We are already at the halfway point of the fourth month of the current year 2021. Cryptocurrencies continue to occupy areas of political and economic news headlines as well as the relations of technological concepts to be promoted or studied from fields such as technology and finance, in one way or another.
It could be that Bitcoin, the first cryptocurrency, is already close to $62,000 dollars. In fact, there are those, like Katie Stockton of Fairlead Strategies, who dare to predict that in the short term, it could be close to seven tens of thousands.
Ethereum is also experiencing a good trend, which could put it at a value equivalence of $5,000 by the end of May (the ratio quotient between the current market value of Ether and the average amount with which its current buyers bet could reach five points).
Moreover, in line with the weekly news, it is not worth underplaying the relevance of the entry of the Coinbase platform on the stock exchange (NASDAQ), with good expectations, as it closed on its first day with a price of $328.28, while the initial price per reference share was around 250 units.
This event would be significant because we could establish “relations” with Wall Street, as has already happened with Goldman Sachs, which accepts payments in Bitcoin. Of course, without forgetting other movements such as those of Tesla, of which tokenized shares are already being sold with commissions at 0%. In any case, after this contextualization of current affairs, it must be said that the crux of this article is none other than to highlight, conveniently but unfortunately, the umpteenth unease and discomfort exhibited by entities committed to the idea of the Single Global State.
The World Economic Forum must want to seal its anti-ownership commitment
As a reminder, at the beginning of the year, the World Economic Forum (WEF), at its annual conclave in Davos (Switzerland), taking advantage of the “extraordinary situation” caused by the coronavirus coded as COVID-19, put all its emphasis on the project known as “Great Reset”.
We are not going to explain here all the contents of the aforementioned agenda, but we will recall that the intention to end private property (a natural and intrinsic right of every person, which is a sine qua non condition for the enjoyment of freedom in a good sense, alien to the problematic prevailing positivism) was made quite clear.
The objective in question would be set for the year 2030 and, as it should be known, one of the objectives of socialism is to liquidate private property, whose attacks have an intensity that varies according to the strength of application of such a revolutionary and highly immoral compendium, characterized by centralized planning.
With it, the end of market freedom, with the collaboration of large corporations more concerned with their political perks than resolving the interests that correspond to society in a free and spontaneously ordered manner, using that mechanism of social interaction known as “market“.
Therefore, it is only natural that there is concern that there are more than mere escape routes concerning the attempt to control monetary property (the same one that assures one a considerable margin of maneuver for savings, consumption, and investment), with the help of the misapplication part of the new technological advances.
Insistence on the regulation of cryptocurrencies
Recently, in an interview with Bloomberg, the WEF’s head of blockchain and digital assets issues, Sheila Warren, implied that in the face of increased activity and other movements in general that are related to cryptocurrencies, there would be greater signals for increased policy regulations.
In any case, this is nothing new. In December 2020, WEF colleague Sumadha Deshmukh and Sofia Arend, senior analyst at GBBC, felt that the absence of technical standards and regulations was holding back the technical development of blockchain (the technology on which these booming cryptocurrencies are based).
They, therefore, called for regulation by governments, which, according to the WEF, should by no means be limited to a national level. In 2017, when there were only progressive attempts to limit the number of banknotes to be circulated in cash, this same body called for a “global regulation“.
Under certain lack of knowledge, since they ignored the tamperproofing mechanism (to avoid modifications in the already existing and chained blocks), the existence of metadata and encryption techniques based on SHA (Secure Hash Algorithm) and validation techniques such as proof-of-stake or proof-of-work, they implied that there was no verification, but disorder.
Obviously, they took advantage of all this to issue the typical warnings, related to cybercrime and terrorism. But it is perhaps somewhat paradoxical that they want to link it to money laundering when creating new tokens depends on a complex process, not to mention self-monitoring mechanisms such as halving.
Evidently, the blockchain represents a political revolution “well understood”
Basically, all these reactions of the globalist elites come to corroborate what was to be expected, i.e. that blockchains would put them in check, due to their distributed and decentralized essence, independent of nodes that together or as a unit perform the role of a “central supervisor”.
Let us not forget that decentralized functioning cryptocurrencies jeopardize what they seek with the suppression of cash (let us not forget their eagerness to merge banks which, in turn, understand that they need more engineers than bankers and clerks).
So, in view of the various alternatives and opportunities for one to squeeze one’s will and entrepreneurial call, in case of seeking freedom and respect for property, it is logical that perhaps one does not opt for “global currency” models that allow to curtail your freedom and invade in integrity your privacy by monitoring you excessively.