Since the creation of the first cryptocurrency, it and the technologies that formed its basis have attracted the attention of a large number of enthusiasts. Not surprisingly, many are interested in hearing the opinions of influential people regarding decentralized monetary systems.. Especially when the bearer of such an opinion is close to the level at which decisions are made to regulate the entire industry. One of the most significant and influential figures in the Russian space on this issue is German Gref – head of Sberbank, ex-Minister of Economic Development and Trade of Russia. But how exactly did the evolution of German Gref’s views on cryptocurrency occur?
Very interesting experiment
The Russian banker has been “in the subject” of cryptocurrencies for a long time. Back in 2011, Gref made transactions in Bitcoin: according to him, he bought a T-shirt for 12 BTC (then this amount was $5).
The history of Gref’s public statements about cryptocurrencies and, in particular, Bitcoin (at the beginning of the development of the crypto industry, it was BTC that almost single-handedly controlled the audience’s attention) began a little later. In 2013, a banker spoke about cryptocurrencies as follows:
“Virtual currencies represent a very interesting international experiment that breaks the paradigm of currency emission. They definitely shouldn’t be banned, they should be recognized and maybe properly regulated.”
The director of the largest Russian bank cannot help but understand that cryptocurrencies are potentially dangerous, first of all, for the banking sector itself. Nevertheless, he spoke out against the ban, suggesting not to take hasty action and to monitor the situation. In 2015, he again called for restraint in bans:
“It seems to us, as professionals in this area, that this is definitely not something that should be prohibited.”
The statement came at a time when the bitcoin rate was declining and Gref admitted that his funds – “a few bitcoins” – had lost value. He then joked that “only one currency in the world has devalued more than the ruble: Bitcoin.”
In general, this period of Gref’s statements and actions can be characterized as a time of study of the issue and relative (compared to what will happen later) favor towards cryptocurrencies.
Blockchain is not equal to cryptocurrency
The banker’s position hardened a little later, when a clear division between blockchain and cryptocurrencies appeared in his rhetoric. The first has become a promising technology for him, which must be developed with all efforts and in no case can be strangled by prohibitions. Cryptocurrencies have become a threat to banks, finances and the usual way of life.. At the EEF in 2017, Gref directly pointed out the need to regulate Bitcoin, adding that this should not hinder the development of blockchain in Russia:
“Regulation is required, but carefully so as not to stifle this extremely promising technology in the regulatory embrace.”
Gref probably saw great potential in supporting blockchain as a technology – the banker considers it especially promising directly in the financial sector and in public administration. But he began to treat the idea of replacing fiat money with cryptocurrency with obvious skepticism:
“Do I see a great future for cryptocurrencies? Not viewed yet. The state will not give up its centralized role and will not allow cryptocurrency. Although, maybe this would be the right model – I am for a distributed model, including the money supply. But it seems to me that this is not the prospect of the next – I’ll say optimistically – 10 years. Maybe something will be visible over the 10-year horizon, but so far it does not seem that any state is ready to part with the centralized model of money supply.”
Gref is well acquainted with how the state works, in particular in the financial sector. Therefore, his prediction that the state will ultimately not allow cryptocurrencies to pass is worth taking seriously, even if for now it seems that cryptocurrency and the state are somehow “getting along.”
The fact that the banker repeats year after year that it is impossible to “strangle” the blockchain suggests that the state may well at any time resort to “tightening the screws” and introducing strict “administrative barriers and prohibitions”. After all, from his position, the banker is probably not addressing ordinary users who do not have the capabilities for such a ban.
Stablecoin is possible
During one of the latest discussions regarding the ban on cryptocurrencies, Gref spoke out in defense of stablecoins:
“I support the circulation of cryptocurrency as a means of payment, its ban on the territory of the country. But under no circumstances should any derivatives, such as stablecoins, be banned.”
Moreover, in the face of the tough position of the Central Bank, he also defended the possibility of preserving cryptocurrency as an investment asset.
If you look at his position as a whole, it is rather pro-cryptocurrency. It is obvious that at the moment no one will grant the status of a means of payment to cryptocurrency on a large scale. But on all other issues, Gref consistently takes a restrained and favorable position, especially when it comes to blockchain and state-sanctioned stablecoins. Actually, Sberbank applied for registration of Sbercoin back in 2021.
Conclusion
The voiced views of German Gref have undergone changes from relatively more liberal and pro-industry and specific solutions, to the identification and isolation of individual technologies that are worth developing and in relation to which pressure from the state should be lower.
At the same time, it cannot be said that Gref’s position is strange or unusual for a banker. Rather, if he consistently advocated exclusively for a total ban on cryptocurrency, this could be explained as an attempt to eliminate a market competitor that does not bode well for traditional banks as financial intermediaries. But if you think about it, in Gref’s extreme presentation, banks face just as little: uncontrolled cryptocurrencies will find themselves regulated and supplanted by stablecoins, and the blockchain will remain, but in the service of the state and banks.
This material and the information contained herein do not constitute individual or other investment advice.. The opinion of the editors may not coincide with the opinions of the author, analytical portals and experts.