The Government’s Role in Bitcoin’s Validity Divides Two Celebrities!

Sunday 08 January 2023 ▪ 7:00 ▪
read less – by

Anthony Pompliano and Michael Shellenberger have shown their differences during a debate about the credibility of Bitcoin and the role of government in regulating cryptocurrency. The Bitcoin bull and the author have sharply opposite positions when discussing the role of the state. Their exchange was about the merits of cryptocurrency and the role of government in all of this. If there were still doubts, now everything is clear, cryptocurrency should not even exist for the Challenger, which is quite critical as usual. The idea that Pompliano would not marry and definitely quarreled was heated.

Pompliano and Sheleberger disagree on the validity of bitcoin

Shellenberger destroys the bitcoin and Pompliano becomes the defender

Cryptocurrencies in general, and Bitcoin in particular, continue to fuel debate about their role. Everyone has their own opinion and often the two camps are pitted against each other? On the one hand, the industry has its ardent defenders Anthony Pompliano on the other hand, harsh critics like the author Michael Shellenberger. The latter is dangerous whenever you talk about Bitcoin. Failing to officially ban Bitcoin, he supports the senator’s idea Elizabeth Warren. He proposed a fairly strict law that would standardize the operation of cryptocurrency and the financial system in general.

It should be noted that the senator made this proposal the day after the accident FTX cryptocurrency. to justify his point of view, he believes that regulating cryptocurrency and bitcoin is a waste of time. He’ll make the point by arguing that digital assets shouldn’t get so much attention because they’re not a “real thing.” Shellenberger’s real problem is the stubbornness of bitcoin proponents to avoid government control, even though the government needs to regulate society and protect the weak from the strong.

The government’s role in Bitcoin’s credibility is problematic

As expected, these statements were not to Pompliano’s taste. In a slightly more moderate and unifying tone, he grounds the desire to perpetuate freedom in Bitcoin’s credibility with fundamental principles. Fighting inflation, mistrust of observers acting against the common good. “The government exists to represent the people, the people are not there to serve the government,” he said.

Along with arguments for or against bitcoin, asset forfeiture has also been a focus of debate. The confiscation of approximately 47.5% of bank deposits by the central bank of Cyprus in 2013 is a case in point. A situation that Shellenberger justified by the will of the state to protect the general interest at the expense of subjective interests. Besides, according to Pompliano, freedom is a fundamental right and people have the right to go where they feel good.

The result

FinallyIhe debate between bitcoin enthusiasts and detractors continues to grow. Of course, democratization is obvious, but with the fall of Bitcoin, the complicated year of cryptocurrency, the fall of first-tier platforms such as Infinite Cryptocurrency and FTX, the legitimacy of cryptoassets is slightly biased. The exchange between Shellenberger and Pompliano is only a reflection of everyday occurrences; The issue of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency’s credibility divides it more than it unites.

Get news from the world of cryptocurrencies by subscribing to our new service. newsletter daily and weekly so you don’t miss any of the main Cointribune!

Cédrick Aimé GUELANG OFALABEN avatar

Cédrick Aimé, PhD student in financial law and experienced SEO web editor, covers cryptocurrencies, trading and more. He is naturally involved in the daily blockchain revolution thanks to his articles for the better democratization of DeFi.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *