Here is an interesting opinion of Jim Rogers (which I completely disagree with, but i always like to listen to what opponents say):
https://youtu.be/tNSXWkApxU8?t=410He basically says that if bitcoin/crypto would be successful, government can simply abolish it like England abolished scrip in the 30ies by making trading NOT in Bank of England notes (pounds) a TREASON.
Don't simply dismiss this, hopefully, wrong notion because he is an old fogie since this is Jim Rogers, again, who happens to know about commodity markets quite a bit.
He is not short, but not long either and acknowledges that he might be wrong in his skepticism.
I think that he is wrong because bitcoin provides a standard/reference point, is apolitical and not 'owned' by a particular government plus could accelerate the commerce in due course.
Being neutral would make it resistant to the moves that he described, unless there is cooperation among G20.
What do you guys think?
This would require a collaborate effort by every single government in the world of Economies that actually matter. Otherwise there will be individual countries not going that route, which would simply cause the windfall to exclusively benefit those that do not treat freedom of choice as treason.
In short, interesting to think about, but almost surely irrelevant when it comes to realistic outcomes.