Connect with us

Uncategorized

Stablecoins Are a Vital Innovation That Risk Being Crushed by Misguided Fear

Published

on

Imagine a world where every dollar you spend is tracked, approved, or denied in real time by a government agency. You attempt to send money to a friend for a political donation, but the transaction is blocked because the recipient is on a government “watch list.” You buy a book critical of a powerful politician and your account is flagged for review.

This dystopian future sounds outrageous but it’s the logical endpoint of a fully government-controlled and monitored monetary system for which some prominent U.S. policymakers advocate. Its defenders argue that such a government-omniscient system would prevent crime. In reality, it would destroy the core freedoms of financial privacy and autonomy. Stablecoins are an existing alternative to this dystopia. They are both a major financial innovation, and a bulwark against creeping financial authoritarianism. The U.S. Congress must support this technology as the Senate Banking Committee weighs legislation to provide clarity for the industry and its customers.

Stablecoins, digital currencies pegged to the value of traditional currencies like the U.S. dollar, provide the benefits of cryptocurrency — fast, inexpensive, borderless, and programmable transactions — without the price volatility of assets like Bitcoin. They are typically backed 1:1 with U.S. dollar cash and cash equivalents, providing stability and trust. Their programmability allows transactions to be executed automatically when specified conditions are met, unlocking enormous potential for automated finance, supply chain efficiency, and global commerce.

Senators across the U.S. political spectrum, who understand the technology’s current use cases and the vast future possibilities we can’t yet fully envision, have proposed thoughtful legislation to guide regulations that will foster innovation while protecting consumers. This collaborative approach reflects an understanding that stablecoins could revolutionize global finance, enhance financial inclusion, and preserve the U.S. dollar’s dominance in the digital age.

Unfortunately, some senators, especially Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), stand in stark opposition to this progress. Rather than embracing innovation, she pursues legislation that would smother stablecoins in their infancy. Senator Warren paints stablecoins as tools for illicit activity, claiming they primarily facilitate fraud, drug trafficking, and terrorist financing. Her characterization is not just inaccurate — it’s dangerously misleading.

The data directly contradicts Senator Warren’s claims. Multiple reports from blockchain analytics firms consistently show that illicit activity represents a tiny fraction of stablecoin transactions — often less than 1% of total volume. In fact, traditional cash is far more frequently used for money laundering and illicit trade than stablecoins ever have been. Blockchain technology, with its permanent and transparent ledger, actually makes illegal activity easier to track and prosecute than cash-based crime.

Senator Warren’s misinformed worldview leads her to advocate for a closed, government-monitored financial system — one in which every transaction is scrutinized, private financial activity becomes impossible, and access to financial tools is tightly controlled. In addition to being a morally objectionable invasion of privacy, her design would be operationally impossible to implement.

It would also weaken the dollar’s global dominance, as emerging economies and developing nations would turn to other digital currencies that are easier to access and use. Her constraints could not only impede the development of an important new technology, but also disrupt and harm ordinary Americans and businesses, and people around the world, who are using stablecoins today to move value across the internet as easily as sending an email or text message, often at a fraction of traditional costs. For example:

Major American corporations like Visa and PayPal are using stablecoins to settle some cross-border payments, reducing settlement times from days to minutes and lowering costs.

By making dollars the default currency of the digital economy, stablecoins reinforce the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency.

Increased global demand for dollar-denominated stablecoins increases demand for U.S. dollars and treasury securities, helping finance government borrowing at lower rates.

In countries suffering from high inflation or capital controls, stablecoins provide ordinary citizens with a safe, dollar-denominated savings option, protecting their wealth from economic mismanagement.

Migrant workers sending money home can do so more quickly, inexpensively, and more reliably with stablecoins than through traditional remittance services, which often charge exorbitant fees.

The Warren vision rejects the open, public, universally accessible system being developed today — a system where individuals and businesses alike can transact freely, without needing permission from banks or governments. Fortunately, there is still hope for a balanced regulatory approach.

Senators Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), and Tim Scott (R-SC) have introduced the bi-partisan GENIUS Act which would create a constructive regulatory framework for stablecoins that addresses legitimate concerns while enabling innovation. The GENIUS Act, and the White House Executive Order on Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology, will both ensure that the benefits of blockchain technology can be fully realized on open, freely accessible and transparent public blockchains.

Congress must embrace stablecoins, not fear them. The future of money is being written today. Will the United States lead this transformation, ensuring that digital dollars remain the global standard? Or will fear, misinformation, and stifling regulation hand the future of finance to other nations? The choice is clear: support innovation, enact smart regulation, and let stablecoins flourish.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Ваш адрес email не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *

Uncategorized

Who Is Satoshi? Benjamin Wallace Goes Down the Rabbit Hole in New Book

Published

on

By

Who created Bitcoin?

More than 16 years ago, on Halloween Day of 2008, an entity by the name of Satoshi Nakamoto sent out the whitepaper for a peer-to-peer electronic cash system to a cypherpunk email list. Bitcoin launched shortly thereafter; it quickly spawned a global cultural movement and a multi-trillion dollar industry.

Benjamin Wallace wrote a piece on the phenomenon for WIRED in November 2011, making him one of the very first mainstream journalists to ever cover the crypto space. Back then, nobody seemed to know Nakamoto’s identity, and despite robust efforts, Wallace couldn’t figure it out either.

Amusingly, the author of “The Billionaire’s Vinegar: The Mystery of the World’s Most Expensive Bottle of Wine” (2009) was sucked back into the enigma in 2022 after receiving persistent emails from an ex-Tesla employee who was absolutely convinced that Elon Musk was Nakamoto all along. Wallace stays clear of that particular theory, but he lays out his own findings in “The Mysterious Mr. Nakamoto,” a 342-page investigation set for release on March 18.

Read more: Marc Hochstein — Satoshi Nakamoto: The Mystery That (Probably) Will Never Be Solved

The conclusion? Well, by the end of it, Wallace is forced to admit that he failed to solve the Nakamoto riddle once again. But his obsession yielded a thoughtful survey of Bitcoin’s history with a special emphasis on the cypherpunks whose ideas contributed to the cryptocurrency’s birth. “The Mysterious Mr. Nakamoto” is a perfect work for crypto veterans and beginners alike who are curious to know more about Bitcoin’s origins; in that respect, it’s comparable to Laura Shin’s “The Cryptopians: Idealism, Greed, Lies, and the Making of the First Big Cryptocurrency Craze” (2022), which focuses on Vitalik Buterin and Ethereum’s early days.

Wallace shuffles through a long list of suspects throughout the book. His favourites include Hal Finney, the recipient of the first-ever bitcoin transaction; Nick Szabo, who designed a digital currency in the 1990s called “bit gold”; Len Sassaman, one of the main developers and operators of the Mixmaster remailer; the relatively obscure cypherpunk James A. Donald; and longtime Bitcoin critic Ben Laurie.

One of the things that makes “The Mysterious Mr. Nakamoto” a fun read is that you can watch Wallace slowly go insane as he bounces back and forth between these names. Each time he narrows it down to one person, a new piece of information rolls in and detonates his theory. Wallace deserves credit for his multi-faceted approach to the affair. He makes abundant use of stylometry for Nakamoto’s emails and code, deeply investigates circumstantial evidence, interviews almost all of the potential candidates, and even learns to code to get a better grasp of what the cypherpunks are talking about.

Looming over the investigation, of course, is the debate over whether Satoshi Nakamoto’s identity even matters in the first place. There has been renewed interest in the question lately, between HBO’s “Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery” documentary (which came out last fall) and VanEck’s head of digital assets Matthew Sigel stating in February that he believed Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey created Bitcoin.

As Wallace notes, Nakamoto’s identity is one of the great secrets of the 21st century. With Wall Street and the White House beginning to fully embrace the crypto sector, there is perhaps a feeling that putting a face on Bitcoin’s inventor is necessary to make the digital asset a little cleaner and safer to integrate into the global financial system.

