Erik Thedéen, vice chairman of the European Securities and Markets Authority says that we should ban Bitcoin.

Actually he has not said to ban bitcoin but "ban proof for work". But one thing implies the other as I will show later.

What exactly did Erik Thedéen say?

That "POW(Proof of Work)" is a problem for climate change and endangers the ecological objectives of the EU and the limits on gas emissions, and that therefore the only way to avoid this is to ban it and that cryptocurrencies use the POS (Proof of Stake) as a consensus method.

This is said by a high official of the European state bureaucracy. But as is typical in bureaucracies, negligence reaches heights that are hard to believe.

Let's see why:

1. First of all, to be in a position like yours, you seem to understand absolutely nothing about economics. What has been tried to do in the EU is to increase the cost of electricity, not to say for the citizens what to consume and what not. The EU has very expensive electricity because of the policies imposed: renewable energy, an irrational fear of nuclear power, using gas as structural energy and finally CO2 emission bonds. Basically the idea of ​​the European Union to reduce emissions are two: subsidize green energy and put a tax on CO2 emissions to discourage it (the emission bonds).

From there, the companies and citizens, in fact the citizen, will decide what to spend on, because the politicians do not know what each one wants, this is not the Soviet Union, they do not plan what each individual has to have, but instead encourage to consume in a certain way. So if electricity is more expensive, we discourage the use of the car, for example. This is the reality of the European Union. I am not in favor of this, but that is not the point. The point is that we do not plan what people should consume, but we condition it.

Can you imagine a government saying whether or not we can eat jelly beans, travel by plane or play video games?

At the moment that Erik says that we have to ban "POW" what he is saying is what we should or should not consume. He is the wise one who knows that he likes the guys? Because if we are to say nonsense, I say that it is more rational to ban video games, after all, video game consoles consume a large amount of energy and it is more superfluous than systems like Bitcoin that help millions of people in the third world to maintain their purchasing power (see Venezuela, Nigeria, etc) where socialist dictatorships devalue the currency, just to mention a use of Bitcoin. Fun or help the third world? I know that I am making a simplistic comparison, but it cannot be otherwise because I am giving a personal preference and not an empirical fact, just what Mr. Erik has done.

Each individual has to spend on what they want, not on what the bureaucrat orders.

2. Bitcoin, according to studies in this regard, could be consuming about 0.1% of the world's electricity. The European Union intends to reduce its CO2 emissions by 40, 50, 60%, is 0.1% so important as to ban it? A bit absurd.

This is assuming that if Bitcoin consumes 0.1% of the world's electricity, it must consume 0.1% within the European Union. But that is not the case, because no one who can afford to consume electricity for a business wherever they want would end up in the EU. Because the EU has decided for political reasons to have the most expensive electricity in the world. If one looks at the estimates of where the Bitcoin nodes are, what becomes more than clear is that the majority are in countries where electricity is cheap, that is, outside the EU. Mostly in the USA and other countries like Iceland, etc. In other words, we know that Bitcoin does not consume even that 0.1% of the electricity in the EU.

3. What's the point of blaming Bitcoin for contamination? It pollutes the power plants that pollute, and they do so to provide certain services: factories, cars, video games, light in houses, etc. If the energy were clean, Bitcoin would not pollute, like the rest of human activities.

What you are saying is that Bitcoin is not a legitimate use for contamination, because our dear bureaucrat has decided for us what is worth contaminating and what is not. For example, playing video games, or lighting Christmas lights, is essential. Non-politicized money, money that is not debt, is not a reason to pollute.

4. Bitcoin is POW (Proof of Work) except that Mr. Erik does not know Bitcoin, how it works or its community, which would be almost impossible to change his mind and adopt POS. Banning POW is equivalent to banning Bitcoin.

Once I have denied the absurd ideas and solutions of our beloved bureaucrat, I ask myself the following question. All high officials in the EU, especially those in charge of the central bank, taxes and business, hate Bitcoin, and there are two options: do they lie about Bitcoin because they are incompetent or do they lie because they have hidden interests? I opted for the second option.

It is no secret that the EU bureaucracy considers cryptocurrencies a threat as they already legally, formally and publicly state in the EU regulatory framework on cryptocurrencies, called MiCA. Where they affirm that cryptocurrencies are a threat to the control of central bank money, since decentralized protocols when giving interest for currencies, especially stable coins, allow users to receive interest on them, thus preventing the central bank inject or withdraw money from the economy, since as we all know the Central Bank of the EU and the Federal Reserve, give the savings of their citizens to the banks by lending the money at zero percent interest and even negative interest. At the moment that the citizen receives interest or earns money that cannot be stolen, they will lose control.

After all, they are not stupid, they are evil.