Posted on

Why Did China Ban Bitcoin Mining? Here Are The Seven Leading Theories

One of 2021’s biggest stories was the China ban on Bitcoin mining. On one hand, the news did affect Bitcoin’s price and gave ammunition to the naysayers that think that governments will outlaw Bitcoin. On the other, the network kept working without a hiccup, recovered its hashrate in record time, and gained in decentralization. However, a question remains. Why did China exclude itself from this very lucrative activity in which they were dominating?

As Bitcoin entrepreneur John Carvalho not-so-eloquently put it, “I refuse to believe that China is stupid.” There has to be a reason, even if it’s a simple one. To help our audience solve the puzzle, NewsBTC decided to gather all of our theories in a single post.

China Ban Theory #1:  The Digital Yuan CBDC

This one is as straightforward as it gets. When China started cracking down on miners, NewsBTC reported: “As for the possible reasons, Bitcoin Magazine’s Lucas Nuzzi cites the upcoming Digital Yuan CBDC.” And Nuzzi said, “They’re literally rolling out their own coin (a CBDC) that will enable the mass surveillance and unbanking of dissidents.”

1/ The CCP officially banning #Bitcoin should come as no surprise.

They're literally rolling out their own coin (a CBDC) that will enable the mass surveillance and unbanking of dissidents.#Bitcoin is at complete odds with that. Dictatorships don't like freedom money.

— Lucas Nuzzi (@LucasNuzzi) June 21, 2021

So, did China kill a potential billion-dollar industry just to squash their CBDC’s competition? Is that it?

China Ban Theory #2:  Blackouts

Is China having energy issues? In that same article, we posed another theory:

“In retrospect, we should’ve seen it coming. Only two months ago, following a suspicious blackout, NewsBTC reported:

According to the Beijing Economic and Information Bureau, there were concerns about the energy consumption related to these activities. PengPai quotes Yu Jianing, rotating Chairman of the Blockchain Special Committee of China, to claim that the country’s environmental requirements could lead to crypto mining being more “strictly regulated”. Jianing said this will be “inevitable.”

However, would they be decommissioning small hydropower stations if this was the case?

China Ban Theory #3:  Cleaner Energy Sources

Our report on small hydropower stations’ source was government-regulated media, so take it with a grain of salt. It starts with a claim that clashes heavily with theory #2:

“According to the article, the heyday of private power plants in China was the beginning of the century. Investors built thousands of hydropower stations because they saw them as a constant cash cow. For their part, the regions nearby saw them as a sign of progress and a solution to their energy problems. 

However, with the gradual surplus of electricity in China in recent years, the electricity generated by hydropower stations is often destined to being abandoned (commonly known as “abandonment of electricity”)”

Nevertheless, the main reason for the decommissioning seemed to be repairing the original flow of the rivers. “Hydropower stations have always been one of the important factors restricting the ecology of Sichuan’s rivers,” said Wang Hua, deputy director of the Sichuan Provincial Water Resources Department. We went a step further:

“It’s possible that the government is trying to get rid of those plants. That would explain the article’s tone, it seems like it was trying to get investors to stay away from those hydropower stations. In light of this, China’s ban on Bitcoin mining could just be part of an even bigger play. They’re serious and methodically shaking things up over there. 

What could be their end-game? Is China just trying to go carbon neutral and repair the original flow of the rivers? Or is there something else at play here?”

However, something doesn’t add up. In another article about the ban, we highlighted that hydropower energy is clean energy.

“Did China make the mistake of a lifetime by banning Bitcoin mining or do they have a secret plan?

The fact that the electricity for crypto mining in Sichuan came from clean hydropower meant that many thought the province would be a safe haven for Bitcoin miners.”

China Ban Theory #4:  The New China Model

We explored Bloomberg’s theory about a “less founder-driven and more China-centric” model that China was supposedly exploring.

“If China is abandoning the Silicon Valley model, what will it replace it with? Insiders suggest it will be less founder-driven and more China-centric.

Why is China dwarfing its biggest industries and players? Is the “China Model” just concerned with scale? Or is control their focus? Are they cracking down on people and companies with too much power that work on a global scale?”

