adminWhen the apocalyptic riders trot again
The four apocalyptic riders. Paintings by Vasnetsov Viktor (1887), photographed by Włodek Głażewski, divided via Flickr.com. License: public domain
Climate, blowing, money laundering: In the past few weeks, the media have brought a lot of criticism of Bitcoin again. We take a look at some articles that bring the usual allegations to our favorite currency to the boil.
It starts now? Now begins the moment that everyone is waiting for, but nobody really wanted to reach?
The media, politicians and fund managers have been against Bitcoin since 2011. They were reliably wrong, and the bitcoiners, who sometimes contradict them quietly and sometimes loudly, were right. But this time – this time it will certainly be different. This time the media, politicians and fund managers will definitely be right if they say the same as since 2011.
But from the front and in the width: The last one to two weeks have rinsed one or the other article again in which the agitation is agreed against Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. Such articles mostly appear in waves, and especially when the course does emeprioles, it is good that such articles warn people against burning money uninformed.
The arguments have always been the same. But it seems to me that something has changed. In the past, such articles were happy to drip before the mockery, small speaking, trivialization. Today they smell of something else – for outrage, anger and anger, maybe even after fear.
We take a look at the fuda of the week (Fear, UncertaAnty, Doubt).
The climate, the climate, the climate
Among the apocalyptic riders that lead the Bitcoin opponents on the reins, climate change is at the forefront. The Süddeutsche Zeitung rises to demand that the world will tax Bitcoin Bittehrehr the world.
The reasoning is not too complicated: Bitcoin has gained in value, but this “alone does not make Bitcoin a success story”. Because nothing has changed in the technical weaknesses, which the author does not get completely wrong and not quite right, but very concise: “The higher the market value, the higher the power consumption”. In the meantime, Bitcoin has more electricity than Sweden, yes, a single transaction burns as much as a single household-in a whole year. The comparison may be nonsensical, but it sounds impressive.
And all of this where you can’t do “much more” with Bitcoin than to hoard the coins. The cryptocurrency, the southern Germans, is “on collision course on all efforts to limit climate change”. The author admits that Bitcoin currently has only 0.6 percent of the worldwide – and one wants to add without even talking from agriculture with their methane -prone cattle that electricity does not even make a sixth of global energy consumption – but can forecast southern German, “this value quickly rise”. So even if there is still no real, but at best a symbolic need for action, something is urgently done!
Another problem with Bitcoin is that the miners also have an infinite hunger for microchips, but the factories in Asia can only produce limited. So it happens that the chips from Chinese factories end up in Chinese mining farms, where they convert hydro energy into bitcoins, while there are no longer any enough chips that are left over the world’s oceans and installed in German electric cars to consume the German mixture of wind and coal stream there. Mining does not only drift the electricity consumption, but still ruins the mobility turnover by those corporations, which may be responsible for the current problems than everyone else.
The miners, says the author, who, Bitcoin, could switch to more environmentally friendly procedures, which of course does not mean the common practice to dine the systems through regenerative energies, but probably a change in the consensus salgus, which solves the problem in a fundamental way. Because the miners do not do that because of the bare profit greed -or can -he wants to “give them a good step in the right direction” -by taxes.
Taxes on mining, taxes on the exchange of bitcoins, taxes for the production of mining systems, taxes for their import: The state can “invest part of the exorbitant profits in more sensible things.“What meaningful things China should pay with the tax revenue that arises in this way -the yield in Germany will hardly be worthwhile -but the author does not reveal the curious reader.
After all, the Munich newspaper recognizes that a purely German procedure has little effects and demands that the world are doing in coordination.
The bladder, the bladder, the bladder
The unrestricted classic of the Bitcoin fud is the comparison with tulip bulbs and other objects of speculation bubbles. The press has been tabling this program in regularity since 2013, but without the horrendous losses that were predicted to us have ever become true.
After the media have mostly embarrassed themselves with the disaster forecasts, the bladder rider has hardly been exhausted from its stable recently. But Manager Magazin shows the courage to saddle the old Gaul once more. At some point his hour has to come!
The heavily fluctuating prices – the one in April at 65.000 dollars jumped at less than 50.000 fell and then again at almost 60.$ $ $ – are a crystal -clear sign for this, the magazine knows that Bitcoin “is not suitable for a solid investment.”
