What is the IMF Qualms With Regulating/ Banning Bitcoin?

[serjent05]

I think IMF is more focused on the implementation of a traditional monetary system where the currency used is issued by the government.  Since Bitcoin has no centralized authority, IMF possibly think that it is easier to manipulate by ill-intentioned people.  Aside from that, IMF is also concerned for the possible victim of market volatility since Bitcoin prices frequently go up and down in a high note.  I do understand where IMF is coming from but I think IMF should consider thinking deeply and learning about Bitcoin and its economy first before getting hostile to it.

[1714809581]

1714809581

[1714809581]

1714809581

[1714809581]

1714809581

[PrivacyG]

I really want to know some numbers and stats on how well their Anti Money Laundering and Terrorism combating policies work.  It does nothing much more than restraining rights and Privacy for legitimate and sincere users of the economy.

There is of course a need for regulations.  But their purpose is not to make Bitcoin better.  It is to diminish Bitcoin's power and to try to destroy it.  This is why they take banning Bitcoin into account too.  I want them to show me how banning Bitcoin will have a more powerful impact on Terrorism and Money Laundering than banning Fiat would.  Though it sounds absurd, at the end of the day diminishing Fiat crime should in fact be the bigger focus.  This is all with a reason.  They do not care as much about combating Bitcoin crime as they care about attacking it due to how powerful it has become.

[franky1]

the IMF is just a loan company.
their "power" has nothing to do with not offering international reserve swaps. nor being the government

they just offer loans. and they are just saying if a country makes crypto a legal tender then the IMF will not give them loans.. and thats where most of their power ends

they can adjust a countries "credit rating" by making them a "risk" which ultimately is also a "dont give loan" threat

they are essentially a loan/credit rating advisor.. and thats it
so dont worry too much about IMF too much.
the IMF is like your credit card company saying to an american. "please dont start working remotely and/or getting euro income because we cant claw back euros if we have given you dollar debt previously because your income is no longer in our jurisdiction to clawback should you default"

by the way. most countries like US-UK-EU dont take loans from the IMF. so it does not matter for most. its the other counties like brazil, africa that take IMF loans because their own governments dont want to QE their own money as internal loans to themselves (CB<>g.bonds=debt)

as for the organisation that actually allows reserve swap settlements between countries. thats the BIS... which is saying 2% decentralised crypto and (currently not established) X% stablecoin holdings is going to be acceptable in their system of banking for the banks

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

They can try to ban it just like China has tried to ban it several times. It won't work. Bitcoin can not be censored or banned. People who have half a brain know that a ban is nothing more than theoretical and that with the right tools, you can still access and utilize Bitcoin despite whatever bans your country is imposing without any consequence.

Another country is Nigeria, where the CBN has decided to keep crypto transactions out of banks by stating that if any individual account is discovered to be conducting crypto-related transactions, the account should be restricted. But it's reported that adoption of Bitcoin is high in Nigeria. Even if Bitcoin is banned in El Salvador, those who want to use it will do so; however, it will no longer be accepted as legal tender for most transactions.

Since the IMF stated that they have managed the risk since 2021 when Bitcoin was legalized in El Salvador and they believe the risk has not materialized due to the slow rate of adoption, they can get their regulations passed to help reduce the financial stability risk they are concerned about before use and adoption become widespread.

[nullama]

The IMF should take it easy on trying to propagate bad news about bitcoin despite having evidence to the contrary. Earlier this month, the IMF visited San Salvador from Jan. 30 to Feb. 8, and two things to note from their visit are, first, that the risks it raised in accepting bitcoin as a legal tender in 2021 have mostly been avoided, and secondly, that the Salvadoran economy grew rapidly by 2.8% in 2022. Now, instead of hiding their heads in shame, they are calling for a ban on Bitcoin or more regulation. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva, crypto needs “more regulation.” She added, “We should not take off the table banning those assets,” if regulation fails or is too slow to implement. Too bad for them, the evidence is clear from El Salvador that, despite their status, they do not know it all, and secondly, there is a positive impact of Bitcoin on a country's economic growth. The only point where I agree with them is that any country that chooses to accept Bitcoin as a legal tender should also consider implementing Anti-Money Laundering/Combating the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) policies and increasing fiscal transparency. These are my thoughts, what's yours?

If you read this congressional report from December 2013 you'll have the answer you're looking for:

"Bitcoin: Questions, Answers, and Analysis of Legal Issues"

One issue that has received some attention is the ability of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to defend a traditional currency of one of its member countries from a speculative attack involving a digital currency such as Bitcoin since the IMF’s Articles of Agreement do not explicitly permit it to acquire a currency not issued by one of its members. There is at least one commentary examining possible options for amending or reinterpreting the IMF’s authority.

