Transcription below
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO STUDY THE HOLDING OF BULLION AND VIRTUAL CURRENCY AND THEIR POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND WHETHER TO ESTABLISH A NORTH CAROLINA BULLION DEPOSITORY FOR SUCH ASSETS.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: SECTION 1. The Department of State Treasurer shall conduct a study that examines (i) the process of acquiring, securely storing, insuring, and liquidating any investment metal bullion as defined in G.S. 105-164.13(69), such as gold, and virtual currency as defined in G.S. 53-208.42(20), such as Bitcoin, that may be held on behalf of the State, (ii) the expected impact of allocating a portion of the General Fund to investment metal bullion and virtual currency to hedge against inflation and systemic credit risks, reduce overall portfolio volatility, and increase portfolio returns over time, and (iii) the costs, benefits, and security of utilizing a privately managed depository or another state's depository or creating a State-administered depository in North Carolina to serve as the custodian, guardian, and administrator of certain investment metal bullion and virtual currency that may be transferred to or otherwise acquired by this State or an agency, a political subdivision, or another instrumentality of this State and to provide a repository for investors to use for such assets. The Department of State Treasurer shall 18 report on the results of the study, along with any legislative or other recommendations, to the 19 Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations by January 1, 2024.
SECTION 2. There is appropriated from the General Fund to the Department of State Treasurer the nonrecurring sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for the 2023-2024 fiscal year to conduct the study required by this act.
SECTION 3. Section 2 of this act becomes effective July 1, 2023. The remainder of 24 this act is effective when it becomes law.
regardless of your personal take on energy backed, distributed, global, immutable ledgers... they are not beanie babies (or legos or tulips or any other analogy that has been used to glibly describe them).
not looking to argue, but well informed, thoughtful discussion is welcomed in the appropriate venue - this is probably not the place.
Agreed. At least with Beanie Babies there’s physical security and limited risk of market manipulation.
This is much more like investing in magic beans sold by Bernie Madoff.
market manipulation exists with any asset, including national currencies. I would also take the security of self custodied crypto by a long shot.
edit: your madoff comment impies an intrinsic ponzi scheme that simply does not exist in genuine cryptocurrencies. we can discuss the distribution dynamics of current crypto, but thats not an.inherent ponzi.
Bitcoin is absolutely a ponzi scheme. An "unregulated" market does not exist for any longer then it takes someone to manipulate it. Are all Crypto Currencies inherently ponzi scemes? No. But without central regulation and enforcement, they will all eventually become one.
why are you conflating bitcoin (or any other "hard" cryptcurrency) with a "market"? I completely agree wrt unregulated markets (its a s*it-show) and I think most people involved would say regulated markets are vital, but the underlying asset being traded is not a ponzi.
can you name another class of asset that allows for the level of frictionless utility that a real cryptocurrency does? there is intrinsic value in the attributes of real crypto - that is what I think we are discussing here.
it may come to be that "hard" cryptocurrency is unable to survive all of the shenanigans that plague all markets and, if so, lessons will be learned - but to call the concept (or the technology that supports it), as is done regularly in these spaces, a ponzi or a beanie baby is simply not correct, imo.
edit: word
I think calling crypto a "currency" is misleading. A currency requires the efforts of a regulatory authority to ensure that the money supply remains healthy, through issuing new currency, and removing old currency. Crypto is most accurately defined as a commodity. But really that is beside my point.
The crux of my aversion to crypto was said by you: "it may come to be that “hard” cryptocurrency is unable to survive all of the shenanigans that plague all markets" Ultimately crypto, as a commodity and not a currency, is subject to market "shenanigans." Market's cannot exist without regulation, and a commodity that by design doesn't have rigorous regulations applied to it, will eventually become a ponzi scheme where those who have, will exploit those without until the market is destroyed.
Currency's are not immune to this either, but until the central authority of that currency is dissolved, their are numerous tools a regulatory body has that can ensure the health of the money supply, and ultimately the money market. The same cannot be said of a decentralized commodity market.
what if we were to take all of the labels away? no currency label, no commodity or security label. what then? do the intrinsic properties (censorship resistance, immutable, near instant, distributed, decentralized, fixed supply, etc) of a hard digital asset have value to you? does the ability to send some mutually agreed value to another person "instantly" and without intermediary financial friction have value to you?
I would say these intrinsic properties have value to many people. I am not tryng to convince anyone to do anything, but I am trying to rebut the (intentionally?) confusing comparison of the these digital assets to things that they they are clearly not.
I am a huge proponent of user anonymity and strong end-to-end public-key cryptography based on open standards. But none of these things necessitate bitcoin or equivlanet. Proof of work, proof of effort, etc, have no place in any of those ideals.
as am I - and I think hard digital assets fit pretty well into that ethos.
for the transfer of a specific type of value between people, i think hard digital assets are needed and worthwhile (bitcoin is one, but not the only, example of this). perhaps this is simply a fundamental differing of opinion/perspective? if so, then I really appreciate your good faith engagement in this discussion (they are rare on any forum) and we'll just agree to disagree? I am still game to discuss at any time. just let me know.
edit: completion of thought