I’ve been behind enemy lines reading everything the IMF has put out in the last 2 years.
Here are 10 pieces I found most relevant to Bitcoin.
“When you are thoroughly conversant with strategy, you will recognize the enemy’s intentions and thus have many opportunities to win.”👇 pic.twitter.com/ssDWlWpDGZ
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
Let’s start with the IMF’s note titled “Blockchain Consensus Mechanisms: A Primer for Supervisors”
It might as well have been titled “Slander Proof of Work and Promote Proof of Stake”.
Here is an excerpt that sums it up in a nutshell👇 pic.twitter.com/JYAJsjnPnK
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
You read that right…the IMF hints that virtual assets are being used to finance the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Is there any evidence of the direct connection between VAs and weapons of mass destruction? 😂
I didn’t find any, but it sure does sound scary!
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
Here, the IMF explores how to regulate virtual assets (VAs).
“VAs pose a significant threat to the integrity of the global financial system, money laundering, terrorist financing, and the financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction”
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
They support FATF guidelines that VASPs do due diligence on customers & non-customers for transactions that are >$1,000.
They acknowledge the threshold is lower than traditional standards, but they argue that given the “particular risks of VAs”, stricter standards are justified.
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
The IMF justifies stricter standards despite a recent report that found illicit activity consisted of 0.15% of crypto volume.
Also, don’t forget that AML policies have impacted only 0.05% of criminal finances.
This appears to be more about control rather than stopping crime. pic.twitter.com/XKbOOgIokt
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
In this IMF report, I came across a new term, “cryptoization”, which refers to the risk of currency substitution occurring in emerging markets.
The IMF now has a term for when citizens opt out of their failing local currencies into digital assets…
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
The IMF would prefer people not to have an exit at all, which is why they’re so excited about CBDCs.
This paper is an overview of 6 of the most advanced CBDC projects: China, Bahamas, Sweden, Canada, Uruguay, and the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union.
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
None of the CBDC projects covered fully protect user privacy.
Some of them offer “quantitative restrictions” in that they offer anonymity for “lower tier” people to help them onboard if they don’t have IDs.
Central banks make the rules that determine who gets privacy and why. pic.twitter.com/O7GU3JOIDb
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
This contains remarks from an IMF employee on how CBDC design choices can overcome the risks.
It displays the coercive nature of CBDCs and the power it would grant central banks. Notice the choice of words: “limit”, “restrain”, “impose”, and “capped”. pic.twitter.com/AOYgGWU6Q4
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
On CBDC development, they write, “The IMF is collaborating with the BIS, the CPMI, and the FSB to establish relevant guidelines.”
That’s multiple non-governmental organizations designing the future global financial system with zero oversight.
Who voted for any of these people? pic.twitter.com/FrztxsP3UL
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
10.)https://t.co/pXQcLnCxqI
Lastly, this interview in the IMF’s flagship magazine, proves the IMF is well aware of the real risks posed by CBDCs but is continuing with its plans anyway.Author Eswar Prasad candidly explained to an IMF employee the danger that exists with CBDCs👇 pic.twitter.com/yfOtFh6Fxc
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
This one argues for a transition to electronic money to enforce negative interest rates.
They stress that a design requirement of CBDCs is they must be interest-bearing to allow for the implementation of negative interest rates.
How about…no.🖕
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
From their own publications, one can see how the IMF attacks Bitcoin.
They scold PoW’s energy and criticize Bitcoin for facilitating illicit activity to justify regulatory overreach.
They push CBDCs and centralized PoS coins as viable alternatives cuz they’re easier to control.
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
PoW vs PoS/CBDCs and BTC vs ESG
These are the battlegrounds.
The IMF wants to push PoW alternatives because they allow them to enforce their unsound policies with impunity. Negative interest rates, surveillance, inflation, etc.
The IMF can’t exert its power & control with PoW.
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
Only Bitcoin is decentralized & censorship-resistant. Its energy use enables it to function as sound, incorruptible money.
Bitcoin consumes ~0.05% of global energy consumption.
So why all the fuss about Bitcoin?
It’s because Bitcoin can’t be controlled..and the IMF hates that. pic.twitter.com/a0imgJgP60
— Sam Callahan (@samcallah) April 21, 2022
Tesla gets kicked off S&P ESG List, where Exxon Mobile holds a top spot.