the war between Russia and Ukraine it has not escaped the always hot debate about cryptocurrencies. Since the beginning of the armed conflict, a new discussion has arisen about what is the role that Bitcoin, Ethereum and other cryptoactives play in itespecially after the rebound in prices that has been taking place since the beginning of the week.
Since last February 24, when Vladimir Putin gave the order to invade Ukraine, the discourse around the use of cryptocurrencies has been deformed as needed. And decentralization is pointed out as the great ally or the most fearsome enemy, according to convenience. It is logical that a situation as extreme as an armed confrontation does not give rise to nuances; either you are for it, or you are against it. However, it also opens the door to extreme positions on other issues that use the war between two countries as an excuse to invalidate nuance.
And that seems to be happening with the role of cryptocurrencies in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. Its technological resistance to regulation is a benefit or a curse, depending on who is looking at it and in what way. Thus, for example, in recent days a very clear message has been seen against the possibility of the crypto ecosystem being exploited by Russia to evade international sanctions, especially after the exclusion of its banks from the SWIFT system.
Cryptocurrencies, decentralization and a speech according to convenience
“Cryptocurrencies risk undermining sanctions against Russia, allowing Putin and his cronies to evade economic pain. US financial regulators must take this threat seriously and increase scrutiny on digital assets,” public the us senator elizabeth warrenciting an article from New York Times about the topic. It is not very difficult to interpret that the tweet intends to install two issues: that cryptocurrencies are bad and that the United States must regulate them to make them good.
Along the same line were the declarations of Hillary Clinton. In an interview with journalist Rachel Maddow, the former United States Secretary of State took particular aim at cryptocurrency exchange platforms for not doing enough to cut ties with Russia. “I was disappointed to see that some of the so-called exchanges of cryptocurrencies, not all, but some, refuse to finalize transactions with Russia because of some philosophy of libertarianism, or whatever,” he said.
It seems that the war between Russia and Ukraine has awakened a kind of double standard in the view towards cryptocurrencies. It is clear that Hillary Clinton’s dart was directed at companies like Binance, which has decided to block those on the international sanctioned list—mostly politicians—but not all Russian users. “Many Russians do not support this war and we must separate the politicians from the rest of the people,” he said. Changpeng Zhaofounder and CEO of Binance, to Bloomberg TV.
Binance’s stance is easily criticized from the US perspective because other companies in the field have blocked all Russian users. But it is not mentioned that the same firm has donated 10 million dollars to attend to the humanitarian emergency in Ukraine, nor that it has created a fund for users to send their contributions and that already exceeds 6 million dollars in Bitcoin and BNB.
the double rod
And these lines are not meant to turn a blind eye to Binance, or anything like that. We are only mentioning an example of how the discourse around cryptocurrencies is twisted, according to convenience. But to understand it better we must also see what happens on the Ukrainian side.
Just as it is intended to install the idea that cryptocurrencies are bad because they would allow Russia to evade international economic sanctions, the “good side” of the story is that Ukraine is repelling its invaders thanks to the international collaboration that comes through different crypto assets.
If they enter the official profile of Ukraine On twitteryou will see that since last Saturday he has shared the addresses to his wallets for donations in Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDT and Polkadot. Moreover, the government of that country even received an NFT from the CryptoPunk collection as a collaboration; and it is estimated that the proceeds in crypto assets already exceeds 35 million dollars.
Thus, cryptocurrencies have become an unbeatable escape route for a country that has seen its banking system affected by cyberattacks. Or for those who had to leave their home and find that they no longer have access to their bank accounts or credit cards, but they do have access to their savings in Bitcoin, USDT, or whatever currency, because they only need a piece of paper with your seed phrase written on it.
Would stopping Russia be much more complicated if cryptocurrencies were the standard?
This is one of the many big questions that arise when trying to put cryptocurrencies on one side or the other, the good guys and the bad guys. If we try to answer it, we will be getting into a dangerous field of assumptions, beyond what happens or not in reality. Despite this, let us analyze some issues.
If Russia decides tomorrow to make a all in by the crypto ecosystem to evade international sanctions, it is clear that he would not do it through exchanges centralized. Now, that would mean getting a large number of trading partners who trade monstrous volumes of crypto through P2P, as well as many others who are willing to buy or sell products and services in the same way. We talk about move millionaire figures daily.
Today it does not seem to be a very feasible scenario, thinking on a large scale. It seems that not even “taking over” the global cryptocurrency market could Russia carry out such an ambitious plan. Moreover, before using Bitcoin and other cryptoactives to evade international sanctions, specialists point to a wink from China to add it to its International Interbank Payments System (CIPS) as an alternative to SWIFT.
The report of New York Times cited by Senator Elizabeth Warren gives North Korea as an example, which would have used ransomware to steal cryptocurrencies and finance its nuclear program. And she also mentions Iran, which with the profits from Bitcoin mining would have managed to recover part of the money lost by not being able to sell oil due to the international sanctions that weigh on it.
However, however millionaire the sums handled in these specific cases may be, they do not compare with the figures mobilized by the Russian economy in imports and exports. Therefore, it would be more realistic to think that Russia uses cryptocurrencies and markets in the dark net such as Hydra (or the now defunct Alphabay) to finance a paramilitary arm that is unable to evade international economic sanctions.
Conclution
It is clear that decentralization does not choose a side, but people do. For this reason, the same technology today can be used in a campaign to fight fires in the Amazon, to give food and shelter to those who flee from Ukraine to other countries, to buy assault rifles, and who knows how many more uses. . How moral we consider these actions is up to each one of us, but the technology is the same for everyone, it has no restrictions, and no one needs permission to use it.
For this reason, today it is a serious mistake to continue to engage in discussions about “the good and the bad” of the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. After all, the key to decentralization is that, that there is no figure that imposes what is good and what is not, but that it is the community itself that marks its path. that does not imply handwashing, be insensitive to what happens in this or that place in the world, or that you must agree with all use cases; but it is necessary to escape from the logic of the regulatory debate proposed by certain political figures (from the United States or wherever they are) according to what suits them at the time.