Seu dinheiro está em risco em nossa sociedade digital.

Sou assinante e recomendo que você seja também da newsletter do MIT de blockchain, a Chain Letter. Nela, sempre, um overview desse mundo que vai invadir todo o Mundo. Aqui, um alerta de um especialista: o mundo sem dinheiro (físico) envolve riscos. E as plataformas digitais fechadas altamente seguras são nossa única garantia.

Pyr Marcondes 13 de fevereiro de 2019 - 7h44

- A + A

O especialista Jerry Brito fala porque numa sociedade digital tão aberta e invasiva como a nossa, as transações via plataformas pier-to-pier (eu não tenho nada a ver com isso, just in case …) seguras e encriptadas, regidas pelas regras do blockchain (eletronic cash), são vitais para nossa segurança e da nossa grana.

Veja a síntese do pensamento do Mr. Brito: “Cash is more than a method of payment. It is a fundamental tool for individual privacy and autonomy, and it is necessary for an open society. This paper shows that a cashless economy is a surveillance economy. It also argues that removing the option to freely transact without intermediation greatly limits our economic self-determination, placing our economic lives in the hands of financial institutions and governments. This paper presents several case studies demonstrating the dangers of a completely intermediated payments system and concludes that electronic cash is a tool that should not only be tolerated, but fostered and celebrated”.

Abaixo, texto original da newsletter do MIT. Além de um link para um paper técnico do Britão.

The loss of cash is a threat to open societies. That’s what Jerry Brito, of the blockchain-focused research and advocacy group Coin Center, argues in a new paper (PDF). Cash use is declining rapidly in a number of countries. The citizens of those countries may be losing the ability to keep their transactions private—and that has repercussions for their human rights. “Cash is an ancient technology that allows us to avoid intermediation and thus to preserve the values necessary for the individual liberty and human dignity,” says Brito. That’s why cryptocurrencies designed to let users transact in private, which could act like electronic cash, are so important, he argues.

Payments that must be routed through a bank or other third-party are “by their nature subject to surveillance and control,” says Brito. In China, for instance, dominant electronic payment platforms WeChat Pay and Alibaba’s Alipay collect extensive information about their users’ financial transactions and credit history. The government is likely to use this data as part of a nationwide social credit system it plans to have in place by 2020.

Intermediaries can also censor transactions. For example, US laws aimed at money laundering and terrorist financing put the onus on banks to be extra cautious about sending money to certain countries that are considered to be high-risk. This can make it difficult for charities in war-torn areas to access banking services, says Brito.

He also cites New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s recent call for insurance companies and banks in the state to stop doing business with the National Rifle Association. “While the governor cannot simply ban the NRA’s speech, he clearly feels less constrained to threaten intermediaries he regulates and whose continued operations depend on permission from the state,” writes Brito. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a brief in support of the NRA.

Complete reliance on financial intermediaries is at odds with individual autonomy, and thus open societies, argues Brito, which makes cash a vital “escape valve.” Countries like Sweden, where the use of cash is rapidly dwindling, are already wrestling with how to maintain an open society once it’s gone for good.

“Crypto Mom” resurfaces. Hester “Crypto Mom” Peirce is back, this time to talk crypto-token sales, also called initial coin offerings (ICOs). Peirce, one of five commissioners of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, first earned the affection of Bitcoin fans last July, after she criticized her agency’s decision to reject a proposal from the Winklevoss brothers to list a Bitcoin-based exchange traded fund (ETF). She argued that blocking the ETF could harm innovation. Enthusiasts began calling Peirce “Crypto Mom,” in part because she seemed like a powerful advocate in government, and in part because for similar reasons they had already dubbed the chairman Commodity Futures Trading Commission, J. Christopher Giancarlo, “Crypto Dad.”

In a speech on Friday, Peirce again warned the SEC about the risk of harming innovation, particularly if it misapplies securities laws to tokens. The decades-old laws are supposed to govern the relationship between corporations and individual investors; they require corporations to disclose certain relevant, or “material” information to investors. But the decentralized nature of blockchain projects means there might not always be someone in charge who has a full grasp of all the relevant information, she said.

Peirce noted that some projects may simply not work under existing securities laws. She cited Basis, a well-funded stablecoin project that shut down and repaid investors after its lawyers determined that it would be too difficult to comply with SEC regulations. Further clarification is needed, she admitted, adding that the SEC is working on “some supplemental guidance.” Meanwhile, she said, Congress could resolve the issue by simply creating legislation that creates a new framework for at least some digital assets. As for the SEC: “We might be able to draw clearer lines once we see more blockchain projects mature.”