Will El Salvador adopting Bitcoin as legal tender be a turning point for cryptocurrencies?, BFSI News, ET BFSI

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Recently, El Salvador became the first country to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender, throwing a googly at central bankers across the globe. So far, the US dollar was the only legal tender in that country.

Bitcoin is legal in several countries but nowhere else is it legal tender. The difference is significant.

In countries where Bitcoin is legal, it can be bought, sold or otherwise exchanged. It may even be regulated and taxed. But it is primarily looked upon as another asset class – but not as equivalent to a fiat or government/central bank-issued currency per se.

A legal tender is something which the law of the country recognises as something with which you can settle public or private debt, buy goods and services or meet any financial obligation in that country.

In general, central bankers do not like Bitcoin for exactly the same reasons its fans love it. Fans of Bitcoin and similar cryptocurrencies love them simply because they do not like the thought of central bankers and governments regulating their currency.

Bitcoin was immediately adopted by people who wanted to bypass the system altogether: they included those who wanted to trade in the deep web, the dark web and in general by anyone who liked the anonymity and the lack of central oversight that it promised.

Central bankers hate it because they cannot exercise any control over it and nor can they regulate transactions using it. Money can be moved across borders with no oversight by the banking regulators and bypassing the conventional financial systems.

In fact, there are a lot of reports of bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies being accumulated by people who can afford them in Afghanistan.

After Bitcoins and other similar cryptocurrencies became extremely popular, governments and banking regulators have long been trying very hard to figure out how to bring them under some modicum of government control.

Some nations have taken the pragmatic approach and started treating them as a distinct asset class with proper regulations and tax on buying and selling them. Others have tried to ban them without much success. India has done neither – it is not legal but neither is it explicitly illegal to hold cryptocurrency in our country either.

Of late, multiple central bankers have toyed with the idea of killing off cryptocurrencies – or essentially rendering them worthless – by issuing their own official digital tokens. China is the first one to actually do something, though the US and India and others are also studying the ways and means.

The problem they refuse to recognise is that Bitcoins cannot be killed by digital coins or tokens issued officially by a banking regulator. The appeal of Bitcoins is that they are free from regulation of central bankers and governments and to a large extent anonymous.

Of late, the anonymity has created its own set of problems. News of hacking of cryptocurrency wallets and exchanges and stealing of cryptocurrencies have cropped up from time to time, causing major issues of trust and the crypto currency communities are trying to find solutions to these.

If there is no central oversight, there is no way to get back your stolen Bitcoins or other altcoins unless the hacker is identified or decides to return them on his or her own.

That is why many countries and regulators think that recognising bitcoins and ensuring they follow some regulations in the country is the lesser of the two evils. That is a view that many bitcoin investors are also gravitating to – some oversight and transactions via a government recognised cryptocurrency exchange is better than a more risky and unregulated exchange. But another group feels that any attempt by governments to regulate them would come with too many riders.

For many economists, especially monetary economists, Bitcoins and other altcoins are simply another financial bubble because they have no intrinsic value and their prices fluctuate massively, on a daily basis and sometimes even hourly, because of demand, supply and sentiment.

Many people ask why that is a problem, given that even stocks can fluctuate depending on sentiment. The difference is that stocks are valued based on a registered company doing some real businesses and with some oversight. They have to report their profits, losses, assets and liabilities regularly. There is, hence, at least the illusion of assets backing a stock’s current value. (Of course, as frauds and sudden bankruptcies have shown, many of the assets exist only on paper or are overvalued).

Bitcoins and altcoins often have no intrinsic value and their price depends on what anyone is willing to buy them for at a given time.

There is another class of cryptocurrencies called stable coins, which have values linked to specific commodities like gold and silver and fluctuate far less. But they are less popular for precisely that reason. If one were to invest in gold, why would one buy a cryptocurrency linked to it.

But given the fluctuations in the value of Bitcoin, why did El Salvador decide to recognise it as legal tender? One reason is that a lot of the country’s economy depends on remittances from abroad by citizens working in other countries. These remittances, when sent by conventional banking channels, pay a huge transaction fee or commission.

