Pierre Person (LREM): “If traditional banks do not adapt, they will be wiped off the map”

Decision makers. How can we both represent the state and defend a movement that wants to be decentralized and anti-system?

Peter Nobody. That’s a very good question. You should know that basically, the technology block chain is a rather libertarian project carried out in 2008 by individuals who had noticed a de facto situation in global finance and wanted to remedy it from a monetary point of view. Then, I have a habit of saying that technology as such has no political end and that is why regulating technology does not make sense. Technology is the application and the use you make of it that determines what it is used for. In short, this technology has no political purpose. On the other hand, the decentralization movement will restore sovereignty to the individual.

Isn’t regulation a brake on innovation?

In my opinion, regulation is extremely important because it makes it possible to set frameworks that protect investors and thus to generalize maturity. This is the case of Binance, one of the main exchange platforms for crypto-assets, whose activity had started illegally in the Virgin Islands but represented several hundreds of billions of capitalization. To enter a second phase of development, they must now be regulated in order to reassure the small saver who would like to invest. Thus institutionalization will allow the expansion of this technology.

Can bitcoin be considered a store of value, like gold?

Yes intrinsically, in the philosophy of bitcoin, it is there to protect against monetary erosion. However, we observe that bitcoin is highly correlated with risky assets. However, he responded favorably to the Fed’s announcement regarding US inflation. The strong long-term decorrelation of this asset in comparison with more traditional assets makes it possible to hedge against inflation. This is why institutional investors are wondering about the possibility of investing part of their cash in bitcoin in order to expose themselves to something that is decorrelated from the traditional market.

What will be the place of digital assets in the economy of tomorrow?

At present, the uses as we know them are poorly defined. In my view, four points stand out. Vis-à-vis the market, this technology could become a marketplace with the issue of financial securities, for example. The block chain could modernize this sector, moreover the AMF is rather favorable to these changes. From a banking point of view, in my opinion, if the traditional banks do not adapt, they will be wiped off the map. The intermediary role represented by the bank will no longer be useful, because operations such as loans will be decentralized. Then, the currency has not always been the prerogative of the State, it has been the case for several centuries.

“Do we want the currency to remain in the bosom of the state?”

The real question is: “Do we want the currency to remain in the bosom of the State?” We observe, on a global scale, a currency and sovereignty war being played out in which the Europeans are the sad spectators. Finally, compared to NFTs, the market is currently overflowing with liquidity. I am therefore not sure that the current value of these works of art is sustainable. However, this technology will allow interoperable hyper-liquidity where copies of works will no longer be possible, authenticity will be simpler and transactions much more flexible. Ultimately this could revolutionize traditional finance.

Interview by Marc Munier and Clément Redon

About the author


Leave a Comment