Up to date, many countries are yet to understand the difference between Blockchain Technology and its first publicly known token Bitcoin which has become the poster child for all Decentralized Ledger Technologies (DLT).
This has led to a lot of confusion especially by many Countries that are yet to strategically define their national policies as regards cryptocurrencies.
This is happening because when anyone hears the word “Bitcoin” they confuse it with “blockchain technology” which is the technology that drives Bitcoins in the first place.
It is a Matter of Knowledge Not Semantics
While many people may have a hard time coming to terms with this reality, most think that the definition of terms is not important.
The truth, however, is that many nations lack the technical expertise to be able to strategically define what exactly cryptocurrencies are all about, hence the confusion between the two terms.
Others, however, have been able to define them strictly and have been able to define legal frameworks to pursue cryptocurrencies and their underlying blockchain technologies specifically.
An example of this in action is the Chinese Government’s recent focuson Blockchain technologies separately from cryptocurrency tokens.
On one hand, the Chinese Government has been able to strategically define frameworks for Blockchain technology and also for cryptocurrencies separately.
This has led to their being able to follow up on criminal cases giving legitimate operations involving cryptocurrencies breathing space to operate within the ambit of the laws of the Peoples’ Republic of China.
Also, the Chinese are planning to launch their National Cryptocurrency that will be used concurrently with the Renminbi prompting many in the cryptospace to consider investments in blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies separately in China.
As this continues, other Nations are also following a somewhat ambiguous route using a “one-size-fits-all” approach just like in the case of Germany whose Bundestag has been able to sidestep the legal situations that surround the technical nature of definitions and given banks the ability to own cryptocurrency using a broad-based definition.
This has also created a paradigm where each Nation-state must be able to define the two terms separately and how their tokens will be defined as well.
It seems that the United States Authorities aren’t able to make up their minds as to each of these definitions.
On one hand, the US Securities and Exchange Commission has defined several cryptocurrency projects as securities or are in the process of doing so while the Commodities and Futures Trading Commission has defined others strictly on commodities based on extant laws, rules, and regulations (the famed Howey’s security test is a case in point).
This, of course, has led to a broad discussion within the cryptospace as to what exactly to do and who will win this seemingly endless argument.
Until there is the adoption of cryptocurrencies at an appreciable level on a global scale, there won’t be any end in sight to the struggle on the approach.
However, as knowledge lights the way, many shall see what each of these terms mean and how they can be used to change the World.