[2018-01-27]Bitcoin can be called an asset, just don’t call it money, Swedish CB

[bbc.reporter]

If the Swiss laws will not define bitcoin and other altcoins as money, would that mean trading in websites like Localbitcoins will not make you liable as an illegal money processor?

I also heard of some Localbitcoin traders who went to prison because they were operating an illegal money processing business under US law. But it is vague because some judges define bitcoin as money while others define it as something else.

In any case, defining what bitcoin is legally will come as a challenge to our beloved politicians.



Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are "not a very good version of money" due to their volatile nature, the deputy governor of Sweden's central bank said Thursday.

Cecilia Skingsley said that digital currencies were not an efficient store of value or means of exchange, but conceded that they could be called assets instead.

"In my view, cryptocurrencies, bitcoin and the others — the way I've seen them so far — they don't meet the criteria to be called money," the Riksbank deputy said at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland.

"They can be called an asset, fine, but they are not a very good version of money because it's not a very stable store of value where they fluctuate a lot. And it's not a very efficient medium of exchange because you don't buy your groceries with bitcoin."

Read the full article https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/riksbanks-skingsley-bitcoin-cryptocurrencies-are-assets-not-money.html

[davis196]

I agree with this.Companies like PayPal should allow trading bitcoins for fiat money,because bitcoin is an asset,in fact,bitcoin is a digital product just like any other digital product around the internet.
I don`t care how the people and central banks will call bitcoin.They could even call it sh&t,but they have to allow and liberate cryptocurrency trading.

[xianbits]

I'm just curious, if they will not consider it money, then they can't cover it to AML? Is that it?
Is it about how we define bitcoin or who will define it?

[Hell-raiser]

Is it about how we define bitcoin or who will define it?

I think neither is correct. The ultimate fate of anything like Bitcoin depends on how we use it and not how we tag it or call it. If we use Bitcoin as a vehicle for speculation, then it will be an asset, a speculative asset I mean, since this is the very definition of an asset, On the other hand, if we start using it as a means of exchange, then it will function as money and it will be money. In the worst case scenario, when no one uses Bitcoin for anything, it will be neither asset nor money. It will be nothing then.

[btctube]

What ever they may call it, a lot of people may or may not agree but the most important thing of all is that will they legalize it like we can trade legally including all the other cryptocurrencies?

If it all end up like we can't do it anyway, then this conference is nothing but a waste of time. Why can't governments and banks just create their own blockchain and their coin. After all they can't stop all these anyway.