The U.S. will hold a hearing tomorrow about the feasibility of cryptocurrency. Two testimonies are confronted with each other: One pro crypto and one con crypto. Let's take a look:
PRO Peter Van Valkenburgh: https://t.co/jT5eXuOwcI
CON Nouriel Roubini: https://t.co/XWJzFGlmL3
The first thing that becomes clear after having read both papers is the choice of language. While Valkenburgh takes a clear academic and technical approach to elaborating what blockchain actually offers, Roubini favors a Trump-like style of pointing out that cryptocurrency would be the mother of all scams and bubbles. Of course, one might think that the first approach is the suitable one for a senate hearing considering the formality and high standards on this level of jurisdiction. HOWEVER, as Trump's way of public speaking has shown, the possible level of conviction has strong correlations with putting complex matters into simple words. If you desire to convince somebody of a particular matter, you are an expert in but not the counterpart (not one senate member has a technical background), you need to KISS (keep it stupid simple). To that, reality and facts do often not matter to the extent they should as in the end, humans make the decisions and the human mind, arguably, is the easiest mechanism to manipulate in this universe.
Roubini consistently makes use of simple references that are yet, strong in visualization. Please read the following: "It is a total pretense as crypto-land is the most centralized scam in human history where greed for Lambos and ostentatious consumption is greater than any Gordon Gecko ever".
- Is this statement biased? Yes.
- Does it include a scornful tone? Yes.
- Is it easy to understand and fun to visualize? Yes.
- Is it a well-argumented statement intended to let the reader decide if true or not? No.
Another one: "a bunch of self-serving greedy white men – very few women or minorities are allowed in the blockchain space – have pretended to create billions of wealth out of nowhere while pretending to care about billions of poor and unbanked human around the world." See what he did here?
- a bunch of = derogatory
- greedy white men = negative association
- few women = big issue in the current world news and in fact not true (See https://womeninblockchainglobal.org)
- minorities not allowed in blockchain space = where does this come from? bitcoin was invented with the purpose to not be restrictive but accessible to anyone (other than banks that very carefully chose their customers)
- care about billions of poor and unbanked humans = again, no facts but personal impression used to convince the counterpart
Enough of Roubini's testimony against cryptocurrency and the blockchain space. Well ok, one more:
"This scammy eco-system is consistent with the idiotic crypto jargon: HODLers are suckers who have hold on their collapsing crypto- currencies even after they lost 90% of their value; Lambos refer to the crypto obsession with stealing investors’ money to buy luxury energy hogging cars; Whales are large early crypto billionaires who are stuck with their fake wealth after the suckers of retails investors – who bought into the FOMO of the peak 2017 bubbles – lost 90% of their investments; those suckers are also called BagHolders. The entire crypto jargon is not of a new industry developing a creative disruptive technology but that of an industry of con artists, criminals, scammers and carnival barkers."
and right after this section:
" I have zero exposure to fin-tech ventures. Bitcoin or any crypto-asset could go “To The Moon” or crash to zero and I would not make a penny either way. The only thing that is at stake is my personal, intellectual and academic reputation".
Safe to say that such testimony to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee will definitely not boost his academic reputation.
Finally, let us take a short look at Valkenburgh's testimony:
- clear structure and common theme
- high focus on the actual innovations that derived in the segment
- elaborations on the 'potential' benefits and clear, objective argumentation that the segment is at a young stage and blockchain is not the solution to everything but a very powerful tool that should not be neglected
- a more advanced read, the reader actually has to think while reading (might be a vast disadvantage for the debate considering the Facebook hearing that the world took with mockery due to senate questions such as: "If I send an email with WhatsApp, can Facebook read it?")
- misses argumentation about the overall price speculation in the cryptocurrency scene that is of primary interest to the Senate which might (and likely will) be another key disadvantage for the debate
To conclude, for the cryptocurrency industry to become a politically, societal and economically respected industry, education is what needs to be addressed first. And education should always be based on facts and objective reasoning, not on personal bias or belief.
