Jean-Pascal Tranié, chairman of an investment fund and Jean-François Serval , chairman of an audit group
From a value of 10 euros in early 2013 to more than 580 euros (800 dollars) at the end of the year, bitcoin has become a subject of monetary buzz. This is not without reasons because the innovation that it brings deserves to be underlined: it is the first general public currency whose support is only digital and dematerialized, in line with the new uses of the younger generations. Moreover, most central banks that issue and control the units of account (dollars, euros, or other …) have felt obliged to issue notes on the dangers of bitcoin, thereby legitimizing its importance. The financial stake seems second-rate: with a maximum of 21 million bitcoins to issue, this represents only a small billion euros of valuation at the current price. But, beyond the increased concern for anticipation since the 2007 crisis, de facto in a situation of competition with the creation of parallel currencies.
Bitcoin meets the traditional criteria of a currency whose reality is measured by the satisfaction of needs of use: unit of account, intermediary of the exchanges, reserve of purchasing power. Bitcoin also embodies, despite a relative success, a form of public revolt against state currencies, bringing a breath of freedom that does not seem to weigh on the indispensable security of the model. Bitcoin is inherently independent of central banks, which are accountable for meeting the monetary needs of their national economies. Monetary decisions, which escape the public, are increasingly the result of complex transnational mechanisms and obscure accounting rules for financial institutions and insurance companies.
The formula of bitcoin, a clever technical innovation that responds to the glaring and dangerous weaknesses of the current system, is a warning about the lack of reflection on monetary needs, insufficiently covered by the international law in force. The regulation of the use of dollars, including dollar-denominated financial instruments outside the US monetary space, is a thorny subject. The “digitization” of the economy is changing the dimensions of space and the problem. The use of money, however, remains a legal fact different from the currency itself. The anonymity of bitcoin, which is so reliable for transactions, does not legitimize the financing of illicit and reprehensible operations at the state level (criminal activities, oligopolistic behavior, money laundering, etc.). discoveries of American law).
The central banks, the democratic institutions that should have controlled them and did not do it, and the politicians did not perceive the monetary generalization and the loss of sovereignty that it entailed. On the contrary, all have helped to encourage an unbridled distribution of credit and quasi-monetary instruments that jeopardize the financial system, including the banking system. The reality of the crisis forced them to intervene late after the event. The emergence of bitcoin is part of this lack of precedence, the role of which does not belong to pre-established institutions. The question of money goes beyond the respect of national laws and this is the second difficulty raised by bitcoin. Indeed, money is the lung of the economy and the confidence of economic agents towards it, without which the transaction system risks implosion, requires a guarantor of last resort. This is why states have had no choice but to support the banking system in the 2008 crisis. In the case of bitcoin, there is no such guarantee. Bitcoin is not the latest attempt at virtual money, and international institutions (including the G20 and the International Monetary Fund) should reflect on a new international law in this area. Meanwhile, bitcoin users take unknown risks if they see for them something other than speculation that their financial means allow them This is why states have had no choice but to support the banking system in the 2008 crisis. In the case of bitcoin, there is no such guarantee. Bitcoin is not the latest attempt at virtual money, and international institutions (including the G20 and the International Monetary Fund) should reflect on a new international law in this area. Meanwhile, bitcoin users take unknown risks if they see for them something other than speculation that their financial means allow them This is why states have had no choice but to support the banking system in the 2008 crisis. In the case of bitcoin, there is no such guarantee. Bitcoin is not the latest attempt at virtual money, and international institutions (including the G20 and the International Monetary Fund) should reflect on a new international law in this area. Meanwhile, bitcoin users take unknown risks if they see for them something other than speculation that their financial means allow them and international institutions (including the G20 and the International Monetary Fund) should reflect on a new international law in this area. Meanwhile, bitcoin users take unknown risks if they see for them something other than speculation that their financial means allow them and international institutions (including the G20 and the International Monetary Fund) should reflect on a new international law in this area. Meanwhile, bitcoin users take unknown risks if they see for them something other than speculation that their financial means allow them
