Use of cryptocurrencies, a concern – IMF

[sana54210]

Blockchain technology with transparent transactions, such as Bitcoin, looks much more "legitimate" than, for example, bank transactions covered by the privacy law of account holders. If the IMF is so afraid of the anonymity of cryptocurrencies, then let it open up access to the banking system so that you can see account balances, transactions, and owner data? Or here, in the banking sector, is anonymity correct and in the blockchain technology not correct?

Obviously they do not care about anything regarding the anonymity, they have no reason to want that neither, look at all the KYC deals in most exchanges, we can't even move our money around, hence I think it is quite obvious that we are not going to get anything remotely close to same thing in other places.

So, that means is you could find someone who uses an exchange, find the exchange address they were given, see the address they sent money from to their exchange and follow them up from there all from blockchain. Like you said it is a lot more clear and available, whereas in banking world, can you and I follow up what Elon does with his money? Of course not. Long story short this is not about anon or not, this is about banks versus crypto, this is about rich vs poor, this is about fair versus unfair and if the world goes more crypto they know that people will have a too much power.

[Twentyonepaylots]

It's made to be a concern because cryptocurrency threatens the structure that the economy we live in is built upon. The same structure mind you that incentivized abuse of the common worker and had left countries in shambles, and people in huge debts. And their ca to action further reinforces the fact that they are scared of cryptocurrency, because once the power is put back to the people, their plans and ploys will fall down.

The central bank in my country also prohibits cryptocurrency transactions as a medium of exchange, but the government allows it as a commodity.  At least with the legalization of Bitcoin, the government has the ability to monitor transactions carried out in my country through its exchangers.  But it is not denied, there are still many who carry out p2p transactions for quite confidential purposes. What is important is that every country that bans Bitcoin and other cryptos is a country that is lazy to make regulations.  And the economists are the less literate.

Or they are just afraid of what crypto can really do, that's why they opted to ban it instead of regulating it. That might actually be the case.

[verita1]

I am concerned about the IMF because until now it has not learned about bitcoin and what it has achieved.
I have no problem using a centralized or decentralized exchange. KYC is not a problem for me because it is necessary for my P2P transactions.
I think it will not be a problem for bitcoin if the IMF tries to review the concerns of the central bank of Nigeria. I think that bitcoin deserves an exhaustive and verifiable reversal of the solutions that people who invest in it are looking for.

[qwertyup23]

I do think it is about weighing the pros and cons of cryptocurrencies, as a whole.

We all know that the blockchain shows every transaction in the public ledger in which such information cannot be altered as it is physically impossible. However, its application on its day-to-day use shows its importance and use for future references. For example, you can track down the history of an item and every processes it went.

The downside, however, is such avenue may be a gateway or an avenue of purchasing illegal and covet items in the dark web. I think this area of concern should be the main focus of the government on how to balance the pros and cons of implementing the blockchain in our daily use.

[20kevin20]

I believe people that know about cryptocurrencies should focus on these while saying cryptocurrencies are used for for terrorism financing, money laundering and drug peddling. Although, pseudonymous cryptocurrencies  can raise a concern but not like anonymous coins, that is why some exchanges are delisting anonymous cryptocurrencies, because their transactions can not be tracked.

Cash has been around for so, so long. You can use it pretty much anywhere you want (or you could've done that before the pandemic at least) and nobody would've given a damn where your money came from and where it's going.

I don't see the point they're trying to make: if I can take care of my own cash without someone else having to bother me and spy on me, why should I not be allowed to take care of my own Bitcoins or Moneros? Monero can be tracked. Pretty much all coins that are private can be traced. The only difference is that I can only track your XMR if you agree with it. Bitcoin, on the other hand, makes it possible so that I can spy on you without your consent.

I would have seen a point in doing this if crimes were on the rise since BTC's inception. But with so many surveillance cameras and so much technology invading our private lives, I don't see why exactly it makes sense to invade my financial intimacy.

“That is why some central banks, not only in Nigeria, have these concerns about what kind of activities these cryptocurrencies are put and how best to monitor those activities.” Aisen noted that some of the activities might be illegal or related to money laundering and drug peddling.

Swap the words I put in bold with "fiat" and you cannot tell me the statement does not apply although now you're talking about fiat instead of cryptocurrencies. To be honest, I actually find it scary how people do not think for themselves anymore and listen to the words of these idiots trying to control every little aspect of our lives. It's outrageous..

[DrBeer]

They often speak of "financial freedom" here. And tell me - what do you mean by this concept?
It seems to me that many people confuse "freedom" with "concealment" a little. Freedom is the possibility of choice, action, realization of desires. What many are talking about is "to hide the transaction from the state", income, information about purchases ... You really believe in the society and the state system where the state will not control the income and expenditures of citizens in order to increase tax collection and reduce the risks of illegal payments " services, services "or goods? The only "inconvenience" that I will squeeze out from the classical principles of government work is:
- an attempt to squeeze more taxes out of me. But there is tax legislation, official optimization schemes, etc.
- information about my purchases will become known. But on the other hand, all networks collect and process data about you as network users (bonus programs, etc.)

Maybe we do not correctly formulate and understand the problems? Maybe some things are objectively contrived?

[Spaffin]

They often speak of "financial freedom" here. And tell me - what do you mean by this concept?
It seems to me that many people confuse "freedom" with "concealment" a little. Freedom is the possibility of choice, action, realization of desires. What many are talking about is "to hide the transaction from the state", income, information about purchases ... You really believe in the society and the state system where the state will not control the income and expenditures of citizens in order to increase tax collection and reduce the risks of illegal payments " services, services "or goods? The only "inconvenience" that I will squeeze out from the classical principles of government work is:
- an attempt to squeeze more taxes out of me. But there is tax legislation, official optimization schemes, etc.
- information about my purchases will become known. But on the other hand, all networks collect and process data about you as network users (bonus programs, etc.)

Maybe we do not correctly formulate and understand the problems? Maybe some things are objectively contrived?

In fact, what is happening today, even in developed countries, is very difficult to call freedom of choice for each person. Based on this, we cannot hope for this with an appropriate state structure and the government will never calm down if they do not control not only the income and expenses of each person, but also their whole life.

[DrBeer]

They often speak of "financial freedom" here. And tell me - what do you mean by this concept?
It seems to me that many people confuse "freedom" with "concealment" a little. Freedom is the possibility of choice, action, realization of desires. What many are talking about is "to hide the transaction from the state", income, information about purchases ... You really believe in the society and the state system where the state will not control the income and expenditures of citizens in order to increase tax collection and reduce the risks of illegal payments " services, services "or goods? The only "inconvenience" that I will squeeze out from the classical principles of government work is:
- an attempt to squeeze more taxes out of me. But there is tax legislation, official optimization schemes, etc.
- information about my purchases will become known. But on the other hand, all networks collect and process data about you as network users (bonus programs, etc.)

Maybe we do not correctly formulate and understand the problems? Maybe some things are objectively contrived?

In fact, what is happening today, even in developed countries, is very difficult to call freedom of choice for each person. Based on this, we cannot hope for this with an appropriate state structure and the government will never calm down if they do not control not only the income and expenses of each person, but also their whole life.

If we are talking about the financial system, please give an example of "not freedom"?
For example, having earned money, I can spend it by any available, legal method by buying a fierce product, service or service that does not violate the law. I have no visible or obvious limitations. The only thing is that I have to pay taxes on income that passes through my accounts as a private entrepreneur. But paying taxes is okay. Although I agree - it's not normal when a part of your income is taken away from you without giving anything in return. But I see social assistance in the state, I see old people's pensions, I see medical care, I see many things that were created for taxes, including mine

[CarnagexD]

Even in the old days, people really would persecute and condemn things that they lack information about, the same thing is happening with bitcoin wherein people who don't use it are the ones to talk badly and depict bitcoin in a bad light. The only way we can feasibly solve this is to provide and help them be informed about the benefits of bitcoin.

[Silberman]

Is the above quote meaningful? I do not see it meaningful at all. Some people are not concerned about privacy and make use of exchange for crypto purchase, while many providing kyc all because exchanges are making it mandatory to do. Many people do not like exchanges because they are making people not to have privacy. Is it not proper for the government to have laws that will make exchanges be able to track crypto transactions rather than banning it. That is why I like countries like USA that do not ban cryptocurrencies  but regulating it. As fiat is, it is most used in all these (terrorism financing, money laundering and drug peddling).

