Bitcoins artificially brought about last breath before the way to insignificance

It is no surprise that central banks are generally not good for crypto. It is no secret that the European Central Bank Krypto is more enemy than most others.

But even for the ECB, the blog just published is the equivalent to a biped, tunnels first, Sunday league stackle. (Ht Kate Martin )

The value of Bitcoin in November 2021 reached a maximum of $ 69,000 before falling to $ 17,000 by mid -June 2022. Since then, the value has fluctuated by $ 20,000. For Bitcoin advocates, the apparent stabilization signals a breather on the way to new heights. However, it is more likely that it is an artificially brought-in last breath before the way to insignificance-and this was already foreseeable before FTX broke and sent the Bitcoin price well below 16,000.

The contribution (written by Ulrich Bindseil, General Director of the ECB, and ECB consultant Jürgen Schaff) offers an entertaining repetition of the biggest hits of the Bitcoin bashing. It is an "unprecedented dirt"; His "technological defects make it questionable as a means of payment"; His value is based on "Pure Speculation" and "Manipulations by individual stock exchanges or stablecoin providers".

The more interesting is the thoughts of the ECB about how or even whether crypto should be regulated after the many embarrassing collapse this year.

One can say with Fug and rightly that the binding rope and sheep are firmly represented in the “Let IT burn” mindset and argue that “regulation can be misunderstood as consent” (while they can make a derogatory comment on the mercenary instincts of some former US regulatory authorities). Emphasis of FTAV below:

. . . Large investors also finance lobbyists who enforce their case with legislators and supervisory authorities. In the United States alone, the number of crypto lobbyists from 115 in 2018 to 320 in 2021 almost tripled. Your names sometimes read like the who's who of the US supervisory authorities.

But lobbying activities need a resonance floor to achieve effect. In fact, legislators have sometimes made it easier to inflate the alleged advantages of Bitcoin and offered regulation that gave the impression that crypto-assets are only another investment class. However, the risks of crypto-assets are undisputed. In July, the Financial Stability Board (FSB), crypto -assets and markets called for effective regulation and surveillance to subdue that is appropriate to the risks they arise -according to the doctrine "the same risk, same regulation".

However: Laws on crypto-assets have sometimes only been slowly ratified in recent years-and the implementation often lags behind. In addition, the various jurisdictions do not proceed at the same pace and with the same ambition: While the EU has agreed on a comprehensive regulatory package with the markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (Mica), the congress and the federal authorities in the United States have not been able to agree on this. <

The current regulation of cryptocurrencies is partly shaped by misunderstandings. stubbornly believes that the innovation has to be given space at all costs. Since Bitcoin is based on a new technology - DLT/Blockchain - it would have a high transformation potential. First, these technologies have created only limited value for society - regardless of how great expectations for the future are. Second, the use of a promising technology is not a sufficient condition for added value of a product based on it.

The supposed sanction of regulation has also tempted the conventional financial industry to facilitate access to Bitcoin. This applies to asset managers and payment service providers as well as insurance and banks. The entry of financial institutions suggests small investors that investments in Bitcoin are solid.

. . . [But] Since Bitcoin does not appear to be suitable as a payment system or as an investment reform, it should be neither treated or legitimized. In a similar way, the financial industry should take care of the long-term damage to the promotion of Bitcoin investments-despite short-term profits that it could achieve (even without their risk in the game). The negative effects on customer relationships and reputation damage for the entire industry could be enormous as soon as Bitcoin investors have made further losses.

et tu, ECB? Or as Adam Samson, editor for FT market news, expresses it in its very first meme: