- During a video panel discussion at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in Singapore, former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton discussed Bitcoin and crypto’s ability to weaken governments.
- Hillary is categorically incorrect when she casually mentions cryptocurrency in her list of threats to her political and economic worldview.
- Hillary revealed her lack of understanding of the difference between Bitcoin and the separate asset class of cryptocurrencies.
On Friday, during a video panel discussion at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum in Singapore, former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton discussed Bitcoin and crypto’s ability to weaken governments.
She said that “When we’re talking about making decisions and trying to be strategic and building alliances, there’s a whole new layer of activity that could be extremely destabilizing and, in the wrong hands or alliances with the wrong people, could be direct threats to many of our nation-states and certainly to global currency markets,”.
She even said that “China appears poised to prevent payment systems such as cryptocurrency from “playing a big role” in the nation because “they recognize, given their nationalism, perhaps earlier than other nations and that this could be a direct threat to sovereignty.”
Hillary warned that “What looks like a very interesting and somewhat exotic effort to literally mine new coins in order to trade with them has the potential for undermining currencies, for undermining the role of the dollar as the reserve currency, for destabilizing nations, perhaps starting with small ones but going much larger.”
Hillary even revealed her lack of understanding of the difference between Bitcoin and the separate asset class of cryptocurrencies by describing this rather hazy threat to nations and multinational corporations. Many politicians do not share this viewpoint. It is not appropriate to use the terms interchangeably.
Bitcoin ensures that anyone with access to the internet has a decentralized, permissionless right to property that cannot be confiscated or censored by any government. Because the Bitcoin network is backward compatible, no one on the network is forced to choose between updating their software or risk losing their money.
Bitcoin is a personal sovereign wealth fund that is not bound by geography. The thousands of other cryptocurrencies are centralized and largely unregulated assets whose protocol can be changed at any time, making property confiscation a real possibility in crypto. Bitcoin and cryptocurrency are two distinct asset classes.
As a result, Hillary is categorically incorrect when she casually mentions cryptocurrency in her list of threats to her political and economic worldview. Cryptocurrencies cannot completely destabilize fiat currencies or nation-states because what they offer is fundamentally the same as fiat, which is an asset that can be debased by governance.
However, Bitcoin alone can and is threatening to dethrone the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Bitcoin poses a serious threat to the theft of property that governments perpetrate on their citizens through taxation and currency debasement at the same time.
Hillary then tangentially mentioned that political and economic disinformation is only going to get worse. It’s unclear what type of economic disinformation she’s referring to. Outside of the Fed’s attempts to cover up inflation by manipulating and redefining the moving-goal-post that is the consumer price index, and wielding public health policy like a political chess piece, it’s difficult to imagine what more socio-economic relevant disinformation there is.
Hillary has been blaming Russian interference along with decisions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for her loss in the U.S. presidential election to Donald Trump for years. What these warnings have to do with her “crypto” talking points is unclear. If she meant to warn the public about Bitcoin, her views are a laughable example of fear, uncertainty, doubt, and not doing her own research.