This question got me laughing, first and foremost when you said crypto, it means every digital currency which Bitcoin, Ethereum, Biance etc are not exempted. I see such government lacking behind technological developments, because by the time they will realize their mistake many nations that have taken opportunity will leave them behind. Many government claim they protect it citizens by running into conclusion of a thing with poor analysis and policy as result of the leaders levels of articulation, resulting to regret where they blame past government for mistake. If development like that if crypto exist what a caring government need is to profer solution to safeguard it's citizens while seeking possible means of utilizing such opportunity.
It's correct that scam exist in crypto, but scam exist even outside crypto for scam excuse to leads a government of total ban, it shows the government not ready to diversify in development because certain innovation will hardly thrive, thereby hunting the development of such nation or society.i think any government that happens to fail in providing good policy to crypto even if scam exist and see how the good part can be beneficial to it's citizens is directly and indirect killing the economy of it's nation.
You're oversimplifying the micro- and macroeconomic constellations. Human thinking is often about maximizing profits, getting things done as quickly as possible, and ensuring my safety, or more broadly, ensuring my family's safety. I'm also a pro-Bitcoin advocate, but I'm not blind to the country's difficulties in realizing the aspirations of pro-Bitcoin citizens (with the simple demand that pro-Bitcoin voices be accommodated). Talking about the state is about sovereignty, while the pure spirit of Bitcoin is freedom.
In policymaking, there must be calculations, then categorizing the damage effects as low, medium, or high. Using crypto as a means of payment. They calculate the estimated nominal tax losses, bank deposit outflows, and consumer losses due to volatility. They then compare these with the direct benefits gained, such as (remittance savings + new revenue from the crypto sector). They then conclude that remittance recipients do indeed benefit, but the magnitude of the benefits is relatively small compared to the potential for fiscal leakage and deposit outflow. The crypto sector (exchanges, custody, infrastructure) generates significant new revenue, but most of these profits can flow to global actors/technology companies (not always domestic). Banks and the tax sector are the ones most at risk of harm. Public deposits could shift to crypto assets (reducing banks' ability to provide credit), and tax revenues would decrease if transactions moved to under-reported areas. (Note: I'm not a pro-bank or pro-tax person.)
From my perspective, if crypto is legalized as a means of payment, the state would lose monetary and fiscal control, leaving it vulnerable to external intervention. The old bank and financial system would collapse, creating short-term economic chaos. The global elite could exploit this chaos to introduce a new, more controlled system (a global CBDC). The public would become the subject of a global digital experiment, where the illusion of financial freedom would transform into total, data-driven control. National economic policymakers believe that crypto legalization is not the end of the money war, but rather the beginning of a new chapter in the battle between people's financial freedom and global digital centralization. In other words, there is no benefit to the real economy of the country or its citizens.
