coindesk is sister company to coinbase. which hates all regulation as it means more work. so there is some bias.

instead of reading coindesks snippits. actually try to read all the quotes that are said

EG
"Regulation should be tech neutral,” Yellen said. Drafting rules for crypto “should be guided by the risks associated with the services provided to households and businesses, not the underlying technology."

many twitter nuts try to convert snippets of certain things and then exaggerate them to mean something else. EG a new draft US law had taken out a 120day  thing in regards to implementing new rules that are not yet law.

twitter idiots read this as if yellen can now implement any rule she likes without a 120 notice
yet the reality is.. before the draft, the SEC could make a proposal law and implement its requires immediately 120days before its voted on.. and then extend it if the vote doesnt happen..
but with the new draft if accepted. taking out this 120day thing. means that they cannot enforce a proposal 120days before its even voted in.

yep the twitter nuts got things the wrong way round. the draft which certain idiots are pretending is bad, actually has benefits. it actually stops the SEC from implementing things at a whim and instead makes them have to only do things within existing, voted in law, seeking guidance from multiple departments if its fair and lawful before doing so

other twitter nuts are pretending that new laws are suggesting that software developers miners and full node users need to KYC each other. yet reality is that is not the case. only SERVICE PROVIDERS(financial brokers(EG exchanges)) need to be regulated and do KYC. not individuals that are not doing financial transfers as a business for a commission/fee

This statement is a two edges sword! It could very well be translated into two different meanings. Is it a technology that will transform the financial space for good or for bad??

While we, the community members believe that cryptocurrency is a good technology that can disrupt the current banking based financial system. We have see some examples during Hong Kong crisis and we are seeing it now during Rus-Ukraine war. People are becoming less dependent on banks and more eager to control their own finances through cryptocurrency.

Then, there is government who believes cryptos can disrupt the current banking based financial system and take away the power from their hand to the end user. So they are seeing it as a threat.

So it all depends on which side you are! Janet Yellen is way too small when it comes to cryptospace and its scope. I don't think we need to give a lot of weight to her statement.

Even in the small part you posted, I don't see any signs of her opinion about bitcoin being changed at all!

All she said is "technology" is good. In other words we may soon see the US government issuing a centralized shitcoin called something like cUSD where c stands for cryptocurrency. With US dollar's dominance being threatened and many countries dumping it from their reserves the chances of it is actually pretty high. So there needs to be some groundwork where after years of them spreading FUD about bitcoin they have to start praising the underlying technology as a separate thing so that their own FUD doesn't backfire.

Little do they know that centralized shitcoins are still shitcoins regardless of how much they praise the technology.

Hey even Jamie Dimon lately told everyone, his investors I guess, that Bitcoin and blockchain are real stuff,,, not just made up fantasy internet money. Now this was very different from many years ago.

We have to remember that these rich guys became rich from being wise in investment. No need to trust them, but trust that if they want Bitcoin dead, they will do all they can to defeat it BUT when they realize it is futile eventually they will give in,,, just like Dimon.

Regarding her opinion about the bitcoin now. She, maybe have seen the future about it and knows what will come of it in the near future. Criticism about bitcoin always fail at the end of the day. They can now see that bitcoin has so much value and can’t fade away just like that because of its decentralised way of operation. Regardless of what she thinks or have in mind about it and others who don’t like it, the bitcoin market is already in safe hands and it won’t fall no matter the pressures mounted on it.

She can say whatever she wants about Bitcoin, but the reality is that Bitcoin adoption cannot be stopped. No matter how many negative stuff that we hear about Bitcoin, or saying that “Bitcoin is dead” many times, no one can stop it from getting adopted because it is highly “contagious”. We understand the opinion of others about Bitcoin, it’s just that they aren’t educated or informed enough about Bitcoin while other famous personalities, companies, institutions and crypto-friendly government have understood more than Janet and the other naysayers out there.

I expect to see Bitcoin recognition if it ever happens. I can't look forward to using Bitcoin, knowing the torment I'm avoiding. Especially when cash, which is yet the most private way to transact, is replaced by such nonsense.

All the black economy will move into cryptos, lol.

Also,

I think Janet Yellen is old, today she says Negative tomorrow she says positive about Bitcoin, even though she is currently the US Secretary of the Treasury.

I've seen on CNBC March 22, 2022, about Janet Yellen saying, about the benefits of crypto.

Now he says.

I believe Janet Yellen's words, cannot be held and have no effect on the development of Bitcoin.
Bottom line: how influential is Janet Yellen, on the world of technology and crypto, I think 0%, I believe Janet Yellen's statement about Bitcoin will disappear like salt in the rain.

You over-inflate horror stories behind whatever she said. She's the secretary of the treasury. Of course that her aim is to protect US Dollar. Of course that her rhetoric will be more against Bitcoin than pro Bitcoin. What you'd expect?! Somehow I don't understand why in 16 posts nobody said it already: her statements and views are almost certainly biased.

All this being said, I too find this statement of her, strangely, more balanced and objective than many others'...


However, I see no reason for freaking out. It doesn't mean that her perception/vision would have changed... Like the saying: just one flower doesn't make it spring.

People should stop that praise of CBDC means praise of crypto, because it's usually the opposite - CBDC is governments version of crypto that they want to create as an alternative to both crypto and privately-owned payment networks. The goal of CBDC is more control over finance by the government, which is obviously the opposite of what crypto aims to achieve.


Sensationalist misrepresenting titles and crypto journalism, name a more iconic duo