Also, what the hell is that supposed to mean? If something is inherent to something else, it doesn't mean it's exclusive to it. Maybe something got lost in translation, but if not - they don't even know how to say whatever it is that they want to say.
No, and that's the great point everyone is missing. Paraphrasing their logic: "it is inherent to the sovereignty of nations that no private entity can claim monetary power". In other words, they don't want private entities to control monetary power, but they tolerate this power being in the hands of "public" entities, such as the peer-to-peer/decentralized nature of many cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.
This we-will-block-Libra attitude combined with we-will-torelate-Bitcoin-and-others is a big sign of approval for these cryptocurrencies.
I doubt the use of the words "private entity" was specifically intended to exclude decentralized currencies. It probably actually means "anyone who is not us."
They are not saying governments should have control of this power. They are just saying no private entities should have control.
From the article:
> In a joint statement, the two governments affirmed that “no private entity can claim monetary power, which is inherent to the sovereignty of nations”
I parse that as: monetary power is inherent to the sovereignty of nations; thus, no private entity can claim it.
It's like saying: "No dog should be allowed to eat chocolate, which is toxic to animals."
It would be helpful to have the actual original statement, but I wasn't able to find it very quickly and gave up.
In everyday English, it would be obvious, but regulators and politicians are not bound by that.
"It's obvious" is rarely a good argument on this particular site. If it were obvious we wouldn't be talking about it.
I don't think it's being used in a legal sense in the statement quotes in this article. If it is, I'm not sure how "private entity" is defined in the EU, France, and Germany.
"Private entity" actually is clear in common English, but my experience is that governments tend to take words from common English and use them differently.
If you have specific legal experience with this term in a particular legal jurisdiction---and you very well might---it would be helpful to say so.
Bitcoin has no Facebook-sized entity the French and German governments can control/admonish.
Neither did any entity related to Bitcoin go out and stake any ground like Facebook did.
That is exactly the point. That would be a threat as they see it (just from reading the statement even). That's why bitcoin which is not a private entity, is not seen as a threat at this time.
Bitcoin is tolerated because it's not centralized, and no one (obvious) entity is controlling it. If the EU governments could, they totally would ban Bitcoin.
Libra, on the other hand, is a power grab by someone they can regulate, so they will.
And again, if they didn't tolerate it, they could ban/outlaw it, just like China did.