TL;DR
A senator wants Bitcoin in US reserves, claiming ’transparency.’ But history shows us ’transparency’ often masks deeper risks. Who benefits from this ’transparency,’ and who ultimately pays the price when things go south?
Story
Senator Lummis is pushing for Bitcoin in US reserves, claiming it’s auditable ‘24/7.’ Sounds nice, right? Remember Enron’s ’transparent’ accounting? How’d that work out?
Lummis’s argument hinges on Bitcoin’s public ledger—anyone can see transactions. True, but ‘seeing’ doesn’t equal ‘understanding.’ It’s like having a library of every financial transaction ever—useful if you know what to look for, useless if you’re drowning in data. Most people (even experts) lack the tools and time to audit complex crypto flows.
‣ Bitcoin Ledger: A public record of all Bitcoin transactions. Think of it like a giant bank statement, but anonymous and harder to decipher.
Plus, who’s auditing that audit? Just like traditional finance, you need trusted third parties. Who watches the watchers? And given past government rug pulls (cough, Nixon, cough), trusting politicians with a volatile asset seems risky. It’s like giving a pyromaniac a matchbox and expecting them to ‘hold’ it.
‣ Rug Pull: When crypto creators manipulate a project to profit at investors’ expense—often disappearing with the funds.
This isn’t about transparency. It’s about politicians using buzzwords to push an agenda. Remember the 2008 housing crisis? Complex derivatives were touted as safe, but who profited? Not average Joes. The public often bears the brunt when these ‘innovative’ schemes implode.
‣ Derivatives: Financial contracts based on the value of an underlying asset. They can be incredibly risky, amplifying both gains and losses.
Advice
Politicians pushing ‘revolutionary’ financial products often have ulterior motives. Do your own research. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.