Send this article to a friend:


BIS To Allow Member Banks To Hold 1% Of Their Reserves In Bitcoin
Tyler Durden

It might seem like a rather odd move for the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) to make after Bitcoin has lost around 60% of its value in only six months, but the globalist institution is now allowing member banks to hold 1% of their reserves in the cryptocurrency (around $1.8 trillion total).  Is this about recognition of Bitcoin as a viable trade mechanism, or is there an agenda afoot?  

The BIS is known as the “central bank of central banks” for a reason; it has a long and notorious history as a kind of control hub, handing down orders to national central banks including the Federal Reserve.  Many times over the past decade we have seen central banks in various countries act in tandem with each other.  Even those banks that would normally be at odds politically still enact complimentary fiscal and monetary policies.  If you have noticed that many central banks around the world seem to be closely cooperating with each other, that is because they are.  

The BIS, a foreign body that is not elected, essentially dictates central bank decisions well outside the purview of individual governments.  This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact known for decades.

While many globalist institutions have sordid pasts, the history of the BIS is particularly ugly.  The banking outfit was exposed after WWII as a money laundering outfit for the Nazi regime.  They also smelted and hid stolen gold in cooperation with the Third Reich.  The exposure led to little action as the scandal was swept under the rug.  The IMF was formed in the place of the BIS and took over the role as the public face of global economic centralization, but the BIS remains a powerful institution to this day.

The interest of the BIS in Bitcoin is particularly fascinating as it follows a strange pattern among global banks, which is to vocally criticize cryptocurrencies in the media while quietly investing millions or billions of dollars into crypto technology and infrastructure.  This has been true of major banks from JP Morgan to Goldman Sachs along with numerous central banks including the Federal Reserve.  With the general public at least acclimated to the idea of crypto, it appears that many central banks are moving to capitalize on the trend.  Not so much by throwing heavy support behind individual coins or blockchain products, but by investing in infrastructure while creating their own versions of the technology.  

CBDCs (Central Bank Digital Currencies) are now being developed widely by a host of central banks as well as the IMF and BIS.  Their quiet support of crypto may be a way for them to pave a path toward their own fully centralized cryptocurrencies in the future.  

Though the privacy of most blockchain products is highly questionable, you can be certain that CBDCs will be the least private means of trade ever devised, with every single transaction tracked and cataloged.  It is also likely that central banks will retain the power to simply freeze digital accounts at will, thus depriving targeted citizens of their money and ability to survive in the normal economy.  With the removal of paper money, the last vestiges of anonymity in consumer trade will be lost (except for the black market).  

The rapid decline of Bitcoin and other coins actually serves the interests of the BIS, IMF and central banks very well.  The common argument among globalists is that the market value of crypto is far too unstable for the technology to act as a true currency and store of value.  Fiat money is hardly much better, of course, but they argue that central bank currencies have the benefit of “government promises.”  In other words, when a government backs a currency, this is supposed to create public faith in that currency's trade value.

With many normal currencies starting to lose public faith because of inflation, central banks will have to present some kind of alternative system in the near term to maintain economic authority.  Hence, the subtle but expanding shift to CBDCs and blockchain technology.  

The “solution” that the BIS, IMF and other groups offer to currency devaluation is usually a basket system – A mechanism that locks multiple currencies into a single framework and homogenizes their values.  The IMF has been talking about doing this with paper currencies for many years using their Special Drawing Rights (SDR) basket.  It would not be surprising if they announced a similar plan for the large number of cryptocurrencies on the market also.  That is to say, they will claim that the best way to stabilize the buying power of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin will be to collect all the major coins under a single umbrella along with CBDCs, and the bankers will no doubt control that umbrella.

This might sound like a far off development; something that would happen decades from now.  But many analysts are greatly underestimating the speed at which enormous economic changes are being made behind the scenes as inflationary crisis strikes.  The BIS taking on Bitcoin and allowing it to be held in reserves might seem like a small thing, but it has implications which are far reaching. 


our mission:

to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
to liberate oppressed knowledge.
to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
to facilitate information's unending quest for freedom.
our method: pseudonymous speech...
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.

...responsibly used.

The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't.

Send this article to a friend: