Is crypto dangerous for states?
US democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has found a new crypto FUD to play with – “destabilizing nations”, and she must be quite proud of it, multiplying her public appearances speaking on this topic.
When speaking at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in Singapore, she said that cryptocurrencies have “the potential for undermining currencies, for undermining the role of the dollar as the reserve currency, for destabilizing nations”.
A life-long politician, Mrs Clinton must believe that the dollar as a world reserve currency is a necessary condition for the worldwide prosperity and the stability of all nations, and all the world’s misery will not suffice to convince her in the opposite. At least, she acknowledged crypto as a disruptive force that will change the current monetary order… in her way.
However, as she is starting to acquire taste in anti-crypto speeches, the FUD needs to grow and mutate, and that’s exactly what Mrs Clinton did in her last interview.
When asked by a TV host about Google and Apple’s role in the Russian presidential elections (they are said to have hidden pro-opposition online data on the Kremlin’s demand), Mrs Clinton spent 2 minutes vaguely speaking about the need “to come up with sensible solutions that would be the equivalent of regulation in the information age” (politicians’ speak ?), before jumping abruptly to crypto.
Mixing right and false (one of the best FUD strategies btw), she wandered into some strange land of cold-war-style geopolitics, social media and a very bad understanding of how crypto works:
“Imagine the combination of social media, the algorithms that drive social media, the amassing even larger sums of money through the control of certain cryptocurrency chains. We’re looking at not only states such as China or Russia manipulating technology of all kinds to their advantage. We’re looking at non-state actors, either in concert with states or on their own, destabilizing countries, destabilizing the dollar as the reserve currency.”
If only there were someone capable of explaining her that “cryptocurrency chains” cannot be controlled by their very nature, and if it were the case also for GAFAM services, the whole “internet manipulation” topic would be off the table. Moreover, decentralized versions of social media, search engines and app marketplaces are already being developed by the very industry that scares Mrs Clinton so much.
Isn’t it ironic that Hillary Clinton has become (in her way) the same troll manipulating public opinion on important issues as those believed to manipulate the American elections?