IMF calls for the regulation of cryptocurrency

[sokani]

While a few countries have completely banned crypto assets given their risks, this approach may not be effective on the long run. The region should instead focus on addressing the drivers of crypto demands, including citizen's unmet digital payment needs, and on improving transparency, by recording crypto asset transactions in national statistics.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) after standing firm on it's position all this while on the need for countries to ban cryptocurrency makes a u-turn. This is coming as a result of the widespread usage of digital assets and CBDCs in latin America and the Caribbean. IMF is coming to terms with reality of the benefits of digital assets and feels cryptocurrency should not be outrightly banned but should be regulated.

I wonder what could really be responsible for the sudden change of IMF's position on the subject matter but I still think it's a win for the crypto community.

SOURCE: https://cointelegraph.com/news/imf-banning-crypto-not-effective-in-long-run/

[Faisal2202]

AFAIK, IMF is not against crypto from the start, as IMF has also showed there interest towards crypto before, but they also mentioned some points that should be taken into account before making crypto legal in your country, after those 9 points mentioned by IMF, Idk why our country banned crypto. Source to 9 points

Yeah, i totally agree, but it will be a win for crypto only if those countries who banned it and will unban crypto. And provide some legal ways too. This will streamline the adoption of crypto and thus it will be considered as a win. But yeah it do have good impact on the market and it will help market to go beyond its limitations.

[Z-tight]

I wonder what could really be responsible for the sudden change of IMF's position on the subject matter but I still think it's a win for the crypto community.

The IMF keeps on repeating the same thing everytime and their position does not really matter. They would never support anything that's not a centralized financial system, so they'll never support BTC, that's the reason why the IMF are not in support of El Salvador making BTC a legal tender, and they have openly spoken against it.

As for regulation of cryptocurrencies, it isn't bad if centralized altcoins and exchanges are regulated because of how shady they operate, but i don't think decentralized cryptocurrencies like BTC or services that provides privacy for crypto users should be regulated, the government don't like censorship resistant services or currencies because they want to spy on everyone and totally control the financial sector.

[SquirrelJulietGarden]

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) after standing firm on it's position all this while on the need for countries to ban cryptocurrency makes a u-turn. This is coming as a result of the widespread usage of digital assets and CBDCs in latin America and the Caribbean. IMF is coming to terms with reality of the benefits of digital assets and feels cryptocurrency should not be outrightly banned but should be regulated.

Is it new or not predictable?

No. Because IMF with pressure from big nations, will not allow totally freedom in finance and cryptocurrency if they see threats. They did not touch on this market years ago when it was like infant and very small. When this market becomes big enough, governments, IMF will pay more attention on it and do more regulations. It is very predictable.

Is it coincidence that after hype news with Bitcoin ETF, we have bad news from IMF?

[CageMabok]

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) after standing firm on it's position all this while on the need for countries to ban cryptocurrency makes a u-turn. This is coming as a result of the widespread usage of digital assets and CBDCs in latin America and the Caribbean. IMF is coming to terms with reality of the benefits of digital assets and feels cryptocurrency should not be outrightly banned but should be regulated.

It would have been better if it had been managed without any sacrifice or disadvantage, but I doubt they could have managed it better without wanting to profit from it. However, regulation would be slightly better than completely banning cryptocurrencies, moreover the use of cryptocurrencies and CBDCs almost look the same at a glance so that the IMF knows that cryptocurrencies will be much better if there are specific regulations for them.

I wonder what could really be responsible for the sudden change of IMF's position on the subject matter but I still think it's a win for the crypto community.

Hopefully this can actually be a victory for the crypto community, so that crypto can grow more widely in this world and also doesn't make people in the crypto community hesitate to continue to be in crypto. But if the goal of the IMF itself is to make crypto grow and also get better for the future, I think this really needs to be well supported by everyone in the crypto community.

[fuguebtc]

I wonder what could really be responsible for the sudden change of IMF's position on the subject matter but I still think it's a win for the crypto community.

