Analysis of an analysis: Part 2 - the "Why?"

bitbrain (63)in #cryptocurrency • 6 years ago

Earlier in the week I wrote this post: https://mentormarket.io/cryptocurrency/@bitbrain/analysis-of-an-analysis-the-imf-trying-to-stop-the-marshall-islands-from-adopting-cryptocurrencies

It's about the IMF attempting to dictate to a sovereign government what currencies it may and may not issue; specifically that it may not issue a state cryptocurrency.

800px-_Rules_and_Regulations...Threshing_Committee_of_the_U.S._Food_Administration_for_Knox_Co.__-_NARA_-_512713.jpg

National Archives at College Park [Public domain]

Analysis of an analysis: Part 2 - the "Why?"

What?

The theory goes that those who control global money supply and power seek to retain the ability to do so. Crypto is an obvious threat to that. The fact that cryptocurrencies can be issued at national level without the oversight of major international financial governing bodies is a threat to them. It would be fine for the greedy and selfish old guard if they had a finger in the pie, e.g. a crypto Euro, but where they see that they don't have such control, they bully the issuing entity until it becomes intimidated enough to capitulate. National level is scary to them, it indicates that cryptocurrencies and their underlying blockchain technology hold major advantages over fiat money.

At one stage I held some hope for Christine Lagarde when it came to cryptocurrencies, initially it looked like she was behind them. Then I became confused when she started sending mixed messages. Now I know why she does so, she is selective of which cryptos she supports. It's not a good form of selective either (as in: she supports the best projects for example), it's a biased form of selective.

Why?

The same day that I read the article that inspired my original "Analysis of an analysis" post, I coincidentally read a few other related articles. Considering that I found three of them, all in the same place, and that they speak directly to the "why?" is quite remarkable. I now present to you the other articles I found, and I will briefly explain the significance of their content as part of my "why?".

Article 1: IMF Chief Calls for Exploration of Digital Currencies

Don't be misled by the title of this one (there go those mixed Christine Lagarde messages again!), the IMF isn't looking at exploring cryptocurrencies! It's looking at exploring central bank digital currencies!

Also don't be misled by the talk in the articles of crypto friendly countries doing so (e.g. Uruguay), the IMF have little control there and nothing to do with those decisions, they merely provide useful examples for the IMF. Never underestimate how evil the traditional financial world is and how threatened it is by crypto. In fact, according to the article itself:

the IMF has also again criticized the view that public cryptocurrencies offer an alternative to CBDCs

...and...

cryptocurrencies are different along many dimensions and struggle to fully satisfy the functions of money, in part because of erratic valuations

...and...

When evaluating different forms of money in the report such as cash, cryptocurrencies, private e-money and commercial bank deposits, the IMF concluded that “cryptocurrencies are the least attractive option.”

...and more.

Perhaps the only true thing they said was that:

it could also pose risks to financial integrity and stability.

Translation: we are scared that crypto will eat our lunch!

That the financial giants of the world continually hurl criticism at crypto for things that their fiat money is even worse at remains laughable (e.g. cash / drug transactions. Has the IMF found any stashes of drug-related cash using their fiat money blockchains? Oh wait... fiat doesn't even have blockchains and cash is totally anonymous... - just one example). It is quite obvious that the smear campaign against crypto continues, by those who seek to taint crypto and replace it with their own centralised abominations. And people ask why I steer clear of Ripple...

Article 2: Bank of America Wins Crypto Storage Patent

Well! Isn't that NICE! And so convenient! (For them.) thank you U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

While it should also help with crypto adoption, what this essentially means is that the banks can make money off people trading crypto. The banks can hold crypto for their customers or even act as exchanges.

Translation: While cryptocurrencies and exchanges must often battle to be allowed to do business in countries around the world, the banks get the nod to do so without even being the experts in the field or having the experience to do so.

Bit Brain's prediction of the end result: Bank held cryptos that attract nasty taxes when they appreciate in value, as well as attracting some sort of custodian fees.

Article 3: New York Regulators Have Grant Crypto License to NYDIG

Much the same as the above article, only this one is in the state of New York and is granted by the New York State Department of Financial Services. I don't know much about the NYDIG (New York Digital Investment Group). Their website is almost blank and Google hasn't got much to say about them, so it's hard to see who owns or runs them (to determine if they are the offspring of a centralised entity, the way that a company like Circle is). However, I soon realised that it doesn't matter if the NYDIG have centralised roots or not. I say this because they are already pawns of the greater monetary system.

Reading the article, referring to the licence that the NYDIG were granted, you will find the following quote:

As the financial services marketplace continues to expand and evolve in New York, the implementation of strong regulatory safeguards that encourage the responsible growth of the industry, while first and foremost protecting consumers remains critical,

Spoiler: Those safeguard are not there to protect the consumer, they are regulations designed to protect the banks.

If I am wrong about this then kindly answer me the following: Surely these same or similar "safeguards" exist for fiat money (which has after all been around a lot longer and is firmly under bank control), not so? Why then does fiat money continue to depreciate? Why does the value of the customers' liquid assets deteriorate constantly while held safely and securely in the hands of the bank? Why can $100 in 2018 not buy the same as $100 in 1918 could? The answers are simple: the banks steal from you, their regulations are the means by which they do that. And now they want to do the same to crypto. (More accurately: they not only steal from you, but they also force you into indentured servitude.)

So whether the NYDIG are good guys or not does not matter. I advise staying away from bank tainted crypto, be it a bank currency, a bank exchange or just a bank service to hold your crypto in safe storage. STAY DECENTRALISED!

Putting two and two together

By now you should see the games that the IMF, banks and governments are playing. They are going after the decentralised cryptos: regulating them, denying them licenses, discouraging them, character assassinating them etc, while at the same time promoting their own regulated and bank driven crypto solutions. These people are evil, really truly evil, in a way that makes my skin crawl. These are people who are actively trying to keep the poor poor, regardless of the death and suffering that this results in every day. They do it for the most selfish of reasons: money and power. So watch out who you deal with. I'm keeping my crypto as far from these wrinkled vultures as I possibly can!

By the way...

If you want to know what's happening in the world of BTC at the moment then read these posts by fellow Timmians: - I agree with them so why should I rewrite them?