It’s about a kind of money that steers clear of government intervention.
It’s about a kind of money that not only symbolizes or supports but embodies the principles of free-market capitalism and a free society.
It’s about a kind of money that can resist, through operational means, any efforts toward manipulation, tracking, and confiscation.
Last week, as President Trump announced his selection of Mick Mulvaney to serve as acting Chief of Staff beginning 2019, crypto enthusiasts may have been relieved to finally
see a well-informed pro-Bitcoin politician enter the halls of the White House.
Mulvaney has been an outspoken Bitcoin supporter. In 2016, Mulvaney contrasted Bitcoin with the US Dollar, stating that the latter has been “effectively devalued” by the
Federal Reserve, whereas Bitcoin is “not manipulable by any government.”
It helps to have a high-profile official with relative influence in the White House support the growth of this still-nascent asset class.
If anything, Mulvaney’s advocacy might help Bitcoin’s long-term prospects, and with it, the entire cryptocurrency sector.
However, Mulvaney’s influence over the short-term roadmap may be limited, as both the SEC and CFTC hold dominance over current roadmap implementation.
Nevertheless, the most significant benefit that we can expect from having a pro-crypto official in the federal government is influence over the way other government officials
might perceive and understand the benefits of a decentralized blockchain monetary system.
Basic understanding of the crypto space sorely lacks in government. And governance over a sector misunderstood can only lead to misguided policies.
In 2017, Finland’s central bank released a report stating that efforts toward regulating blockchain protocols would only result in inefficiencies.
They concluded that Bitcoin could not be regulated, as its protocols are sustained by a decentralized network of users–node operators, miners, and developers:
“Bitcoin is not regulated. It cannot be regulated. There is no need to regulate it because as a system it is committed to the protocol as is and the transaction fees it charges the
users are determined by the users independently of the miners’ efforts. Bitcoin’s design as an economic system is revolutionary and therefore would merit an economist’s
attention and scrutiny even if it had not been functional. Its apparent functionality and usefulness should further encourage economists to study this marvelous structure.”
As the paper suggests, you may be able to create a regulatory framework around Bitcoin, but you can’t regulate it to the point restricting growth or developments within that sector.
As what recently occurred in the US, the SEC has finally concluded that Bitcoin and Ethereum cannot be considered securities according to existing laws and criteria.
Hence, their regulatory oversight is indirect and limited.
Both regulatory bodies are now working to find a way to effectively implement the Know Your Customer policy to restrict money laundering practices in the crypto sector.
With support from key White House officials, cryptocurrencies may see a boom in support that can ultimately influence perceptions and policies pertaining to this new asset
But knowing how the Trump administration often resembles a revolving door, such support for cryptocurrencies may only be as long-lived as Mulvaney’s tenure in the White