The price development three years ago could “look back as a prime example of a speculative bubble, which was initially inflated and then burst,” explains the magazine to its readers. If one or the other is annoyed by this, not three years ago at the summit of the bladder at around 14.The magazine can calm down 000 euros: “Much suggests that the same is currently repeated at the cryptom market”. So there will be another bladder if we don’t understand that.
Then the author compares the Bitcoin bubble with the DOT COM-BUBLE. Most comparisons are lagging, and so if he ignores, for example, that Bitcoin has already put four to five bubbles in the period in which the DOT Com values have recovered-at least 10 years-and that the losses from each of them have corrected themselves in a juicy plus at the latest. While the victims of the first Telekom bubble are still around 80 percent in the minus, the “victims” of the first Bitcoin bubble, i.e. those who bought in June 2011 at 20 euros, are now with a factor in plus that we do not want to talk about.
In order to help the limping comparison on the jumps, the article canceled the homicide hammer that we already know from southern German in other painting: Bitcoin has no real value at all! Behind all those internet tactics that were traveling 20 years ago, such as the “Volksaktie” Telekom or Pets.com, stood “at least still companies with business models”, which could “even theoretically justify strong price increases”.
In the case of cryptocurrencies – no trace of such a potential, as much as you look at! “Even on closer inspection” cannot be recognized “no substantial value”, the author, who apparently took a closer look than the millions of market players who currently rate Bitcoin in their limitless blindness. If reality does not match the theory, then the reality must be wrong!
And because the wrong reality returns to the right theory at some point, it is clear what happens: the bubble will burst. Not whether, but when is the question.
Money laundering, money laundering, money laundering
So far we have had two journalists who also think that it is better to know than bitcoiners and the markets when their guild was around 100 percent wrong in the past.
Third, we now have a fund manager who feels called to lead the third apocalyptic rider into battle in an interview with the Welt am Sonntag: the money laundering.
According to the world, Klaus Koldemorgen is a “star investor” who works for the DWS that is a daughter of Deutsche Bank. In view of this housing, Kaldemorgen should know what he is talking about. Finally, his mother’s company knows how to produce tangible and large-caliber money laundering scandals.
While Deutsche Bank’s German financial supervision is currently demanding stricter measures against money laundering, Starinvestor Kaldemorgen from BaFin therefore requires stricter measures against cryptocurrencies. It’s just just. One hand washes – you already know something: it cannot be approaching, explains Kaldemorgen in the world, “that in our otherwise regulated economy there is a gap where money laundering can be done with impunity and unrestrained.
In addition, Kaldemorgen complains that nobody knew how many bitcoins belong to, which the markets are susceptible to manipulations. Again the image of the pile, which is in the eye of the person, wants to pull the splinter out of his finger. Kaldemorgen, however, is optimistic that the governments all over the world will soon put on the screws – if only because this promises potentially tax revenue in no amount.
Wirtschaftswoche recently blows the same horn. The magazine demonstrates more content -related competence, but, of course, does not have the previously decided message to be clouded.
Bitcoin is “continued to be firmly anchored in the dirty corners of the financial world,” says the author. This is evident, for example, that Bitcoin has fallen by 15 percent for a short time, just at the time when Joe Biden announced that it will be more important against money laundering in the future. No further questions, your honor!
Because the trade is “largely anonymous”, Bitcoin is always at the center of crimes, such as ransomware, the article explains. The author, very unironically, is now very important that she does not close her eyes in front of the other: she realizes that Bitcoin is extremely transparent, and that, according to Chainalysis, “just 0.34 percent of the total value of all crypto transactions” served illegal purposes-and that the share is almost six times higher in the case of the dollar at $ two times.
As a reader, one fears that the article would take a turn at this point, similar to the one that the former CIA director Michael Morell performed in order to say with this that Bitcoin for criminals is the worst ecosystem that could be imagined and that a change from dollar to Bitcoin could exterminate numerous crimes. And while you scroll up again to check whether you have overlooked the question mark in the heading “Bitcoin remains dirty” – in the meantime the author closes her article completely unmoved from this gaping contradiction.
Hats off! Because an author who is not ready to contradict himself only produces dead texts for thoughtless readers!