This is a story to pay attention to, and our thanks to W.G. for spotting it and sending it along. In a nutshell, the US Treasury Department is launching an effort to gain control over crypto-"currency" exchanges. But the real question is why? Here's the story:
Note the following:
The Treasury Department mentioned that crypto exchanges currently operating in the US are required to verify the identity of owners if the transaction exceeds $3,000. The Treasury also asked exchanges to submit the information of the owner of a crypto wallet directly to the Department if a transaction exceeds $10,000.
Finance Magnates asked the crypto community to share views about the recent action by the US regulatory authorities against cryptocurrency exchanges and its potential impact. Johnny McCamley, Founder of CryptoClear told Finance Magnates that the recent action is a serious intrusion into privacy, but the crypto community must get ready for such intrusions.
“We all must get used to it, whether we like it or not. Taking a ‘big picture’ outlook, this is the future of your level of privacy, having little to no privacy, that is. Especially with Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC’s) such as the Digital Dollar coming into play sooner than most realize. Although the initial goal of these CBDC’s is not to replace cash but to compliment cash, I have no doubt the long term goal of CBDC’s is to replace cash. My point being, your money and more importantly where it flows and goes, to family, investing in stocks or crypto assets or wherever your money happens to go, will be tracked and traced down to the cent ($0.01). So, although this is a ‘proposed’ regulation focused on cryptocurrency assets transaction data (being the names and addresses for anyone that you send crypto to or receive crypto from, for any transaction worth over $3,000), not CBDC’s, get used to the government drastically increasing the amount of personal information they hold about you and your money. It is the future,” he added.
So what this about? Why is Treasury doing this? There are three possible answers, and I suspect all of them are in play. The first answer is the obvious one: taxes. The government wants its cut, and to get its cut, it needs the regulatory infrastructure to do it. But I suspect that infrastructure is leading directly to the second and third reasons, which are not so obvious, but to which the article alludes: the move toward a completely "cashless" system. That system, perforce, will have to be ultimately space-based for transaction clearing, and hence be global in nature. Note that this carries an implication that few are seeing clearly. In the past, when contemplating the moves of Mr. Globaloney to establish a "one world government" many have focused on the implication that this would perforce have to imply a "one world currency."
Not so. There are already a multitude of crypto-"currencies", and the moves of Treasury indicate that it is perfectly willing to live with a multitude of such "currencies." What matters more is the transaction and clearing systems themselves, or rather, the transaction and clearing system itself. Presuming for a moment that Treasury is acting as the front for the interests of Mr. Globaloney, we may reduce this approach to a convenient axiom and with it, our second reason): One system, many "currencies". The essence of a digital transaction system is the ability to transact quickly, and "currency" exchange rates can easily be built into such a system to make it appear that there are a multitude of "currencies" in circulation. What matters is not the "currencies" but the system itself. It seems apparent that Mr. Globaloney would prefer the simplicity of "one 'currency'" to that of a multitude, but that can easily be accomplished by putting into place an interim step of "one system, many 'currencies.'" In effect, it's a move to digitize the current system, which is indeed a "one system, many currencies" system. We'll get back to this point in today's high octane speculation.
The third reason is the most obscure, but again revealed in Treasury's regulatory structure: it wants the names and addresses of those involved in crypt-"currency" transactions, and this is the profound clue to what's going on, because in effect, it is the final move in making individual humans, both individually and collectively, the collateral backing the whole system. It is, in effect, a "beast" system, and a slavery system, because what is transparent to some, you and me, is opaque to others: the system, and those controlling it, will be behind a one way mirror, able to see what everyone else is doing, while being able to manipulate that system for their own covert transactions. Treasury is more concerned about who is transacting, than about the transactions themselves.
So back to some high octane speculation, and the central question of "Will this actually work?" I suspect not, and for a variety of reasons. But let's look at just one. Recall for a moment those stories concerning the enormous electrical power consumption that is required to "mine" crypto-currencies. In a certain sense, one might say that the "value" of a crypto-"currency" is in part determined by access to such power (not to mention access to the extraordinary amount of data-processing power also required to run such a system, even with quantum computing and so on). In an interim system of "one system, many 'currencies'" it is conceivable that there is a threshold or inflection point beyond which the system is so choked with data and transactions that it can no longer function efficiently or smoothly. Think, for example, of those frustrating times when your internet goes down, or is incredibly slow due to high internet traffic volume. Magnify that globally and you have... a mess(I'd call it something different, but this is a "polite site"). And that's not even dealing with the possibilities of some disaster - electromanetic pulse or particularly strong solar flare events - taking the entire system down. In that circumstance, I rather suspect sacks of flour, loaves of bread, or cans of soup will be much more valuable than crypto-blips. But in any case, the sheer volume of transaction in such a system will drive up electrical and data-processing loads immensely, and the question is, is there enough of both to make such a system work?
That may seem like a fairly obvious question to ask, but so far, reading all the vast literature and articles on the subject, I haven't seen anyone asking it. The short answer is, no one knows, because no one is asking.
And it's that question that brings us to yet another really high octane speculation. Suppose Mr. Globaloney, in the secret councils of his power, has asked and already learned the answer, and knows more or less where that threshold or inflection point is? One might go so far as to speculate that the whole social engineering scheme of "lockdowns" and so on associated with the planscamdemic might have been to gain some impression of that threshold or inflection point. In case, assuming they do know that threshold, it would be a secret well worth keeping to themselves, and using in conjunction with some of their other favorite memes, like "climate change" and so on. "We have to shut down transactions in such and such a region, or among such and such a group of people" because it's driving up the "carbon footprint" due to increased electrical demands. In other words, keeping the actual threshold secret allows the threshold idea to be used to further promote "the agenda."
See you on the flip side...