Yeah, very confusing statement - would they use this same logic to ban Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies as against their soverignty? Do they treat gold similarly?

«Yeah, very confusing statement - would they use this same logic to ban Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies?»

No, and that's the great point everyone is missing. Paraphrasing their logic: "it is inherent to the sovereignty of nations that no private entity can claim monetary power". In other words, they don't want private entities to control monetary power, but they tolerate this power being in the hands of "public" entities, such as the peer-to-peer/decentralized nature of many cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.

This we-will-block-Libra attitude combined with we-will-torelate-Bitcoin-and-others is a big sign of approval for these cryptocurrencies.

If "monetary power" is "inherent to the sovereignty of nations" (quoting the article), they're also against bitcoin.

I doubt the use of the words "private entity" was specifically intended to exclude decentralized currencies. It probably actually means "anyone who is not us."

No, read very carefully the way they worded the sentence. What is "inherent to the sovereignty of nations" is not "monetary power" but "no private entities having control of monetary power".

They are not saying governments should have control of this power. They are just saying no private entities should have control.

I don't think you are right.

From the article:

> In a joint statement, the two governments affirmed that “no private entity can claim monetary power, which is inherent to the sovereignty of nations”

I parse that as: monetary power is inherent to the sovereignty of nations; thus, no private entity can claim it.

It's like saying: "No dog should be allowed to eat chocolate, which is toxic to animals."

It would be helpful to have the actual original statement, but I wasn't able to find it very quickly and gave up.

Since I am getting downvoted: Is this a Continental English vs. American English thing? Because as a native American English speaker, there is no doubt at all what the sentence means in American English.

It's a pretty obvious term. Obvious in the way that it includes Libra (where Facebook is a private entity), and excludes something like Bitcoin which is not directly controlled by any such entity.

No, it's not obvious what it means.

In everyday English, it would be obvious, but regulators and politicians are not bound by that.

"It's obvious" is rarely a good argument on this particular site. If it were obvious we wouldn't be talking about it.

"Private entity" is more of a legal term than anything else (than common english). That's is exactly why it's obvious, because it is used in an official document, which is not likely to use the common english definitions and use more legal ones.

Please stop calling me dumb. I'm not dumb. This is my second time asking.

I don't think it's being used in a legal sense in the statement quotes in this article. If it is, I'm not sure how "private entity" is defined in the EU, France, and Germany.

"Private entity" actually is clear in common English, but my experience is that governments tend to take words from common English and use them differently.

If you have specific legal experience with this term in a particular legal jurisdiction---and you very well might---it would be helpful to say so.

??? How do you conflate their stance against Libra with support for Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has no Facebook-sized entity the French and German governments can control/admonish.

Neither did any entity related to Bitcoin go out and stake any ground like Facebook did.

> Bitcoin has no Facebook-sized entity

That is exactly the point. That would be a threat as they see it (just from reading the statement even). That's why bitcoin which is not a private entity, is not seen as a threat at this time.

mrb's comment that "we will block Libra and we will not block Bitcoin* as some sort of tacit approval is bullshit.

Bitcoin is tolerated because it's not centralized, and no one (obvious) entity is controlling it. If the EU governments could, they totally would ban Bitcoin.

Libra, on the other hand, is a power grab by someone they can regulate, so they will.

Bitcoin being "tolerated" is more accurate than "approved of". That's what I mean.

And again, if they didn't tolerate it, they could ban/outlaw it, just like China did.

So you're basically agreeing with the parent comment? (Just have some disagreement about governments underlying motivations?)

France & Germany could block or ban Bitcoin if they wanted to, just like China. The fact they don't imply they tolerate Bitcoin. They tolerate it because it isn't controlled by a private entity.

Well that one is easy to answer - it's obisouly in the term "private entity". Bitcoin is not a private entity, corporation or even a determined set of individuals. Obviously neither is gold itself.