Hillary Clinton fears Bitcoin may undermine the dollar as the world’s reserve currency
Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke about the ability of Bitcoin and crypto to weaken governments.
Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton spoke about the ability of Bitcoin and crypto to weaken governments in video round table Friday at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in Singapore.
Hillary warned, “What looks like a very interesting and somewhat exotic effort to literally mine new coins to trade with them has the potential to undermine currencies, undermine the dollar’s role as a reserve currency, destabilize nations, perhaps by starting with small ones but going much bigger.
In describing this rather vague threat to nations and multinational corporations, Hillary betrayed the fact that she didn’t know the difference between Bitcoin and the distinct asset class of cryptocurrencies. A lot of politicians don’t. The terms should not be used interchangeably.
Bitcoin guarantees anyone with access to the Internet a decentralized, unauthorized property right that cannot be confiscated or censored by any government. No one on the Bitcoin network is forced to choose between updating their software or risking losing their wealth, it is backwards compatible. Bitcoin is a geographically agnostic personal sovereign wealth fund. The other thousands of cryptocurrencies are centralized and largely unregulated assets whose protocol can be changed at any time. Thus, in crypto, the threat of confiscation of assets persists. Bitcoin and crypto are completely different asset classes.
Therefore, when Hillary casually throws out crypto with her list of threats to her political and economic worldview, she is adamantly wrong. Cryptocurrencies cannot undermine fiat currencies or nation states because what they offer is basically the same as fiat, which is an asset that can and is degraded by governance.
However, Bitcoin, and Bitcoin only, absolutely can and is disrupting the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Bitcoin is a very real threat to property theft perpetrated by governments on their people simultaneously through taxation and currency debasement.
“Nation states need to pay more attention to the rise of asymmetric power centers,” Hillary said. Ironically, Bitcoin’s threats to nation states lie in its decentralization.
Hillary went on to mention that disinformation in the political and economic sphere will only get worse. We do not know what disinformation in the economic sphere she refers to. It is hard to imagine what more relevant socio-economic disinformation exists outside of the Fed’s attempts to cover up inflation by manipulating and redefining the moving goal of the Consumer Price Index, and by applying public health policy as a piece of chess policy.
Hillary is unlikely to be referring to the misinformation or outright misunderstandings spread by governments and environmental groups about Bitcoin.
The former presidential candidate turned speaker also warned that a ‘rise of artificial intelligence’ would threaten nation states without providing a context or definition for artificial intelligence, and in a diplomat’s manner typical, without offering a workable solution to any of these perceived waves. threats.
Hillary’s comments came while criticizing Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing him of deploying “a very large stable of hackers and those dealing with disinformation and cyber warfare.”
“With his oligarchic coterie, he has used many non-state actors for personal and nationalist gain, and I think that is going to become a growing threat,” she said at the Singapore forum.
Hilla blames Russian interference as well as Federal Bureau of Investigation rulings for his defeat in the US presidential election to Donald Trump for years. What these caveats have to do with its “crypto” talking points is unclear. Hillary looks at the windmills. If she wanted to warn the public against Bitcoin, her opinions are just a laughable example of fear, uncertainty, doubt and not doing your own research.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.