The boom in cryptocurrencies and their underlying technology is becoming too big for central banks, long the guardian of official money, to ignore.
Until recently, officials at major central banks were happy to watch as pioneers in the field progressed by trial and error, safe in the knowledge that it was dwarfed by roughly US$5 trillion circulating daily in conventional currency markets.
However, now, as officials turn an eye toward the increasingly pervasive technology, the risk is that they are reacting too late to both the pitfalls and the opportunities presented by digital coinage.
Illustration: Yusha
“Central banks cannot afford to treat cybercurrencies as toys to play with in a sandbox,” said Andrew Sheng (沈聯濤), chief adviser to the China Banking Regulatory Commission and Distinguished Fellow of the Asia Global Institute at the University of Hong Kong. “It is time to realize that they are the real barbarians at the gate.”
Bitcoin — the largest and best-known digital currency — and its peers pose a threat to the established money system by effectively circumventing it.
Money as we know it depends on the authority of the state for credibility, with central banks typically managing its price and/or quantity. Cryptocurrencies skirt all that and instead rely on their supposedly unhackable technology to guarantee value.
If they do not get a handle on bitcoin and their ilk, and more people adopt them, central banks could see an erosion of their control over the money supply. The solution might be in the old adage: If you cannot beat them, join them.
The People’s Bank of China has done trial runs of its prototype cryptocurrency, taking it a step closer to being the first major central bank to issue digital money.
The Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank (ECB) have launched a joint research project which studies the possible use of a distributed ledger — the technology that underpins cryptocurrencies — for market infrastructure.
The Dutch central bank has created its own cryptocurrency — for internal circulation only — to better understand how it works, and former US Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, who has said digital currencies show “long-term promise,” will be the keynote speaker at a blockchain and banking conference next month hosted by Ripple, the start-up behind the fourth-largest digital currency.
Russia, too, has shown interest in ethereum, the second-largest digital currency, with its central bank deploying a blockchain pilot program.
In the US, both banks and regulators are studying distributed ledger technology, and Fed officials have made a couple of formal speeches on the topic in the past 12 months but have voiced reservations about digital currencies themselves.
Fed Governor Jerome Powell in March said there were “significant policy issues” concerning them that needed further study, including vulnerability to cyberattack, privacy and counterfeiting.
He also cautioned that a central bank digital currency could stifle innovations to improve the existing payments system.
At the same time, central bankers are obviously wary of the risks posed by alternative currencies — including financial instability and fraud.
One example: The Tokyo-based Mt. Gox exchange collapsed spectacularly in 2014 after disclosing that it lost hundreds of millions of US dollars worth of bitcoin.
However, for all their theoretical tinkering, official-money guardians have largely stood by as digital currencies have taken off. The explosion in initial coin offerings, or ICOs, is evidence.
Investors have poured hundreds of millions of US dollars into the digital currency market this year.
The US dollar value of the 20 biggest cryptocurrencies is about US$150 billion, according to data from Coinmarketcap.com.
Bitcoin itself has soared more than 380 percent this year and hit a record — but it is also prone to wild swings, like a 50 percent slump at the end of 2013.
“At a global level, there is an urgent need for regulatory clarity given the growth of the market,” said Daniel Heller, visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and former head of financial stability at the Swiss National Bank.
Rather than trying to regulate the world of virtual currencies, central banks are mainly warning of risks and attempting to garner some advantage from distributed-ledger technology for their own purposes, like upgrading payments systems.
Carl-Ludwig Thiele, a board member of Germany’s Bundesbank, has described bitcoin as a “niche phenomenon,” but blockchain as far more interesting, if it can be adapted for central-bank use.
In July, Austria’s Ewald Nowotny said the he is open to new technologies, but does not believe that will lead to a new currency, and that dealing in bitcoin is effectively “gambling.”
There could also be a monetary policy aspect to consider.
ECB Governing Council member Jan Smets in December last year said that a central-bank digital currency could give policymakers more leeway when interest rates are negative.
Policymakers have long been concerned that if they cut rates too low, people will simply hoard cash. The ECB’s deposit rate is minus-0.4 percent.
Other central banks see the uses of distributed ledger technology but worry about the abuses virtual money can be put to outside the official system — like criminal money-laundering and the sale of illegal goods. That is not to mention the risk that virtual currencies could pose to the rest of the financial system if the bubble were to pop.
Bank of England Governor Mark Carney — who has said blockchain shows “great promise” — also warned regulators this year to keep on top of developments in financial technology if they want to avoid a 2008-style crisis.
While Mt. Gox cast a shadow over bitcoin in Japan, it now has many supporters in the world’s third-biggest economy.
The Japanese Parliament in April passed a law making it a legal method of payment. Japan’s largest banks have invested in bitcoin exchanges and small-cap stocks linked to the cryptocurrency or its underlying technology have rallied this year as it begins to win favor with some retailers.
With the nation’s Financial Services Agency responsible for bitcoin’s regulation, the Bank of Japan remains focused on studying its distributed ledger technology.
“Central banks are not yet ready for regulating digital currencies,” said Xiao Geng (肖耿), a professor of finance and public policy at the University of Hong Kong. “But they have to in the future since unregulated digital currencies are prone to crime and Ponzi-type speculation.”
To be sure, the attraction of virtual currencies for many remains speculation, rather than for households or companies buying and selling goods.
“It is a fad that will die down and it will be used by less than 1 percent of consumers and accepted by even fewer merchants,” said Sumit Agarwal of Georgetown University, who was previously a senior financial economist at the US Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. “Even if we can make the digital currency safe it has many hurdles.”
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
In 2009, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) made a welcome move to offer in-house contracts to all outsourced employees. It was a step forward for labor relations and the enterprise facing long-standing issues around outsourcing. TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) once said: “Anything that goes against basic values and principles must be reformed regardless of the cost — on this, there can be no compromise.” The quote is a testament to a core belief of the company’s culture: Injustices must be faced head-on and set right. If TSMC can be clear on its convictions, then should the Ministry of Education
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) provided several reasons for military drills it conducted in five zones around Taiwan on Monday and yesterday. The first was as a warning to “Taiwanese independence forces” to cease and desist. This is a consistent line from the Chinese authorities. The second was that the drills were aimed at “deterrence” of outside military intervention. Monday’s announcement of the drills was the first time that Beijing has publicly used the second reason for conducting such drills. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is clearly rattled by “external forces” apparently consolidating around an intention to intervene. The targets of
RSS