(…) The event included an interesting panel entitled “Regulations Are Not The Solution”. The three speakers included: Jan Procházka, attorney at law and partner at Deloitte Legal, Giacomo Zucco, Bitcoin entrepreneur and consultant, and Lyudmyla Kozlovska, human rights activist and Bitcoin promoter. The panel was moderated by journalist and podcaster Bill Wirtz.
At the beginning of the discussion, there was a consensus that the regulation of Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency environment is likely to have both positive and negative effects, and this will largely depend on the communication of bitcoiners with regulators. Jan assessed that, in his experience, in the current situation, the aforementioned communication leaves much to be desired and that the level of education of regulators about Bitcoin is disappointingly low, which may create a false and temporary sense of security among bitcoiners. Giacomo also believes that the strategy of relying on a lack of control is unsustainable in the long term. In the past, for example, it was possible to deceive regulators with information about the total transparency of the Bitcoin network, which may no longer work today. On the other hand, a complex space of other cryptocurrencies has emerged around Bitcoin over time, which, for a change, is distracting regulators from Bitcoin. Ultimately, however, his view is that regulators and Bitcoin players will face revealed interests on both sides, and it remains to be seen whether Bitcoin is strong enough not to succumb to regulatory pressure.
To answer the question of whether regulation is the solution or not, Lyudmyla Kozlovska tried to point out how over-regulation can make life difficult, especially for NGOs defending human rights, which, with the help of Bitcoin, can provide humanitarian aid while being financially excluded. In particular, she pointed out that regulations can be abused, especially by authoritarian regimes that are quite cynical in interpreting AML laws as an excuse to persecute activists. In her view, the right way forward is for bitcoiners to work closely with regulators so that this sector around the world can be brought within a clear, open and consistent legal framework as soon as possible.
Giacomo then presented an argument highlighting the contradiction between one of Bitcoin’s primary long-term goals – limiting the ability of governments to use inflation as a means by which to exercise power and fund their own agendas – and the interests of politicians, particularly in authoritarian countries where their careers are built precisely on control, censorship, surveillance and high inflation. While he finds direct attempts to regulate Bitcoin absurd, he believes that, precisely in order to defend the power of states and the position of politicians, an intensification of negative regulatory pressures will be inevitable. But the sooner these pressures emerge, the better for Bitcoin. After all, getting used to operating comfortably within regulated institutions might slow the development of the resilience of Bitcoin tools and the network as a whole, and lead to greater vulnerability in the future, when strict regulation might finally arrive and surprise bitcoiners.
Source: alza.cz
Read also:
