Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who also carefully watches over and manages the Singapore Monetary Office (MAS), recently responded to a gaggle of questions from government which focused mainly on cryptocurrency. The Prime Minister made it very clear, Singapore will not ban crypto.
In one statement, from nearly over a dozen given, Shanmugaratnam said, “MAS is carefully monitoring these events and the potential risks they pose. So far, there is no strong argument to prohibit trading in cryptocurrencies.” Shooting down widespread speculation of an impending ban, he made it very clear there’s absolutely no reason to.
“Cryptocurrencies are an experiment. The number and different forms of cryptocurrencies is growing internationally. It is too early to say if they will succeed,” Shanmugaratnam stated in response to questions from parliament.
With opposite views on cryptocurrency, Agustin Carstens, head of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), came down on the market and said it was all a bubble waiting to burst. In Germany, Carstens contested, “it (cryptocurrency) has become a combination of a bubble, a Ponzi scheme and an environmental disaster.” Since BIS is more a less the central bank for central banks, it’s not too surprising Carstens came out swinging.
Essentially, there are two very strong, opposite opinions floating around the world of crypto: give the market and currency more time to figure itself out, versus, it’s all a bubble and only valuable to those looking to prey upon investors and fund criminal activities.
The former view, held by nations such as Singapore and India, has helped remedy a market tarnished by desires to regulate and control; while the latter is responsible for the market’s dips and FUD.
Today, nations and their systems of economy and government are anxious to solve the “what to do about cryptocurrency” problem, even though it’s not really, at least on paper, that much of a problem. The bullying and negative conjecture seems, at this point in time, like envy.
As though because of its transparency and decentralized nature, there must be something wrong with crypto. Because it wasn’t initially created or officially endorsed by a government, it must not be real in some way. Or, not legitimate on some level. The “it’s all too good to be true,” sentiment is starting to feel more like, “why didn’t we think of this”?
