Loomio
Wed 12 Jul 2017 10:47AM

Should we prioritise policy development re cryptocurrencies & blockchains?

SD Suzie Dawson Public Seen by 142

There was some discussion around cryptocurrency in 2014 that should be updated for 2017. (Ref: https://www.loomio.org/d/CxFrT8X5/a-discussion-about-crypto-currencies) There has also been a number of expressions of interest in us developing policy around the blockchains.

There is a 'decision' here as to whether we should prioritise it - please vote on it: https://www.loomio.org/p/WC7YOfiq/should-we-prioritise-policy-development-re-cryptocurrencies-blockchains-?from=0&per=25

Please use the below thread for related discussion, research, links, questions, commentary, etc!

CE

Colin England Wed 12 Jul 2017 10:45PM

I'm in favour of a government run digital currency. I'm not in favour of privately run digital currencies as they will continue to trash the economy as bank money does now.

http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-did-we-end-up-here/

SD

Suzie Dawson Thu 13 Jul 2017 4:58PM

forgive my naiveté but would a government run cryptocurrency ultimately be a replacement for fiat or run alongside it as a seperate currency?

CE

Colin England Thu 13 Jul 2017 9:53PM

Technically, all currencies are fiat currencies and that includes the so called Gold Standard.
Fiat

an authoritative decree, sanction, or order:
a royal fiat.

Most currencies only exist because of government decree but are backed by the nations economy which is what makes it possible for a government to create money.

BitCoin and the other digital currencies exist through peoples personal belief and aren't backed by anything. This image really sums up private digital currencies:
Exposure!!

The idea would be to replace cash and bank money with a government created and run digital currency in such a way so that private banks don't get to create money the way that they do now. This should cause a major decrease in inflation. Especially house price inflation and Why are House Prices So High?

SD

Suzie Dawson Fri 14 Jul 2017 4:56AM

lol that graphic is hilarious.

Personally I don't want to replace cash but I think we should have digital currency. Unless I can be convinced utterly that privacy and anonymity are still possible in a government-issued digital currency, which I currently am not

CE

Colin England Fri 14 Jul 2017 11:34PM

Some 70% of transactions are done by EFT-POS which is owned by the private banks.

Now, just how much privacy do you really think exists in that set up for the individual?

The banks will be looking at how much is being spent and where as it will be used to help determine if they make loans or not. They even have access to who's spending that money and where and that information is readily available to the police as Nicky Hager found out.

Now, a government run digital currency is going to be the same except for one thing. The corporations won't have direct access to that private data.

I consider that to be a major plus because the government can be held to account, their actions fully transparent. that does not apply to the private corporations.

If you really want better privacy for everyone then a government run digital currency is what you want. Just need to put in place the processes to prevent people abusing the personal data while also making the conglomerated information available to help make government decisions (government really does need to be able to make informed decisions).

Getting rid of cash will actually stop pretty much all financial crime or, at least, make it less likely people will be able to get a way with it. And it will definitely end the tax avoidance that we see today as we'll know exactly who's got the money.

Personally, I think moving to a government run digital currency is a no brainer as it also helps stop the private banks creating money which is something that also needs to happen.

SD

Suzie Dawson Sat 15 Jul 2017 2:30AM

"Getting rid of cash will actually stop pretty much all financial crime or, at least, make it less likely people will be able to get a way with it. And it will definitely end the tax avoidance that we see today as we'll know exactly who's got the money."

I have a couple of issues with this.

Firstly the biggest crimes are perpetuated by governments. While the Patriot Act promised to go after terrorism funding sources, the governments are in fact the ones arming and funding the terrorists. There is massive abuse of the existing anti-money laundering legislation to go after political targets rather than actual funders of terrorism. Almost all the crimes being perpetuated against activists and journalists are happening under the anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering legislation, despite the fact that we are neither money launderers nor terrorists.

Those who launder billions of dollars don't do it via cash transactions. They do it with the tacit approval of the government and tax systems which reward fraud committed on an epic scale while mercilessly hunting down those who infringe on a miniature scale.

Cash does afford privacy to a certain degree (unless you are individually targeted and tracked iRL) and is useful for many other reasons than to commit crimes.

On the electronic funds front, I find it incredible and noteworthy that the original creators of Bitcoin had to stay anonymous for their own safety, because the creation of new financial systems (as with some forms of tech) are so dangerous to engage in that they couldn't even openly create them. Also that the governments wanted to regulate against them until they realised that they couldn't. At which point they are now gung-ho in investing and regulating.

If we are to create cryptocurrencies in New Zealand we need to do so in line with the core values of the Party.

CE

Colin England Sun 16 Jul 2017 2:35AM

Firstly the biggest crimes are perpetuated by governments. While the Patriot Act promised to go after terrorism funding sources, the governments are in fact the ones arming and funding the terrorists.

That may be so but that has nothing to do with the type of currency.

I'd also expect laws and processes that prevented such abuse by governments.

Governments need to be held to account. We shouldn't be saying well, they're corrupt and there's nothing we can do about it.

Those who launder billions of dollars don't do it via cash transactions.

They wouldn't be able to do that with the system I suggest in Cashless.

Cash does afford privacy to a certain degree (unless you are individually targeted and tracked iRL) and is useful for many other reasons than to commit crimes.

I personally haven't used cash since about 2003. I have no use for it and it's really irritating. And the number of people going the same way is increasing.

Put in place proper restrictions and peoples buying would actually be more private than what we have now with the corporations seeing almost all purchases.

On the electronic funds front, I find it incredible and noteworthy that the original creators of Bitcoin had to stay anonymous for their own safety, because the creation of new financial systems (as with some forms of tech) are so dangerous to engage in that they couldn't even openly create them.

They are dangerous - for the society. We know this if we bother to read history. Allowing private currencies always results in the collapse of the financial system and the economy.

Also that the governments wanted to regulate against them until they realised that they couldn't. At which point they are now gung-ho in investing and regulating.

Murder happens to be illegal but people still commit murder. What laws do is spell out such actions as being unacceptable to society and the consequences for breaking them.

DS

David Sutton Sat 15 Jul 2017 9:12AM

The thing to remember about crypto-currency is that no-one controls it. It is inherently consensus based.

SD

Suzie Dawson Sat 15 Jul 2017 11:17AM

could you please explain more David, for those of us that don't know much about it? thank you!

CE

Colin England Sun 16 Jul 2017 2:21AM

The big thing about crypto-currency is that it uses too much infrastructure.

And if no one controls it how do we ensure that too much isn't produced?
How do we ensure that enough is produced?
How do we ensure that it's related to the economy rather than delusion?

Load More