As much as I think that for an individual bitcoin is more practical than gold... I am not sure the same can be said for a central bank.
Storing gold for an individual is a problem. For a country like Russia with the 2nd or 3rd world military? It isn’t.
Easy transfer of money... again... very good for an individual. For a central bank though? It would be very dangerous to have an individual or even a group of individuals with the private keys. Keep in mind that such individuals could steal all bitcoins yet be granted the red carpet in the US...
Then what about fungibility? Wouldn’t we reasonably know which address belong to such a large holder? Could those addresses be black listed or something? At the end of the day Russia would need the assurance that the balance could easily be converted back to USD. How do you exchange $10 billion worth of bitcoin? Do you just go to coinbase?
But imagine the KYC crap people may have to go through if in fact russia does try this? It actually makes very little sense for them to do so, so I'm not actually worried, but how annoying would that be.
I wasn't referring to the purchase, I was referring to ownership and transfer of BTC assets on exchanges, etc. I could see new stronger, and more annoying laws passed to some "prove" the BTC wasn't Russian or in the hands of a sanctioned Russian.
And again, I don't believe this article is in any way accurate, either, crypto is *not* a good way around sanctions with the exception of small change. It's just not going to happen.
One would think that once "fake" news is spread wide, some would start accepting it for the truth. This should be good for the eco-system and thus we should encourage any and all news. As to say not be to fast to deem something as"fake". In fact a certain "cold-war" approach should be used. As in the common comment: "The enemy is doing this, so should we".