This is all completely bogus.

You're absolutely right. Their argument is flawed in that essentially what they are saying is since BTC can be used as a means of transaction for illegal entities, then it must be banned.

That is a classic fallacy where the argument stems from an overgeneralisation from a very specific and nowadays increasingly obsolete use case of cryptos due to the introduction of so many institutions into the field.

By this logic, gift cards should be banned because of the high levels of fraud associated with them (and I think Hydrogen posted a nice article a while back regarding this). Heck, bank transfers should be banned altogether because it facilitates certain transactions with tax evasion, money laundering... etc. etc.

It is only that they want to restrict access to decentralised assets that they are making these meaningless statements. No other reason.

It is a baseless argument but one that works really well with the masses, if we applied this kind of thought process then no new technology should have ever been adopted as it can always increase the effectiveness of criminal behaviour, we do not ban cars despite car accidents being the leading cause of deaths on the young population, why? Because the usefulness of cars is simply too high that we cannot allow to ban cars so unfortunately it is a price we as a society have to pay, and the same kind of logic should be applied to bitcoin.

[torrantz]

Not a new news when people who supposed to government and are on highest echelon don't know what they're talking about more specifically a technology that's advanced. Even worse their lack of information also influence their poor decision, imagine keep blabbering about crypto involved in the funding of terrorism and that sort of thing meanwhile the paper money that's totally leaves no trace has no problem being used for terrorism funding everywhere cuz released by the central bank.

[Smartprofit]

Governments seek total control.  However, the Internet and the virtual space are not the territory of separate states. 

The virtual world was created not by kings, emperors and presidents, but by developers and ordinary people.  Therefore, the Internet and the virtual space is a special space that should not be regulated by the laws of individual states.  Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is the money of the virtual space. 

Yes, the Bitcoin blockchain is transparent.  This is done to confirm the reality of transactions, and not for regulatory purposes.

[tippytoes]

Governments seek total control.  However, the Internet and the virtual space are not the territory of separate states.  

The virtual world was created not by kings, emperors and presidents, but by developers and ordinary people.  Therefore, the Internet and the virtual space is a special space that should not be regulated by the laws of individual states.  Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is the money of the virtual space.  

Yes, the Bitcoin blockchain is transparent.  This is done to confirm the reality of transactions, and not for regulatory purposes.

And in this digital age, the government has no full control of what people can read via net and learn how to do things on their own. This is the reason why most governments don't want bitcoin or crypto, because they also have no full control of the financial transactions of crypto users. Most of them don't even understand how to transact with crypto. So right now, they are against with it. However, it may change in the coming years, when they slowly understand its importance to the community and the economy.

[Mauser]

Governments seek total control.  However, the Internet and the virtual space are not the territory of separate states. 

The virtual world was created not by kings, emperors and presidents, but by developers and ordinary people.  Therefore, the Internet and the virtual space is a special space that should not be regulated by the laws of individual states.  Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is the money of the virtual space. 

Yes, the Bitcoin blockchain is transparent.  This is done to confirm the reality of transactions, and not for regulatory purposes.

I agree the Internet was created by ordinary people, and people who invested a lot of time in the 80s and 90s made sure it was free to access. They didn't want any government control that would filter what people could see and what was blocked. Same goes for crypto currencies, the inventors never wanted a government or central being able to control the money supply of crypto currencies. We need to stay strong.

[semobo]

Anyone who is going to buy or sell huge amount if cryptocurrencies on exchanges will be concerning about the enforced KYC not only to money laundering and so called criminal activities but they really do care about protecting their availability of assets to unknown people who called exchange owners.

Some central banks too stick with such reasons like money laundering to ban cryptocurrency usage but they are nor really concerned about the money laundering they want to stop people from going decentralized.

[justdimin]

Governments seek total control.  However, the Internet and the virtual space are not the territory of separate states. 

The virtual world was created not by kings, emperors and presidents, but by developers and ordinary people.  Therefore, the Internet and the virtual space is a special space that should not be regulated by the laws of individual states.  Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is the money of the virtual space. 

Yes, the Bitcoin blockchain is transparent.  This is done to confirm the reality of transactions, and not for regulatory purposes.