And even though it wasn’t quite believable, it introduced the concept that China was also cracking down on their biggest tech executives. Maybe this isn’t only about Bitcoin?

BTC price chart for 01/02/2022 on Bitrex | Source: BTC/USD on TradingView.com
China Ban Theory #5:  Making Bitcoin Hard To Use

This one doesn’t explain the overarching theme of the China ban. It does add color to whatever theory you prefer, though. In an event, Yin Youping, Deputy Director of the Financial Consumer Rights Protection Bureau of the People’s Bank of China, said, “We remind the people once again that virtual currencies such as Bitcoin are not legal tender and have no actual value support.” And proceeded to list everything the PBOC was doing to combat cryptocurrency trading.

In the NewsBTC report about it, we said:

“Maybe their plan is simpler than we thought. It’s possible that The People’s Bank of China is just going to make it really really hard for the common citizen to access Bitcoin. And, China’ll use propaganda and repetition to keep people in check and scared of the unknown. One of Bitcoin’s prototipical adversarial scenarios. A battle that Bitcoin expected sooner or later.”

China Ban Theory #6: Preparing For Evergrande’s Default

Was the Chinese government just closing the exits? They knew that the Evergrande situation was inevitable and didn’t want people to have the Bitcoin lifeboat available. In our report, we said:

“To recap: the government saw this coming from a distance. They knew the crisis was going to repeatedly hit the country and banned Bitcoin mining to scare the population into not buying the hardest asset ever created. Bitcoin, the true hedge against the collapse of every economy.”

China Ban Theory #7: FUD To Get More Bitcoin

According to John Carvalho’s wild and full of assumptions theory, China bans something related to Bitcoin every cycle to manipulate the price and get more BTC. The country has no incentive to ban the industry. They make too much money mining, plus they control the ASICs manufacturers, plus mining machines inflate the value of chips, and they control that business too. So, Carvalho’s theory is:

“The main ASIC manufacturer, the Chinese company Bitmain, had a new generation of miners ready. So, the CCP “decided to create a demand for the aftermaket and combine it with the FUD.” As they usually do, they sold their Bitcoin and made their shorts. Then, China banned Bitcoin mining and the whole country turned off the ASICs. The world perceived the ban as real, just “look at the hashrate.” This is the first time this happens. Then, China sold a small portion of its ASICs to the USA.”

According to him, Bitcoin mining in China didn’t stop, they’re just not signing the blocks. Of course, he doesn’t have any proof, and neither do we. This is just a theory, like all the others.

What’s really going on in China? What’s the reason behind the great China ban of 2021? We wouldn’t know for sure, but we have many suspicions. Let’s hope 2022 gives us solid evidence, new insights, or, at least, a plausible explanation.

Featured Image by PublicDomainPictures on Pixabay | Charts by TradingView

Posted on

What Did The SEC’s G. Gensler Say To The WaPo About Stablecoins And Evergrande?

The Chairman of the Securities Exchange Commission, Gary Gensler, showed his cards. He spoke with legacy-media-operation The Washington Post and host David Ignatius for their series “The Path Forward” and spilled the beans. We at NewsBTC saw the whole interview so you don’t have to. We selected the most crucial quotes, and present them in all their splendor for you all to read them and reach your own conclusions. 

Of course, we’re going to offer our two cents. We’re not made of steel. In general, though, you’ll get Gary Gensler’s unadulterated words. They’re shocking enough as it is.

Gary Gensler Is Looking Directly At Stablecoins

Even though host David Ignatius had no questions about stablecoins, the topic was on Gensler’s mind. The SEC’s Chair brought it up a couple of times. First, he said:

“On something called stablecoins, and how the banking agencies–and we, too, market agencies–coordinate because these stablecoins may have attributes of investment contracts, have some attributes like banking products, but the banking authorities right now don’t have the full gamut of what they need.”

But his organization is not only thinking about stablecoins and trying to define them and isolate their attributes. They’re preparing a formal document:

“We’re working right now under the guidance of Secretary Yellen and working on a report around stablecoins, and in the world of stablecoins, I do think that there would be some help from Congress.” 

