This week, CNBC published a headline that said the newly appointed U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet, “Yellen sounds a warning about extremely inefficient bitcoin.” Ironically, two days later, CNBC published another article because the Federal Reserve’s systems are down.
The article broadened its criticism of bitcoin’s value and energy consumption. The problem is that he does it without really comparing it to anything, which is absurd. So, here I am to deal with this unilateral journalism and the lack of research.
“Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen issued an alert on Monday about the dangers that bitcoin poses to both investors and the public,” reported CNBC.
He then noted that Tesla from Elon Musk had bought $ 1.5 billion in bitcoin before returning to Yellen, reporting that she said “there are still important questions about legitimacy and stability”.
“I don’t think bitcoin … is widely used as a transaction mechanism,” Yellen told CNBC.
To be able to report that statement, you might think that CNBC would quantify Bitcoin’s total throughput, usually compared to something else, but perhaps this is an illusion.
“I am afraid it is usually for illicit financing,” Yellen told CNBC. “It is an extremely inefficient way of conducting transactions, and the amount of energy consumed in processing these transactions is impressive.”
Let’s break it down …
“Illicit financing”: There is no comparison of bitcoin with another currency in relation to the frequency with which it is used for harmful purposes. How much illicit financing is made with the US dollar? Or any other currency for that matter? How could you start to quantify this with the anonymity of money?
“Extremely inefficient”: Again, there is no comparison to even consider, and in reality it is proven to be the opposite. Bitcoin is a bearer asset, not the echo of a paper IOU. It may take ten minutes and cost a little money to settle in the bottom tier, but that is for * final settlement. * What are the costs for sovereigns to do this? There are secondary layers to Bitcoin that allow global transactions instantly, in any currency or money, and cost a fraction of a cent. Comparing this to the costs and time requirements of traditional remittances and finance, it is clearly extremely more efficient.
“Impressive” energy consumption: Again, without any comparison, this point is wrong. I thought Nic Carter had the last word when he wrote that, “Those concerned with Bitcoin energy need not despair, however. There is a solution. All they need to do is persuade Bitcoin fans to use and value an alternative means of settlement. Their best bet will be to develop a system that is even more secure, offers stronger guarantees, resolves faster, preserves privacy more, and is more resistant to censorship – all without using Proof of Work. Such a system would be miraculous. I’m waiting with my breath suspended. “
The article then moved on to bitcoin volatility. Yellen stated: “It is a highly speculative asset and you know that people should be aware that it can be extremely volatile and I am concerned about the potential losses that investors may suffer.”
It is concerned with the world’s best performing asset in the past decade. It is a decentralized global monetary system and unit in a monetization process with constant price identification 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. What did she expect? A quiet, instant trip to the moon with Saylor and Musk?
After giving Yellen a platform to appropriate bitcoin without comparisons and without any journalistic integrity, CNBC started to present the Central Bank’s Digital Currencies (CBDCs).
“The Federal Reserve, where Yellen was already president, studied the issue and discussed the possibility of a new digital currency along with a payment system it hopes to launch in the coming years,” he reported. “‘I think it could result in faster, safer and cheaper payments, which I think are important goals,” said Yellen. “
Why is it about faster, cheaper and “safer” payments when the printer is killing our savings, supposedly in the name of full employment?
I’m just a guy with laser eyes and diamond hands, so give your own opinion, but I find it ridiculous when financial regulators and the media try to criticize bitcoin, without really comparing it to fiat, when the world’s central banks are trying assess whether they can implement draconian CDBs, such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
Of course, bitcoin is money, the latest survey by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reflects this.
But are CBDCs really money? The whole purpose of a blockchain data structure is to allow decentralized control. Therefore, it is absurd when implemented by a central authority that continues to depreciate its currency.
Can governments stop Bitcoin?
“If nobody wants a devaluation-proof, censorship-resistant financial asset, without permission, without borders, non-discriminatory, of teleportation, nobody will feed him with energy and he will die,” as Alex Gladstein wrote to Quillette.
The real question, then, I would say, is not can I they stop, but why in the world would they like? 🤔
This is a guest post by Ben Jarvie. The views expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
