Benjamin Schiller, the editor-in-chief of CoinDesk, a well-known crypto media, recently wrote a special article to refute Bloomberg’s reports. The trigger for the incident was this article " Trump and Harris Should Not Cater to Cryptocurrency " from the Bloomberg Editorial Board . This article pointed out that U.S. presidential candidates should ignore the cryptocurrency industry, even if they contribute huge political donations. Benjamin Schiller counterattacked more directly, pointing out that this review completely shows bias against the cryptocurrency industry!
Table of Contents
ToggleCryptocurrency has no application value? Bitcoin is not good for transfers, but a great way to store value
The report from Bloomberg stated its position at the beginning, writing: " The good news is that business interests are supported in an election year. The bad news is that this business is encrypted. " The financial media then pointed out that in the past, San Bankman-fried (SBF) also threw money at candidates in an attempt to exchange for a more relaxed regulatory environment. What happened on the FTX exchange became clear to everyone later. They even pointed out that the current encryption industry is doing the same thing, "Don't give up basic common sense in the pursuit of money." The Bloomberg editorial board warned the candidates.
Benjamin Schiller agrees that political donations themselves are problematic, regardless of who the funds come from. This behavior sometimes leads candidates to do things that are contrary to the public interest. But what Bloomberg is actually opposed to is not political donations. The commentary clearly states from the outset that such business interests are a good thing.
Benjamin Schiller pointed out that due to the programmable nature of cryptocurrencies, money is now digital. In fact, this is in line with Bloomberg's reporting purpose, which is to enable capital markets to operate in a more efficient, open and transparent manner.
Cryptocurrencies are not just Bitcoin (although Bitcoin still accounts for about half of the total market cap); there are thousands of other flowers in this blockchain garden, from stablecoins to tokenized RWAs. It is a technology with hundreds of applications. What's more: other, more liberal and forward-thinking countries are embracing this technology, while the United States is still arguing over this fact.
Bloomberg also commented: "In the roughly 15 years since the invention of Bitcoin, digital tokens have proven to have basically no practical value."
Benjamin Schiller countered that cryptocurrencies have made many people rich and given more people higher incomes (including many reporters at Bloomberg). Stablecoins (market cap $177 billion ) allow thousands of law-abiding people to cheaply and efficiently complete peer-to-peer cross-border transfers without paying the onerous fees charged by traditional banking companies. As Bloomberg said, Bitcoin often fails as a payment mechanism , but it has proven to be an effective store of value (over the long term, even if it fluctuates from day to day), which is part of the reason why the SEC approved the ETF.
Is traditional finance equal to the real economy? CoinDesk Editor-in-Chief Questions
Bloomberg also called out to presidential candidates: "Policymakers should not encourage people to deposit their savings in stocks, bonds and other assets backed by real industries instead of depositing them in crypto wallets."
Benjamin Schiller countered that politicians are not investment advisers and their comments should not be considered investment advice. But he also refuted Bloomberg's specific definition of "real economy"? If government debt can be used to pay debt for government spending during the coronavirus crisis, is government debt part of the real economy? Is investing in Coca-Cola and arms companies also investing in the real economy? Or are we just investing in sugary drinks and missiles? Did government-guaranteed and regulated mortgage-backed securities “support the real economy” in the early 2000s? Isn’t the true “real economy” an economy that supports individuals and families to live the lives they want?
The regulatory problem lies in the government’s passivity, and the Bloomberg editorial does not help the truth.
The Bloomberg report also said: “Candidates should commit to working with Congress and regulators to ensure that cryptocurrency regulations are consistent with existing laws on fraud, money laundering and sanctions enforcement,”
Benjamin Scheller said that the responsibility does not fall entirely on the cryptocurrency industry. The problem is that Congress and regulators have not actually carefully formulated "rules applicable to cryptocurrency" that are consistent with existing fraud, money laundering and sanctions enforcement laws. consistent. That’s why there have been many political donations this cycle from the cryptocurrency industry, which wants compliance but is tired of waiting.
Since the SBF incident broke out, the focus has been on preventing cryptocurrencies from getting worse. The SEC has taken endless enforcement actions against the cryptocurrency industry. Politicians and media bosses have been preaching, but no one has taken action. The problem is simple, and everyone in the U.S. crypto industry knows this: we don’t know what is legally allowed (and not allowed) when it comes to cryptoassets.
In the end, Benjamin Scheller wrote with a hint of irony: "Thanks to Bloomberg for reminding people of the dangers of political donations, but in fact this editorial does nothing to help the facts and truth."
