Letter: Cryptocurrency critique can do with more context

Jemima Kelly plausibly argues that cryptocurrencies are primarily used for hypothesis and illicit exercise, albeit with the previous orders of magnitude larger than the latter (Opinion, April 27).

But in claiming that crime is a crypto “trade characteristic”, Kelly ought to actually current the proof within the context of complete illicit monetary exercise. Extra regarding is her choice to pin the blame for such illicit exercise on the truth that cryptocurrencies are what she calls “censorship resistant fee mechanism[s]”.

On the primary level, Kelly cites an estimate of roughly $40bn per 12 months of illicit crypto transactions and cash laundering. But there’s roughly $110bn per 12 months of illicit finance by the regulated banking sector. As for cash laundering, a 2011 report from the UN Workplace on Medication and Crime put the dimensions of the issue at $2.4tn every year. What Kelly additionally overlooks is that it has been typical for brand new monetary applied sciences — which finally show extremely useful — to expertise corrupt practices. One want solely have a look at the historical past of the US inventory market.

As to the second level, I discover it extraordinary that Kelly views a know-how that allows privateness to be prima facie suspect. One of many essential variations between free and totalitarian societies is that particular person autonomy is protected within the former and disregarded within the latter.

To make certain, there’s a want for consideration and debate over the competing claims relating to the person’s proper to privateness and the state’s obligation to implement the legislation in confronting illicit exercise in cryptocurrencies. Nevertheless, to disregard the ethical and historic claims of privateness can be a mistake with penalties which will prolong far past the matter of crypto regulation.

Daniel Aronoff
Analysis Scientist, MIT
Cambridge, MA, US