My Prediction: By 2025, the U.S. will ban all use of non-regulated cryptocurrenc

[odolvlobo]

The Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate all international and interstate commerce. This power has been extended by the Supreme Court to regulating any economic activity, including, for example, growing food for your own consumption.

I believe that the U.S. will perceive or, at least, portray cryptocurrencies as an economic threat and will move to ban all use of cryptocurrencies that it cannot control, whether international or interstate or not, despite the consequences.

With the meteoric rise of cryptocurrencies and the inevitable backlash by legacy financial institutions, I believe this could happen in the next two years, but certainly by 2025.

[Bumped in 2022]

[European Central Bank]

then it goes peer to peer. i don't really see how they're gonna stop that.

in the meantime countries where it's fully legal like japan will thrive and other countries will compare the wreckage that america creates.

since no one can control any cryptocurrency they'll have to ban all of them. and i mean proper ones, not stuff like ripple.

the only truly likely possibility is exchanges being forbidden from dealing with stuff like monero and even that's a long shot.

[deepcoreotc]

I doubt that, more likely they are going to regulate the exchanges and this way the exchanges wont be able to list some cryptocurencies.

[remiby]

It is not possible to ban them. If they ban the exchanges, people will start using decentralized exchanges (they are on the rise anyway).

[odolvlobo]

then it goes peer to peer. i don't really see how they're gonna stop that.
in the meantime countries where it's fully legal like japan will thrive and other countries will compare the wreckage that america creates.
since no one can control any cryptocurrency they'll have to ban all of them. and i mean proper ones, not stuff like ripple.
the only truly likely possibility is exchanges being forbidden from dealing with stuff like monero and even that's a long shot.

Despite being possibly ineffective and potentially self-destructive, I don't believe that will stop the laws from being passed.

[remiby]

then it goes peer to peer. i don't really see how they're gonna stop that.

in the meantime countries where it's fully legal like japan will thrive and other countries will compare the wreckage that america creates.

since no one can control any cryptocurrency they'll have to ban all of them. and i mean proper ones, not stuff like ripple.

the only truly likely possibility is exchanges being forbidden from dealing with stuff like monero and even that's a long shot.

Despite being possibly ineffective and potentially self-destructive, I don't believe that will stop the laws from being passed.

I also believe that some of the people who decide about these laws have already invested in bitcoin, and other possibly have family/friends who invested - so these people will fight agains such laws.

[European Central Bank]

Despite being possibly ineffective and potentially self-destructive, I don't believe that will stop the laws from being passed.

so all of the trading desks, investment funds, exchanges, payment processors, employees of blockchain companies will all have to throw in the towel and go away because that's what such a law would entail.

somehow i'm not feeling it.

[richardsNY]

I have somehow always believed that ultimately, only a few crypto currencies would be able to survive on a legal basis, where the rest of the redundant garbage coins will be banned entirely in each and every form. Bitcoin however will definitely be able to keep its spot, that I am sure of. If you manage to regulate Bitcoin's ecosystem in such a way, you as government will be able to remain control over probably +90% of this entire ecosystem, which is all based on centralized services. It would be utterly stupid to take any sort of negatively tinted action against Bitcoin -- regulating the market means +90% control, where banning means basically 0% control in the long term. I can't see it become reality.

[Roman Coinson]

I wanna believe in your prediction, but I'm afraid, that bitcoin can die in 2-3 years

[European Central Bank]

I wanna believe in your prediction, but I'm afraid, that bitcoin can die in 2-3 years

then you may as well save yourself the time and throw in the towel right now. no point hanging around a doomed project. set yourself free and leave us all to sink with the ship.

[jayco25]

Any country can do so prohibit the use of bitcoin. The problem is that people are seeing the good use of bitcoin and other digital currencies. Some countries have already banned the use of digital currencies but have not been blocked yet and have been increasingly used.


#Datarius

[squatter]

I believe that the U.S. will perceive or, at least, portray cryptocurrencies as an economic threat and will move to ban all use of cryptocurrencies that it cannot control, whether international or interstate or not, despite the consequences.

With the meteoric rise of cryptocurrencies and the inevitable backlash by legacy financial institutions, I believe this could happen in the next two years, but certainly by 2025.

As you point out, Congress must establish new authority to regulate cryptocurrency outside of the narrow scope (money transmission, securities, futures markets and taxes) federal agencies have jurisdiction over. Do they really have the mandate (regarding the electorate) to do what you're saying? 5% or more of Americans already own BTC. By 2025, how large do you think that number will grow?

