[reDraft] Regulation of Cryptocurrencies

[Masurbia]

Boris Farvald takes the place of Ambassador Amelia. He takes a seat as he downs half a bottle of moonshine. After a gross, loud burp, he speaks in a drunken, daft tone. He switches between English, Ancient Germanic, and drunken babbling. "I don't know what yer talking about with this er- blockchain. 'Sounds like you just discovered the term and put it in the proposal just to speak all smart-ly." He giggles to himself and takes another swig of shine. "I think I can speak for m'lady Amelia, for Rovikstead - hell, for ev'ry nation that rejects these 'ere clipse-oh-currently-s or just wants the damn freedom and independence to decide fer themselves on whether or not they want these er-"
Ambassador Amelia, reddened with embarrassment, interjects inbetween Boris' statement and whispers into his ear, "It's cryptocurrencies."
"Yeah, yeah," Boris continues, "These cryptocurrencies are a national issue- not a WA, GA, or er- SA issue. I," he pauses to take another gulp of shine, "rest my case." Boris grins. In his drunken, deluded reality, his points were amazing and he had won the argument against this proposal. He takes a bow in front of a nonexistent audience. He gives the ambassador of Masurbia a taunting wink and grin, and goes back to drinking his fifth bottle of moonshine.

IC: Ambassador Degas blinks, tilts his head, takes a deep breath and says, "oKAY, anything else?"

[Rovikstead]

Boris Farvald takes the place of Ambassador Amelia. He takes a seat as he downs half a bottle of moonshine. After a gross, loud burp, he speaks in a drunken, daft tone. He switches between English, Ancient Germanic, and drunken babbling. "I don't know what yer talking about with this er- blockchain. 'Sounds like you just discovered the term and put it in the proposal just to speak all smart-ly." He giggles to himself and takes another swig of shine. "I think I can speak for m'lady Amelia, for Rovikstead - hell, for ev'ry nation that rejects these 'ere clipse-oh-currently-s or just wants the damn freedom and independence to decide fer themselves on whether or not they want these er-"
Ambassador Amelia, reddened with embarrassment, interjects inbetween Boris' statement and whispers into his ear, "It's cryptocurrencies."
"Yeah, yeah," Boris continues, "These cryptocurrencies are a national issue- not a WA, GA, or er- SA issue. I," he pauses to take another gulp of shine, "rest my case." Boris grins. In his drunken, deluded reality, his points were amazing and he had won the argument against this proposal. He takes a bow in front of a nonexistent audience. He gives the ambassador of Masurbia a taunting wink and grin, and goes back to drinking his fifth bottle of moonshine.

IC: Ambassador Degas blinks, tilts his head, takes a deep breath and says, "oKAY, anything else?"

"Please excuse my er- assistant." Ambassador Amelia says, reddened with embarrassment. "He was..." she pauses as she looks back at the drunken Boris who was preoccupied with his seventh bottle of moonshine, "... cursed with stupidity." Boris winks and waves his now-empty bottle of moonshine at Amelia, mishearing her insult as a compliment.
"I think what my heavily, heavily intoxicated associate was saying was that he- we feel that this proposal is not worth supporting. Why establish a committee to recognize and regulate cryptocurrency when nations have the ability to ban these currencies? Why should a new, risky, and unpredictable currency be managed by the General Assembly? Why on Earth should WA nations pool their resources into funding the ICC and to follow the mandates of this proposal?"

[Arotania]

OOC:

Counterquestion:
What do you mean with 'open code base'? At the heart of a cryptocurrency there is no code but standards, conventions and data. The programs that interact with the blockchain have a code base. Is this intended to cover all of them? Or just miners or wallets or exchanges?

An open source (or you could say open code) base is where everyone can see the code of the created cryptocurrency. It's used so no single entity controls/owns that software, just like how no single company can control bitcoin.

I know what open source is. You have not answered my question. There is no software/code at the core of a cryptocurrency. The blockchain is pure data molded by standards and conventions. Bitcoin is not a software. So which pieces of software specifically do you have in mind?

I guess a private cryptocurrency wouldn't necessarily be open source. Under my current proposal this means the ICC wouldn't approve of the said cryptocurrency and it would be shut down. I'll look into fixing this.

It is not only the open code part. Why should a private cryptocurrency have to adhere to any restrictions at all? What is the point of this? What exactly is the aim of this anyways? You put up a definition, some seemingly arbitrary conditions and want to instate a commitee (ignoring the commitee only problem for a moment) that disapproves of all cryptocurrencies that don't fit into this mold. Who exactly is helped by this and in what way? How and why did you come up with your criteria?

Would an example of this be something like Papa John points, where the more pizzas you buy the more credit points you get?

Not familiar with that this company. They don't operate in my country. But according to a short google search of mine that sounds like a possible application. The company could run these credits points as a cryptocurrency internally while for the customer they simply appear as an in-store wallet. The company gains additional internal traceability and data robustness while for the customer nothing is changed compared to a simple database. Why should this be banned?

[Rovikstead]

"What organization will create cryptocurrency? The IIC? The individual nations?"

[Masurbia]

IC: Ambassador Degas blinks, tilts his head, takes a deep breath and says, "oKAY, anything else?"

"Please excuse my er- assistant." Ambassador Amelia says, reddened with embarrassment. "He was..." she pauses as she looks back at the drunken Boris who was preoccupied with his seventh bottle of moonshine, "... cursed with stupidity." Boris winks and waves his now-empty bottle of moonshine at Amelia, mishearing her insult as a compliment.
"I think what my heavily, heavily intoxicated associate was saying was that he- we feel that this proposal is not worth supporting. Why establish a committee to recognize and regulate cryptocurrency when nations have the ability to ban these currencies? Why should a new, risky, and unpredictable currency be managed by the General Assembly? Why on Earth should WA nations pool their resources into funding the ICC and to follow the mandates of this proposal?"

OOC: I learned that if I mandate nations to recognize cryptocurrencies so they can't ban them, that I'd get pummeled with rejection. More than I get already.

[Masurbia]

"What organization will create cryptocurrency? The IIC? The individual nations?"

OOC: The ICC would never create cryptocurrency. It be the individuals who would do it themselves.

[Masurbia]

OOC:

An open source (or you could say open code) base is where everyone can see the code of the created cryptocurrency. It's used so no single entity controls/owns that software, just like how no single company can control bitcoin.

I know what open source is. You have not answered my question. There is no software/code at the core of a cryptocurrency. The blockchain is pure data molded by standards and conventions. Bitcoin is not a software. So which pieces of software specifically do you have in mind?

I changed it to open source in my proposal. I still don't know what you're getting at?

I guess a private cryptocurrency wouldn't necessarily be open source. Under my current proposal this means the ICC wouldn't approve of the said cryptocurrency and it would be shut down. I'll look into fixing this.

It is not only the open code part. Why should a private cryptocurrency have to adhere to any restrictions at all? What is the point of this? What exactly is the aim of this anyways? You put up a definition, some seemingly arbitrary conditions and want to instate a commitee (ignoring the commitee only problem for a moment) that disapproves of all cryptocurrencies that don't fit into this mold. Who exactly is helped by this and in what way? How and why did you come up with your criteria?

My aim is consumer protection. As said by many other ambassadors, they don't like unpredictable, scam-able currency. This proposal is preventing individuals from getting scammed of their investments. And as to how I came up with my criteria, I researched what many scam currencies were like and how to avoid them, so this proposal includes the best ways to separate the bad from the good.

Would an example of this be something like Papa John points, where the more pizzas you buy the more credit points you get?

Not familiar with that this company. They don't operate in my country. But according to a short google search of mine that sounds like a possible application. The company could run these credits points as a cryptocurrency internally while for the customer they simply appear as an in-store wallet. The company gains additional internal traceability and data robustness while for the customer nothing is changed compared to a simple database. Why should this be banned?

The problem is they aren't cryptocurrencies. They're just points gained by each purchase. You can't trade them and they're not really bought or sold either. More like redeemed.

[Rovikstead]

"What organization will create cryptocurrency? The IIC? The individual nations?"

OOC: The ICC would never create cryptocurrency. It be the individuals who would do it themselves.

"So theoretically, WA nations can generate as much cryptocurrency as they want?"

[Arotania]

OOC:

OOC:
I know what open source is. You have not answered my question. There is no software/code at the core of a cryptocurrency. The blockchain is pure data molded by standards and conventions. Bitcoin is not a software. So which pieces of software specifically do you have in mind?

I changed it to open source in my proposal. I still don't know what you're getting at?

Cryptocurrencies are not software. There is no source code that can be open. Is that understandable?

It is not only the open code part. Why should a private cryptocurrency have to adhere to any restrictions at all? What is the point of this? What exactly is the aim of this anyways? You put up a definition, some seemingly arbitrary conditions and want to instate a commitee (ignoring the commitee only problem for a moment) that disapproves of all cryptocurrencies that don't fit into this mold. Who exactly is helped by this and in what way? How and why did you come up with your criteria?

My aim is consumer protection. As said by many other ambassadors, they don't like unpredictable, scam-able currency. This proposal is preventing individuals from getting scammed of their investments. And as to how I came up with my criteria, I researched what many scam currencies were like and how to avoid them, so this proposal includes the best ways to separate the bad from the good.

You skipped over the private cryptocurrency part. Why should they be regulated?
As for your criteria - so you are basically trying to morph some (in your eyes) basic consumer advice for a single category of entities into international legislation? Ignoring its questionable efficacy (you would ban Bitcoin via the founder condition and that is one of the more reputable cryptocurrencies in my eyes), this proposal is still commitee only and therefore illegal. The ~'you are encouraged to allow them but also can totally ban them' parts do nothing compared to the status quo.

Not familiar with that this company. They don't operate in my country. But according to a short google search of mine that sounds like a possible application. The company could run these credits points as a cryptocurrency internally while for the customer they simply appear as an in-store wallet. The company gains additional internal traceability and data robustness while for the customer nothing is changed compared to a simple database. Why should this be banned?

The problem is they aren't cryptocurrencies. They're just points gained by each purchase. You can't trade them and they're not really bought or sold either. More like redeemed.

Doesn't change the fact that they could be implemented as a cryptocurrency. For what reasons should they then be banned?

[Kenmoria]

OOC: The ICC would never create cryptocurrency. It be the individuals who would do it themselves.

"So theoretically, WA nations can generate as much cryptocurrency as they want?"

"Of course, any nation could just print off potentially infinite amounts of paper money as well."

(OOC: It is generally considered quite bad form to respond IC to an OOC comment, as your IC ambassadors would have no way of knowing what an RL person said.)

[Republic of Europe]

c. A cryptocurrency shall live up to the standards of the defintion provided,
So you are saying that bitcoins will have an "expiration date"?

[Masurbia]

c. A cryptocurrency shall live up to the standards of the defintion provided,
So you are saying that bitcoins will have an "expiration date"?

"This proposal does not revolve around bitcoin, nor does it mention bitcoin."

OOC: Why do you say an "expiration date."

[Masurbia]

OOC:

I changed it to open source in my proposal. I still don't know what you're getting at?

Cryptocurrencies are not software. There is no source code that can be open. Is that understandable?

But cryptocurrencies are built on open source code, allowing transparency and the ability for others to build off of it.

My aim is consumer protection. As said by many other ambassadors, they don't like unpredictable, scam-able currency. This proposal is preventing individuals from getting scammed of their investments. And as to how I came up with my criteria, I researched what many scam currencies were like and how to avoid them, so this proposal includes the best ways to separate the bad from the good.

You skipped over the private cryptocurrency part. Why should they be regulated?
As for your criteria - so you are basically trying to morph some (in your eyes) basic consumer advice for a single category of entities into international legislation? Ignoring its questionable efficacy (you would ban Bitcoin via the founder condition and that is one of the more reputable cryptocurrencies in my eyes), this proposal is still commitee only and therefore illegal. The ~'you are encouraged to allow them but also can totally ban them' parts do nothing compared to the status quo.

Would your private cryptocurrencies be running on the public blockchain?

The problem is they aren't cryptocurrencies. They're just points gained by each purchase. You can't trade them and they're not really bought or sold either. More like redeemed.

Doesn't change the fact that they could be implemented as a cryptocurrency. For what reasons should they then be banned?

Again, would these in store cryptocurrencies be on the blockchain? Or would they have a separate trading system?

[Rovikstead]

"So theoretically, WA nations can generate as much cryptocurrency as they want?"

"Of course, any nation could just print off potentially infinite amounts of paper money as well."

(OOC: It is generally considered quite bad form to respond IC to an OOC comment, as your IC ambassadors would have no way of knowing what an RL person said.)

OOC: Sorry for doing that. Thank you for telling me.

