The cryptocurrencies are becoming more and more a matter of discussion in the academic and banking world, gradually leaving their original technological and anarchist framework. They can also lose a lot of freedoms for which they were born.
Defining what actually cryptocurrency is not easy at all. It is a form of a digital asset that serves as a means of change and to its security is used encryption, whether for transactions or for creating new units. It is a subset of digital currencies that are a subset of alternative payments.
This standardization may seem unnecessarily complicated, but it makes it possible to see the subject of cryptocurrencies in a wider perspective than just Bitcoin's disputes, which are more and more "seen" and more pronounced as their significance and volume of transactions rise as well as value grows. At the same time, however, there are also views that it is not a full-fledged currency in that much of the traders are deprived of it as soon as the transaction is made. Due to the large exchange rate, it may be that it does not serve for long-term depositing of funds, which is one of the essential features of the currency, meaning in social perspective.
The fact that cryptocurrencies are digital money is at first sight banal - what else should it be? But it also allows banks or states to think about this form of assets more structurally and clearly. Digital money is used, its flow is regulated and, in a number of respects, highly standardized. Conversely, the fact that it is an alternative currency could be more eccentric, each state would like to have its own or shared currency available and be in control of it. But that's not the case, because in a number of countries or sectors, they pay non-national currencies, for which the state has no influence. The cryptocurrencies are different - there is no state behind them, even though it will soon change. But even here we could find a counter-example - if we pay by golden bills, we do not need any national bank.
A rather interesting subject, which is also closely related to kryptomeni, is anonymity. By far the most anonymous method of payment is the use of normal physical payments, which are (albeit wholly exceptional exceptions) very anonymous. This is also one of the reasons why states try to limit themselves (though certainly not only).
Equally important is the discussion about the relationship crippled to an illegal or gray economy. For example, bitcoins can be expected to take over the role of the US dollar, and they will actually serve similar transactions (and they are no doubt working on darknet), but on the other hand, they cannot be expected to gain a very substantial share here, and there is nothing extraordinary. The problem may be more for the dollar, as a universal world currency than for the growth of crime.
In this context, it seems that although cryptocurrencies are somewhat a new phenomenon, with the first steps in 1998, with the fact that modern history can be observed only from 2011, so much to copy already known economic models, it was with another technology and other social impacts. So, there is a question of how the next direction of cryptocurrencies will be and what will happen in the future.
Estcoins is a project that came with Vitalik Buterin, who is an online resident of Estonia and co-author of the cryptocurrency Ethereum. It is based on the idea that the Baltic Republic has a highly developed e-government and a number of "citizens" (residents) outside its territory. Having a currency that will be managed by the state, while being online and safe, would be practical and logical.
Estonia has been able to disrupt the traditional notions of how the state works. It can become a resident and do business online, which reduces (to the maximum legislative extent possible) the concept of nationality. It is also the leader in the digitization of state administration.
Such a change could be very interesting in the fact that the cryptocurrency will be controlled and issued by the state. For example, it could have an impact on mining, it can by regulating avoid market problems and thefts that are bothering Bitcoin, and at the same time, pushing for greater social acceptance of such a monetary concept. At the same time, however, it should be stressed that the introduction of Estcoins would be problematic in view of the use of the euro in Estonia, because the presence of two coexisting currencies does not allow for the European legislative framework. State currencies are also being talked a lot about China at the moment.
At the same time, however, one of the important pillars, namely the independence of the currency on the state, is undermined. And there is more than ever the question of whether such a step associated with regulations of cryptocurrencies will lead to damage or benefit. One of their current problems may be the issue of safety and legality, which are elements that regulation can positively affect. On the contrary, a heavily variable exchange rate may seem to have some effect, but at a relatively high price. The presence of regulation would allow cryptocurrency to work as high-risk, but functional and legal investments, so that funds, banks and other large institutions could also be launched. The question is, is this community about alternative money going to want? Regulation does not have to be blocking.
Another example of the newly planned cryptocurrency is the USC (Utility Settlement Coin), which may appear next year. There are large banks looking for an alternative way of quick and safe money transfer and the blockchain appears to be a fast, cheap and safe alternative. USC is intended to be an interbank currency and will serve, among other things, for the purchase of securities and bonds.
While most cryptocurrencies have so far begun "from the bottom", USC and Estcoins are examples of cryptocurrencies that have the opposite origin, and, above all, take on technical solutions and experience from basic ideas. In the case of both of these currencies, there will undoubtedly be a great deal of pressure on some forms of regulation. On the one hand, the concept will be strengthened socially, securely and legally, but at the same time it will take away some of its freedoms. Moreover, the introduction of a new currency and the subscription of shares is relatively similar.
Regulation, of course, may not only have positive effects. Once the market is regulated, there may be substantial restrictions, such as in China or Russia, in the case of Bitcoin in recent weeks, to gradually change the rules that will result in both the more difficult development and operation of cryptocurrencies, such as the impact on anonymity, for example with regard to the fight against corruption.
On the other hand, an interesting environment may arise in which either the regulated and unregulated currencies will exist side by side, or regulation may cause the concept of cryptocurrencies to disappear or restrict, as we know it today. Such a fact could create a new, otherwise conceived payment strategy, including perhaps an unknown method of asset management. However, according to a statement that comes from banks and regulators across the Western world, some form of control and regulation will not prevent these currencies. The question is only when and in what way.
Personally, I believe that it can have a positive impact on the whole area in that the cryptocurrency will open to the wider public. Whether the number of users or the volume of transactions. And maybe by changing the way how about cryptocurrencies most of the people think. The question is, of course, whether regulation is worth it.
HUF 3,754 / Month
HUF 30,035 / Month