypto. She's very wary of "digital assets" and emphasizes "responsible innovation". So it doesn't strike me as a change of position, not really.

The only way that we can give them access to penetrating into the cryptocurrency community is through centralised exchanges. If the cryptocurrency community is going to remain truly decentralized then we would have to maintain that by stopping the use of centralised exchanges (which is not possible) because most people have chosen to be making use of centralised exchanges due to how convenient it can be for them.

And the government are now leveraging on that weakness that the community has to penetrate and start regulating the market. We have seen the new rules that they have set out and it will soon start. If we would have all maintained decentralization it would have been really good.

Well said. God bless her restless soul 😉

Who cares what her position is. It's better if we stop talking about it and give less importance in it. The more we will talk the better her administration will feel. Bitcoin survived and is going to survive. I wonder what will happen to dollar when China will take over the world 🤣

I do not think true bitcoiners have any confidence in USD. Not only USD but in any fiat currency.