News Russia Wants to Ban Cryptocurrency. Kind Of

Do svidanya Crypto, LeL

Considering that this same argument can be used and is used to say illegal operations are being funded with crypto, I don't think there's much else to say. Whatever means of funding things is not "transparent" (traceable and taxable, mainly), it'll be used to fund The Shady (TM), deemed by the State/Govt. Sadly, this news reeks of politcal bias, but I can't help but think I rather have them banned everywhere and look for ways to protect actors, such* as independent politicians.

Regards.
 

zipspyder

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2014
43
17
18,535
0
Another day, another article blunder. Crypto is extremely volatile; it is, however, not a fiat currency.
Agreed but the true believers tried to push that as a fiat replacement in the beginning. So technically the article is correct.
 
Last edited:

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
757
140
19,170
4
Decentralized cryptocurrencies have numerous advantages over regular currencies as they cannot be easily tracked down by governments, they are easy to use for cross-border payments, transactions are very fast, and they are sometimes good tools to hedge against inflation.
Only to a few people, that is. Being untraceable is basically only good for avoiding taxes and other illegal activities. Transactions are not necessarily fast, some of them take way longer than a debit or credit card transaction. And rarely they are good against inflation, since they have such a volatile value. That is why the news should say something like "The argument in favor of decentralized cryptocurrencies", because they are just that, arguments, and not facts.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
And rarely they are good against inflation, since they have such a volatile value. That is why the news should say something like "The argument in favor of decentralized cryptocurrencies", because they are just that, arguments, and not facts.
The problem with crypto as a currency is the same as wealth on the stock market: if everyone needs to cash out at about the same time for whatever reason, the market will run out of buyers capable of affording inflated prices and the markets will collapse. That's why wealth tax is scaring billionaires.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Endymio

Notable
Aug 3, 2020
554
164
1,070
2
Crypto as a whole is not, but Bitcoin is. El Slavador has declared it legal tender in their country.
No. The defining characteristic of a fiat currency is not that it is legal tender, but that it can be issued indefinitely and unrestrictedly by the fiat -- or order -- of a governmental body.
 

Endymio

Notable
Aug 3, 2020
554
164
1,070
2
Agreed but the true believers tried to push that as a fiat replacement in the beginning. So technically the article is correct.
It's right because it's wrong? Your argument is akin to claiming , since electric vehicles are pushed as a replacement to gas-powered ones, that Teslas are technically gas-powered.
 

Endymio

Notable
Aug 3, 2020
554
164
1,070
2
[Crypto] transactions are not necessarily fast, some of them take way longer than a debit or credit card transaction. And rarely they are good against inflation, since they have such a volatile value.
While you are correct about the dismal speed of some crypto transactions, your latter statement is incorrect. Inflation is a characteristic of fiat currencies only. In periods of high inflation, investors hedge by transferring a larger portion of their assets into non-fiat commodities: gold, real estate, etc. From an investing perspective, crypto shares this characteristic with such commodities, and can be expected to outperform in periods of high inflation and strong economic growth. In the (less typical) case where high inflation is coupled with a recessionary economy, the volatility of crypto would likely outweigh its non-fiat nature, and investors would tend to favor more stable commodities.
 

spongiemaster

Estimable
Dec 12, 2019
1,859
930
3,560
0
No. The defining characteristic of a fiat currency is not that it is legal tender, but that it can be issued indefinitely and unrestrictedly by the fiat -- or order -- of a governmental body.
No, the defining characteristic is that it isn't back by a commodity. That's the whole point of fiat currencies, to remove the instability of being based on commodities whose values ebb and flow. They do also have to be considered legal tender by a government. Which bitcoin is by El Salvador. But that isn't the defining feature of fiat currency.
 

zipspyder

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2014
43
17
18,535
0
It's right because it's wrong? Your argument is akin to claiming , since electric vehicles are pushed as a replacement to gas-powered ones, that Teslas are technically gas-powered.
It's right because its right. The initial claim was to replace fiat currency in some form. They don't get to walk it back. Your analogy is terrible, its more akin to saying this chicken is now a pig. Sorry, not sorry if that hurts your feelings. Oh and EL Salvador says hi. :cautious:
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Notable
Aug 3, 2020
554
164
1,070
2
No, the defining characteristic is that it isn't back by a commodity. That's the whole point of fiat currencies, to remove the instability of being based on commodities whose values ebb and flow. They do also have to be considered legal tender by a government. Which bitcoin is by El Salvador. But that isn't the defining feature of fiat currency.
You're confusing quite a few different terms and characteristics here. Any medium of exchange may be defined legal tender, and many non-fiat currencies such as species-backed notes and even notes of exchange have at various times and places been deemed legal tender.

The "whole point" of fiat currency is almost exactly the opposite of what you represent. The original argument against species-backed currencies -- viz bimetallism, the 'gold standard', etc. -- was that they were too stable, that they did not allow the central government the power to increase the money supply at need, to control unemployment, combat recession, etc. It was just these arguments that led Roosevelt to adopt fiat currency in the US in 1933. Our entire system of fractional-reserve banking -- and the purported economic expansion it enables -- isn't possible without fiat currency. Interestingly enough, the US government(s) during the Civil War (and many nations such as England in WWI) temporary implemented fiat currency, as bullion currency didn't allow them the near-unlimited spending these crises required.
 
Reactions: larkspur

Endymio

Notable
Aug 3, 2020
554
164
1,070
2
That's the whole point of fiat currencies, to remove the instability of being based on commodities whose values ebb and flow.
As another interesting historical aside for the student of monetary theory, the inherent stability of the US's bullion-backed currency in the post-Civil War era so constrained government spending that an entire political party formed (the so-called "Greenback Party") with the primary goal of repealing the gold standard. This party likely would have succeeded then, but the introduction of new mining technology in the late 1800s expanded the nation's gold supply to the point that much of their original rationale was lost.
 

zipspyder

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2014
43
17
18,535
0
Yes, to replace fiat currency with a backed, or non-fiat currency. Cryptocurrency and fiat currency are dichotomous terms, and no clever sophistry can change that.

You can pass on my regards to them. Non sequitur much?
I'll try and use bigger words next time while you dance around plain language with your nit picky pestiferous outrage. True believers really get jacked up with superfluous statements....fun to read!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS