Why No One Has to Be Concerned on the Bitcoin Currency


Are You Concerned About a Ban?

When Bitcoin grows too significant and undermines national sovereignty, skeptics believe that governments will prohibit it. At the very least, these opponents recognize the significance of Bitcoin and the power that state currency monopolies have over us. They don’t realize the potential of dispersed open-source technology, and the game theory challenges governments confront when making these choices independently. In a nutshell, bans are useless because they transfer global technical advantage to competitors. Authoritarian regimes are more likely to try to impose regressive restrictions on their citizens. If you live under that kind of system, you will need Bitcoin in more quantities than you realize. Before we go any further, we would like you to register yourself on the news spy official website and learn all the new and possible ways to earn profit in the bitcoin currency.

It is impossible to ban Bitcoin; rather, it is only possible to ban yourself from using Bitcoin: No matter what you, I, or the regulatory authorities believe, these principles remain in place. Bitcoin will remain operational on the internet even if a government attempts to prevent its people from accessing it via legislation.

Banning Is Ineffective and Maybe Impossible in Some Cases

The prohibition of bitcoin would be futile even if a government tried to impose it. During Prohibition, the United States government prohibited selling alcoholic beverages, although liquor was readily accessible. The fact that Bitcoin is not even a tangible thing begs how governments plan to take it. On the internet, it isn’t easy to prevent individuals from employing code in their communications. China, for example, attempted to ban Facebook, but Chinese citizens continue to access social media sites via VPNs.

The Impact of Global Regulatory Competition Is Increased

A Bitcoin prohibition would be stupid and useless, but governments could definitely raise the hurdles to entry and create friction by increasing the cost of doing business. Although governments have overstepped their bounds with cryptocurrencies, there is no precedence for doing so with bitcoin, and there is no motivation to do so. Do the world’s major nations want to turn their backs on this formidable technology at a time when other countries are adopting it? In a recent interview, Republican policymaker Kevin McCarthy discussed the geopolitical dilemma that his party is facing:

In A Multipolar World, Coordination Is Very Unlikely

If all nations worked together to organize and execute the ban simultaneously, it would have more effect. What is the likelihood of global cooperation in the turbulent realm of geopolitics, on the other hand, is unclear? The United Kingdom is too preoccupied with fighting with the EU, and the United States is too preoccupied dealing with China for them all to crack down on bitcoin at the same time. A recent book by Marko Papic, “Geopolitical Alpha,” solidified my belief that the geopolitical conditions necessary for a globally coordinated crackdown on Bitcoin do not exist. 

Growing Interests in Technology Among Regulators

As we move away from macroeconomic issues and microeconomic ones, are governments prepared to kill Bitcoin businesses that operate inside their own borders? BTC exchanges are available in almost every country on the planet, businesses have bitcoin on their balance sheets, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange sells bitcoin futures, and members of Congress in the United States are vocal advocates of the cryptocurrency. Ex-U.S. regulators have recently joined the boards of directors of both Binance and BlockFi, demonstrating the increasing connection between Bitcoin-related companies and the federal government. There is a good chance that many politicians themselves are Bitcoin holders.

For instance:

In the wake of at least two failed efforts to regulate private cryptocurrencies, the government seems to be hellbent on outlawing them completely.  The regulation of cryptocurrencies – digital “tokens” that may be used as a means of exchange similar to money – has dragged along more tentatively than usual due to apprehension about the unknown.

Finally, in a landmark judgment (Internet and Mobile Association of India Vs RBI) issued in March 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the ban had killed cryptocurrency exchanges’ business opportunities by taking away their rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The ban had been in place since 2013, and in addition, the court found that the RBI failed to demonstrate the harm caused by cryptocurrencies (proportional damage) and failed to consider alternatives to banning, such as regulatory reform.

Disclaimer: This article contains sponsored marketing content. It is intended for promotional purposes and should not be considered as an endorsement or recommendation by our website. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and exercise their own judgment before making any decisions based on the information provided in this article.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of The World Financial Review.