There’s a long history of countries imposing capital controls. And it’s rarely favorable to the home country’s exchange rate. What you are proposing is basically just capital controls towards the crypto economy.
Yes it will make it harder for new buyers to bid up the price of Bitcoin. But it almost certainly will induce current holders to hoard any Bitcoin they own, thus reducing supply and putting upward pressure on the price. Without a liquid market, miners are likely to hoard their rewards, creating even more Bitcoin scarcity.
It also may create panic buying before the law comes in effect, or by people in foreign jurisdiction fearing the export of the policy.
How do you define one? What attributes does a pyramid scheme have?
One could easily ask what's a currency that's backed by nothing, is inflated to oblivion continuously robbing marginalized peoples' life savings, is often used for illegal drug/weapons/sex-trafficking/and worse crimes, is involved in a good percentage of the world's pollution, and that may soon be worth very little?
Like, it’s not a bunch of gold bricks or a briefcase full of paper money...It’s not controlled by a bank who can deny your transfer. Anyone can take all of their crypto anywhere on Earth, and can do so instantaneously and virtually anywhere with an Internet connection.
1) ban computer games to free up people’s time, and grow the economy,
2) ban ML research to improve overall privacy.
All these will also affect GPU prices favorably.
No computers No chip shortage
Fixed :D
The problem is that we did make rich people the global arbiter of what people value, by giving them more units which can be used to value things.
This is a fundamentally undemocratic system. Ten billionaires have way more ability to decide on something's value than ten people making minimum wage.
(This is also the fallacy in "If you don't like it, why not short it and make money instead of complaining?" I don't like it, and I know my short positions aren't going to influence the market as much as some rich guy's much larger long positions.)
All modern democracies are representative. People themselves don't decide about things, their representatives do. This is the price we are willing to pay to get effective governance.
One of the usual goals of a democracy is equal representation ("one person, one vote"). You can transfer your representation to someone else - either directly, in the sense of proxy voting, or indirectly, in the sense of voting for a representative - but you don't give it up permanently. When elections next happen (and if elections don't regularly happen, it's not a democracy), you get your vote back and can freely choose what to do with it, again. If your representative isn't doing what you want, you can choose another one.
That's not true of the system of money. Even if it were theoretically been true at some point, once you transfer money to someone else, the associated power of that money stays with them or whoever they choose to transfer it to. If you bought Windows 95 for $209.95 a quarter century ago, that fraction of your ability to "vote" on how society values things left you a quarter century ago, after spending it exactly once on valuing Windows 95, and it probably never returned to you (unless you became a Microsoft employee or supplier).
So, someone who makes something that is (rightly or wrongly) highly valued thereby accumulates the ability to value things in the future, and have disproportionate influence on what is then going to be highly valued. This process repeats continuously and has repeated for centuries.
More simply, the US Constitution was not approved by "one person, one vote", not even with a dozen caveats and asterisks.
One person, one vote is certainly gameable. One dollar, one vote is even more so.
The overwhelming majority of valuation / price discovery does not take place in a coordinated or intentional manner. People buy what they want or need and in aggregate this determines price. Billionaires in aggregate are a minor portion of transactions that take place -- they can participate in larger transactions than most people but can't just will any market configuration into existence. They can create localized distortions, but if they're doing something unsustainable then they won't stay billionaires long and it will end up a blip.
However, I suspect your position may be a cryptic way of saying "There are some human activities / endeavors that I don't like and it's easy to blame the rich people invested in that / making their money off that." This would not support your point. It takes more than just some rich people to create and sustain an industry.
My point is precisely that this assumption is not true.
A more precise way to say that you're "doing something unsustainable" is that you're persistently overvaluing something. But how is it determined that you're overvaluing something? The rest of the market assigns it a lower value than what you assign.
If you and your billionaire buddies just decide to value something highly, then simply because you have money already, you can do that, and you can influence enough of the market to make sure that you're not overvaluing it relative to the market, and thus, it is sustainable.
The more money you have, the more leverage you have to pull off this trick. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but the average person on a minimum-wage strategy cannot even attempt it.
People don't solely buy what they want or need. They also buy, in very large quantities, things that they expect to be able to resell later. Sometimes this happens at small scale (think toilet paper or gasoline, or even think houses); sometimes this happens at large scale (think commodities markets or mergers and acquisitions). These sorts of secondary markets have a huge influence on price discovery.
"Despite ordinances against organ sales, this practice persists, with studies estimating that anywhere from 5% to 42% of transplanted organs are illicitly purchased."
The window is closing rapidly on this option though. The more it becomes just another financial asset class with trillions in market cap, the harder that option becomes. However, if a country like the US ever decides it's a real threat to it's sovereign monetary policy, it could take that option anyway and simply bail out those impacted financially.
I think the most likely scenario is simply that it becomes regulated like any other part of the financial system. Heck thinks like CTR's SAR requirements. It will be difficult to ever get Bitcoin or others to their dream of decentralized currency unbound by governments when governments can make regulations controlling it's usage. The average business owner isn't going to risk their business and jail time trying to work outside those regulations.
Some of these technologies managed to produced something useful. On the other hand, I cannot use crypto to anything but speculation.
Its a squeeze, no different than what happens to rental prices when there is 1% vacancy rates versus .5% vacancy rates
That will spur innovation on approaches that don't have that requirement.