Ok, so what is the significance of the @lagarde statement on bitcoin?

We were offered a very open insight (but slightly flawed analysis) into top level policy perspective behind the crack down on selfhosted wallets.

https://t.co/1LTzrxHbgs 1/32

'It is a speculative asset, by any account. If you look at the price movements... '

It starts with an economic price perspective and we can learn that ECB is closely monitoring this price movement as one of the many indicators.

So we are in the classic central bank frame 2/32
'Those who thought it would turn into a currency. Sorry, it is an asset not a currency.'

Here she summarises a classic debate on what is currency and what is needed for that. Based on the holy three: unit of account, means of payment, store of value. 3/32
The summary is classic, but too narrow and does not incorporate the wider financial history viewpoints on money, currencies and the way we pay. 4/32
ECB overlooks the de facto unit of account role of bitcoin, having been used to 200 years of having cash around whic is both the unit of account and a means of payment. 5/32
In this book Davies outlines that there are far more than 3 functions for money. He highlights differences between primitive money versus modern money.

https://t.co/UQzQtETM2E 6/32
'bitcoin fails as a currency', shows a limited perspective on currency.

History has also seen playing cards been used as a currency.
-> https://t.co/XLU3shkADk

And as a unit of account bitcoin may be much further ahead than @lagarde realises. 7/32
A Dutch example: trade and payments in Dutch history (17th century) were done in denominations of 'Flemish pounds' which did not exist in real life.

Bitcoin being used as a central currency/unit of account amids a range of other digital coins is quite similar. 8/32
The ECB-perspective is too narrow and thereby overlooks the role of bitcoin as an open source public good. This role significantly adds to its value, but not necessarily to its price.

See the thread here: https://t.co/XsirnRwO7N 9/32
Then @lagarde moves on:
'which has conducted some funny business'
'totally reprehensible money laundering activity'

Here, the narrow FATF-perspective comes into play. Because analytically, this statement is valid for cash, fiat currency and bank behaviour as well. 10/32
To me, this flags that we are about to hear news from the powerful anti-money laundering lobby.

Do note that this anti-money laundering perspective has some serious democratic and analytical errors.

See ->
https://t.co/7WpscAWD7I 11/32
'There has to be regulations and this has to be applied and agreed upon.'

It is flawed to dismiss this as a classic central bank argument, with them only having one flavour of icecream (regulation)

Society by definition regulates what if finds important and rightly so. 12/32
'Regulation needs to be done at a global level because if there is an escape, that escape will be used.'

Here the statement becomes interesting as it shows the desire to close the escape routes.

But are we talking AML-rules, stablo-coin rules, what is it ? 13/32
The regulatory process of setting rules via G7 - G20 and then enlarging them is mentioned and:
'FATF is clearly an organisation that has expanded in that respect'

So it sounds as a focus on money laundering regulations. And effectively the virtual asset work by the FAT. 14/32
So let's look at this FATF report on virtual assets and where there is a mention of escape routes. I guess in crypto-context this meens peer-2-peer then?

https://t.co/MFNOPuYAPj 15/32
The concern of regulators is thus the coexistence of forms of stablecoins and self-owned wallets (or in their terms: unhosted wallets, as not hosted by regulated institutions).

And do note: 'address risk in a forward looking manner', meaning anticipation by supervisors. 16/32
Next up the FATF-report highlights that peer-2-peer tools remain unregulated so far, but national authorities can of course choose to not register or license virtual asset players and couple this to the use of 'unhosted' wallets.

And this is what we start to be seeing. 17/32
Look at the situation in Switzerland where FINMA regulates libra/DIEM and the first additional non-coordinated rules came into play per august 2019.

Peer-2-peer wallets require verification of beneficiary !

https://t.co/3mji8RBmw7 18/32
The Dutch central bank - in september 2020 - suddenly required beneficiary verification and checking the ownership of selfhosted wallet as as a registration requirement.

Doing pro-actively what FATF suggested.

https://t.co/NeHZMrH1wv 19/32
The requirement all of a sudden hit the 38 companies that were registering as a virtual asset service provider. Issued 2 months before a registration deadline (close shop if unregistered).

A knife on the table.

https://t.co/v5KvSoFH91 20/32
Some 25 out of 38 registering companies were forced to comply and desired to know the formal basis of this rule. Central bank said: sanctions law, but it is not there.

So they wrote a joint letter on Nov 2.

https://t.co/wQJ9xG8oQu 21/32
The letter remains unanswered even today, 2 months later and 15 of the registering companies in the Netherlands were forced to comply with it.

https://t.co/Ur1l72AgXo 22/32
More specifically one of the Dutch crypto players has announced it will bring the last minute requirement before a judge, citing it's ineffectiveness, infringement on privacy and disproportionality. 23/32
Meanwhile in the US, things started to move as well. Coinbase was the first company to indicate that government sought to introduce beneficiary information and verification rules for selfhosted wallets.

https://t.co/OVDV5J7L3J 24/32
And then, just before Christmas, the FINCEN figured it would be a good idea to use a consultation period of 2 weeks, outlining the proposed rules. 25/32
In essence the same rules as FINMA and DNB, although slightly more risk based by the use of thresholds above which the rules apply.

https://t.co/AV5j1yqNWu 26/32
Despite the brief time and the holiday period 7500+ comments were being submitted to the FINCEN. Feel free to have a look here:

https://t.co/1mEaiUxlqH

More responses came in at the FINCEN than ever received before. 27/32
The comments raised fundamental concerns in terms of contents and due process. How can FINCEN limit the consultation period in this way?

https://t.co/ZiRS7zrlcF 28/32
A good thing is that FINCEN is indeed extending the consultation period now.

https://t.co/NKZixJlksK

But it becomes clear what is meant with 'address risk in a forward looking manner' 29/32
So, let's move slowly back to the speech of @Lagarde.

