India lifts ban on cryptocurrency trading
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
They tried to stop capital flight but instead people just started doing Peer to peer FIAT transfers (WazirX owned by Chinese Binance) and trading via offshore LLCs.
India needs to stop being a nanny state... In fact in a truly free market Indians will often outperform global peers.
Being able to accept payments in crypto is a blessing for Indian firms looking to corner the global blockchain services and consulting market.
On top of that the society in general has become cynical. The media is constantly negative. This just leads to a vicious cycle where the govt just becomes more distrustful of its citizens. I don’t know who came first - a cyncial govt or a cynical society. But right now its a catch-22 which frequently impedes progress in the country. Even for the situations where the society and govt manage to break this deadlock is not celebrated and acknowledged much. They are simply outgunned by the negative stuff and India being as large and diverse as it is, negativity is aplenty.
The current ruling party (for all its other faults) managed to improve this somewhat and at the same time managed to create another set of problems - chief of which is creating a state of you vs me (in every fucking conversation and discourse)
Indian state (or the society) simply can’t shake off being a nanny.
To a non-Indian who's never been there, that sounds odd, because "nanny" implies to me a level of control that I didn't think existed.
It had also removed higher value bak notes two years prior: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/08/29/india-replac...
Both initiatives born out of curtailing criminal activities of various kinds at the time.
So the crypto ban happened during this period and may well of been born out of that initiative against crime more than anything else and now that things have settled down, the need for the ban became moot.
At least that is my thoughts upon this.
It is a well-accepted fact that demonetization was a sham at best, a scam at worst.
> So the crypto ban happened during this period and may well of been born out of that initiative against crime.
Again, what peculiar crimes exclusive to India are you alluding to that are suddenly extinct now? The ban was lifted because a successful court petition ruled the government is paranoid at best and out-of-touch with reality at worst wrt crypto.
At least, that is my thoughts upon this.
I wasn't alluding to any particular crime and the article does mention some forms, though perhaps better explained by: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-37974423
As another reply outlined, this did not impact the organised level of crime and only the middle class and below, as sadly most initiatives seem to effect, however well intended.
> As another reply outlined, this did not impact the organised level of crime and only the middle class and below, as sadly most initiatives seem to effect, however well intended.
Yeah, exactly: That's text-book sham.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Indian_banknote_demonetis...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raghuram_Rajan#Controversies
[0]http://www.opindia.com/2020/03/delhi-anti-hindu-riots-wikipe...
The systemic way in which the neo-facist government is taking control the narrative by tarnishing trust in institutions that have stood up well to scrutiny is unnerving.
> Could you cite more primary sources?
I'm pretty sure any primary source that doesn't fit a narrative would be dismissed as non-trustworthy because OpIndia wrote an "investigative" piece that refutes those sources, or because a prominent right-wing person tweets questioning the legitimacy and dismissing it as "fake news"? The incumbent is playing abhorrable politics.
> Now I cannot trust any India related entry on Wikipedia.
Sure, trust OpIndia instead? The standard bearer for journalistic ethics.
Are you speaking as someone who experienced it firsthand and still lives there?
NOT the court ruling about lifting that ban, as You implied.
Bitcoin can't be counterfeited, so it solves a $100 billion dollar problem.
Blockchain tech needs to show some real, actual functionality - a complete and cognizable web3 stack - in order to be a critique on the level required to actually change (or replace) monetary systems.
During that time, there were a lot of Get Rich Quickly scams around Crypto trading. Coupled with 24x7 online trading, a lot of people were losing a lot of money. Taxation (for those who made money) around Crypto weren’t clear either.
An exchange ran away with the money. There was also the money laundering aspect. The Govt also wanted to curtail cash usage (Demonetisation happened) and track the transaction trails.
Not saying if they are right but some of these reasons were triggers for the original ban by RBI.
Casinos are banned in majority of Indian land and i’m wondering if the reasons are the same. Would be interested to know what the Supreme Court thinks about that in the current world.
"At the time, RBI said the move was necessary to curb ring-fencing of the country’s financial system."
"It had also argued that Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies cannot be treated as currencies as they are not made of metal or exist in physical form, nor were they stamped by the government."
The second argument is beyond weird as most currency isn't material these days, including India.It's also worth noting that the ruling doesn't seem to have had any kind of effect on Bitcoin's price.
Maybe the news is too fresh ... time to buy !
Now its more like betting at the track. Except that the track is probably more regulated and insiders are less crooked.
Good on India for doing this.
Even if Cryptocurrency helps in some dire situation arising out of COVID-19, facilitating cryptocurrency would be lowest of priorities for the government.
Source?