When Satoshi Nakamoto published in 2008 the rules of operation of Bitcoin and the technology on which it worked (blockchain), he made it clear that his proposal for a decentralized electronic payment system was a response to the crisis of the traditional model of trust in the Financial system: do not trust banks, trust mathematics.The financial crisis of 2008 revealed not only the poor credit risk analysis carried out by financial institutions, but the poor work done in explaining to their clients the risks to which they were exposing themselves when purchasing certain products (mortgage loans).The regulatory response did not wait. As of that moment, all the institutions had to include in the documents of opening of accounts an evaluation about the capacity of the client to understand the products that were going to sell them, an analysis on which were the "appropriate" products for those clients .Ten years later and after 17 million Bitcoin issued, the cryptocurrency that accounts for 58% of the virtual currency market is the center-along with the other cryptocurrencies that followed-of the regulatory discussions posed by this so-called digital democracy.
In a decentralized payment system like the one proposed by virtual currencies built on blockchain, there is no one who evaluates, with the forgiveness of neologism, its "appropriability".In an attempt to carry out an analysis of the risks and try to mitigate them, many countries have developed various types of regulatory responses ranging from clarifications regarding the "legal nature" of the currencies, to the prohibitions of their use and negotiation, passing through warnings and the obligation to obtain licenses imposed on some of the actors in the ecosystem.The United States, Canada, Sweden and Argentina began to treat virtual currencies from the tax point of view as goods. Others, such as Germany and Japan, as means of payment of a non-compulsory course.Most countries have issued warnings about the possible classification of transactions as subject to securities laws. Bolivia and China prohibited its use and negotiation. Others imposed requirements of "know your client" and prevention of laundering -like Argentina- or the obligation to obtain a specific license, as is the case of the State of New York, Japan and Mexico.But what are the risks that regulators have wanted to mitigate? Just to name a few, that of anonymity is by far the one that most concerns them. Blockchain registers the amounts and accounts from where and to where the transfers are made but not the identity of the users.In the past, virtual currencies have been used for illicit activities (purchase of drugs, weapons and child pornography, illegal gambling, funding of terrorist activity and money laundering).Concerns about the uses of currencies add to the volatility of prices and the possibility of premeditated fraud or problems with cybersecurity.In the opposite lane, the defenders of this monetary freedom insist that many of the regulatory attacks are caused by lack of knowledge. After all, cash has historically been used for criminal activities and has not been forbidden.The identity of the users, they say, could be tracked through the intervening markets, the wallets or the IP addresses and the cybersecurity problems are not different from those that any electronic document is exposed to. As in most cases, security problems are the fault of users who do not protect their passwords.Every time we discuss how to regulate a phenomenon associated with technological innovation, the initial fear is that regulations make the system so complicated or expensive that it stops being used. Too much regulation-they preach-kills innovation. I would correct it: inadequate regulation kills innovation.The diversity of regulatory responses -including within the same country- and the cases of changes in the regulatory direction point the finger where, in my opinion, is the problem. The lack of knowledge about how these technologies work generates erratic regulatory movements. But this lack of knowledge, regarding a system that aims to fundamentally solve a problem of trust, not only affects regulatory activity, but also poses a challenge of "appropriability" for users.The potential for success of virtual currencies - which depend to a large extent on their adoption - and their base technology as tools for financial inclusion and, who knows, not only financially, are marked by the same challenge that banks posed 2008 crisis: not only regulators understand how it works, but also the users. It is in the hands of those who believe in the benefits of this revolution in progress, including myself, to face the challenge and lift the glove.* Marina Bericua is director of the Master in Business Law and member of CETYS, Law Department of the University of San Andrés.