What says the economic elite? Blockchain and Kryptowährungen at the World Economic Forum in Davos have read above
Blockchain and Kryptowährungen played a role this week in Davos. Including Christine Lagarde, Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron talked about how you can respond to the challenges of crypto market in the future. A summary.
Today, Friday ends the 48th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Since Tuesday, a large part of the most powerful representatives of politics, society and economy were met there to replace. Of course the elites of the world economy have not travelled this year to the subject Blockchain – it goes without saying, the focus was on the scope of application of Kryptowährungen. What exactly was discussed about in Davos?
The beginning in terms of Kryptowährungen Nobalpreisträger Joseph Stiglitz on Tuesday, when he expressed his incomprehension about the existence of the Bitcoin compared to Bloomberg made critical words against Bitcoin
. With the US dollar, we had already a good global exchange medium, so his reasoning, why would you need so the Bitcoin. The only conceivable explanation that trap Stiglitz, is the desire for secrecy. If you ‘out would regulate this use-case of the Bitcoin’, you deprive him its existence. Stiglitz while studiously ignoring the fact that originally as an alternative to the centrally steered Bretton Woods financial system with the US dollar as the international reserve currency is designed of the Bitcoin.
IMF Chief Christine Lagarde also volunteered on the topic to Word. Speaking in a Panel on it, she asserted that the IMF is already intensively deal with the opportunities and challenges of Kryptowährungen. Illegal transactions that can be made with the help of Kryptowährungen, were not to accept, but you must keep in mind what innovations the new technology to bring. American Finance Minister Steven Mnuchin, participants of the same panels, stated, that his top priority is to make sure that Kryptowährungen is not used for illegal activities such as black market trading and money laundering. To do so, he suggested regulation a common approach to the – at least at the level of the G20 countries.
Also the British Prime Minister Theresa May, who turns out, is that one must observe what these currencies be used in a similar direction. Your Treasury Secretary Philip Hammond entered into closer on the issue, saying that a sustainable regulation of Kryptowährungen is advisable before Kryptowährungen grow so strong that they can significantly influence the global economy. France President Emmanuel Macron took up the issue and proposed a global deal should create a suitable environment for crypto investors. This claim fits in the Franco German approach to regulation, which we reported on last week .
On the edge of the event also came George Soros to Word, which is again spoke out against Kryptowährungen. Therefore, Bitcoin due to the high volatility could not act as a currency because there could be some fluctuations of up to 25% in one day. Thus, no reliable long term obligations such as the payment of salaries can be entered according to Soros.
Panel: The crypto-asset bubble
on Thursday followed eventually the climax: a own panel titled “The Crypto-Asset Bubble” . As the name already suggests, has been discussed for about an hour on the opportunities and risks of Kryptowährungen and invest in them. Focus on the question was, to what extent can be seen of the Bitcoin as currency. As speaker radian Blockchain ventures, Neil Rimer, general partner was a partner at index ventures SA and Cecilia Skingsley, Deputy Chairman of the Swedish Central Bank (Sveriges Riksbank) to the Panel next to Jennifer Zhu Scott, founding also Yale Professor and had charged the Nobel Laureate Robert Shiller, who caused a stir his statements on the Bitcoin in the past week with .
So, Shiller also had the opportunity to defend his statements. He turned out his enthusiasm for the Blockchain as technology and wished for a greater focus on this aspect of the Bitcoin. Appropriately referred to he the Bitcoin as an “interesting experiment”, but not as a “permanent part of our lives” – testify that underline his previously voiced skeptical interest in Kryptowährungen. In the start of the Bitcoin futures the traditionalist but provides the possibility of stabilizing.
In a similar score, also Cecilia Skingsley fails by it describes the Bitcoin as too volatile to be equivalent to traditional money. To act as money, a subject must meet various criteria. To belong to the store of value, a low turnover rate and a stable exchange rate – she see does not meet these points at the Bitcoin and other Kryptowährungen. Although Sweden plan the step in a cashless society, long term may be connected with the publication of an e-Crown, but they still did not know whether a Blockchain solution should be used.
Neil Rimer, who considers Kryptowährungen more from the perspective of the investor that is, however, excited about the asset. He called the Bitcoin and the technology behind it Blockchain probably ‘boldest, most generous and profound invention”, which he has seen in his career. Although he admits that Kryptowährungen are still in their infancy and currently still a hobby-based business. However, so Rimer, they have already achieved many remarkable things.
Jennifer Zhu Scott with a vision for the future
Blockchain expert Jennifer Zhu Scott looked at the discussion from the perspective of another and exclude short-term fluctuations. Instead, she went into the deeper analysis and proved that some things go wrong in the traditional financial system. So were the workings of the international financial sector in the imbalance to the seamless technological possibilities. She saw the possibility that specifically, the Blockchain as the technology behind the Kryptowährungen brings the potential to completely to change the system as a disruptive force.
The theme has come in the middle of the world economy and takes attention from many pages at the most important global Conference of the year. However, the controversial and sometimes too closely imagined statements show that we are still far away from a deeper understanding.