Not entirely. Capital controls and currency bans are distinct from AML.
South Africa's proximate problem is capital controls. Cryptocurrencies make those controls easier to circumvent. If you look at the countries that are responding forcefully to crypto, it's the ones who want a sovereign monetary policy and relatively fixed exchange rate [1].
Not necessairly if those people have a lot of debt, or the inflation fears turn out to be a mirage.
We have many examples throughout history where dumping large amounts (multiples) of money into an economy causes inflation. And to my knowledge, we have no examples to the contrary (ie, it being a mirage).
What would make you think that this time it could be a mirage?
Because people have been wailing about hyperinflation fears for the last decade at least, and it hasn't happened.
The normal rules are on hold because the USD is the world reserve currency. When USD are manufactured, a huge chunk of them is bought by wealthy foreigners to store value. That means that we haven't felt the consequences of printing lots of money because we've been sharing the consequences with a huge and growing number of wealthy foreigners.
But the only reason the USD is the world reserve currency is because there's nothing better. When something better enough comes along, all that USD will come flooding back and we'll suffer all the inflationary consequences of printing money for decades. Those consequences will be compressed to a very short amount of time.
As it has been for more than 50 years. Entire people's lives happened between those "consequences".
On the long term, we are all dead.
No. That's not the point of cryptocurrency.
> to transfer large sums of cash untraceably across the globe
Wrong again. You can trace all transactions across the globe with cryptocurrency.
> with no way for the government to do anything about it
Why is that a bad thing?
It inhibits tax collection, which funds common goods. It also thwarts law enforcement, which is counter to public benefit.
We can debate whether taxes or laws or governments should exist. But they do, and most people seem to favor that. Debating a thing and actively subverting it are different. Just as subverting a thing and expecting such subversion to have no consequences or response are different.
It is pointless to debate the need for taxes with the corrupt governments and their taxmen. They make the laws, they have a monopoly on the use of force and they do not want to relinquish their power. The only possible move is to subvert them.
> Debating a thing and actively subverting it are different. Just as subverting a thing and expecting such subversion to have no consequences or response are different.
We know there are consequences. That is why technology must take that into account. They make their ridiculous laws, we make it impossible for them to be effectively enforced. They'll have to stoop to ever increasing levels of tyranny in order to maintain the same level of control they previously enjoyed.
Is there a limit? I don't know. I fully expect them to try to link cryptocurrency to terrorism or something.
If you have something that lets you "transfer large sums of cash untraceably across the globe, with no way for the government to do anything about it," it's going to make it easier to hide income and assets. That inhibits tax collection. (Same way cash does.)
* Assuming KYC laws are enforced and account holders are listed
When things start moving to proof of stake, less so.
It was decided it was a bad thing when the US coerced the rest of the Western world into the war on terror. If you are not with us, you are against us etc.
As for "baseless investment", you might want to read up on hard money properties.
How does hard money ensure that a decay in real investments does not erode the real value of the currency in the long run? It doesn't. You're relying on the rest of the world to make those real investments to maintain the real value of your currency. Having a currency be a store of value just shifts the medium of exchange function to a different currency. The idea that you make a profit off of making it harder to do real investments is absurd.
It's equivalent to letting a plot of land sit idle for 20 years while the population grows and then expect the future generation to work hard for it even though you did nothing to improve the value of the land, nor did you help people get higher paying jobs so they can afford your expensive land.
Cash is still king when it comes to crime. Crypto can help make it harder for criminals.
Its worth noting that their entire business is built around detecting blockchain based illicit activities.
Yes, although on a volume basis money laundering for criminal (as in organized crime) is likely much larger than refugees fleeing their country & attempting to take some of their money with them.
Is there a difference? Which governments aren't oppressive so their definitions of criminal sources don't count? I think they are exactly the same thing. A meaningful split might instead be funds derived from violent crime vs victimless crime.
You know ransomware encrypts data to make it inaccessible - we should ban encryption also.
Funny how it even shares the name with cryptocurrencies
Recently it's become a game of baseless investment, but anyone actually wanting to use crypto currencies as payment should've seen this coming from miles away.