Risque d'inflation : va-t-on répéter les erreurs de 2020 ?

This week's cryptocurrency market update and news review began by noting a calm market, with Bitcoin hovering around $65,000-$66,000. There was a brief mention of a small hack of $280,000 that occurred yesterday, and the potential for it to create contagion in the ecosystem, similar to events in 2022 that led to liquidations and the collapse of some protocols. The speaker reiterated a long-term optimistic view on Bitcoin, despite short-term fluctuations, and advised newcomers to the crypto market to develop a clear strategy, potentially starting with Bitcoin due to its lower risk compared to altcoins. A key observation was the decrease in institutional demand for Bitcoin. MicroStrategy, a prominent institutional buyer, did not purchase any Bitcoin this week for the first time since mid-December, which is considered unusual. Additionally, data from Crypto Quant indicated a decline in demand from corporate treasuries. Mara, a large Bitcoin miner, sold 15,133 Bitcoin (approximately $1.1 billion) in March to repay debt and accelerate its focus on AI. This move highlights a shift in profitability, as Bitcoin mining faces challenges from rising energy costs and increased competition, making AI a more attractive investment for some players. The speaker suggested that this corporate behavior might signal either a capitulation leading to a market bottom or the beginning of a more intense downturn, with clarity only expected in about six months. The discussion then touched upon an earlier video about EDF's 2017 decision to refuse Bitcoin mining, which could have generated 5 billion euros. This refusal is particularly relevant now, given the current energy crisis and France's national debt. The conversation shifted to the broader economic situation, specifically the rising price of oil and its impact. The increase in oil prices affects not just fuel at the pump but also transportation, manufacturing (plastics), and agriculture (fertilizers), demonstrating its pervasive influence on the economy. In response, the French government announced measures like revaluing energy checks for an additional 700,000 households and allocating funds for the transport (€50 million) and fishing (€4.7 million) sectors, along with support for partial unemployment (€70 million). While these individual measures seem small for a state, they raise concerns about a repeat of 2022's economic challenges. The speaker criticized the government's approach of distributing aid, which often leads to increased national debt, rather than reducing taxes. France's national debt has increased by 41% since Q1 2020, and the country has not had a balanced budget since 1973 or 1974. The rising interest rates on this debt further exacerbate the financial burden. The geopolitical situation, particularly the conflict in the Middle East and the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, was also discussed. This has led to a significant reduction in ship traffic, from 50-60 ships daily to about 20 last week, impacting commodity prices. The speaker humorously mentioned an April Fool's joke about Donald Trump launching a "Hormuz token" to end the war, highlighting the absurdity of some token launches. Another April Fool's prank by Liquity, a stablecoin protocol, involved a fake announcement of an acquisition by Circle. This led to a significant pump and dump of its token (LUSD), with an almost 12% price swing. The speaker noted the ethical implications of such pranks, especially if insiders had prior knowledge and profited from the price manipulation. A similar incident in traditional finance involved Volkswagen's fake name change to "Voltswagen," which also triggered a SEC investigation due to its market impact. The speaker also pointed out Liquity's subtle jab at Circle in its follow-up tweet, highlighting the centralized and censurable nature of USDC, despite Liquity's own LUSD stablecoin representing a tiny fraction of the market. The discussion moved to stablecoin regulation in the US. The Genus Act, passed last summer, regulates stablecoin issuers with over $10 billion in TVL, subjecting them to SEC and Federal Reserve oversight. This creates a close link between central banks and stablecoins, blurring the lines with Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). The Clarity Act, still under discussion, aims to clarify whether cryptocurrencies are securities or commodities, with Layer 1 cryptos like Bitcoin generally considered commodities. A more controversial development is the Parity Act, a revised version of Cynthia Lummis's previous bill that aimed to exempt crypto transactions under $300 from taxes, up to $5,000 annually, to encourage Bitcoin's use as a currency. Recent reports, though denied by Coinbase, suggest that Coinbase is lobbying to remove Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies from this bill, making the tax exemption applicable only to stablecoins. This would benefit Coinbase and Circle, who earn significant revenue from stablecoin interest, but would hinder Bitcoin adoption and promote centralized, censurable stablecoins. While France has a 300€ annual tax exemption for crypto gains, a similar bill specifically for euro stablecoins failed due to lack of political support. The speaker expressed concern that governments might eventually implement specific, high taxes on cryptocurrencies if they become too disruptive, potentially including a "Bitcoin flat tax" of 100% on capital gains, which would disincentivize investment. Finally, the conversation turned to quantum computing and its potential threat to cryptocurrency cryptography. Google and the Ethereum Foundation published a paper suggesting that quantum computers could break Bitcoin and Ethereum cryptography with significantly fewer qubits and in less time (9-23 minutes) than previously estimated. This could make around 6 million BTC (including Satoshi's) and 20 million ETH vulnerable. For Ethereum, this poses an additional risk to its Proof-of-Stake system, as a malicious actor controlling a large amount of staked ETH could potentially launch a 34% or 51% attack. However, the speaker emphasized that this research is theoretical and potentially biased, given the Ethereum Foundation's involvement and Ethereum's existing quantum roadmap. Bitcoin developers are aware of the quantum threat and have been working on quantum-resistant algorithms for years. While there's debate within the Bitcoin community about the timeline of such a threat (some experts say 5-10 years, Bitcoin developers say 20-40 years), solutions are being explored. The challenge for Bitcoin lies in achieving social consensus for a protocol update, which is more complex than for smaller, more centralized blockchains like Algorand (which is already quantum-resistant) or Ethereum. The speaker clarified that the quantum risk primarily concerns breaking private keys from public keys, not revalidating the entire blockchain. This risk applies to old addresses where public keys are always exposed and to new transactions where public keys are exposed during the transaction process. If a quantum computer can break a key within the time it takes for a transaction to be confirmed (e.g., an hour for a Bitcoin block), funds could be stolen. Despite these concerns, several quantum-resistant solutions are under discussion and expected to be implemented in Bitcoin in the coming years. The live session concluded by mentioning the ongoing hack of Drift, which will be monitored for further developments, and a brief note on SpaceX's upcoming IPO.