The IMF keeps on repeating the same thing everytime and their position does not really matter. They would never support anything that's not a centralized financial system, so they'll never support BTC, that's the reason why the IMF are not in support of El Salvador making BTC a legal tender, and they have openly spoken against it.

As for regulation of cryptocurrencies, it isn't bad if centralized altcoins and exchanges are regulated because of how shady they operate, but i don't think decentralized cryptocurrencies like BTC or services that provides privacy for crypto users should be regulated, the government don't like censorship resistant services or currencies because they want to spy on everyone and totally control the financial sector.

They are a centralized system, so their openly supporting bitcoin will hurt their reputation, so we shouldn't expect it. But this can also be seen as a win for crypto as the World Monetary Fund has also called for cryptocurrency regulation instead of banning it. I think it will affect some countries that are still hostile to bitcoin, they may not like bitcoin, but they also can't be against the IMF if in the future, IMF openly supports bitcoin.

I don't like regulation, but we would rather have regulation than outright ban, and regulation will have both positive and negative effects on the market.

[rby]

I wonder what could really be responsible for the sudden change of IMF's position on the subject matter but I still think it's a win for the crypto community.

... or services that provides privacy for crypto users should be regulated

Apart from government seeking for revenue in the form of taxation and what the SEC is doing with CEXs about securities, another major concern of the government is to hunt the privacy coins down.
I personally do not think that many of these coins will see the next decade. Government is at war with these privacy coins and it will only take the strength of the blockchain for the privacy coins to win this battle.
So many of these coins have not gained popularity and large user base, so if any country bans such coins, it is always a fast lane to extinction of such coin.
Meanwhile as you said above, your data is important for the government and they will want to control you. So the battle between the government and crypto will continue and the settling ground will only be regulation.

[Odusko]

The thing is that IMF is more concerned with the development of a CBDC and not cryptocurrency in general as this is what we can make out of their statement since their urge countries to develop their own CBDC to be able to control the activities within the network with proper taxation and that will birth their desired regulations and control.

But on their stand on decentralized cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, they are still bent on countries to climb down their users because they urge countries to do so, so at this point, I am sure the IMF is really playing politics with the whole thing.

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Normally, for humans to exercise their full rights, there should be freedom of choice, just like the government is supposed to allow citizens of their individual counties to decide whether to use crypto or not. The ban on crypto in those countries where it is banned is not right, in my opinion. Since the IMF realizes that its users should rather address rather than ban, They may see crypto as a bad asset, but the truth is that these same crypto have made some people millionaires and billionaires. An example is Bitcoin, which has made so many people billionaires. As such, it has also contributed to the economies of those nations because instead of those citizens complaining to the government or relaying on government jobs, Bitcoin has made them archive a great Wealth that has made them wealthy and build other businesses, even to the extent of employing others.


Cheers 🥂, Dr.Bitcoin_Strange 👺👺

[bittraffic]

The thing is that IMF is more concerned with the development of a CBDC and not cryptocurrency in general as this is what we can make out of their statement since their urge countries to develop their own CBDC to be able to control the activities within the network with proper taxation and that will birth their desired regulations and control.

But on their stand on decentralized cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, they are still bent on countries to climb down their users because they urge countries to do so, so at this point, I am sure the IMF is really playing politics with the whole thing.

By then countries that have CBDC can already access data of people who are into crypto. They can easily pinpoint who those users are and can collect enormous taxes for those users.

Still strange to see IMF taking a big turn and then calling for its regulation like they realized crypto is not going to die. It could be planned because of the institutions that are coming to crypto like Blackrock. Unbelievable that they are trying to urge countries like El Salvador not to use BTC.

[Franctoshi]

Seeing people or agencies that have kicked against Bitcoin in the past and come back to support the same looks quite interesting, IMF is not the only organization that has done that, several people and some institutions have too. To me, this strongly suggests that Bitcoin is truly decentralized, They can ban it, criticize it, and reject it, but cannot be controlled by anybody. However, this call and other news that came out are super bullish for BTC.

