We feel obliged to present the following considerations on this subject of extreme relevance and importance for the Venezuelan economy; since we observe great flaws, inaccuracies, contradictions, irrelevant arguments and many particular interests around everything that is said in relation to the matter.
In the first place, the cryptocurrencies issued by individuals, strictly speaking, are not currencies, but a digital object to which their users attribute a value, and which is used to accumulate and transfer said value, in a similar way to, for example, a gold ingot or a diamond, with the obvious advantage of its much greater mobility, being something that is transmitted by digital means.
It is an untenable argument to oppose the lack of support from the US $, a lack that is true, with cryptocurrencies, since these do not have any support either.
Although the opposite is held, cryptocurrency calls do affect the monetary sovereignty of all countries, which raises the suspicion of a higher level of interest behind all this technology; and it is not "coincidence" that the supposed inventor of it is only a pseudonym of a stranger.
In fact, it is true that cryptocurrencies also affect the hegemony of the US $, but they do the same with the rest of the sovereign currencies; and at the end of the day, the global financial elite is interested in affecting all sovereign currencies, as one of the means to directly assume world government, even discarding the system and political authority of the USA.
Therefore, it is to be assumed that this global financial elite is behind the issue, and obviously its financial and control capacity will end up concentrating possession of the cryptocoins that are consolidated in the market.
It is symptomatic that China and Russia have prohibited the use of cryptocurrencies other than their own; and South Korea and the United States are just as well, and the latter also propose prohibiting the conversion of cryptocurrencies into US $.In the USA, they have just eliminated the norms that were globally known as the "Internet Neutrality Law", which formalizes the previously announced intention to privatize the use of the Web, the possibility of establishing discriminations and prohibitions regarding the use of the Internet. and, even, the direct blocking of users, and remember that technology can always provide mechanisms to make these restrictions effective; technology that, after all, is dominated by the world's financial elites.
It is striking that those who defend a priori cryptocurrencies and exaggerate their benefits, are financial speculators, or "miners" of the same; that is, interested party.
In a strict sense, it is not necessary to use cryptocurrencies to carry out secure transactions, obviating the restrictions that may have been erected by third countries; and this is possible even by giving other uses to the "block chain" technology that is the basis of cryptocurrencies.
In a strict sense, it is not necessary to use cryptocurrencies to carry out secure transactions, obviating the restrictions that may have been erected by third countries; and this is possible even by giving other uses to the "block chain" technology that is the basis of cryptocurrencies.
Cryptocurrencies are subject to speculation and financial management, and they will be more insofar as traditional financial systems intervene in that market, even with their own cryptocurrencies or, as is already the case, with the creation of cryptocurrencies by banks traditional and "future" markets with cryptocurrencies.
It is not true that cryptocurrencies do not have "intermediaries"; only that these are not central banks or formal commercial banks; but there are issuers, depositaries, operations centralizers; and there are associated financial costs.
The cryptocurrencies do not imply the granting of credit, something necessary in the current economic scenario; and if, as announced, one enters that stage, this is a banking competition, even if it is done by actors other than banks.
The rise of cryptocurrencies is not related to the failures of banks, derived from the mismanagement of credit and financial speculation, to which cryptocurrencies will not be exempt.
The banks themselves should not be demonized or pose cryptocurrencies as "avengers" against banks. There are banks created and managed by the Venezuelan, Chinese, Russian, etc., as well as there are Muslim banks that lend money without charging interest.
The false "libertarian" discourse behind the cryptocurrencies is the same one used by the financial elites against the sovereign States; it is the same one wielded by the owners of economic power in the American colonies, against the political power of England, France, Spain and Portugal; and that in the end it seeks to hold absolute power, to the detriment of the sovereignty of States.
The alleged confidentiality and lack of control of formal authorities, not private ones, are not an advantage, but a threat from the point of view of the governments, including that of Venezuela.
In fact, cryptocurrencies are not the "democratic" that is alleged, since only an elite has the financial, technological, energy and knowledge resources to generate ("mine") them and to centralize their exchange, which will inevitably end, for reasons of size, owned by the global financial elite.
The Petro announced by the Venezuelan National Executive does fit into the formal definition of a sovereign currency; while it is issued directly by the State and it has been said that it will have support in oil, gold and other goods already contemplated as support for the bolivar in the BCV law.
In this case, the first is to take into account the constitutional mandate contained in article 318 of the CRBV, in that the monetary unit of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is the "bolivar"; which suggests that Petro would have no legal tender; that is, it would not circulate within the country nor would it have mandatory release power; in accordance with articles 106, 107, 116 and 121 of the BCV Law. A change in that sense would be a modification of the constitutional text.
Likewise, the same constitutional article 318 says that: "The monetary powers of the National Power shall be exercised exclusively and compulsory by the Central Bank of Venezuela," which suggests that the BCV must control the issuance and transactions of the Petro.
In this sense, it seems advisable that the Petro be raised as a financial instrument, and not as a currency; given that, by necessity, it must be associated with other financial securities that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela must issue.
In effect, given that the support offered to Petro will be represented by oil, gold and other resources in the subsoil, that is, not extracted and available, it will be necessary to issue negotiable financial instruments representative of said mining stocks; that is, what in financial jargon is called a "securitization" of those reserves.
Then, we come across a detail that we have always maintained that inviabilizes the massive adoption of such support in representative securities of oil, gold or any other good, for whatever currency, in Venezuela or any other country: monetary support, by definition It is demandable by the holder of the respective backed currency, in this case the title and such title, negotiable instrument is representative of the ownership of a certain amount of oil, gold or diamonds.
Therefore, to the extent that there is a certain amount of such securities held by the markets, to the same extent their holders will not buy the oil, gold or diamonds of Venezuela, but will present their titles to demand that they be delivered the equivalent amount of said goods; which would tend to extinguish the physical market of the same, replaced by the same amounts represented in the securities they own.
In practical terms, the announced emission of Petro backed by oil, gold or diamonds would be equivalent to a future sale of said goods, today in the subsoil. Note that the emissions announced by China and Russia of similar digital instruments will be backed by Monetary Gold already available in vaults, that is, they behave like the traditional backed currencies, and have announced that they will only use them for common trade, in keeping with the scenario we advanced in the Dossier program of last 25-09-17.
Likewise, it is necessary to analyze the relevance of the OPEC agreements in terms of oil quotas and the possibility that other member countries of the same adopt similar decisions.
Considering all the above, it is advisable to consider the Petro as a limited issue of a financial vehicle exclusively for transactions of the State itself in large national negotiations with selected strategic partners, as a means of selling its oil, gold and other riches, evading order restrictions politician from third countries.
It should not be assumed that Petro would have the exaggerated appreciation that some cryptocurrencies have had, especially Bitcoin; since the same one comes from the demand for evasive purposes of laws and sovereign norms.
In the case of Petro, it is assumed that its value will depend on the underlying value of the support thereof, and will be subject to the market fluctuations of the respective backup asset and, in that sense, will be subject to the manipulations existing for such prices.
On the contrary, in the hypothesis that the Petro would have an appreciation in its value, it would not benefit Venezuela as its issuer, but its holders; since for Venezuela the Petro will be a liability, a debt; and in any case, Venezuela would only recognize the amount of support that corresponds, which makes the supposed appreciation of Petro unlikely.