"Most paper currencies are backed by gold, others by silver. What is cryptocurrency backed by? Absolutely nothing. If we give nations the ability to make as much cryptocurrency, especially cryptocurrency recognized by the IIC, then it can be exploited and the value of cryptocurrency can be terribly inflated to a point where it becomes worthless. And how could we possibly give the enormous responsibility of an entire, internationally-recognized cryptocurrency to the GA and IIC? Again, I feel this issue should not be up to the WA. Though I greatly appreciate the Ambassador of Masurbia's willingness to compromise with others on his draft and to embrace changes suggested by other nations rather than stubbornly stick to his own, I still remain opposed to the bill," concludes Ambassador Amelia.

[Masurbia]

"Most paper currencies are backed by gold, others by silver. What is cryptocurrency backed by? Absolutely nothing. If we give nations the ability to make as much cryptocurrency, especially cryptocurrency recognized by the IIC, then it can be exploited and the value of cryptocurrency can be terribly inflated to a point where it becomes worthless. And how could we possibly give the enormous responsibility of an entire, internationally-recognized cryptocurrency to the GA and IIC? Again, I feel this issue should not be up to the WA. Though I greatly appreciate the Ambassador of Masurbia's willingness to compromise with others on his draft and to embrace changes suggested by other nations rather than stubbornly stick to his own, I still remain opposed to the bill," concludes Ambassador Amelia.

"Are you saying that nations would create state-cryptocurrencies?"

[Araraukar]

"Are you saying that nations would create state-cryptocurrencies?"

"Isn't that what you're going for? Why else would you try to create a currency if you didn't want nations to use it? Otherwise it's just a different name for bartering."

[Rovikstead]

"Are you saying that nations would create state-cryptocurrencies?"

"I'm asking what will create, distribute, and regulate the currency internationally recognized by the IIC."

[Masurbia]

"Are you saying that nations would create state-cryptocurrencies?"

"Isn't that what you're going for? Why else would you try to create a currency if you didn't want nations to use it? Otherwise it's just a different name for bartering."

"I meant I wasn't really going for state-owned cryptocurrencies like Venezuela's Petro, but that this proposal wouldn't outlaw that."

[Masurbia]

"Are you saying that nations would create state-cryptocurrencies?"

"I'm asking what will create, distribute, and regulate the currency internationally recognized by the IIC."

"Individuals would create their cryptocurrencies, distribute it on the blockchain, and be regulated by the ICC."

[Rovikstead]

"I'm asking what will create, distribute, and regulate the currency internationally recognized by the IIC."

"Individuals would create their cryptocurrencies, distribute it on the blockchain, and be regulated by the ICC."

"The World Assembly is made up of a diverse set of nations. Some medieval and ancients, and others futuristic. Some just and good, and some corrupt. Giving nations the power to create internationally recognized currency gives nations the power to abuse the system and make as much as they want, and because cryptocurrency is not backed by anything as I mentioned before, it will become inflated and worthless. With or without this proposal, cryptocurrency will always remain unstable and unpredictable.'

[Dirty Americans]

I state that a cryptocurrency is a token traded over the blockchain. I remember getting this issue and there was no mention of a blockchain. The blockchain means the supply is not determined by a central bank.

No, that is not what it means.
Currency supply is determined by the mining algorithms.
Not by the blockchain itself.
This doesn't bode well for your resolution if you don't understand the principles that are involved.

[Dirty Americans]

"Most paper currencies are backed by gold, others by silver. What is cryptocurrency backed by? Absolutely nothing. If we give nations the ability to make as much cryptocurrency, especially cryptocurrency recognized by the IIC, then it can be exploited and the value of cryptocurrency can be terribly inflated to a point where it becomes worthless. And how could we possibly give the enormous responsibility of an entire, internationally-recognized cryptocurrency to the GA and IIC? Again, I feel this issue should not be up to the WA. Though I greatly appreciate the Ambassador of Masurbia's willingness to compromise with others on his draft and to embrace changes suggested by other nations rather than stubbornly stick to his own, I still remain opposed to the bill," concludes Ambassador Amelia.

