To launch this alarm, the premise of Savona, which before becoming president of Consob was minister for European affairs (before he had been chosen to lead the Treasury but the President of the Republic Sergio Mattarella refused to name him), concerns the monetary economy : “The review of the monetary and financial institutional architecture in the face of epochal changes is nothing new. The continuous crises of the international monetary regime at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, after a series of international conferences, led to the definition of central banks as public authorities independent of executive and legislative bodies. (…) The global financial crisis of 2008 forced a wider and more money creation a more rigid regulation of finance, however not guided by a vision of a new institutional architecture adapted to the reality that was emerging “.
According to Savona, the choices that can be made to deal with this situation can give rise to two different regimes. “The first – notes the Consob president in the annual speech – it should lead to a clear distinction between money and finance, realizing Hyman Minsky’s dream of ending money as a servant of two masters, price stability and banking stability, made possible today by decentralized ledger technologies. The implementation requires to equip the payment system with a public cryptocurrency or – in the impossibility of overcoming the national egoisms that sank the Keynes bank – of a few national crypto currencies linked by exchange rules which are the same for everyone; these are missing in the WTO Statute. It is therefore not only a problem related to the distinction between money and financial products, on which the attention of regulators seems to focus, but to identify the tasks of the institutions “.
And then there is the second regime hypothesized by Savona, which offers the President of Consob the possibility of warn against a certain type of cryptocurrency and, indirectly, compared to what could happen if two powers such as China and Russia decided to create their own cryptocurrency. This regime, according to Savona, “It would maintain the prevailing characteristics of the existing one, but its regulation would present more complications because the old and new monetary and financial instruments would coexist, together with the old and new methods of managing them. Most governments would seem unwilling to proceed towards the creation of their own cryptocurrency, nor do they intend to do it jointly “.
Read also: ‘More Fintech and public guarantee on shares’: Savona’s recipe (Consob) to save credit from the crisis from Covid
“However, some of them, like China and Russia, with their own autonomous protocols, intend to implement it in order both to take advantage of it for purposes of economic geopolitical rebalancing, and to protect itself from unwelcome effects, such as the loss of control of national information, and from welcome ones, such as the seizure of those of competing countries “. For some time, rumors give Xi Jinping’s China how one step away from creating its own state cryptocurrency.
“Therefore – continues Savona – instead of converging towards a common solution, international relations tend to become more complicated. This regime already operates due to the existence of some cryptoassets, identified in Bitcoin or Coin or Stable coin or Token, which has made us lose the sense of what should be done: unify and modernize the payment system, bringing it back into the legal to guarantee the stability of the purchasing power and to be the only legal means to release the debts. Despite this, hesitations are still shown in establishing that they cannot coexist private and public cryptocurrencies because they would cause confusion, if not disasters “.