Welcome back dear traders and investors!
Governments have always been a largely dualistic and comparative group in factors, thematic and programmatic like cryptoeconomics, digitization, sociology, development and much more. That is why our interest must be jointly focused on their opinions to formalize the adoption and inclusion of the Blockchain, Bitcoin, NFT, DeFi... It will be them, bosses, presidents, ministers, gazebos and famous people with public positions, who will have first and second word, for and against, which in turn, can favor us as well as seriously harm us.
Some governments have added their appreciation for the digitization of the economy, for the leap from the traditionalist school to the modern school. However, in this case we should talk about geopolitics, institutional point of view, national and international point of view and public opinion.
I recently read a nice article on Cointelegraph, I must say, be a faithful reader of his opinion column, analysis and writings. For this reason, I was inspired to write my own aspect linked to governments in the case of the adoption of Bitcoin and Crypto-technology. I remember that the article specifically narrated the relevance of the commonly -mentioned by me in previous articles- "multifaceted use of the blockchain", the value of technology today and the growth of social interest in participation in activities associated with cryptocurrencies and tokens.
It will always depend on which country is presenting itself as an ally or an enemy. I believe that it will be like the adoption and centralization of cannabis in its recreational use and not just medicinal. That is, little by little countries will publicly declare the benefits of blockchain and Bitcoin for amounts of practices (digitized, financial, thrifty systems)
The reason would not be exactly if a country includes Bitcoin in its list of currencies or top-line economic strategies, but rather, which country does it and which ones follow it. In this case, the institutional, social and political point of view should be mentioned, since, if the country that adopts it does not have a public opinion with enough satisfaction, it will cause havoc and Bitcoin, as an effect of mistrust, will lose participants and companies.
Of course, before talking about utopian ideas that imply Bitcoin as a future international currency, we must understand:
Governments as allies:
In this case, the adoption of Bitcoin would be promoted through informative, political and social campaigns, we could even talk about the integration of systems based on the blockchain for documentation and relevant information, as well as crypto-monetizing pensions and supporting the national currency or simply use BTC as a thrifty strategy (As crazy as it may sound to support the national economy of a country in Bitcoin) -realistically it is not so farfetched- if it performs a similar operation to the investments of banks and private entities, certain governments would dedicate so much only 10% to 15% of your annual capital, which is a large amount in and of itself.
The entry of governments in alliance to the use of Bitcoin as a financial method can mean the commercialization and mobilization of various cryptocurrencies in public and private companies, which increases the level of trust and motivation. Schools and universities would begin to provide education on these platforms that serve as means of transactions. Because, when governments (if they do) take over Bitcoin, they will develop their own pages and intermediaries such as crypto banks and exchanges.
Governments as enemies:
Deriving the problems of Bitcoin as an enemy is not something so dissimilar to reality, at this moment we could say that Bitcoin is internationally recognized as a challenge to the formal and traditional economy. More not exactly like a world enemy unlike years past. However, the use of it in countries with bad political references, public opinion and international ties materially hinders the possibility of defeating a paradigm that favors Bitcoin. In the case of speaking of governments as enemies, we refer mainly to Bitcoin, because in comparison "The blockchain pays just for the sinner" but its use in practicality does not essentially involve illicit activity, on the contrary, it could be a great mechanism for next security and information systems. Why -it is correct- is summarized in one sentence: "The enemy always be Bitcoin", because governments have not managed to overcome the idea of thinking that the cryptoeconomy is useful and indispensable for illegal activity (?). But it is something that must be left behind, illegal or illicit activity will always be on the nose of governments, according to them, today it is called "Bitcoin, cryptocurrencies" but in reality, it is everything. The idea is as outdated as blaming global warming on mining. Please! Where do they get such paranoid derivations?
I remember that former President Donald Trump once mentioned in a Tweet that Bitcoin allowed money laundering, illegal activity and fraud or tax evasion. But the former president was answered in an interesting way by millions of people who justified: "Doesn't that already happen with the US dollar and other currencies from other countries?" It is like simply imputing charges to public and institutional opinion.
If Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies become "enemies of governments", the closest thing is that they proceed with a campaign of blocking and censorship of related content and limiting their use. Until the blockchain system begins to be used again from underground, losing institutional, popular and trust value.
Is the problem of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies about decentralization or the challenge to banks and institutions?
Naturally both questions were palpable problems, however, over the years Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have outdone themselves, this includes new ties, alliances and joint projects. Currently, Bitcoin and the other cryptocurrencies work on the basis of globalized investments, including institutions, stock exchanges, banks or commercial entities. And where do we leave decentralization? since we cannot freely say "Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies are decentralized haha live with that!" -In joke tones- we have to immerse ourselves in one of the aptitudes of these systems, and I am referring to constant change, that is, the daily valuation of the target price in the market. The vast majority of experts and associated with Bitcoin have declared to be in favor of decentralization and against stabilization, since it allows "to generate added interest" and is presented as an added value to have the opportunity to increase our capital over time. Despite the criticism of the ease of achieving wealth in modern times.
Decentralization is not exactly a challenge to banking entities that have some time doing a noble and great job, on the contrary, decentralization is the invitation to a new economic paradigm, to a new digitized frontier with different, positive and negative functions because everything must be studied mathematically. But this expansion is notorious part of the rhythm of the times, the growth of society and development.
Just remember:
If you want to support my content and my analysis or articles, you can do it through my wallet
BTC donations: 19xUQN6SNKJGMYJGc25Hs6g832YHdx8A4u
All content is original and belongs to @abelardobravoh
