[2021-06-19] Bitcoin Must Be Accepted By World Bank, According To Charter

[bbc.reporter]

It appears that there are bigger things that are going to become complicated with El Salvador’s acceptance of bitcoins as legal tender hehehe. We know already that it is beginning to disrupt everything, however, we might not have witnessed how disruptive it can be until it disrupts central banking.

Will the World Bank remove El Salvador as a member state? What if more countries begin to accept it as legal tender? Will the World Bank remove those countries also? It appears that governments of 3rd world countries that feel exploited by the IMF and the World Bank will have a new political tool to gain the advantage hehehe.



The World Bank has poured cold water on El Salvador’s adoption of bitcoin as legal tender, saying it cannot support the move due to “environmental and transparency” concerns.

But the developmental body may soon be forced to accept bitcoin payments from countries that have embraced the cryptocurrency.

Its founding document, the 1944 Articles of Agreement, outlines the procedures and principles by which the World Bank pledges to engage with sovereign governments. A central theme in the document is its commitment to accept payments from member states in local currencies.

Section 12 of Article V defines acceptable “forms of holdings of currency” as follows:

The Bank shall accept from any member, in place of any part of the member's currency, paid in to the Bank under Article II, Section 7 (i), or to meet amortization payments on loans made with such currency, and not needed by the Bank in its operations, notes or similar obligations issued by the Government of the member or the depository designated by such member, which shall be non-negotiable, non-interest-bearing and payable at their par value on demand by credit to the account of the Bank in the designated depository.

Read in full https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrivers/2021/06/17/el-salvador-can-pay-world-bank-in-bitcoin-according-to-charter/

[o_e_l_e_o]

The World Bank is run by the Western World. Every permanent president of the World Bank has been from the US. 9 of the 14 chief economists have been from the US. The US holds the most votes by a long margin, with other major voters being Japan, Germany, France, and the UK. It is not in the least bit surprising that these countries do not want bitcoin to be adopted globally, since it will directly impact their grip on the dominant fiat systems around the world. They want poor countries to continue to be dependent on them for money and loans, so they can give them horrendously imbalanced terms and fleece them for years to come.

This would be like phoning up your local Chinese takeout and asking them to order you a pizza on your behalf. Why would the World Bank want to assist in making themselves obsolete?

The World Bank has poured cold water on El Salvador’s adoption of bitcoin as legal tender, saying it cannot support the move due to “environmental and transparency” concerns.

And yet, bitcoin transactions are more transparent than fiat transactions, and bitcoin is greener than the fiat banking system.

[Carlton Banks]

The World Bank is run by the Western World. Every permanent president of the World Bank has been from the US. 9 of the 14 chief economists have been from the US. The US holds the most votes by a long margin, with other major voters being Japan, Germany, France, and the UK. It is not in the least bit surprising that these countries do not want bitcoin to be adopted globally, since it will directly impact their grip on the dominant fiat systems around the world. They want poor countries to continue to be dependent on them for money and loans, so they can give them horrendously imbalanced terms and fleece them for years to come.

that approach misses the point

Nation states have been rendered progressively less important over the course of the 20^th century, the IMF/World Bank would be quite happy to cede some representation over to the southern and eastern central banks if it could buy them a little good PR. And it's really nothing more than that, only the people that buy into the nation state concept would perceive such a move as making any material difference. The string pullers at (and behind the scenes of) the World Bank/IMF don't care about petty tribal loyalty, they are inherently supra-tribal

and by stating it like that, you're provoking that kind of response from these top-down style organizations. the next stage will be "electing world bank councillors" or other such theatrics

The World Bank has poured cold water on El Salvador’s adoption of bitcoin as legal tender, saying it cannot support the move due to “environmental and transparency” concerns.

And yet, bitcoin transactions are more transparent than fiat transactions, and bitcoin is greener than the fiat banking system.

you clearly don't understand the "greener" argument; their point is that any energy use, regardless of how it's produced, is bad. I know, that's nonsensical, but again, you're arguing from a position of accepting their premises of debate. Producing energy is worse than using it, why, someone will then have some energy to use!

[SFR10]

The World Bank has poured cold water on El Salvador’s adoption of bitcoin as legal tender, saying it cannot support the move due to “environmental and transparency” concerns.

"Transparency concerns"? It's 2021 and they're still making fallacious arguments ^[SMH]... By that logic, they should've been more concerned about fiat transactions as opposed to BTCitcoin transactions but for some weird reason, they're not!

their point is that any energy use, regardless of how it's produced, is bad. I know, that's nonsensical,

AFAIK, printing money requires energy as well, so why this one isn't bad ^{[am I missing something]}?

[Karartma1]

I'm being asked about Bitcoin and ESG every single day at work and I always reply the same things pointing only facts to these bitcoin detractors. They'll be amazed about how Bitcoin will become green in the coming years and then they'll simply shut the f*** up!
This whole environmental drama around bitcoin is pure and simple spreading of FUD that I ca no longer stand.

