Here are 1500 experts in electronic commerce and services who singed a letter to COngress detailing why certain schemes that are designated as “Innovations” are bad

This letter directly addresses the fake currency known as cryptocurrency. The signatories are all major players in the arena of electronic commerce, payments, and communications. Their point is simple: the fact that someone could develop a method of encryption that is difficult to break is not a reason to label the end product as “currency.” It isn’t and it never was.

“Currency” means by definition something that people, in general, are willing to accept as payment for anything. That has not happened nor is it ever going to happen.

I mention it here on my blog because of the exact parallels in the argument presented. What is most interesting is that many of the signatories are employed by significant actors in the so-called “securitization” industry, which makes their complaints and warnings somewhat hypocritical even if true.

While crypto was interesting as a spectator sport, it did not create currency. While claims surrounding “securitization” and “derivatives” were interesting and have even been accepted as lending products, no loans were created.

In the final analysis, crypto was and is based upon a false premise — deriving its “value” as mere access to real currency (fiat money) contained within the banking system as it exists. It never was a substitute for the “currency” we all know, love, and accept.

In the final analysis, “securitization” was simply a securities scheme and not a lending scheme. No loan account receivable exists at the end of the transaction cycle. No loan account receivable could exist in a plan that intends to sell intangible attributes of paper promises to make scheduled payments. No risk of loss on the virtual loan account created out of thin air ever existed and so no enforcement of the promises could ever be demanded without lying to the courts.


Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: