Sun 08 Jan 2023 ▪ 7:00am ▪
5
min read – from
During a debate on the validity of bitcoin and the role that the state plays in regulating cryptocurrencies, Anthony Pompliano and Michael Shellenberger showed their differences of opinion. The Bitcoin bull and the author have sharply opposite positions when discussing the role of the state. The exchange they took part in was largely about the merits of cryptocurrencies and the government’s role in it all. If there were still any doubts, by now everything is clear, cryptocurrencies shouldn’t even exist for Challenger, who maintains a fairly critical attitude as usual. An opinion that Pompliano does not necessarily espouse, the debate has been heated.
Shellenberger clears bitcoins and Pompliano becomes defender
Cryptocurrencies in general and Bitcoin in particular continue to spark debates about their role. Does everyone have their own opinion and very often two factions oppose each other? On the one hand, we have the fervent defenders of the industry with Antonio Pompliano and on the other the severe critics like the author Michael Shellenberg. The latter is virulent whenever he talks about Bitcoin. Failing to formally ban Bitcoin, he supports the senator’s idea Elizabeth Warren. He has proposed a fairly strict law that will standardize the way cryptocurrencies and the financial system in general operate.
As a reminder, the Senator made this proposal the day after the collapse of the FTX crypto platform. to justify his point, he believes that regulating cryptocurrencies and by extension Bitcoin is a waste of time. He will drive home the point by arguing that digital assets shouldn’t attract so much attention because they aren’t “a real thing.” Shellenberger’s real problem is the stubbornness of bitcoin advocates to escape state control, but government is needed to regulate society and protect the weak from the strong.
The role of the state in the validity of Bitcoin poses a problem
As might be expected, these remarks were not at all to Pompliano’s taste. In a somewhat more restrained and unifying tone, he justifies this desire to perpetuate freedom in the validity of Bitcoin for fundamental principles. The fight against inflation, distrust of surveillance actors who work against the common good. He will cross saying “the government is there to represent the people, the people are not there to serve the government”.
In addition to the arguments against or for Bitcoin, the debate has also focused on the confiscation of assets. And the proposed example was the seizure by the central bank of Cyprus which confiscated around 47.5% of bank deposits in 2013. A situation that Shellenberger justifies with the will of the State to protect the common interest to the detriment of individual interests. Except that according to Pompliano freedom is a fundamental right and people have the right to go where they feel well treated.
Conclusion
DefinitelyLThe debate between bitcoin lovers and detractors continues to escalate. Certainly the democratization is becoming obvious, but the complicated year of cryptocurrencies with the fall of Bitcoin, the infinite fall of cryptocurrencies and the fall of tier 1 platforms like FTX, the legitimacy of cryptocurrencies is a bit biased. The exchange between Shellenberger and Pompliano is only a reflection of what happens every day; the question of the validity of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies divides more than it unites.
Receive a round-up of the news in the world of cryptocurrencies by subscribing to our new service daily and weekly so you don’t miss any of the indispensable Cointribunes!
PhD student in financial law and expert SEO web editor, Cédrick Aimé is passionate about cryptocurrencies, trading, etc. He naturally participates thanks to his articles in the daily blockchain revolution for a better democratization of DeFi.