At the Libra Hearing, what is the attitude of the regulator to the digital currency?

"Those who have been rich, who are poorer than a lifetime. Worse!" – "Wall Street"

Article introduction:

1. Libra hearings are highly regarded

• New Bitcoin Tax Regulations Will Drive Encryption Market Growth
• CipherTrace launches "Travel Rule" in response to FATF to maintain user data privacy
• Circle CEO wants Libra's unique operating mechanism to trigger positive regulation

2. The significance of the hearing

3. Implications for investors

1. Libra hearings are highly regarded

On Tuesday, David Marcus, head of Facebook's digital currency project Libra, accepted the Senate's first question in the US Congress.

This question has received much attention from the industry because it not only determines the future direction of the project, but also makes the industry more aware of the attitude of the US regulatory authorities on digital currency.

2. The significance of the hearing

In the previous article, "Will the world jointly kill digital currency? In this article, I mentioned that although the global government cannot technically kill digital currency, it is entirely possible to smash the transaction between digital currency and legal currency from the policy, although this extreme situation is unlikely. However, once the consequences occur, it is unimaginable.

The US government's practice in digital currency regulation has always led the world and has a great demonstration role. Therefore, this and the next possible hearing will be a rare opportunity for the outside world to glimpse the thoughts and attitudes of the US regulatory authorities.

The live broadcast of the hearing was broadcast live on the Internet, and the full text of the hearing was not difficult to find online. I carefully read the full text in the first place and selected a few of the views that we think are very representative to share with you.

1) No fear of digital currency

A typical representative of this view is from Hawaiian Senator Brian Schatz. His original translation is "You are defending the digital currency." "My question is not whether the United States should lead the development of digital currency, but why is Facebook taking this role?"

Obviously the sect's subtext is: The US should of course lead the development of digital currency, but is it appropriate for Facebook to do this?

In recent years, due to a series of leaks of user data, the scandal of using user privacy has made parliamentarians worry about whether Facebook will continue to teach, and after using the Libra project, use more information and data to make similar problems. So the lawmakers are worried about whether Facebook itself has enough business ethics to run this business.

2) Not too worried about digital currency for illegal trading

The frequency of BTC's appearance in the whole hearing is not high, but in a limited number of occurrences, it is of great significance and can represent some of the senators' ideas.

Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema thinks about digital currency in this way. The original translation is "Despite the anonymity, digital currency is not the first choice for drug traders because digital currency is not easy to use."

Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen expressed his opinion on BTC. The original translation was "BTC's volatility caused it to not be widely used, and Libra may be widely used."

Combining the views of the two senators, their subtext is that for a variety of reasons they are not worried that digital currency is widely used in illegal transactions, and Libra is highly likely to be widely used because of currency stability, then in this case, How to avoid Libra being used for illegal transactions is a problem that lawmakers are worried about.

3) Can Libra be fully accepted?

Also from Maryland's Senator Chris Van Hollen, he also raised another concern about Libra. The original translation is "everyone must believe in the Libra organization, but when everyone sees it as a global currency, I don't. Be sure that Libra has enough sustainable development capabilities."

In fact, the subtext of this sentence is whether Libra can guarantee full acceptance. Since BTC does not require any assets for credit endorsement, BTC does not have this problem. However, Libra needs a series of assets such as US dollars, bonds and so on to guarantee the acceptance. So how long can this acceptance capacity last? Everyone has no bottom.

Don't say facebook. Historically, the US government cannot guarantee full acceptance. The collapse of the Bretton Woods system in the 1970s was due to the United States’ failure to honor the $35 exchange for one ounce of gold, so it squandered the world and abolished this paper contract. So the US government can't do it, can Facebook do it?

3. Implications for investors

After the whole hearing, I can hardly see the concerns of the lawmakers about the digital currency or the BTC itself. Instead, the focus of concern is on Facebook, which is to worry about the central organization to do this. Big mess.

And BTC, the emergence of blockchain technology is not to solve these problems in the operation of the centralized organization?

The US regulatory authorities seem to have adopted a very open and accepting attitude towards digital currencies. This alone is enough to show that the future regulation of digital currencies in the United States will not only smash their development but will most likely benefit their healthy development. This is undoubtedly a big reassurance for practitioners and investors who are interested in this, and it is a great long-term advantage.

As for the future of Libra's future, it doesn't matter to me. (Tao said blockchain)

We will continue to update Blocking; if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us!