[Hydrogen]

What is the IMF Qualms With Regulating/ Banning Bitcoin?

I think the deviation in opinion stems from the IMF being on one end of the spectrum, with investment banks, hedge funds and other large financial institutions on the other.

Some demographics seek an outright ban of bitcoin. While others such as large banks and hedge funds actively hold and trade bitcoin and other crypto assets. Banks around the world have been known to use bitcoin for cross border transactions for many years. Due to bitcoin's cross border capacity being faster, more efficient and lower cost in contrast to using banking institutional networks such as ACHs (automated clearing houses). In addition, there are likely large banks who hold billions of dollars of assets in stablecoins and assorted crypto. If they do not do this directly, it is done through subsidiaries.

There could be a few backroom discussions on the nature and future of crypto behind closed doors. Between several different parties of wealthy and powerful men. The IMF isn't the only financial institution with a vested interest in crypto. There are many other parties involved whose views and opinions could matter.

[Cz-Silk]

Banning bitcoin will just slow down adoption. People will still be using it. So I think we shouldn't be worried about that.
What about regulations, we will see them for sure but I don't think they are gonna be harsh. Bitcoin is already a part of out world and government will accept it at some point.

they want to ban bitcoin for people, more for the high class of politicians, no, those who will have bitcoin in the future will be the high class of society.

[jostorres]

Banning bitcoin will just slow down adoption. People will still be using it. So I think we shouldn't be worried about that.
What about regulations, we will see them for sure but I don't think they are gonna be harsh. Bitcoin is already a part of out world and government will accept it at some point.

they want to ban bitcoin for people, more for the high class of politicians, no, those who will have bitcoin in the future will be the high class of society.

But people likes Bitcoin. Now if they banned it, they will only be hated. If we are talkin about the high-class politicians then I think they aren't really bothered with that because they still have money to support their living. They have power/connection. That is something that we normal individuals doesn't have at the moment and that is why we are only depending on Bitcoin at the moment.

Maybe it's true that those who have a Bitcoin (lots of it) will be the high class of society in the future, once Bitcoin value pumps a lot and this is the reason why some governments banned Bitcoin because they can't accept that fact. They think normal individuals are now more powerful than them.

[NotATether]

the IMF is just a loan company.
their "power" has nothing to do with not offering international reserve swaps. nor being the government

they just offer loans. and they are just saying if a country makes crypto a legal tender then the IMF will not give them loans.. and thats where most of their power ends

they can adjust a countries "credit rating" by making them a "risk" which ultimately is also a "dont give loan" threat

Yeah, they're like any other bank. The worst they can do to a country that adopts Bitcoin as a legal tender is just decline their loan requests. They literally cannot do anything else as they have no executive power.

Banning bitcoin will just slow down adoption. People will still be using it. So I think we shouldn't be worried about that.
What about regulations, we will see them for sure but I don't think they are gonna be harsh. Bitcoin is already a part of out world and government will accept it at some point.

they want to ban bitcoin for people, more for the high class of politicians, no, those who will have bitcoin in the future will be the high class of society.

And meanwhile, banks themselves continue to dive into bitcoin-related financial projects of their own making and asking their governments to give them blessings for it.

[Accardo]

According to Janet Yellen, USA treasury Secretary, the government is delaying the regulation of cryptocurrency, so in support of the IMF managing director she added that cryptocurrency ban should be an option. If regulating it is difficult to achieve then opposing it as a legal tender should be a strong move for them. In my opinion or as stated by some twitter users, the government, and IMF are scared of what bitcoin would do to the financial economy of the world, that's why they launched the "Element of Effective Policies for crypto Assets" Paper, to annalyze and monitor cryptocurrency activities from defying the effectiveness of monetary policy. They may not be in charge anymore. And the G20 meeting  proofs how surprised Indian finance minister are about bitcoin, despite the multiple ban on the currency, in the way they expected, it didn't affect its growth. That's why they chose to warn El Salvador from utilizing bitcoin as a legal tender.



https://twitter.com/cryptonator1337/status/1628836277587001347/photo/1

[goldkingcoiner]

I think the IMF was not ready for Bitcoin and did not expect Bitcoin/other cryptocurrencies to become such a gigantic movement. They were not ready to implement anything which would go outside the current fiat regulatory framework and they are now playing for time while they figure out how to deeper regulate cryptocurrency. And the truth is they have no idea how to and are starting to become desperate.

I doubt that they will find a way to regulate Bitcoin effectively. Perhaps they have realized that and are now hoping on the introduction of CBDCs as some sort of alternative.