The managing director of IMF – International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, sees cryptocurrency as a road to the future. Unlike JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and other employees of the company, she thinks that virtual currencies will replace traditional money in the upcoming decades. “In many ways, virtual currencies might just give existing currencies and monetary policy a run for their money,” she said.
Managing Director of IMF Views Cryptocurrency as the Future
It may not be wise to dismiss virtual currencies. Instead, citizens may one day prefer virtual currencies.
Lagarde devoted a third of her time in the London conference of Bank of England to cryptocurrency, envisioning that it might reshape the world by year 2040. In her opinion, digital money will experience a spike in popularity once programmers fix technology issues, such as quickening payments.
Why might citizens hold virtual currencies rather than physical dollars, euros, or sterling? Because it may one day be easier and safer than obtaining paper bills, especially in remote regions. Virtual currencies could actually become more stable.
Christine Lagarde Very Optimistic About the Future
Her predictions were couched with the pretense of science fiction. “Are you ready to jump on my pod and explore the future together?”. But not minding that, her forecast is aligned with opinions of other big names in the financial world, like Fidelity CEO Abigail Johnson. “I’m a believer,” Johnson said at an industry conference earlier this year about digital currencies.
You can read Lagarde’s segment about cryptocurrency below:
Let us start with virtual currencies. To be clear, this is not about digital payments in existing currencies—through Paypal and other “e-money” providers such as Alipay in China, or M-Pesa in Kenya.
Virtual currencies are in a different category, because they provide their own unit of account and payment systems. These systems allow for peer-to-peer transactions without central clearinghouses, without central banks.
For now, virtual currencies such as Bitcoin pose little or no challenge to the existing order of fiat currencies and central banks. Why? Because they are too volatile, too risky, too energy intensive, and because the underlying technologies are not yet scalable. Many are too opaque for regulators; and some have been hacked.
But many of these are technological challenges that could be addressed over time. Not so long ago, some experts argued that personal computers would never be adopted, and that tablets would only be used as expensive coffee trays. So I think it may not be wise to dismiss virtual currencies.
Better value for money?
For instance, think of countries with weak institutions and unstable national currencies. Instead of adopting the currency of another country—such as the U.S. dollar—some of these economies might see a growing use of virtual currencies. Call it dollarization 2.0.
IMF experience shows that there is a tipping point beyond which coordination around a new currency is exponential. In the Seychelles, for example, dollarization jumped from 20 percent in 2006 to 60 percent in 2008.
And yet, why might citizens hold virtual currencies rather than physical dollars, euros, or sterling? Because it may one day be easier and safer than obtaining paper bills, especially in remote regions. And because virtual currencies could actually become more stable.
For instance, they could be issued one-for-one for dollars, or a stable basket of currencies. Issuance could be fully transparent, governed by a credible, pre-defined rule, an algorithm that can be monitored…or even a “smart rule” that might reflect changing macroeconomic circumstances.
So in many ways, virtual currencies might just give existing currencies and monetary policy a run for their money. The best response by central bankers is to continue running effective monetary policy, while being open to fresh ideas and new demands, as economies evolve.
Better payment services?
For example, consider the growing demand for new payment services in countries where the shared, decentralized service economy is taking off.
This is an economy rooted in peer-to-peer transactions, in frequent, small-value payments, often across borders.
Four dollars for gardening tips from a lady in New Zealand, three euros for an expert translation of a Japanese poem, and 80 pence for a virtual rendering of historic Fleet Street: these payments can be made with credit cards and other forms of e-money. But the charges are relatively high for small-value transactions, especially across borders.
Instead, citizens may one day prefer virtual currencies, since they potentially offer the same cost and convenience as cash—no settlement risks, no clearing delays, no central registration, no intermediary to check accounts and identities. If privately issued virtual currencies remain risky and unstable, citizens may even call on central banks to provide digital forms of legal tender.
So, when the new service economy comes knocking on the Bank of England’s door, will you welcome it inside? Offer it tea—and financial liquidity?