Nakamoto’s identity is crucial because its discovery would impact the way people see Bitcoin, Wallace argues. Crypto folks, he says, prefer to think of Satoshi as a kind of promethean figure that unleashed Bitcoin as a gift to mankind before disappearing for the greater good. But what if Nakamoto was an outright criminal like former cartel boss Paul Le Roux who simply cannot access his private keys because he’s behind bars? Would BlackRock and Fidelity still race to recommend exposure to the cryptocurrency to their clients?

Wallace eventually sort of settles on the idea that Hal Finney probably took part in Bitcoin’s creation, but that he likely wasn’t working alone, and that in any case any theory is almost impossible to verify without Nakamoto providing irrevocable proof. But “The Mysterious Mr. Nakamoto” is crafted intelligently and the lack of resolution does not feel anti-climactic. At the end of the day, it’s all about the chase.

“What could we possibly learn from Nakomoto’s biography?” Wallace muses at some point, after a friend of his suggests the story would be better without an answer. “That he was a random professor who’d had a lucky brainstorm? No, what was most interesting about Nakamoto was his absence. He was defined by what we didn’t know about him.”

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Robinhood Brings Prediction Market Hub to Market After Success of Crypto-Based Polymarket

Published

on

By

After the success of crypto-based platform Polymarket trading venue Robinhood (HOOD) is now opening a prediction market on its platform, available through CFTC-regulated exchange Kalshi, the company said, with contracts rolling out today.

The company’s prediction markets hub will allow customers to bet on event outcomes, the HOOD announced in a press release.

It’s another competitor to Polymarket, the world’s largest predictions market, which exploded in popularity last year amid the U.S. presidential election and any number of other high- and lower-profile news events. The rise in popularity triggered intense scrutiny over the platform, which according to an analysis by NBC News, attracted over $3.6 billion in bets just for the presidential election.

Some questioned the identities behind the bets and whether results on the platform may have even swayed the election result in a certain direction. Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan’s New York City apartment was even raided by the FBI, who seized his phone and other electronic devices.

Robinhood said that it has been speaking with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in recent weeks.

“We believe in the power of prediction markets and think they play an important role at the intersection of news, economics, politics, sports, and culture,” said JB Mackenzie, VP & GM of Futures and International at Robinhood.

To kick off the product launch, traders will be able to bet on the potential upper bound of the target fed funds rate in May, as well as the upcoming men’s and women’s College Basketball Tournaments, Robinhood said.

Shares of the trading app were up 2.3% on Monday, at $40.17.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Bitcoin Network Hashrate Inched Higher in March as Mining Economics Weakened: JPMorgan

Published

on

By

The Bitcoin network hashrate rose 2 exashashes per second (EH/s) in the first two weeks of March, to an average of 811 EH/s, Wall Street bank JPMorgan (JPM) said in a research report Monday.

JPMorgan noted that U.S.-listed miners maintained their share of the network hashrate at around 30%.

The hashrate refers to the total combined computational power used to mine and process transactions on a proof-of-work blockchain, and is a proxy for competition in the industry and mining difficulty.

The «average bitcoin price declined ~10%, pressuring mining economics in the period,» analysts Reginald Smith and Charles Pearce wrote.

The hashprice, a measure of daily mining profitability, was broadly unchanged from the end of last month, the report noted.

Miners earned roughly $48,300 in daily block reward revenue per EH/s in the first two weeks of March, a 11% drop from February, and a 52% decline since last April’s halving event, the bank said.

The total market cap of the 14 U.S.-listed miners that the bank tracks slipped 13%, or about $3 billion, from the month previous.

Argo Blockchain (ARGO) outperformed with a 1% gain, while Cipher Mining underperformed with a 25% decline. Only one of the miners in the bank’s coverage outperformed bitcoin in the same period, the report added.

Read more: Bitcoin Mining Economics Weakened in February: JPMorgan

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.