financetechnologyeconomyinvestmentpolicyprivacy
Cryptocurrency should not be adopted as mainstream money.
Frequent boom–bust cycles and structural flaws in the crypto ecosystem undermine its usefulness as money and raise stability risks.
Illicit-finance concerns persist; global AML/CFT standards require stringent controls on virtual assets and service providers.
Energy use is significant for proof-of-work networks, with Bitcoin’s electricity consumption tracked at country-scale levels.
Cross-border fees remain high; open networks aim to lower remittance costs and speed settlement where banking access is limited.
Public blockchains enable censorship-resistant, programmable transactions; policymakers note potential efficiency and inclusion benefits alongside risks.
Tokenization and crypto infrastructure can catalyze new financial services, with expected gains in efficiency, settlement speed, and access.
Skeptics argue that volatility, structural weaknesses, illicit-finance risks, and energy use make cryptocurrency ill-suited for everyday money. Supporters counter that borderless, programmable systems could reduce remittance costs, resist censorship, and enable tokenized finance—if robust policy safeguards manage the risks.
Since Bitcoin’s 2009 launch, crypto expanded from payments to DeFi and tokenization, with repeated boom–bust cycles prompting global policy responses. Standards bodies (e.g., FATF) emphasize AML/CFT compliance, while central banks and institutions assess risks and potential benefits, including more efficient cross-border transfers and asset tokenization.