I think it gave us an open insight into the desire to make sure that no escape routes are present for bitcoin/crypto.

It tells us there is a strong FATF-inspired objective to crack down on selfhosted wallets. 30/32
I hope the FATF will take note of the many responses that have been sent to FINCEN and to the ongoing discussion that will become visible in the Netherlands.

My full FINCEN response:
https://t.co/OTMlwgVqHy 31/32
Indeed, when it comes to things/coins of value, regulation may be justified.

Still this must be proportional and within the bigger framework of human rights protection.

See European Data Protection Board ->
https://t.co/Y2dpZ1a5ux 32/32

More from Bitcoin

1/9 Bitcoin has performed remarkably these past few weeks despite:
-Most of DeFi falling 50-80%
-CFTC charging BitMEX
-POTUS contracting Covid
-Delayed stimulus talks
-FCA announcing a derivative ban for retail

Why? Let’s see what we can find on-chain

2/9 Bitcoin’s Realized Cap has been steadily increasing just as it did before the 2017 bull market took off. If it continues as it did in 2017, 2021 should be an interesting year.

https://t.co/nqgX7vTMDV


3/9 Bitcoin MVRV, whilst more volatile this market cycle, is also is holding the same trajectory it did during the 2016/17 bull market

https://t.co/jadbn6nCOB


4/9 Looking at the supply of Bitcoin on exchanges is a good indication as to whether or not users are increasing trading activity, or increasing hodl activity. With supply reducing it looks like the tendency recently has been driven by hodlers


5/9 Despite the recent volatility, the number of Bitcoin whales continues to increase, indicating the growing number of large holders that have positive expectations for the future of Bitcoin
I have a different take on bitcoin, tether, and dollars

Can also speak with authority on nation state violence

"Nothing makes you feel more free than taking another person's freedom"


and @profplum99 concerns with tether, bitcoin, and decentralization make sense yet I remain long BTC

They are correct on force, I worked in decentralized societies, they are dangerous because the state does not have a monopoly on violence

For those in the first world who have never seen a milita ride out of the desert, kill and enslave farmers, and the government cannot stop it because the 21st century slave trade pays better than the UN, the reality of decentralization is might equals right

I know, that isn't the decentralized future Buterin talks about while wearing a t-shirt with a cat fighting space invaders on it (love those shirts)

But we need to be real, disrupting the global centralized economy won't be like Uber putting taxis out of work

It will be war and faminine level disruption as old empires come alive again

For decentralization to rise the centralized global power of the last 70 years (US Hegemony) has to weaken

Yes we will be rich, but as the Big Short says,

"you can be happy, just don't fucking dance"
Agree mate. Well done @ttmygh @profplum99 and @nic__carter on a ripping show. Im obviously in the "gold is superior" camp, though I am long #BTC (tiny position). I thought the best/most interesting point of whole debate was raised by @profplum99 regarding the fact that a 1/n


#Bitcoin transaction is never really final, given the energy required to keep the network running, and obviously its scale issues will only grow over time. That said, I actually though @nic__carter "won" the debate as it were, and I was unconvinced by the threat to national 2/n

security or undermining Fed policy angles Mike put forward. Two areas that are super interesting to me. One is the issue of #Bitcoin ownership, and how concentrated it is in terms of a small % of addresses that own most of it (2% addresses > 95% of holdings I think). 3/n

made great point a lot of this is omnibus/exchange related - so exchange or fund - ie @Grayscale holds #bitcoin for multiple investors. That may well be true - but it brings up 2 other issues. One - it proves that #bitcoin doesn't really "work" without 4/n

centralisation - as this implies most people need exchanges or funds (or @Paypal) to buy it. If so, that kills off a major "bitcoin is better than gold argument" - as in reality, gold is way more decentralised (from mine supply to ownership distribution). It also brings up a 5/n
Another #FreeLoveFriday. So far, I’ve covered Bitcoin, Mastercoin/Omni, and last week ChainLink and the importance of decentralized oracles. Today, let’s talk about one of the most fascinating projects in crypto - @MakerDAO


In my thread about Mastercoin, I briefly touched on the vital role fiat-backed stablecoins play in crypto markets, but there’s a catch with them:

The counterparty risk of a third-party holding fiat in reserves.

Enter MakerDAO, which set out to create a decentralized, collateral-backed cryptocurrency, DAI, that would be “soft-pegged” to the U.S. Dollar using the power of algorithms. In crypto tradition, its supporters said trust game theory, not operators.

In 2017, MakerDAO published a whitepaper describing a system where anyone could create DAI by leveraging ETH as collateral to create Collateralized Debt Positions. Essentially, you take out a digital USD loan against your crypto.

The game theory of the system is structured such that DAI issuance is controlled to keep the price pegged to $1.00. In essence, it buffers the fluctuations of the underlying collateral to create a synthetic dollar bill.

You May Also Like

"I really want to break into Product Management"

make products.

"If only someone would tell me how I can get a startup to notice me."

Make Products.

"I guess it's impossible and I'll never break into the industry."

MAKE PRODUCTS.

Courtesy of @edbrisson's wonderful thread on breaking into comics –
https://t.co/TgNblNSCBj – here is why the same applies to Product Management, too.


There is no better way of learning the craft of product, or proving your potential to employers, than just doing it.

You do not need anybody's permission. We don't have diplomas, nor doctorates. We can barely agree on a single standard of what a Product Manager is supposed to do.

But – there is at least one blindingly obvious industry consensus – a Product Manager makes Products.

And they don't need to be kept at the exact right temperature, given endless resource, or carefully protected in order to do this.

They find their own way.