According to some estimates, $400 million was the transaction charges last year alone of the remittances sent via conventional money service providers like Moneygram or Western Union. With bitcoins, transfer charges would be minuscule. Of course, the risk of fluctuations remain – the money transmitted as Bitcoins can become far more but also far less if the value drops overnight.

Meanwhile, the initial days of El Salvador and its Bitcoin experiment has been rocky and full of teething troubles. These may settle down over time. Central bankers across the world are watching the country’s experiment keenly to see how it plays out. It may give ideas on how to actually regulate crypto currencies better – but that might also lead to them losing some of their current appeal.

(For the latest crypto news, investment tips and real-time price updates, follow our Cryptocurrency page.)



[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY

Loan Apps Scam: Experts raise concerns about regulatory gaps being exploited

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


Five suicides within a week in Telangana allegedly linked to harassment by app-based illegal loan sharks and extortionate moneylenders have raised concerns about regulatory gaps being exploited by online scamsters. Telangana Police is investigating more than a dozen payday lending apps such as Loan Gram, Super Cash and Mint Cash.

An organisation that lends money to the public must be approved by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), but scores of lenders in India operate unlicensed through apps that can be easily downloaded. Some of them tie up with banks or NBFCs and act as their outsourcing partners for marketing and on-boarding customers.

“The problem comes when the apps are not transparent and do not disclose the full information to customers. The customers should be well informed that it is not the app which is lending but the bank or an NBFC. Any follow-up action that is assisted by those who run the app for the bank or NBFC will also have to be within the banking norms,” said R Gandhi, former Deputy Governor, RBI.

Stealing phone data

Unregulated payday lending apps offer easy credit, sometimes in a matter of minutes, from as little as ₹1,000 to ₹1 lakh. The interest rates range between 18 per cent to a whopping 50 per cent. The online lenders capture user data when the app is downloaded.

When a borrower defaults, the lender sends a text message to every number in the borrower’s phone book shaming them. Family members of some who recently committed suicide in Hyderabad allege that the companies went to the extent of calling up women in the contact book of the borrowers and started abusing them.

“There will have to be regulations when they impinge on customer protection and privacy. There were similar problems in P2P platforms as well and now they are regulated entities. These apps are the next step and here also, there is the same set of questions,” Gandhi noted.

Peer-to-peer or P2P is a form of direct lending of money to individuals or businesses without an official financial institution participating as an intermediary. P2P lending is generally done through online platforms that match lenders with the potential borrowers. As on July 16, 2020, RBI lists 21 registered P2P NBFCs.

RBI warnings

Even last week, the RBI issued a statement cautioning the public “not to fall prey to such unscrupulous activities and verify the antecedents of the company/firm offering loans online or through mobile apps”. “Consumers should never share copies of KYC documents with unidentified persons, unverified/unauthorised apps and should report such apps/bank account information,” it added.

In June 2020, the RBI issued guidelines to make digital lending more transparent and had directed banks, NBFCs and digital lending platforms to disclose full information upfront on their websites to customers and adhere to the fair practices code guidelines in letter and spirit.

With increasing reports of harassment and suicides, digital lenders who operate withing the RBI purview worry that the nascent industry could be permanently tarred.

“Most of these apps are fly-by-night operations that charge high processing fee and interest rates. The borrowers are also often unable to get a loan elsewhere and are forced to turn to them,” said Gaurav Chopra CEO, IndiaLends, an online lending platform, and Executive Committee Member, Digital Lenders Association of India (DLAI)

DLAI has issued a code of conduct that its member firms must follow.

Earlier this month, the Fintech Association for Consumer Empowerment (FACE) also published the ‘Ethical Code of Conduct to promote best practices in digital lending and to safeguard consumer rights and interests.

“We want to make sure our consumers are aware of the correct rate they have to borrow at and the best practices. They are not supposed to get a call at 11 pm. We don’t capture contacts from your phone book, so friends and family will never get a call,” said Akshay Mehrotra, Founding Member, FACE and Co-Founder and CEO, EarlySalary.

[ad_2]

CLICK HERE TO APPLY