Jarosław Kaczyński said, “I personally think cryptocurrency should be prohibited.” The reluctance of the president of the Law and Justice organization to this form of savings can be explained primarily by ignorance, although it must be honest to admit that even for those acquainted with the past of money, from wages to departure from the gold parity, the thought of cryptocurrency itself may seem at least peculiar. The name itself suggests something obscure, hidden, so in a way not rather "real".
What are cryptocurrency?
Simply put, cryptocurrency is online money that exists exclusively as a digital evidence on computers spread around the world. Their safety is guarded by peculiar software, and each transaction is publically recorded and in rule irreversible. The deficiency of state control made cryptocurrency associated with the criminal planet in the first period. Among another things, they were utilized to pay for weapons and illegal substances. They rapidly became a favourite means of paying criminals around the world, as Donald Tusk late referred to erstwhile he said: “Moscow is most likely utilizing this method of payment to finance attacks that have late taken the form of acts of sabotage or cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, including water and rail networks.”
In time, however, the crypt became very loud for a very different reason: rapidly rising prices which attracted mass investors to this market. I was tempted, too. Bitcoin, which is the most popular cryptocurrency, I bought twice. For the first time during the coronavirus pandemic, it seemed an interesting safety against the falling value of conventional currencies. That's erstwhile I actually made it. The second chance was to re-appoint Donald Trump as president of the United States. Trump was considered a supporter of cryptocurrency and announced the creation of their national reserve, suggesting an increase in prices. But nothing like that happened. The money I invested was melting overnight, and then I realized that this marketplace was mostly based on speculation. Even the information you have about Trump's fresh policy didn't save me from losing. Then I remembered the 2016 Legia Warszawa match with Real Madrid, ending with a draw that definitely interrupted my adventure with the bookie. erstwhile faced with specified unpredictable, illogical, or even insane events, risking money began to match playing roulette.
Rules like a bookie's?
The association with the betting marketplace is not random. We are talking about a sector which is subject to strict regulation in Poland and is supervised by the National taxation Administration. advanced licensing requirements and costly legal infrastructure have made only a twelve bookmakers legally active in the country today. However, this does not mean that the another players disappeared from the market. The entities operating outside the strategy effort to scope their customers by tempting them with aggressive promotions and higher courses. However, from a national perspective, this is simply a convenient situation. The gross from the legal marketplace is predictable and easy to calculate, the supervision of a tiny number of licensed operators is cheaper, and the existence of a grey area remains an acceptable by-product of the system, if within the limits of common sense. It is so no wonder that the government wanted to regulate the cryptocurrency marketplace in a akin way, especially as it was encouraged by the European Union. Poland is the last country of the Community that has not orderly this market.
The issue is crucial due to the fact that Poles truly liked investing in the crypt, and the data from analysts shows that more countrymen have cryptocurrency than much safer actions. This was influenced by aggressive advertising utilizing football players and show-business stars who encouraged to invest in this way through circumstantial exchanges. If the regulations proposed by the government came into force, the eldorado would gotta end. The fresh licensing requirements would be exorbitant and the number of exchanges would drop dramatically.
Veto of president Nawrocki
That's right, if... president Karol Nawrocki vetoed the bill, saying that if it came into force, it would destruct many prosperous cryptocurrency exchanges, which are besides tiny to meet fresh requirements. On Friday 5 December, the Sejm tried to reject the presidential veto (a request of 3/5 votes for this), but since the PiS and Confederates voted in favour of the Nawrocki decision, it was not possible to do so.
In the background there was speculation about Nawrocki's relationships with the cryptocurrency market. "Gazeta Wyborcza" wrote with Wojciech Czuchnowski about conferences where Nawrocki was an crucial guest, and which were sponsored by 1 of the large companies on the market. A akin approach was to be made under Andrzej Duda. In this case, the erstwhile president was employed in a company that sells the crypt and is besides a sponsor of Channel Zero. This “lobbing” was to lead to the final veto of the bill.
In the texts there is besides the name of the president of 1 of the stock exchanges, who was to be peculiarly active in trying to scope the leading politicians of the Law and Justices, but I happen to have a problem treating him as a schwartzcharacter of this story. due to the fact that what should an crucial manufacture typical do erstwhile she is faced with fundamental changes that can bring his company under the axe? Wait with your hands down? You got to be kidding me.
The problem is, rather, that Nawrocki did not request to be persuaded long to veto. He made his first declaration to veto specified a bill in the spring erstwhile he was only seeking office. Then, based on the logic of tribal war, alternatively than the well-being of Poles, he excluded the debate about any regulations on the marketplace and dialog with the Minister of Finance. On the another hand, he gave an eye to Confederate voters who are willing to invest in cryptocurrency.
Meanwhile, experts say that the bill may have been over-regulated and besides draconian for Polish conditions, but the President's approach makes it possible that if the owner of any stock exchange abruptly closes the site and finds himself in the Cayman Islands with sacks of money, the work for it will besides fall on Nawrocki's shoulders. It is worth recalling at this point the communicative of Sylvester Suszka, the founder of the BitBay Stock Exchange, who left home in March 2022 and never returned to it. The household is convinced that the man is dead, and the prosecution is investigating the case.
Thus, we conclude that the dispute over cryptocurrency is, in fact, not a dispute over technology or even about the money of the future, but about the fundamental work of the state towards citizens. Between the naive dream of a "free marketplace without rules" and the reflex of the ban, the forged fear and misunderstanding, there is simply a space of reasonable regulation that does not kill innovation but besides fails to make the hazard civilise itself.
The presidential veto closed this space, turning the real problem into a tribal symbol: any defend “freedom”, others endanger “fraud”, and inside are average investors who will only hear that “they owed themselves” as said late in the radio broadcast by right-wing publicist Łukasz Warzech. A country that gives up rules in the name of political war does not take sides with the marketplace or the citizen, but on the side of chaos, and this, as past shows, can be the most costly currency.