[Carlton Banks]

their point is that any energy use, regardless of how it's produced, is bad. I know, that's nonsensical,

AFAIK, printing money requires energy as well, so why this one isn't bad ^{[am I missing something]}?

from now on, here's the "logic" (really just rules, and not logical at all):

• if you're not a corporation, and you're using and/or producing energy, expect constant and increasing scrutiny of it all (not just carbon consumption)
• if you are a corporation, some carbon-credit accountancy magic will make everything ok

corporations already break the law with impunity now, they simply pay up using money they are borrowing for zero or being paid to borrow (as they can access the negative interest money loans from central banks), no-one is jailed or individually punished

so, expect lots of scandals, where corporation get caught somehow faking their carbon offsets, and some heartfelt public apologies, until they get caught again


meanwhile people who are not corporate managers and executives can expect to get their own actual ass kicked every time surveillance systems record it

[o_e_l_e_o]

-snip-

It's exactly the same as what happens elsewhere. People are shamed for eating beef since it produces so much carbon dioxide, or shamed for not recycling their empty milk cartons, meanwhile the likes of BP spill a few billion gallons of oil in to the oceans and get slapped with fines which barely even make a dent in their operating budgets. We've also seen it in other areas of bitcoin, where politicians talk about how bitcoin enables money laundering, while the banks which actually launder trillions of dollars of money every year get fines which they can shrug off meaninglessly.

One set of rules for them, another set for the rest of us. It's not exactly surprising they don't like bitcoin challenging this entrenched status quo.

[Carlton Banks]

Corporate and government power working together to protect each other...

...shouldn't there be a name for that sort of thing?

[bbc.reporter]

@Carlton Banks. It is called synergy hehehe.

@everyone. There is also this part of the article.

Section 9 of Article II states that holdings paid into the bank by members should be continually re-valued (presumably against a “real” benchmark like USD). If the local currency has appreciated, it says, the World Bank should do the decent thing and hands the gains back:

Source https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrivers/2021/06/17/el-salvador-can-pay-world-bank-in-bitcoin-according-to-charter/

Does this imply that if bitcoin pumps against a real benchmark currency like American dollars, the World Bank must give El Salvador back the profit? How about if bitcoin is dumping? The World Bank must accept the delivery of more bitcoin?

[SFR10]

~Snipped~

~Snipped~

Thank you for the explanations

If the local currency has appreciated, it says, the World Bank should do the decent thing and hands the gains back:

They should but I have a feeling they'll come up with a workaround in order to "not" give those gains back ^{[I hope I'm wrong]}.

Does this imply that if bitcoin pumps against a real benchmark currency like American dollars, the World Bank must give El Salvador back the profit?

Yes.

How about if bitcoin is dumping? The World Bank must accept the delivery of more bitcoin?

Based on that article, if it depreciates, they'll be expecting more BTCitcoin...
^{- I have no doubts they'd impose such a thing, but the same can't be said for the other issue [that's what they do best].}

• Conversely, if the local currency has depreciated, the member gets margin called and has to “pay to the Bank within a reasonable time an additional amount of its own currency sufficient to maintain the value”.

[DooMAD]

Section 9 of Article II states that holdings paid into the bank by members should be continually re-valued (presumably against a “real” benchmark like USD). If the local currency has appreciated, it says, the World Bank should do the decent thing and hands the gains back:

Source https://www.forbes.com/sites/martinrivers/2021/06/17/el-salvador-can-pay-world-bank-in-bitcoin-according-to-charter/

Does this imply that if bitcoin pumps against a real benchmark currency like American dollars, the World Bank must give El Salvador back the profit? How about if bitcoin is dumping? The World Bank must accept the delivery of more bitcoin?

First we have to wait and see whether they amend their 'Articles of Agreement' to exclude Bitcoin or not.  In fairness, it's not like anyone in 1944 saw this eventuality arising, heh.  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they backed out of any such obligations if they feel they don't understand the technology well enough yet.

Could you imagine the headlines if the World Bank lost a significant chunk of BTC due to some newbie error?  They'd struggle to live that down.

[hv_]

What a nonsense. Try by paid contributor here... tsss

[dansus021]

a world bank need implemented blockchain technology to keep catch up with fast moving forward and yes bitcoin as the first crypto need to be accepted first and other stable coin to make settlement even faster and easier like visa and master card do

[o_e_l_e_o]

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they backed out of any such obligations if they feel they don't understand the technology well enough yet.

Call me cynical, but I don't think lack of understanding would factor in to them backing out of this particular agreement. They would only be "re-valuing" bitcoin in their possession if they had already reached the decision to accept it, and had put in place an infrastructure to do so. No other currency in the history of the world has come close to appreciating against USD by even a fraction of what bitcoin has done. Any decision to back out of this will be driven by their desire to maintain their own profits and power. They will have no interest in handing back bitcoin if the price increases, while assuming the risk of holding bitcoin if the price falls, with no guarantees the country in question will be able to deposit more to make up any difference.

yes bitcoin as the first crypto need to be accepted first and other stable coin to make settlement even faster and easier like visa and master card do

Why would the World Bank, or any country, want to swap from fiat, a centralized system they have control over, to stablecoins, a centralized system they have no control over?

[Slow death]

people just sit and sip their coffee and watch a movie or watch a movie and eat popcorn and wait for years to pass that the world bank and every country in the world will accept bitcoin, that will happen, and it's inevitable. governments are made up of people, yes those corrupt politicians without ethics and morals will eventually accept bitcoin because they move out of interest. when bitcoin is of great importance to them, then at that time they will accept bitcoin and they won't even mind if bitcoin uses a lot of electricity or not or things like decentralized or because it has an anonymous creator.