An awesome article from my colleague Marc Hochstein, with one of the best quotes I’ve read in ages, from Primavera De Filippi:
“You cannot assume that just because a technology dis-intermediates and is trans-national that it cannot potentially be used to reinforce existing social, political and economic structures.”
RIP, John Perry Barlow.
— x —
In The New York Times, Peter J. Henning raises the issue of cryptocurrency regulation. Who should regulate cryptocurrencies in the US? Both the SEC and the CFTC appear to be in a game of “not me” – and they both have a point. The SEC regulates securities – cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin have not been defined as such (and to do so would defy logic). The CFTC regulates derivatives on commodities – and while it has labelled bitcoin a “commodity” (not totally unreasonable), its remit does not cover the cash market, just commodity-based derivatives.
“The C.F.T.C. “does not have regulatory jurisdiction over markets or platforms conducting cash or ‘spot’ transactions in virtual currencies, or over participants on those platforms.” To reach actual trading in cryptocurrencies, Congress would have to extend its authority to cover a cash commodity market, something lawmakers have not done.”
At the moment, cryptocurrency exchanges are loosely covered by a patchwork of state money transmission laws – but, cryptocurrencies have not officially been designated “money” – and having to get licensed in every single state is not practical. The result is a clunky, fragmented or off-the-radar network of exchanges that do not offer much protection to the user.
The article posits the creation of a new organization – a Cryptocurrency Council, for instance. This would not only be able to develop a national approach to cryptocurrency transmission and exchanges – but it could also further investigation into use cases, offer a focal point for fraud investigations and develop a comprehensive base of information on usage. Most importantly, it could offer an umbrella of respectability to the nascent field, while recognizing that a new concept deserves a new mindset.
In the end, trying to fit cryptocurrencies into one of the existing asset definitions for regulation purposes isn’t working out well for anyone. Time to re-think the paradigm.
— x —
right, that’s what’s stopping us pic.twitter.com/7nOYG8Wra5
— Neeraj K. Agrawal (@NeerajKA) February 14, 2018
— x —
The FT’s Henry Mance gave us a brilliant tongue-in-cheek take on us vs. Big Tech:
“This week, 1m people signed an online petition protesting against a redesign of Snapchat, the adult-proof messaging app. They wish to express — I quote — a “general level of annoyance”. They have probably already slammed their bedroom doors. They might not come down for supper.”
— x —
Here’s a blockchain use case: In Ghana, over 80% of landowners lack title to their land – and 2/3 of Kenya’s land is “owned” without title…
— x —
Bloomberg reports that the UN’s World Food Programme expects to be able to cut millions of dollars from the costs of administering its food programme, just by moving the cross-border money transfers onto a blockchain system. While that is actually a tiny portion of the overall budget ($6 billion, according to the article), it does buy a lot of food… And it does mean less profit for the banks (although, again, a drop in the ocean…).
However, no details are provided on the type of blockchain to be used (a WFP programme in Jordan launched last year was built on ethereum), nor on timing – it sounds like more wishful thinking than actual plans.
And this quote by one of the directors – “Blockchain helps promote collaboration by providing enormous amounts of data.” – makes no sense whatsoever. Blockchain promotes collaboration by design, not by providing data. And it only provides data if it is programmed to do so. A strange thing to say.
— x —
I’ve mentioned before that I’m a sucker for miniature dioramas… and I get an illicit thrill from dystopian fiction (if there’s a “survivor” theme)… so this made me gasp with delight:
– by Lori Nix and Kathleen Gerber
— x —
Tyler Cowen bucks the trend with a bad review of Black Panther. I haven’t seen it yet, but have heard nothing but rave comments… which always makes me suspicious.
“So many spears and wild animals? How about holding a referendum every now and then?“
I grew up in Africa, and the way western culture attempts to portray what it thinks African culture looks like in a misguided attempt to appear inclusive has always irritated me. That said, I really like the bits of the soundtrack that I’ve heard, so…
“I would say the more you know about actual African cinema, the less you will appreciate this one.”
Then again, no way was this attempt at bridging divides not going to stir up some uncomfortable opinions.
— x —
And speaking of Tyler, he interviewed Matt Levine – the best newsletter creator out there (original, pithy and witty comments on money and economics, for Bloomberg) – on his podcast. They had an interesting chat about cryptocurrencies (no, CryptoKitties are not derivatives), and about Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Definitely worth listening to.
“It’s a perfect example of dealing very intelligently with serious themes in a way that, on its surface, and particularly in its title, is silly and is not presented as serious, which I think is, obviously, something that I often aspire to do.”
(Apropos of absolutely nothing at all, Matt Levine has a much deeper voice than I expected.)
— X —
I’ve just finished “The Defectors”, by Joseph Kanon. It reminded me so much of John Le Carré, only more American. Although it’s actually very Russian – about the lives of US spies who escaped to the Soviet Union. Written with a certain rhythm and poetry, with complicated villains that you can’t hate and heroes that are far from heroic, it zips along with a melancholic yet determined patriotism.