[reDraft] Regulation of Cryptocurrencies

[Masurbia]

Ok but isn’t like every GA resolution forcing nations to do something. The most recent, Voting Equality for inmates, forces nations to have voting equality.

"Yup. Those were actually valuable efforts. This is not."

I love the warm, welcoming, helpful environment

[Imperial Polk County]

"Yup. Those were actually valuable efforts. This is not."

I love the warm, welcoming, helpful environment

"Indeed, you've encountered Ambassador Bell on one of his better days."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Yup. Those were actually valuable efforts. This is not."

I love the warm, welcoming, helpful environment

"Ambassador, when you continuously ignore valid criticism and genuine arguments, what exactly do you expect? You have an incredibly unpopular policy which has received very little support. Did you want me to lie?"

[Arotania]

"I'm sorry, but I just don't see the practicality of it. Why legislate on something that doesn't seem so big or world-changing? Plus, as another ambassador pointed out, this is a potential security risk due to the potential to be hacked. I'm sorry, but I can't support this."

Yes but anything can be hacked. Bank accounts can be hacked, practically all government data can be hacked. I explained earlier that that when crypto currencies are hacked they use resilience technology to create an even stronger environment

Does resilience technology even mean anything? Or is it another hollow buzzword that cryptocurrencies love to plaster their investor presentations with?
The proposal in its current state is completely useless. The definition of its topic is too broad. The claimed advantages are unsubstantiated and lacking in detail. Everything after this preamble is even worse. "Real asset" has a specific meaning that cryptocurrencies 100% don't fit. Why those specific regulations when it is completely unclear what the aim and advantage of this whole proposal is? It feels more like a sales pitch and not at all like international legislation.

I love the warm, welcoming, helpful environment

The proposal in its current form needs to be scrapped 100%.
Start by writing a good and precise definition. The proposal needs to make clear what specifically it is covering.
Formulate what exactly it is this piece of legislation wants to accomplish. Should cryptocurrencies be classified within an existing asset class and inherit all attached regulations? Should they get their own comprehensive set of rules based on their inherent and distinct properties? Have you defined and contextualized these properties? Why is all this a case for international legislation and should not be left to the member states to be regulated on their own? Should such a nascent concept that is bound to quickly change in a short timeframe really be constricted by legislation of a slow-moving international organization?
Use versions. It is not conducive to a constructive discussion when changes are applied on the fly to a single proposal text.
In the end take care of grammar and formatting.

Was this helpful enough as a rough guideline?

[Masurbia]

Yes but anything can be hacked. Bank accounts can be hacked, practically all government data can be hacked. I explained earlier that that when crypto currencies are hacked they use resilience technology to create an even stronger environment

Does resilience technology even mean anything? Or is it another hollow buzzword that cryptocurrencies love to plaster their investor presentations with?
The proposal in its current state is completely useless. The definition of its topic is too broad. The claimed advantages are unsubstantiated and lacking in detail. Everything after this preamble is even worse. "Real asset" has a specific meaning that cryptocurrencies 100% don't fit. Why those specific regulations when it is completely unclear what the aim and advantage of this whole proposal is? It feels more like a sales pitch and not at all like international legislation.

I love the warm, welcoming, helpful environment

The proposal in its current form needs to be scrapped 100%.
Start by writing a good and precise definition. The proposal needs to make clear what specifically it is covering.
Formulate what exactly it is this piece of legislation wants to accomplish. Should cryptocurrencies be classified within an existing asset class and inherit all attached regulations? Should they get their own comprehensive set of rules based on their inherent and distinct properties? Have you defined and contextualized these properties? Why is all this a case for international legislation and should not be left to the member states to be regulated on their own? Should such a nascent concept that is bound to quickly change in a short timeframe really be constricted by legislation of a slow-moving international organization?
Use versions. It is not conducive to a constructive discussion when changes are applied on the fly to a single proposal text.
In the end take care of grammar and formatting.

Was this helpful enough as a rough guideline?

Yes thank you. I apologize for my sarcasm before.

[Masurbia]

Yes but anything can be hacked. Bank accounts can be hacked, practically all government data can be hacked. I explained earlier that that when crypto currencies are hacked they use resilience technology to create an even stronger environment

Does resilience technology even mean anything? Or is it another hollow buzzword that cryptocurrencies love to plaster their investor presentations with?

Yes these do exist.

[Arotania]

Does resilience technology even mean anything? Or is it another hollow buzzword that cryptocurrencies love to plaster their investor presentations with?

Yes these do exist.