[Gozie51]

IMO , I don't think IMF should be taken seriously in regards to matters of cryptocurrency because legally, they are strictly to look into the monetary of funds in their member countries and how their policy promotes financial stability and economic growth through job creation. I don't see how cryptocurrency is interfering in their obligations so they don't even need to gag the crypto community that is already creating investment and financial freedom for good numbers of youths across. Countries who have created CBDC are seeing need for catching their market audience online , IMF need to understand the current rhythms of the time.

[Husires]

The attempt to cut the text is not accurate, according to the rest of the news, as it mainly talks about CBDC and the establishment of strict regulations for cryptocurrencies, and its objection to countries adopting cryptocurrencies as legal currency.
You can review the details

https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2023/06/22/cf-interest-in-cb-digital-currencies-picks-up-in-latam-the-caribbean-while-crypto-use-varies

I do not rule out that regulation is a ban by law, as it is known that banning technology without offering alternatives will help increase demand growth, especially if some are willing to pay for it.

we can understand the position of the International Monetary Fund towards El Salvador, and perhaps this entity has begun to weaken with calls for many countries to establish parallel entities.

[zasad@]

Crypto Casino will work regardless of the policy of regulators

[Z-tight]

Seeing people or agencies that have kicked against Bitcoin in the past and come back to support the same looks quite interesting, IMF is not the only organization that has done that, several people and some institutions have too. To me, this strongly suggests that Bitcoin is truly decentralized, They can ban it, criticize it, and reject it, but cannot be controlled by anybody. However, this call and other news that came out are super bullish for BTC.

The IMF is not supporting BTC, they do not like it and would love for it to be banned, but since that's not possible they'll accept regulation of BTC and all of the crypto industry. The IMF is a centralized institution, so they are not going to support a decentralized network, they want financial activities to be under the control of a central authority, but since BTC can't be under the control of any authority, they are going to try and promote their cbdc over it and talk of regulations for crypto.

[ololajulo]

I believe it is crucial for a financial global institution to emphasize the drawbacks of implementing a ban on cryptocurrency. Such a ban is unlikely to be effective. Regrettably, numerous individuals, particularly those within government and financial institutions, are benefiting from the cryptocurrency market. They comprehend the potential returns it offers but are unable to openly acknowledge it.

[Diplester6666]

Finally some sensible words coming out of their mouth.
I wonder why it took so long for them to realise this isn't their run-of-the-mill printed central bank currency.

[zasad@]

Finally some sensible words coming out of their mouth.
I wonder why it took so long for them to realise this isn't their run-of-the-mill printed central bank currency.

Cryptocurrency is becoming legal in many countries and the main role was played by the MICA law in Europe, which will start working in a year. But there will be 2 markets, legal and shadow. And for each transaction to a verified wallet, you will need to have documentary justification in order to avoid blocking. But it will be interesting for me to observe the loopholes in this law.

[Gozie51]

But it will be interesting for me to observe the loopholes in this law.

Markets in Cryptoassets (MiCA) is more positive with stablecoin and I think it will become the coverage for CBDC to operate in EU. It doesn't really involve NFT and I want to see how transparent it will be when even most people regard KYC as a whole gamut of disclosure, maybe this is the loophole in regulation even though I think its adoption will strengthen crypto exchange and digital currency.

The most of the operation will be in 2024 and 2025 but it is going to revolunize the crypto regulation in EU

[zasad@]

But it will be interesting for me to observe the loopholes in this law.

Markets in Cryptoassets (MiCA) is more positive with stablecoin and I think it will become the coverage for CBDC to operate in EU. It doesn't really involve NFT and I want to see how transparent it will be when even most people regard KYC as a whole gamut of disclosure, maybe this is the loophole in regulation even though I think its adoption will strengthen crypto exchange and digital currency.

The most of the operation will be in 2024 and 2025 but it is going to revolunize the crypto regulation in EU

If you work by law, then you are required to accept stablecoins from identified wallets and send money to identified wallets.
I think that stablecoins are superfluous in this market and their regulation will get worse until all wallets pass KYC. And if they fail to meet this requirement, they will be removed from the market.