Vijay Kumar Gaba

 Historically, at some point in time copper, gold and/or silver coins had been legal tender in India; and in many other economies as well. Traditionally in Indian society, these metals have enjoyed acceptance as ‘sacred metals’ having religious, medicinal and economic importance.

With the rise in its industrial usage, copper may have lost its ‘precious’ status, but gold and silver still continue to enjoy ‘precious’ status, even though these are no longer legal tenders in India; and most other jurisdictions. With advancement of technology and globalization of Indian socio-economic milieu, the ‘sacred metal’ aspect of gold and silver is also diminishing gradually.

In past few years, the government of India has made significant efforts to encourage people to own gold in non-physical form, through sovereign gold bonds (SGB). These bonds offer interest income at the rate of 2.5 percent annually, beside capital gains benefits to the holders. In recent years, the digital gold has also been gaining popularity due to ease of transaction and holding. This comes after many decades of discouraging the gold for investment and consumption.

Cryptocurrencies (e.g., Bitcoin) are relatively new phenomenon in the global financial ecosystem. Unlike their nomenclature, these are not exactly currencies so far. Only El Salvador has declared Bitcoins as legal tender; whereas there are some jurisdiction (e.g., China, Indonesia, etc.) that have put a total ban on use of all cryptocurrencies as medium of exchange.

Crypto NOT currency as yet

To achieve ‘currency’ status, cryptocurrencies would need to gain much wider and deeper acceptance; which usually comes with time and awareness. Gold took centuries to gain wide acceptance as medium of exchange and ‘valuable asset’ status. Few cryptoes may gain this status in next few decades, simply because modern technology has made things much faster.

In India, the cryptocurrencies have gained tremendous popularity in past five years. It is estimated that there are over 100 million people in India owning one or more cryptocurrencies; the largest number for any country in the world. This number is materially higher than the number of people owning publically listed shares in India. The value of cryptocurrencies owned by Indian citizens is estimated to be close to US$900bn.

Regulating cryptocurrencies

The government has proposed to introduce a Bill in the forthcoming session of the parliament to regulate cryptocurrencies. The Bill titled ‘The Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill 2021’, aims to “create a facilitative framework for creation of the official digital currency to be issued by the Reserve Bank of India” and prohibit all private cryptocurrencies in India, with certain exceptions to promote the underlying technology and its uses."

Earlier, a high level inter-ministerial committee had suggested ban on private cryptocurrencies in India, except any virtual currencies issued by state. However, the government refrained from pushing the legislation in the Budget session. It was felt that a balanced approach is required in the matter, for which wider consultation with all stakeholders is important.

The Standing Committee on Finance recently highlighted many serious concerns over the obscurity of cryptocurrencies, operations of crypto exchanges and impact on the economy.

The stakeholders like RBI, Finance Ministry, Home Ministry, Blockchain and Crypto Assets Council (BACC) and industry and commerce bodies, the CII and ASSOCHAM, etc. made detailed presentation to the prime minister regarding opportunities and threats posed by cryptocurrencies and the need for appropriate regulatory framework.

Most significantly, the BACC represented that crypto assets could be treated as “utility”, “security”, “property tokens”, “intangible commodities”, or “virtual assets” that would ensure that the usage of tokens was governed appropriately and they were not confused with legal tender.

From the indications available so far, it appears that the government is totally against the use of cryptocurrencies as a medium of exchange (legal tender), but it supports the development and use of blockchain technology. It is therefore likely that a regulatory framework may be provided for ownership, transfer, sale and taxation of (select or all) cryptocurrencies. In that case the permitted cryptocurrencies may be treated as “capital assets” under the taxation laws.

It is also likely that the proposed legislation may permit a digital currency based on blockchain technology, to be developed by RBI or any other public agency. Obviously, such currency will not have the traits like Bitcoin, which is a decentralized and distributed digital token with finite supply. RBI’s digital currency will most likely be a centralized currency with infinite supply, just like fiat currency. In simple terms, RBI’s digital currency may be a dematerialized currency note that is delivered as a book entry in the receivers’ account.

Therefore, a fiat digital currency should not be confused with a decentralized and distributed cryptocurrency.

An idea whose time has come

In every democracy, especially the socialist ones, the governments have the natural tendency to regulate every innovation; simply because most new innovations make few people richer than the rest. With every new innovation, the fear of rise in inequalities also rises. The tendency to overregulate the innovations is therefore usually driven by the concerns to assure the majority of population that stays at the bottom of the pyramid.

A classic example of this was the attempt of British government to ban the use of cars on public roads in early years of automobiles. The argument was that this may have negative implications for the employment of poor people running horse carts on streets of London.

The good thing is that there is no historical evidence of a government regulation killing an innovative idea which was ready for adoption by the wider sections of public. Expansion of organized retail is a classic example in recent Indian context.

The dematerialization of securities is inarguably the single most important reform in the history of Indian capital markets. The idea was initially opposed by the market participants and bureaucrats. Computerization of banks and stock trading were other ideas that were not accepted easily by various stakeholders.

Failure to self-regulate is also a major catalyst for the overregulation. Securities’ market in India was mostly self-regulated for first 100 years. It was the colossal failure of self-regulation during late 1980s and early 1990s that pushed the government to intervene. BSE, a self-regulatory organization (SRO), that enjoyed more than 50% market share in a 29 players market till mid-1990s, is now contended with less than 10% market share in 2 player market.

“Most of the cryptocurrencies may not pass the test of time and fail, causing material losses to investors” is not a valid argument against cryptocurrencies. During 19^th and 20^th century, thousands of banks and insurance companies failed causing instability in markets and material losses to investors and depositors. More recently, many private airlines, telecom companies, infrastructure builders, private & cooperative banks, NBFCs, HFCs etc have failed in India causing huge losses to investors, lenders and the exchequer. Would anyone accept this failure as valid argument for banning these activities in private sector!.

Cryptocurrencies a bad omen for Gold

A well regulated market for cryptocurrency could be a bad omen for demand for the traditional “valuable assets’ like gold and silver. Arguably, the factors like popularity and spread of technology in common man's life; rising fascist and communist tendencies due to worsening socio-economic disparities; rise in electronic transactions (personal, social and commercial) thus lower risk (less travel, less physical transactions & deliveries); emergence of new articles of luxury to serve the vanity needs of the affluent; stronger and deeper social security programs; demise of monarchy and feudalism; popularity of spiritualism over rituals; dissipation of church & temples, etc., are all leading to sustainable decline in traditional demand and pre-eminence of gold. There is nothing to suggest that this trend may not continue in near future.

The following table makes it clear that gold and cryptocurrency are comparable assets in most respects. Some experts are arguing that gold has “intrinsic” value whereas cryptocurrencies have none. In my view, the intrinsic value of gold has developed over many centuries of wider acceptance by the state and religion. This intrinsic value has been on the decline for past few decades.

Insofar as the volatility is concerned, in past two centuries, gold has seen many bouts of wild volatility, correcting over 50% on many occasions. From December 1987 high of ~US$500/oz to February 2001 low of ~US$250, Gold yielded a negative return of 50% over a period of 13yrs. Falls of similar magnitude were rather quick during 1974-1976 and 1980-1982.