"I'm sorry, but there are very few commodity currencies in existence anymore, almost all currencies are 'fiat' which means they are based on good will of the supporters of the currency, in most cases the nationstate. In the case of cryptocurrency, the currency is based on the good faith of the community of supporters who maintain the disbursed blockchain. This brings us to the fundamental question, what is the difference between a currency and a cryptocurrency and at the core there is none. Both can be either highly stable or highly abused."

[Masurbia]

I state that a cryptocurrency is a token traded over the blockchain. I remember getting this issue and there was no mention of a blockchain. The blockchain means the supply is not determined by a central bank.

No, that is not what it means.
Currency supply is determined by the mining algorithms.
Not by the blockchain itself.
This doesn't bode well for your resolution if you don't understand the principles that are involved.

Is the supply determined by a central bank?

[Rovikstead]

"Most paper currencies are backed by gold, others by silver. What is cryptocurrency backed by? Absolutely nothing. If we give nations the ability to make as much cryptocurrency, especially cryptocurrency recognized by the IIC, then it can be exploited and the value of cryptocurrency can be terribly inflated to a point where it becomes worthless. And how could we possibly give the enormous responsibility of an entire, internationally-recognized cryptocurrency to the GA and IIC? Again, I feel this issue should not be up to the WA. Though I greatly appreciate the Ambassador of Masurbia's willingness to compromise with others on his draft and to embrace changes suggested by other nations rather than stubbornly stick to his own, I still remain opposed to the bill," concludes Ambassador Amelia.

"I'm sorry, but there are very few commodity currencies in existence anymore, almost all currencies are 'fiat' which means they are based on good will of the supporters of the currency, in most cases the nationstate. In the case of cryptocurrency, the currency is based on the good faith of the community of supporters who maintain the disbursed blockchain. This brings us to the fundamental question, what is the difference between a currency and a cryptocurrency and at the core there is none. Both can be either highly stable or highly abused."

"While I very much understand your views on cryptocurrency, Ambassador," Ambassador Amelia begins, "I would, in some respects, disagree. Firstly, I believe-"
High diplomat Boris Farvald slams his empty bottle of moonshine on his desk while Amelia is speaking, sending a loud, echoing bang across the room. After a brief, awkward moment of silence, Boris begins to laugh uncontrollably. "Good will[i]? You're genuinely serious?! You expect that [i]ev'ry nation will be 'good-willed' enough to not abuse this crystal currency?!" He pauses and then corrects himself "Er- cryptocurrency I mean. But as I was saying... Why on Earth would you entrust the reins of an internationally-recognized currency on every nation in the World Assembly? What about the... I don't know... [i]dozens -maybe even hundreds- of invader nations that dedicate themselves to bringing down massive, productive, and benevolent regions that have taken years to develop for the purposes of economic gain, an infamous reputation, and to watch the world burn?!"

[Arotania]

OOC:

OOC:
Cryptocurrencies are not software. There is no source code that can be open. Is that understandable?

But cryptocurrencies are built on open source code, allowing transparency and the ability for others to build off of it.

Cryptocurrencies themselves are not code.
Just like databases. Or HTML. Or e-mail.
They are structured data that can be interacted with. They are not programs. The programs that interacts with the cryptocurrencies (miners, wallets..) can be built as open source. Everyone can write their own programs to interact with a public cryptocurrency.

You skipped over the private cryptocurrency part. Why should they be regulated?
As for your criteria - so you are basically trying to morph some (in your eyes) basic consumer advice for a single category of entities into international legislation? Ignoring its questionable efficacy (you would ban Bitcoin via the founder condition and that is one of the more reputable cryptocurrencies in my eyes), this proposal is still commitee only and therefore illegal. The ~'you are encouraged to allow them but also can totally ban them' parts do nothing compared to the status quo.

Would your private cryptocurrencies be running on the public blockchain?

Your question is nonsensical. We already covered this. There is more than one blockchain.

Doesn't change the fact that they could be implemented as a cryptocurrency. For what reasons should they then be banned?

Again, would these in store cryptocurrencies be on the blockchain? Or would they have a separate trading system?

They would be on a private blockchain. Same as above. You display severe incomprehension of the topic you are trying to legislate.

No, that is not what it means.
Currency supply is determined by the mining algorithms.
Not by the blockchain itself.
This doesn't bode well for your resolution if you don't understand the principles that are involved.

Is the supply determined by a central bank?

This again... A central bank could issue their own cryptocurrency, defining its algorithmical parameters, and thereby control its supply.