7 months ago

I will talk about the prospect of "China Libra" and "Central Bank Self-research Currency" first, and then briefly talk about the impact on the country according to the characteristics of the blockchain.

Many of the answers mentioned in the "Chinese version of Libra against dollar hegemony" are not so easy to achieve. Libra is characterized by a centralized chain of super-sovereign encrypted digital currencies. There are three key words in this: alliance chain, centralization and super-sovereignty.

The alliance chain plus centralization is popular, that is, "democratic centralism." For end users, Libra is centralized, managed by the Libra Foundation, a unified entity that manages its asset collateral and day-to-day operations; but within the Libra Foundation it is democratic, albeit a Facebook-initiated Libra Alliance, but in In Libra's alliance chain, each core node is equal, and facebook does not exceed the chain permissions of other nodes. If there is no information on the blockchain that is transparent and non-tamperable, I will set up a server on Facebook alone. To do so, issue a mortgaged corporate bond, VISA, MasterCard, Paypal, all of you come to participate - this is almost It is impossible. The business competition between these giants is very fierce. Some even overlap with Facebook. It is obviously impossible for them to believe in Facebook as a brainwashing. It can be said that it is precisely because of the existence of the alliance chain technology that the Libra Foundation has become a possibility (without considering the regulatory factors).

As a Libra issuer, the Foundation is not a sovereign country, but according to Facebook's design, Libra should be an independent foreign exchange variety, freely exchanged in the market, so Libra is also called super-sovereign currency.

These three characteristics, in fact, if they are dominated by the government, are no longer a similar Libra. Because the country's level of existence can only be other countries, then if the Chinese government establishes a chain of alliances, then its nodes can only be central banks of other countries. So what relationship should the People’s Bank of China and other central banks have in the alliance chain? If the central bank is above it and has a much higher weight than other participants, then the motivation for other countries to join is greatly reduced. Why should other central banks of sovereign states join the Chinese-led alliance chain? How does it benefit the dollar hegemony at the same time?

And if it is modeled after Libra, the central banks in the chain are completely equal, which means that the People’s Bank of China and the central bank of Uzbekistan and the central bank of Tajikistan will vote the same in the chain, which is equivalent to a new non-permanent member of the Security Council. The currency, the United Nations, is undoubtedly a huge price for the sponsor China, and there is a danger of losing the right to speak in the future.

And the central banks of the countries are originally the issuers of legal tenders, and there is no super-sovereign currency. If they are placed on the alliance chain, it is actually equivalent to establishing a unified settlement currency area. Whether other countries are willing to participate in the integration of this deep monetary system is also a variable. So Libra's idea can have a Chinese version, but it is more suitable for companies, not for direct direct government or central bank.

Of course, if the purpose is to establish a unified settlement currency area, that is another matter. For example, Mundell once proposed the idea of ​​a "Asian dollar", a unified currency in Asia, but it is obviously a big obstacle to its realization. Then the existence of the alliance chain between the central banks is easier to establish mutual trust between the central banks than without the alliance chain. In a word—the alliance chain makes alliances between companies and companies and countries more likely to happen.

The second is the digital currency that the central bank has researched. The central bank’s digital currency, at least for now, will be more in the sense of inter-bank settlement. The distributed accounting, non-tamperable and real-time recording of the blockchain is not without cost, and its cost is the efficiency of accounting. The use of a coalition chain between financial institutions, banks and central banks to record the settlement process makes the financial system more transparent to the central bank and more conducive to regulation. For the terminal, it is difficult to apply the encrypted digital currency to the consumer in the short term, which is determined by the limitations of the technology. Of course, it is not excluded that in the future, advances in technology will enable distributed accounting to reach the current level of Alipay's response. At that time, it was the time when everyone had a central bank digital currency in their wallet. Prior to this, the central bank’s digital currency was still operating in the background.

Although the decentralized bitcoin was born in the blockchain, the blockchain is in essence beneficial to the country's ability to control the economy, politics, and culture. In this sense, it is not an exaggeration to say that the country’s strategic level.

A popular example can be given. In the non-blockchain, many records have the potential for tampering. It can be said that we live in a thin or dense "fog". With the multi-node blockchain, it is extremely difficult to modify the record after the winding. It seems that the decentralized trust is established. In fact, it is just a "safe island". It is equivalent to using a blower somewhere, blowing the fog around, and vacating a clean and clear area, nothing more. In fact, the thick fog never dissipated, but it is even thicker around the safe island.

Why do you say that? We can take food safety as an example. Some people say that after the blockchain, the food is recorded from the origin to the sales, so you can sit back and relax. Is this really true? In fact, it’s not a big deal. Because the so-called "records" are still recorded, people can make lie from the beginning, record the chain, and then use people's trust in the blockchain to make it easier to earn illegal profits. If there is no supervision mechanism for the "record" itself, there is no difference between the blockchain record and the credibility of the manual record using the excel form, because the source information cannot be guaranteed to be true.

Because the blockchain is a safe island of information, once it is on the chain, it is extremely difficult to tamper with, so it can gain more people's trust. Therefore, the information transmission from the "chain" to the "chain" becomes extremely important and needs a stronger one. A strong monitoring and enforcement system to ensure that this process is true and effective. So who is going to take on this role? Obviously the government. By connecting the links and information between the chain and the chain, the government can gain a comprehensive understanding of the national, economic, and ideological information that has never been obtained since the history of civilization. For example, the above mentioned central bank digital currency that can only exist in the settlement area because of limitations, if one day overcomes this technical problem, or our network speed has enabled our technology redundancy to bear distributed accounting The loss caused, everyone can use the central bank's digital currency like Alipay now, then the word "banknotes" will become history, the central bank will directly understand the cost of each cent of each citizen. At this level, money laundering, tax evasion and tax evasion in the financial sense will now be a thing of the past – taxation will become a smart contract – how much money is earned, and how much tax is paid, which is calculated and deducted directly from smart contracts. And behaviors like financial crimes may continue to exist, but will be done primarily through hackers rather than through financial practitioners, accountants or lawyers.

In this sense, the characteristics of the blockchain are in fact very compatible with the traditional Chinese view of strong government. The blockchain has a role to play and relies heavily on a strong and effective executive to ensure the correctness of the information on its chain. (Unless a purely chain transaction, like Bitcoin, does not involve any information under the chain). This may be the “national strategy” level, and the blockchain acts as a core technology. Of course, this change will not happen overnight. In fact, as more and more industries use blockchains to record information, the corresponding government regulatory and executive departments will slowly change to better utilize the characteristics of the blockchain to enhance the efficiency and implementation of government departments. force.

The blockchain born for the purpose of decentralization can only exert its true power by relying on the existence of a powerful centralized government. This is not an interesting part of technology.


No Comment Yet.