This doesn’t seem that bad. Their report could conclude that stablecoins are a useful innovation and tool that the whole financial system can benefit from, right? Wrong. This is what Gensler and the SEC think about stablecoins, and pay attention to the language:

“These stablecoins are acting almost like poker chips at the casino right now; so, add to the Wild West analogy. I mean, we’ve got a lot of casinos here in the Wild West and the poker chip is these stablecoins, you know, at the casino gaming tables.”

Things are about to get interesting for stablecoins, it seems.

USDT Market Cap by Cryptocap | Source: USDT on TradingView.com
Does The SEC Want Crypto Exchanges To Register?

Look, there are no two ways about this. Gary Gensler wants all exchanges, including decentralized ones, to register with the Securities Exchange Commission. To convince them, he asks for the exchanges to come to him:

“I think it would be better–the platforms that are trading securities, the platforms that have lending products, who have what’s called “staking products,” and I’m glad to describe that for your listeners, but where you actually put a coin at the platform and you earn a return–that they come in and we sort through, figure out how best to get them within the perimeter.”

And, you might ask, what perimeter is that? Well, this quote makes it very clear:

“I think at $2 trillion, 5- or 6,000 projects, that it would be better to be inside investor-consumer protection, inside the tax compliance and anti-money laundering and financial stability.”

This goes in line with recent declarations from Gensler about the need for crypto regulation:

“Gensler believes that if the market is to grow, then it needs to embrace regulation. The SEC chairman explained that regulation would provide trust in the market, which is important if the market does not want to become irrelevant over time. “Finance is about trust, ultimately,” Gensler said. Gensler’s focus is mostly on trading platforms, given that this is where the majority (~95%) of activities in the crypto market are carried out.”

Is Gary Gensler Even a Cryptocurrency Enthusiast?

Since the new Head of the SEC once taught a class on Cryptocurrencies at MIT, people assumed he would be a pro-crypto legislator. Is he, though? Let’s read what he said about the subject specifically:

“I do think this new technology is a very interesting–and whomever she was, Satoshi Nakamoto, it’s led to change. It’s pushing at the side of central banks around the globe to reconsider how to provide payment systems. It’s pushing on the side as a catalyst for change in finance, so-called “fintech,” the intersection of new technologies and finance.”

So, a non-comital opinion. However, Gensler feels strongly about bringing cryptocurrencies into a public policy framework. So strongly, that he said, “I don’t think technologies long last outside of a social and public policy framework.” And then, “I think it’s better to bring it inside the public policy framework and ensure that we address these important public policy goals.” And later on one more time, “So, new technology is generally a good thing; it challenges the establishment. But I don’t think that new technologies really long exist outside of public policy frameworks.”

Does Any Of This Have To Do With Evergrande?

Days after our report about the situation, Evergrande became one of the biggest stories of the year. We explained that the company reportedly owes $300B, and the most likely cause for all that:

“Apparently, China Evergrande was caught in a loop. The company was pre-selling apartments and using that money to fund other projects, in which they also pre-sold the apartments and the cycle started again. Evergrande bonds are suspended, and there’s a chance they won’t be active ever again. They might be worthless. The stock is near its all-time low, it has lost nearly 80% of its value this year.”

Of course, The Washington Post’s Mr. Ignatius had to bring the subject up. He said that analysts are worried that there could be “contagion in financial markets, like what we remember from 2008 and the failure of Lehman Brothers.” Then, he asked: “Are you confident that our financial markets today are protected in the event that there was such a failure, not necessarily over this company but any large company with that level of debt?” 

Gensler refused to comment on a Chinese company, that’s out of his jurisdiction. To the question, he answered:

“I do think the reforms after the 2008 crisis stood up a much stronger U.S. financial system. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t issues that we look at, at the SEC and other important regulators like the Federal Reserve and the bank regulators and CFTC, that I once was honored to chair. But I do think that we’re in better position in 2021 to absorb some of those shocks than we were prior to the ’08 crisis, but it doesn’t mean we’re isolated. Our economies are connected around the globe.”

Featured Image: Screenshoot from the interview | Charts by TradingView