This statement will convince exactly 0 ambassadors. This proposal isn't going anywhere if this style of discussion continues.
As the honoured colleague from Separatist Peoples already has explained, this proposal has been met with general disapproval. There are two options. Either you abandon this proposal or you completely rewrite it and try to convince your fellow ambassadors with good arguments and well-sourced facts. Everything else frankly would be a waste of everybody's time. Any proposal of this quality would receive a quick and decisive stomp from all big regions, if it reached quorum at all (also ignoring all legality issues).

OOC:
btw:

What is new about this? "Cryptocurrency" could be replaced by "Tulip Bulb" in this draft without losing any of its meaning (ignoring the definition clause of course).

((OOC: A reference to the Dutch tulip mania?))

Of course. (:

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yes but anything can be hacked. Bank accounts can be hacked, practically all government data can be hacked. I explained earlier that that when crypto currencies are hacked they use resilience technology to create an even stronger environment

Does resilience technology even mean anything? Or is it another hollow buzzword that cryptocurrencies love to plaster their investor presentations with?

I'll tell you right now that the OP just made this up on the spot.

[Masurbia]

Yes these do exist.

This statement will convince exactly 0 ambassadors. This proposal isn't going anywhere if this style of discussion continues.
As the honoured colleague from Separatist Peoples already has explained, this proposal has been met with general disapproval. There are two options. Either you abandon this proposal or you completely rewrite it and try to convince your fellow ambassadors with good arguments and well-sourced facts. Everything else frankly would be a waste of everybody's time. Any proposal of this quality would receive a quick and decisive stomp from all big regions, if it reached quorum at all (also ignoring all legality issues)

But you do think it’s possible?

[Masurbia]

Does resilience technology even mean anything? Or is it another hollow buzzword that cryptocurrencies love to plaster their investor presentations with?

I'll tell you right now that the OP just made this up on the spot.

Ok are you really going to discredit my sources?

[Arotania]

Does resilience technology even mean anything? Or is it another hollow buzzword that cryptocurrencies love to plaster their investor presentations with?

I'll tell you right now that the OP just made this up on the spot.

Unfortunately you'd lose that bet. OP copied it from someone who made it up on the spot (under 10):

There will be hacks—in exchanges, wallets and applications—but overall blockchain and crypto robustness will grow. Call them “resilience technologies.” They have an anti-fragility model, increasing capability and robustness as a convex response to attacks, shocks, stressors, or failures. The more cryptocurrencies are attacked, the stronger they become.

That is meaningless marketing fluff.

But you do think it’s possible?

Start by writing a good and precise definition. The proposal needs to make clear what specifically it is covering.

[Attempted Socialism]

I'll tell you right now that the OP just made this up on the spot.

Ok are you really going to discredit my sources?

OOC: Since most of your sources aren't saying what you want them to say, IA wouldn't need to discredit them. It's discrediting enough to see that you can't get sources on crypto"currencies" working as currencies, and that you often need to change e.g. taxation of income from futures into an alleged recognition of these crypto"currencies" as currencies.

[Masurbia]

I'll tell you right now that the OP just made this up on the spot.

Unfortunately you'd lose that bet. OP copied it from someone who made it up on the spot (under 10):

There will be hacks—in exchanges, wallets and applications—but overall blockchain and crypto robustness will grow. Call them “resilience technologies.” They have an anti-fragility model, increasing capability and robustness as a convex response to attacks, shocks, stressors, or failures. The more cryptocurrencies are attacked, the stronger they become.

That is meaningless marketing fluff.

But you do think it’s possible?

Start by writing a good and precise definition. The proposal needs to make clear what specifically it is covering.

Thank you for showing my source. But why do you think it’s meaningless fluff? And I am figuring out a good definition

[Imperium Anglorum]

The problem with this proposal is not that it has a bad definition. The problem is that it has a bad end state in of itself. The goals which it wants to achieve are not ones that can be normatively justified given the risks involved.

The weighing here is simple. The OP walks up and asserts a number of positive things about cryptocurrencies. Everyone else gives reasons why they are false or why those things are bad in of themselves: argumentative offence. The OP responds with defensive arguments that do not give reasons for why the offence is false, only that the magnitude of that offence is smaller than opponents say it is. That does not change the final position of the debate, since the OP has no actual offence and no weighing mechanism by which it can be used.

[Masurbia]

The problem with this proposal is not that it has a bad definition. The problem is that it has a bad end state in of itself. The goals which it wants to achieve are not ones that can be normatively justified given the risks involved.

The weighing here is simple. The OP walks up and asserts a number of positive things about cryptocurrencies. Everyone else gives reasons why they are false or why those things are bad in of themselves: argumentative offence. The OP responds with defensive arguments that do not give reasons for why the offence is false, only that the magnitude of that offence is smaller than opponents say it is. That does not change the final position of the debate, since the OP has no actual offence and no weighing mechanism by which it can be used.

Please state what is false.

[Dirty Americans]

I see no reason whatsoever this should be WA law.

I think the biggest problem is the nature of currency in general. I could "recognize" your currency as currency but if it is not legal tender in my nation, the recognition is moot. That's the real problem with this resolution ... it really does nothing significant.

OOC: I wonder if I could print up a handful of GH currency (yes, I have designed some) and go to the local store with it? It was created digitally, so isn’t it a crypto currency?

OOC: UGH: First of all, "digital" doesn't mean a "digital" printer. "Digital" means that it only exists as "data" on a computer system. For the most part, your bank account is "digital." They don't have wads of bills in their vault equal to your account. The difference is that the value is stored in a central server complex. Cryptocurrencies store that value encrypted over a wide distributed network of users "invested" in keeping the system secure.

OOC: This gets really complex at this point because we all have a post 20th century view of "currency." So roll back the clock when early nation states minted coin and banks printed bank notes.

A banknote (often known as a bill, paper money, or simply a note) is a type of negotiable promissory note, made by a bank, payable to the bearer on demand. Banknotes were originally issued by commercial banks, who were legally required to redeem the notes for legal tender (usually gold or silver coin) when presented to the chief cashier of the originating bank. These commercial banknotes only traded at face value in the market served by the issuing bank. Commercial banknotes have primarily been replaced by national banknotes issued by central banks.

So back in the old days, every bank issued their own notes which could be exchanged (hey that's a "market") for "legal tender" or they could be used as tender themselves within their own markets. The same is true for cryptocurrency; it is issued by the collective community of servers supported by that currency, with the full face and credit of that community and can be redeemable in "legal tender" by an appropriate exchange market or can be exchanged among the members and used as tender.

That's really the benefit and curse of this idea; it's not a "national currency" but a "democratic" currency in the full free market sense. If it is a good one then it has a strong "constitution" that prevents the "dictatorship of the majority." Otherwise it's just bad as any national currency in the hands of men.

[Grays Harbor]

I see no reason whatsoever this should be WA law.

I think the biggest problem is the nature of currency in general. I could "recognize" your currency as currency but if it is not legal tender in my nation, the recognition is moot. That's the real problem with this resolution ... it really does nothing significant.

OOC: I wonder if I could print up a handful of GH currency (yes, I have designed some) and go to the local store with it? It was created digitally, so isn’t it a crypto currency?

OOC: UGH: First of all, "digital" doesn't mean a "digital" printer. "Digital" means that it only exists as "data" on a computer system. For the most part, your bank account is "digital." They don't have wads of bills in their vault equal to your account. The difference is that the value is stored in a central server complex. Cryptocurrencies store that value encrypted over a wide distributed network of users "invested" in keeping the system secure.

OOC: This gets really complex at this point because we all have a post 20th century view of "currency." So roll back the clock when early nation states minted coin and banks printed bank notes.

A banknote (often known as a bill, paper money, or simply a note) is a type of negotiable promissory note, made by a bank, payable to the bearer on demand. Banknotes were originally issued by commercial banks, who were legally required to redeem the notes for legal tender (usually gold or silver coin) when presented to the chief cashier of the originating bank. These commercial banknotes only traded at face value in the market served by the issuing bank. Commercial banknotes have primarily been replaced by national banknotes issued by central banks.

So back in the old days, every bank issued their own notes which could be exchanged (hey that's a "market") for "legal tender" or they could be used as tender themselves within their own markets. The same is true for cryptocurrency; it is issued by the collective community of servers supported by that currency, with the full face and credit of that community and can be redeemable in "legal tender" by an appropriate exchange market or can be exchanged among the members and used as tender.

That's really the benefit and curse of this idea; it's not a "national currency" but a "democratic" currency in the full free market sense. If it is a good one then it has a strong "constitution" that prevents the "dictatorship of the majority." Otherwise it's just bad as any national currency in the hands of men.

Kinda missed the sarcasm there, didja?

[Masurbia]

Ok are you really going to discredit my sources?

OOC: Since most of your sources aren't saying what you want them to say, IA wouldn't need to discredit them. It's discrediting enough to see that you can't get sources on crypto"currencies" working as currencies, and that you often need to change e.g. taxation of income from futures into an alleged recognition of these crypto"currencies" as currencies.

This is a quote from Forbes that was published today, "Can bitcoin succeed as a form of money?

