Bitcoin ‘difficult for a state to regulate’: Venezuelan intendant

The issue of regulating cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin (BTC), in Venezuela and around the world, is seen as a cornerstone in giving rise to the adoption or establishing limits. The debate on whether it is necessary or not has generated numerous discussions, from different points of view.

This was the theme of the conference “Crypto-regulation: Necessary or illogical?” held during the Caracas Blockchain Week.. The discussion was attended by Rajiv Mosqueda, head of digital mining and associated processes at Sunacrip, lawyer Ernesto Portillo, of Cripto Juris, and lawyer Roberto Hung, of Cultura Jurídica.

The representative of Venezuela’s main regulator pointed out that there are two ways of understanding the regulation of a technology like Bitcoin, replicated in other cryptocurrencies. From one perspective, the regulator admits that the state cannot change “the system” of cryptocurrencies as bitcoin.

From an extremely objective and pragmatic point of view, I think that the cryptocurrency system (and technologically speaking what is on the Internet, what is in the cloud) can hardly be regulated by a state. The very development of this system was done with this premise, to avoid the intervention of trusted third parties or anything other than the development of the protocol itself.

Rajiv Mosqueda, head of digital mining and associated processes at Sunacrip.

Another way of looking at the issue of cryptocurrency regulation involves the people who use them, the social dimension of these technologies.

We need to distinguish the significant difference between the cryptocurrency system and the moment when that system becomes an ecosystem, that is, when the social interactions derived from that system carry consequences in the real world that may likely affect a citizen in a negative way or that may go against the values on which a society is founded.

Rajiv Mosqueda, head of digital mining and associated processes at Sunacrip.

In this regard, lawyer Ernesto Portillo argued that the state “cannot be excluded from the equation.”

The state must incentivize the use of cryptocurrencies.

It is not easy to define the role of the state toward cryptocurrencies.. According to the regulator’s representative in Venezuela, “the fact that the state participates in this event clarifies, in a positive way, that the state should promote the use of cryptocurrencies.” “In addition, [el Estado] is obligated to promote the cryptocurrency ecosystem,” he specified.

He further explained that Article 10 of the Constitutional Decree of the Integrated cryptocurrency system “establishes that one of the objectives pursued by the National Cryptocurrency Superintendency is the adoption and usability of cryptocurrencies and related activities within the economic, public, social and productive dynamics of the country,” Mosqueda explained.

“It’s not because there is a regulatory body that develops policies for the functioning of the ecosystem, these policies that we are developing go against the promotion and adoption of the cryptocurrency ecosystem,” he argued.

Technology is neutral and cryptocurrencies are born regulated

For attorney Ernesto Portillo of Crypto Juris, “Cryptocurrencies are born regulated.”. In his view, there are two elements that regulate cryptocurrencies without state intervention.

“The essence of cryptocurrencies is P2P, the peer-to-peer. There is a legal principle called party autonomy. Parties create law” by entering into a contract with each other, the lawyer explained.

The other regulatory element of cryptocurrencies is the white paperwhich “is a source of law” because it contains “clear rules” for each project.

For his part, Portillo argued that the relationship between technology and people is what justifies regulation: “technology is neutral, Bitcoin as technology is neutral, what is being regulated is the behavior of human beings in relation to technology. Bitcoin and its technology are neither good nor bad,” he concluded.

Attorney Roberto Hung started from the premise that in most states. the law seems to be a step behind the technology: “We have had globally, in some states more than others, a very low quality and level of regulation.”

He insisted that the precariousness of legal law is not a feature experienced only in Venezuela and added the following: “we have to rethink the idea of regulatory systems, and these new forms of interaction, without state boundaries, without regulatory boundaries, are a great opportunity to rethink humanity,” the lawyer reflected.