This week was quite eventful and hectic for many. Most of us experienced one of the first movements since 2019, and part of what happened I think was necessary, a much demanded response to heal the price of Bitcoin (BTC) and some cryptocurrencies. Undoubtedly, coordinated attacks were also combined to the sound of a requiem to cast doubt on the foundations of BTC.
The quasi-coordinated attacks by the United States and China were orchestrated to call into question the effectiveness, decentralization, and vanalization of the use of BTC. Certainly we are again experiencing the same levels of attacks but with totally different responses. One particularity that should be noted is that the crypto market, in general, has matured a lot since the last banning record that was experienced due to the energy consumption and pollution levels that were associated with BTC mining activity.
If we initially review the history of BTC/China, we can count that there are about 7 cases in which the Asian giant presents measures to disable operations with cryptocurrencies, from centralized exchanges to the mining process, the latter being the most recent with the statements made two days ago. It is also worth mentioning that China is working on the inclusion of its digital currency (e-CNY) in order to detach itself from western influences in favor of non-restrictive economic development, something it still has in relation to the dollar.
But with the characteristics and receptivity that the e-CNY is generating in relation to what is expected, there is still a long way to go. While this government initiative projects to be an ambitious step, it still leaves doubts as to its real purpose. The control of the economy, the level of spending, even the time of use, are issues that the population itself is not used to and the level of adaptation would not seem to be easy unless the most radical option is taken, such as imposition by force. Nothing attractive for foreign investment.
This type of model, not being the only one, is not as provocative and its concept is clearly the definition of deep invasion of financial privacy, going so far as to set spending schedules is not exactly what is wanted. The imperative of programmable, according to Bloomberg, "comes with an adjustable expiration date that could, with the flip of a switch, encourage spending during economic downturns, or allow regulators to instantly turn off the electronic wallet of anyone in trouble with Beijing."
Similarly in the Bloomberg review, "no one can figure out why they need to use a digital currency that allows authorities to spy on all their activities, when existing alternatives offer everything the digital yuan can do."
Nor is the BTC/US meeting lagging behind, the concept of taxing transactions over 10K only shows that a concept of regularization will begin to be intertwined in the framework of moving towards the digital dollar. An almost palpable fact with the financial disaster in full view with hyperinflation and the massive loss of confidence in the dollar in relation to consumer perception.
If these are the packages offered by the state digital currencies, imagine what features will be developed in the others, whether they come from the Central Banks or the State itself. The difference with BTC is huge and there is already an awareness of the direction they want to take. The attacks of the United States and China again against tokens, especially with BTC, only show that there is a war already declared to try to convince and communicate a trend of which is the best adoption of payment. But we know that the requirement presented is more of an institutional ballad about the inorganic elements in full development.
The market is the one that decides what is the store of value, this is really described as a coordinated attack which is at the highs. The confirmation of the bull market in BTC is a fact, even if it is at the halfway point.
I leave at the end of this writing some links that helped in the construction of the information that is left here. I also clarify that all the information is given with the best intention and does not represent any investment recommendation.