"In theory, yes," Goldman economists led by Zach Pandl in New York published today. For them, if Bitcoin is capable of facilitating transactions at a low cost or can provide better risk-adjusted returns for portfolios, then it is as good as money.

The two Goldman economists behind the report think bitcoin could become a portfolio asset comparable to gold. That puts bitcoin in good company. Gold, too, is not really considered money, but it can easily be converted into cold hard cash. Bitcoin isn't there yet. Transactions can take over three days to settle. Other cryptocurrencies, like red-hot Ripple coin, can take weeks just to purchase."

So economists are predicting that bitcoin could become currency.

"Bitcoin is still a tool of the bad guys, of course. And the tax evaders, an activity that sounds illegal, although tax avoidance is a practice taken up by every American multinational to some degree. Everyone wants to lower their tax burden, and the anonymity of Bitcoin makes it a useful medium for tax avoidance and getting around government-imposed capital controls. Continued growth in the popularity of cryptocurrency will ultimately attract greater regulation and law enforcement action by governments. That burden will fall on Bitcoin first."

And they say not to worry about bitcoin being unregulated. As it grows bigger it will attract more attention from the government.

[Masurbia]

This has absolutely nothing to do with my proposal, but this was a choice for the issue I just got

“Actually, I think it’s high time we got rid of physical currency altogether,” says the president of the Chamber of Commerce, Hermione Pavlov, flanked by officials from various security agencies. “We should just digitize all money. People spend more when they don’t see themselves physically handing over cash, and the benefits to tracking terrorists and other subversives are obvious. That sounds like a solid win-win to me.”

Just thought it was funny

[Masurbia]

I'll tell you right now that the OP just made this up on the spot.

Unfortunately you'd lose that bet. OP copied it from someone who made it up on the spot (under 10):

There will be hacks—in exchanges, wallets and applications—but overall blockchain and crypto robustness will grow. Call them “resilience technologies.” They have an anti-fragility model, increasing capability and robustness as a convex response to attacks, shocks, stressors, or failures. The more cryptocurrencies are attacked, the stronger they become.

That is meaningless marketing fluff.

Don Tapscott, the man who wrote the article which you call "meaningless marketing fluff," is an expert on the blockchain, wrote a book about it and won the worlds most influential speaker int Digital thinking by Thinkers50.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: Since most of your sources aren't saying what you want them to say, IA wouldn't need to discredit them. It's discrediting enough to see that you can't get sources on crypto"currencies" working as currencies, and that you often need to change e.g. taxation of income from futures into an alleged recognition of these crypto"currencies" as currencies.

This is a quote from Forbes that was published today, "Can bitcoin succeed as a form of money?

"In theory, yes," Goldman economists led by Zach Pandl in New York published today. For them, if Bitcoin is capable of facilitating transactions at a low cost or can provide better risk-adjusted returns for portfolios, then it is as good as money.

The two Goldman economists behind the report think bitcoin could become a portfolio asset comparable to gold. That puts bitcoin in good company. Gold, too, is not really considered money, but it can easily be converted into cold hard cash. Bitcoin isn't there yet. Transactions can take over three days to settle. Other cryptocurrencies, like red-hot Ripple coin, can take weeks just to purchase."

OOC: So Forbes journalists interpreted Goldman economists to say that crypto"currencies" could become like gold. Not like money. Furthermore, this is speculation, it doesn't follow that crypto"currencies" will become like gold. In other words, if we trust Forbes to have summarised the statements of the economists correctly, and we trust the economists to be correct, crypto"currency" may become a portfolio asset, rather than just a futures trade asset. That's another source that directly denies your central point, namely that crypto"currencies" are currencies. Once again, your own sources are where we can see that you are wrong. At this point I have to ask: Do you even know what crypto"currencies" are, what currencies are, what futures are and what the stockmarket is?

So economists are predicting that bitcoin could become currency.

No; that is your baseless postulate, but the very article you claim to cite in support of this says a completely different thing.

"Bitcoin is still a tool of the bad guys, of course. And the tax evaders, an activity that sounds illegal, although tax avoidance is a practice taken up by every American multinational to some degree. Everyone wants to lower their tax burden, and the anonymity of Bitcoin makes it a useful medium for tax avoidance and getting around government-imposed capital controls. Continued growth in the popularity of cryptocurrency will ultimately attract greater regulation and law enforcement action by governments. That burden will fall on Bitcoin first."

And they say not to worry about bitcoin being unregulated. As it grows bigger it will attract more attention from the government.

So your own source states that bitcoin is a tool for bad guys and the biggest criminals in the real world, and you want to keep governments from regulating it because it may, in the future, get attention from governments that wish to regulate it?
Are you even trying to make a good case for your draft?

