Governments will not allow Bitcoin on a large scale and they will win – regulation Bitcoin News

Harvard economics professor and former International Monetary Fund (IMF) chief economist Kenneth Rogoff believes governments will not allow Bitcoin to flourish on a grand scale. “The regulation will come into force. The government will win, ”he said. The professor also discussed the likelihood of a bitcoin bubble.

Harvard professor warns of strict crypto regulation

Harvard University Professor Kenneth Rogoff shared some thoughts on Bitcoin regulation in an interview with Bloomberg Surveillance last week. Rogoff is the Thomas D. Cabot Professor of Public Policy and Professor of Economics at Harvard University. From 2001 to 2003 he was chief economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

“It’s speculative,” he began. “I was a bitcoin skeptic and the price has certainly gone up.” However, Rogoff argued, “There is kind of an ultimate question of what the benefit is. Is it only valuable because people think it is valuable? It’s a bubble that would explode. “

He continued, “I can see Bitcoin being used in failed states. It is conceivable that it could be of use in a dystopian future. ”Still, he insisted,“ I think governments will not allow large-scale pseudonymous transactions. They just won’t let it. “The Harvard economics professor stated:

Regulation will come. The government will win. It doesn’t matter what technology it is.

“Well, I think in the long run the bubble will burst if there is no benefit. I hope there isn’t such a valuable benefit, but I suppose it’s a hedge against dystopia, ”he continued.

Rogoff was then asked, “Would you advise Treasury Secretary Yellen that the US should proactively introduce this regulation that could collapse the price of cryptocurrency?”

He simply replied, “Yes, that’s just right across the board. It has to be regulated … I think the governments are in. It’s not used that much, and I suspect that while Bitcoin lobbyists have been successful in some places, it won’t last. “

Rogoff has long been a bitcoin skeptic. In 2018, he told CNBC that the cryptocurrency would be worth closer to $ 100 than $ 100,000 in a decade. “Basically, if you exclude the possibility of money laundering and tax evasion, the real benefit as a transaction instrument is very small,” said the former IMF chief economist.

Last week, Joe Biden’s election for US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated that cryptocurrencies are primarily used for illicit funding. She later softened her stance and vowed to work with the Federal Reserve Board and other regulators to implement “effective” crypto regulation. A week earlier, the President of the European Central Bank (ECB), Christine Lagarde, urged countries to regulate Bitcoin, claiming the crypto had “done some weird deals” and some “totally reprehensible money laundering activity”. Despite regulatory approval, an industry report found that crime accounted for only 0.34% of all crypto transactions in 2020.

Meanwhile, several U.S. lawmakers have said governments shouldn’t try to stop Bitcoin. MP Patrick McHenry previously said:

Because of the nature of Bitcoin’s technology, governments cannot and should not kill it.

Additionally, the US now has a Bitcoin-friendly legislature. Senator Cynthia Lummis has vowed to make sure Congress understands that Bitcoin is a great store of value. She is a hover who believes that Bitcoin is “very promising and could rise to the US dollar as a viable alternative store of value on both an institutional and personal level.”

What do you think of the Harvard professor’s opinion on Bitcoin? Let us know in the comments section below.

Photo credit: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons

Disclaimer of liability: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement for any product, service, or company. does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author are directly or indirectly responsible for any damage or loss caused or allegedly caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

Comments are closed.