Cryptocurrency Regulation: Yes or No?
The G20 Summit on Tuesday concentrated vigorously on cryptographic forms of money. There was a lot of back and forth at the platform about what the future of these highly sought-after computerized coins is going to look like.
As the name speaks, 20 nations including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom, the USA, and the European Union were a part of the G20 summit held in January this year.
Towards the finish of the talks, the associates from the G20 team set a due date for July to examine how digital currencies ought to be regulated.
Frederico Sturzenegger, the chairman of Argentina’s central bank commented that before the member nations could draft further proposals for cryptocurrency regulation, they would need more information.
“In July we have to offer very concrete, very specific recommendations on not ‘what do we regulate?’ but ‘what is the data we need?”, Sturzenegger said.
Various nations, however, went against the idea of cryptocurrency regulation. Ilan Goldfajn, the current President of the Central Bank of Brazil was very vocal about the concerns regarding this matter.
In the event that the G20 countries can’t achieve an agreement, it won’t make any difference what they conclude. There is a little or no chance that other countries will be inclined to pursue and follow the lead.
Both France and Germany sent a letter advocating the G20 summit and conveying that cryptographic forms of money could introduce “potential risks in the field of financial stability”. This clarified the place of these two nations in the early phase.
Mark Caney, the head of the Financial Stability Board is from those with the restricting perspective. He said that digital currencies are excessively constrained in their market capitalization and exchange volume to represent any genuine danger to global finance.
In a letter that he sent last Sunday, he wrote:
“Their small size, and the fact that they are not substitutes for currency and with very limited use for the real economy and financial transactions, has meant the linkages to the rest of the financial system are limited.”
There is such a disparity between the opinions which the different nations possess that it can be easily concluded that the dialogues in July will not go extremely far in the way of sketching rules for cryptocurrency regulation. This could be something worth being thankful for, for the little organizations that don’t yet have the assets to conform to administrative rules.
But then again, there is an opportunity for cryptocurrency to get more authenticity through a regulatory framework, which would help nullify the phobia that is preventing real payment platforms from embracing them.
Nations such as France and Germany were hoping that Bitcoin would be a solid point of discussion at the G20 summit and that possibly the regulations could begin to be formalized.
However, the FSB settled on a choice not to further work on worldwide cryptocurrency regulation at the meeting since it expected to influence a few of the current financial policies.
As the candle burns at both ends, nations need to examine an approach to regulate the business sector for cryptocurrency without slaughtering off any bud for advancement. Let’s wait for July!