Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who also carefully watches over and manages the Singapore Monetary Authority (MAS), recently responded to a gaggle of questions from the government, which focused mainly on cryptocurrency. The Prime Minister made it very clear that 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 are growing internationally. It is too early to say if they will succeed,” Shanmugaratnam stated in response to questions from parliament.
With an opposing view on cryptocurrency, Agustin Carstens, head of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), came down on the market side 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 or 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 seem, at this point, like envy.
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, in some way, not be real. 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?”
