Bitcoin policy specialists issued a document this week questioning the work of Ulrich Bindseil and Jurgen Schaaf, analysts at the European Central Bank (ECB).
Murray Rudd, Allen Farrigton, Freddie New and Dennis Porter, specialists in the field, argue that the ECB’s analysis “reveals fundamental flaws in the assumptions and theoretical model of Bindseil and Schaaf, as well as a basic misunderstanding of the fundamentals and technological advances of Bitcoin.”
The paper, titled “Challenging bias in the ECB’s Bitcoin analysis,” is a direct response to the arguments presented by them, who rated bitcoin (BTC) as “harmful” to societyas reported by CriptoNoticias.
According to these academics, “their overreliance on bitcoin price volatility as an indicator of instability ignores the broader context of emerging technologies, where volatility is often a feature of early-stage adoption.”
The specialists’ document highlights that this “narrow focus” also overlooks the real-world benefits it offers. bitcoinsuch as financial inclusion, cross-border payments and technological innovation.
Furthermore, academics criticize that the ECB document, by emphasizing the dynamics of American politicssuggests that “the authors have gone beyond neutral academic analysis and aim to influence public policy debates.”
Dennis Porter, CEO of Satoshi Action Fund in the United States, believes it is time to replicate a version of this organization in Europe to “build political infrastructure” for Bitcoin in this part of the world. Source: X/Dennis_Porter_
In this context, they quote: “This overt political framing, which does not fit with the supposed economic focus of the document, raises questions about its intended audience and the objectivity of its conclusions.”
For bitcoiners, “Bindseil and Schaaf’s professional roles at the ECB introduce potential conflicts of interest that further undermine the credibility of the document.”
They claim that their personal interest in the advancement of CBDCs (central bank digital currencies) likely “biases their representation of bitcoin as a speculative asset, while ignoring the considerable risks posed by CBDCs, such as state surveillance, financial instability and loss of privacy.”
The specialists’ document concludes with a strong critique: “Given these significant flaws, the article’s conclusions make its preprint clearly unsuitable for academic publication. The combination of methodological weaknesses and personal or institutional biases undermines the rigor and objectivity necessary for academic research: the working paper does not provide a credible analysis of the usefulness or future of Bitcoin”.
This article was created using artificial intelligence and edited by a human Editor.
Crypto Keynote USA
For the Latest Crypto News, Follow ©KeynoteUSA on Twitter Or Google News.