A Response To Policy Brief №100, UNCTAD
Director Kozul-Wright,
I had the pleasure of reading through your policy recommendations with regards to “cryptocurrencies,” when in all matter of seriousness and reality, you and I both know that the real subject to these recommendations is bitcoin (even though ₿ was only mentioned in one instance; referring to the legal tender policies adopted by El Salvador and The Central African Republic).
I wanted to professionally push back on your recommendations; as they are dangerous, and will not only land any [and all] countries & jurisdictions onto “slippery” territory, but it will also produce difficult situations for the aforementioned.
Currency is a tool, and therefore a technology; making it no more insulated from technological advancement than the wheel, or the air conditioner. Attempting to stymy innovation of technology (or thought), while sold to the masses as a ’cause for good’ (claiming to simply be interested in preventing “unnecessary” pain, or loss), only ever actually ends up serving the incumbent. Working to extend the dominance hierarchy beyond the natural duration of its reign.
Point A…
of your recommendations only serves in directing those aforementioned parties (countries & jurisdictions) towards bitcoin, and away from the credit-centric, fiat currencies of the world. We are witnessing this dynamic play out as the United States of America has shown to the world, with weaponizing the SWIFT system, and showing that fiat currencies can be turned against anybody at a whim, but again now with the suggestions of price-fixing a barrel of oil. This is now the second instance of attempting to weaponize a fiat-centric financial system in order to attempt to prevent natural market dynamics of participants pivoting where their attention and their economic activity is treated best. Making Point A, a self-defeating and foolish attempt at an incumbent power to prevent the natural evolution of a system towards greater improvements on efficiencies, and/or return on capital and energy expenditure.
Going further, financial institutions stand to gain tremendously from the efficiency gains from a properly decentralized network and protocol like bitcoin. To think that these parties will choose to remain on the horse & buggy system, for the sake of claiming to defend the employment of the stableboy, is ignorant beyond measure. Not to mention arrogant. Both in thinking that The Market will choose the inefficient (now outdated) system for the sake of preserving the current thing; but more importantly for the arrogance of believing you actually possess the power required to halt the relentless charge of Progress & Innovation.
Point B…
is suppression and censorship of Free Speech as well as an Orwellian attempt at steering the market from particular products/services that are not explicitly endorsed (or provided) by The State. Which is a relationship that ONLY results in a negative feedback loop where The State ultimately stagnates and collapses in on itself; producing a far more destructive outcome than if the naturally occurring network transition were permitted to progress along its least resistive, *natural* path to begin with.
Point C…
is blatantly an oxymoron in paragraph form. A safe, effective, efficient monetary network and payments rail is ultimately a product that cannot be produced by a State. Due to matters of potential for significant public distrust, capital misallocation, lacking in creative ingenuity, risk aversion, and many others. Meaning that such a network would have to have been developed in the shadows of doubt, discount, and disrespect by the majority of the market for a substantial amount of time until said network has organically grown and proven doubters wrong. Until that prescient moment of critical mass is achieved, to where no single State or individual actor can influence, or destroy, the network — if such a desire were reached.
Meaning that ALL participants stand to benefit from the safety and security provided by this network; whether it’s little Timmy buying water for his siblings, or it’s Afghanistan purchasing food & water for its constituents. All benefit from the security of payments going where they are intended, but also in improvements upon speed of economic exchange.
If you’ve decided to read this far I hope I’ve helped you understand how ultimately damaging your recommendations are to all citizens of the planet — not just participants of the United Nations. On top of this, there are significant benefits provided via mining on the Proof-of-Work (PoW) network of Bitcoin — between providing societal, economical, and environmental benefits of consuming excess associated gas production, to the theoretical strategy of utilizing the technology stack as a means to source geographically stranded energy sources; allowing for near immediate monetization of said energy without incurring high infrastructure costs of strategies of the past. These listed benefits to be enjoyed still pale in depth, and breadth of the full scope of positive impacts of adopting bitcoin as an asset and network for efficient economic exchange & security.
Humanity as a whole is better-off not following these recommendations.
Respectively,
Mike Hobart