[Willania Imperium]

"I'm sorry, but I just don't see the practicality of it. Why legislate on something that doesn't seem so big or world-changing? Plus, as another ambassador pointed out, this is a potential security risk due to the potential to be hacked. I'm sorry, but I can't support this."

Yes but anything can be hacked. Bank accounts can be hacked, practically all government data can be hacked. I explained earlier that when cryptocurrencies are hacked they use resilience technology to create an even stronger environment

OOC: Yes, anything can be hacked. Lord knows the tragic results of the 2012 Rock Hack. That was really bad.

IC: "This merely highlights our case. If they can be hacked, this opens up potential criminal acts that can cause harmful effects to the currency. Millions of currency belonging to a vast populace all sucked up by one hacker. We can't take that risk."

[Masurbia]

OOC: So Forbes journalists interpreted Goldman economists to say that crypto"currencies" could become like gold. Not like money. Furthermore, this is speculation, it doesn't follow that crypto"currencies" will become like gold. In other words, if we trust Forbes to have summarised the statements of the economists correctly, and we trust the economists to be correct, crypto"currency" may become a portfolio asset, rather than just a futures trade asset. That's another source that directly denies your central point, namely that crypto"currencies" are currencies. Once again, your own sources are where we can see that you are wrong. At this point I have to ask: Do you even know what crypto"currencies" are, what currencies are, what futures are and what the stockmarket is?

No; that is your baseless postulate, but the very article you claim to cite in support of this says a completely different thing.

The report clearly says that bitcoin could succeed as a form of money. I can buy something right now with bitcoin at many merchants like overstock.com. The article from Goldman wasn't saying that it does not at all act as a currency right now because people can buy goods using bitcoin. It is talking about whether in the broader marketplace it will become acceptable. Your argument that bitcoin is not a currency fails to take into account that it is already being used to buy goods - and thus is a currency. Plus, Ripple is even being tailored for small purchases through their partnership with the W3C consortium and the development of APIs for enabling crypto "one-click" purchasing on the web. (See the W3C Payment Handler API). Plus Facebook's Messenger's lead, David Marcus, just joined CoinBase's board of directors. Facebook will soon enable cryptocurrency payments via an API with Facebook Messenger. If you can tap into your CoinBase account to purchase a pair of shoes via a Facebook Messenger interaction and you can choose Bitcoin, ETher, BCash or Litecoin, these are all going to be acting as currencies. The Payment Request API is also a new API that is being developed to enable crypto currency payments. See: https://www.w3.org/blog/wpwg/2016/04/21 ... quest-api/. You stated that my assertion that it was a currency was baseless. But the World Wide Web Consortium, which is working on new payment processes across the web through their payments working group, which is very knowledgeable about payments, is working on bitcoin payments through these new APIs. I think that provides good support for my proposal.

So your own source states that bitcoin is a tool for bad guys and the biggest criminals in the real world, and you want to keep governments from regulating it because it may, in the future, get attention from governments that wish to regulate it?
Are you even trying to make a good case for your draft?

I know that not all cryptocurrencies are able to work this way. So I will be changing my proposal to fit only the digital tokens that act as actual currencies.

[Masurbia]

Yes but anything can be hacked. Bank accounts can be hacked, practically all government data can be hacked. I explained earlier that when cryptocurrencies are hacked they use resilience technology to create an even stronger environment

OOC: Yes, anything can be hacked. Lord knows the tragic results of the 2012 Rock Hack. That was really bad.

IC: "This merely highlights our case. If they can be hacked, this opens up potential criminal acts that can cause harmful effects to the currency. Millions of currency belonging to a vast populace all sucked up by one hacker. We can't take that risk."

So if you own a bank account, you should take all of your money out because someone could hack it? Anything online could be in danger of being hacked that's just the risk. Someone could hack into your account and do whatever they want.

[Masurbia]

Also, using a cryptocurrency such as bitcoin would benefit the merchant and the buyer.

A quote from Investopedia, "Bitcoin merchants also save on credit card fees that can range anywhere from 0.5% to 5%, plus 20 to 30 cents for each transaction made. Bitcoin payments can be sent and received at a very low cost or none at all, as bitcoin fees are based on the amount of data sent.

For merchants, the advantages of receiving bitcoin are obvious. Payments made using the virtual currency save substantially on processing fees and eliminate the risk of charge-backs. For shoppers the advantages of paying with bitcoin include greater simplicity in placing the transaction, user anonymity, no interruptions from intermediaries (for example your account being frozen as a result of a fraud alert), and very low transaction fees."