Do you foresee another Executive Order 6102 coming? I suppose we know how that played out.

This power has been extended by the Supreme Court to regulating any economic activity, including, for example, growing food for your own consumption.

Wickard v. Filburn -- the "growing food for your own consumption" case -- established that the Commerce Clause applied where an activity "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." What is the parallel argument for Bitcoin?

We should also note that the post-New Deal decisions you're referring to took place in a different judicial context:

During the post-1937 era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited. Since the latter half of the Rehnquist Court era, congressional use of the Commerce Clause has become slightly restricted again, being limited only to matters of trade or any other form of restricted area (whether interstate or not) and production (whether commercial or not).

[Whibu]

It is true that the end of this year a lot of crypto currencies have sprung up without clear rules, and I strongly agree that the American government is more serious in regulating the development of the currency of cryptocurrency.

[jaocoincrypto18]

The Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate all international and interstate commerce. This power has been extended by the Supreme Court to regulating any economic activity, including, for example, growing food for your own consumption.

I believe that the U.S. will perceive or, at least, portray cryptocurrencies as an economic threat and will move to ban all use of cryptocurrencies that it cannot control, whether international or interstate or not, despite the consequences.

With the meteoric rise of cryptocurrencies and the inevitable backlash by legacy financial institutions, I believe this could happen in the next two years, but certainly by 2025.

Up to this point the US is having a good job of detecting lot of illegal transactions that involves crypto currencies in their country in which mostly are involved in money laundering. This means that the US are very active of the regulation campaign so therefore for me there is no need for them to ban Bitcoin as long as the threat to the country is always eliminated and US citizens are enjoying their earnings in Bitcoin investments then the government should more focus on how to eliminate drugs instead of Bitcoin.

[nightmanisrightman]

Despite being possibly ineffective and potentially self-destructive, I don't believe that will stop the laws from being passed.

so all of the trading desks, investment funds, exchanges, payment processors, employees of blockchain companies will all have to throw in the towel and go away because that's what such a law would entail.

somehow i'm not feeling it.

I am not either because this isn't one little industry or a niche market. Right now it is but by the time they get to making such a bill the whole crypto industry will be in the trillions and well on its way to a proper asset class. It would be completely asinine for the US government to take this position, because other countries will adopt and prosper because of it. I can't see the US relinquishing that kind of power on the world stage, although because they have made some other asinine decisions in the past, I am not putting it past them. I put it at 1% chance it happens, and 99% chance it doesn't. Never count any possibility out, that is selling yourself short of a comprehensive plan.

[odolvlobo]

Wickard v. Filburn -- the "growing food for your own consumption" case -- established that the Commerce Clause applied where an activity "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." What is the parallel argument for Bitcoin?

I believe the argument would be that because cryptocurrencies can be used without regard for state or national boundaries, then any use would affect interstate and international commerce.

[dinnerk]

then it goes peer to peer. i don't really see how they're gonna stop that.

in the meantime countries where it's fully legal like japan will thrive and other countries will compare the wreckage that america creates.

since no one can control any cryptocurrency they'll have to ban all of them. and i mean proper ones, not stuff like ripple.

the only truly likely possibility is exchanges being forbidden from dealing with stuff like monero and even that's a long shot.

If the government banned only those projects that scam, we would all agree, but the government banned all cryptocurrencies. I think this is unrealistic and it is impossible to do so. This is equivalent to banning blockchain technology. Blockchain technology is one that can help a lot Industry to reduce costs of practical technology.

[Inn0vative1]

While it is very likely that the US will try to ban cryptocurrencies, I don't think they will succeed in doing so. That would be like trying to ban the internet. Cryptocurrencies by their nature, being decentralized and borderless make them very hard to control. Banning them will not have the desired effect. Just as the Chinese Bitcoin ban just resulted in more Chinese people dealing in crypto under the table. Governments and regulatory bodies are more likely to get on board this unstoppable train. Those who refuse and oppose will be made obsolete. That's just what happens when new superior technology emerges. Cryptocurrency is one such technology.

[southcat]

They cannot completely ban cryptocurrencies or bitcoins because the survival of cryptocurrencies is not determined by them. It is up to us, the enthusiasts and holders of bitcoins, to determine that the difficulty of transactions and the difficulty of finding them are at the highest, but it is absolutely impossible. Completely prohibited.

[deepcoreotc]

Would be interesting to see how they are gonna deal with decentralized exchanges. This is why I think decentralized exchanges are the future.