It "can be" controlled as in governments could ban websites, there has been so many websites FBI has closed for example and there has been some websites banned all around the world, look at China for example, they are not allowed on many websites, and if it is found out that you went to twitter without Chinese government approving and you said anything critical of the ccp that means you are gone, as soon as they find you, not only they will kill you, but they will kill all of your family just in case there is a vendetta so that there won't be anyone left hating them. This has been proved as well.

So, if things are this drastic and this horrible in some nations, it is obvious that it can be controlled in some other places mildly, not a huge deal, like maybe banning some casino website type deal so it is not a big deal for the general public, but that doesn't change the fact that it was controlled, even if it is an illegal website that sells guns wholesale, if you ban it, that means it is not free, it is good that it is not free in that case but it is still not free.

[slapper]

On the strength of new technologies, each individual has different purposes for using bitcoin as well as for cryptocurrencies.  As you can see, the majority use bitcoin in order to gain a huge profit from the increase in the price whereas it is believed to be a strong hedge again the monetary. Others like bitcoin because of its anonymity and thus, they avoid use any exchange which forces them to become exposed to the authorities. Only a few manipulate bitcoin for bad influences such as terrorism, money laundering, etc

Banning Bitcoin is a way in which Nigeria chooses to solve the problem without having any appropriate regulation on using, owning, and trading cryptocurrency. They avoid the facts that people in their country are innovators who easily understand and adapt to advanced practical applications.

To me, bitcoin is a wonderful asset generating money passively for me without doing anything except stacking it.

[Silberman]

Governments seek total control.  However, the Internet and the virtual space are not the territory of separate states.  

The virtual world was created not by kings, emperors and presidents, but by developers and ordinary people.  Therefore, the Internet and the virtual space is a special space that should not be regulated by the laws of individual states.  Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is the money of the virtual space.  

Yes, the Bitcoin blockchain is transparent.  This is done to confirm the reality of transactions, and not for regulatory purposes.

The problem for governments is that such a goal is impossible to accomplish, I think we all understand that one of the first and probably the most important duty of a government is to guarantee the security of their citizens, but with that excuse they are taking so many measures that go against our freedoms that sooner or later people would have reacted against it and once that happens any attempt to try to control their citizens will fail completely and bitcoin is a perfect example of this.

[20kevin20]

The virtual world was created not by kings, emperors and presidents, but by developers and ordinary people.  Therefore, the Internet and the virtual space is a special space that should not be regulated by the laws of individual states. 

Actually, the internet is way too centralized and becomes more and more censored as we speak. It's in the worst state it has ever probably been, and that really sucks.

[Coinsfera]

I am so curious that many people do not know or research properly about bitcoin and many other crypto assets, they only know little about them and dipicting them bad to people. Normally, there are two types of cryptocurrencies  in term of psuedonymity and anonymity, they are:
1. The ones with public ledger which transactions can be seen by everyone on blockchain. Example is bitcoin
2. The ones that are are completely anonymous in which transactions are not designed to be tracked

The International Monetary Fund has called for caution in the use of cryptocurrencies, describing it as a concern. It disclosed this during a virtual briefing on the recently published 2020 Article IV IMF Staff Report for Nigeria. The Resident Representative of IMF for Nigeria, Ari Aisen, said the concern on the use of cryptocurrencies was why many central banks were cautious about the development.
“That is why some central banks, not only in Nigeria, have these concerns about what kind of activities these cryptocurrencies are put and how best to monitor those activities.” Aisen noted that some of the activities might be illegal or related to money laundering and drug peddling.

Is the above quote meaningful? I do not see it meaningful at all. Some people are not concerned about privacy and make use of exchange for crypto purchase, while many providing kyc all because exchanges are making it mandatory to do. Many people do not like exchanges because they are making people not to have privacy. Is it not proper for the government to have laws that will make exchanges be able to track crypto transactions rather than banning it. That is why I like countries like USA that do not ban cryptocurrencies  but regulating it. As fiat is, it is most used in all these (terrorism financing, money laundering and drug peddling).
Central banks that ban bitcoin only encouraging p2p.

Probably they fear that if people hold the mass amount of crypto and wanted to convert it to cash then it will be a problem those banks have low cash holdings. Considering the significant price increase in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies it will be hard to pay them back if they want to take their cash out. This can be considered a major problem.