The Supreme Court had recently asked the Indian government about the regulation of Bitcoin. This one is slow to come, and adds to the dense news on this subject in Asia.
The consequences of Bitcoin regulation in India
Following the solicitation of the Supreme Court of India to provide a legal framework for cryptocurrencies, the Central Bank and the authorities are working on a corpus of laws concerning the cryptocurrency market. An important issue, knowing that, according to the World Bank, India remains the largest remittance market in the world, with more than $ 70 billion in annual payments.
However, for several months, the Indian authorities have given no indication regarding the regulation of cryptocurrencies, leaving trading platforms, such as Zebpay and Coinsecure, to operate without legal constraint. An opportunity that many are grasping, creating more and more platforms to meet the growing demand of the world's largest remittance market, which has more than 1.5 million Bitcoiners and an increase of 200,000 cryptocurrency users per month.
India, Asia and Bitcoin
With the exception of India, other major remittance markets, such as the Philippines, have been successful in legalizing Bitcoin. Indeed, the largest platform Coins.ph is an active community of more than 2 million users. With a Google investment of US $ 15 million, Coin.ph has extended its market to neighboring countries, including Thailand and Malaysia, in full reflection on the legal framework of cryptocurrencies.
If India regulates Bitcoin and legalizes the currency, its remittance industry will quickly adopt the currency, which will favor the adoption of the digital currency in the region. The response of the Indian Central Bank will bring more clarity to the ambiguous status of Asia vis-à-vis digital currencies. Some have already chosen their camps, like the Philippines or China. Others, such as Malaysia, India and South Korea, weigh the pros and cons of such a decision.
Whatever happens, the Indian enthusiasm around Bitcoin will have a great influence on the arbitration of the authorities.