Slashdot Mirror


In Venezuela, 'Cutting-Edge' Cryptocurrency is Nowhere To Be Found (reuters.com)

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro has made ambitious claims that the nation's petro cryptocurrency is backed by 5 billion barrels of petroleum reserves. But when reporters of Reuters conducted a months-long investigation, they found that petro is getting little to no traction in the nation or elsewhere. Reuters: Located in an isolated savanna in the center of the country, Atapirire is the only town in an area the government says is brimming with 5 billion barrels of petroleum. Venezuela has pledged those reserves as backing for a digital currency dubbed the "petro," which Maduro launched in February. This month he vowed it would be the cornerstone of a recovery plan for the crisis-stricken nation. But Atapirire residents say they have seen no efforts by the government to tap those reserves. And they have little confidence that their struggling village has a front-row seat to a revolution in finance. "There is no sign of that petro here," said homemaker Igdalia Diaz. She launched into a diatribe about her town's crumbling school, pitted roads, frequent blackouts and perpetually hungry citizens.

It turns out that Venezuela's petro is hard to spot almost anywhere. Over a period of four months, Reuters spoke with a dozen experts on cryptocurrencies and oil-field valuation, traveled to the site of the pledged oil reserves and scoured the coin's digital transaction records in an effort to learn more. The hunt turned up little evidence of a thriving petro trade. The coin is not sold on any major cryptocurrency exchange. No shops are known to accept it.

6 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. Neither is food. Yay late-stage socialism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Venezuela has run out of other people's money.

  2. Re:Neither is food. Yay late-stage socialism! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sweden == capitalism

    Sweden didn't nationalize companies/ other peoples equipment, try to force farmers to produce under the cost of production, heavily regulate internal prices outside of market value, centrally govern production/distribution.

  3. Oil in the ground just isn't worth that much by Noishkel · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oil in the ground ultimately isn't really worth that much when you can't extract, process, and ship it. And Venezuela's aging oil infrastructure has been struggling for years now. Case in point this article from Routers that reports that Venezuela's tankers have been banned from some ports because they're so poorly maintained that they leak unacceptable amounts of oil into the local area. https://www.reuters.com/articl...

    At the end of the day this really does show one of the weakness of socialist monoculture economies. If the one good you can sell starts too loose value you'll quickly find yourself in a pretty dire situation. Even more so if you're government is both corrupt and too incompetent to modernize your industrial equipment.

    1. Re:Oil in the ground just isn't worth that much by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lack of economic diversity is hardly limited to socialist states. Whatever the ideology, the temptation to assume that a boom in any commodity will last forever is a feature of many different kinds of governments. And because economic diversification is very hard, requiring voters to accept some bitter pills, politicians of all stripes don't have the nerve to actually do anything significant to wean their jurisdictions off of that particular commodity or industry. They'll also play into the "monorail" sales pitch (a reference to probably the most instructive Simpsons episode ever made), entering a race to the bottom with other jurisdictions to attract industries, which almost inevitably means the taxpayer pays for the industry to come in, without generating the commiserate level of economic activity to justify the significant investment. Every time I see a politician with a hard hat on, I shiver in fear.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Re:It's an economic trick Brazil used by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

    *sigh* Inflation doesn't happen because people think it will happen. It happens because the government is printing too much money. If you double the amount of currency in the system, everyone figures it's worth half what it used to be, so prices double to compensate. Usually, governments resort to this if they're spending more than they're bringing in via tax revenue. Germany did this in the 1930s to try to pay back war debt. Venezuela does it to try to maintain their socialist paradise ("free" services for everyone). A government spending more than it brings in has two options - keep the debt on the books, or print money to pay for it. When a government prints more money, it's basically stealing from its citizens by devaluing the currency. The money a citizen has in his wallet is worth half of what it used to be, and the value of the other half gets transferred to the government in the form of extra currency it has printed. It's a way to tax people without actually needing them to actually hand over the money to a tax collection agency.

    What saved Brazil was reforms that got government spending under control. Their new currency may have helped people put more faith in the currency, but it's not what stopped inflation. As Venezuela is finding out. Same thing nearly happened to Greece, except they were on the Euro. So their government over-spending ended up being paid for by other countries using the Euro. Which is why they banded together and gave Greece an ultimatum - adopt spending and economic reforms ("austerity"), or be kicked out of the Eurozone.

    Everything that's consumed has to be produced, so productivity is the true fundamental currency of an economy. The money you choose to use is just a representation of that productivity. If you manipulate your monetary currency only to the extent necessary to keep its value more or less constant relative to productivity (what governments do with a fiat currency), then it remains stable, leaving the economy free to operate on its own. But when you start screwing around with your money supply to try to fix other problems (like pay for massive government debt), it shows up as a deviation between your money's value and the value of productivity - the value of your currency changes by a large amount. Basically, manipulating your currency is like changing the markings on a ruler. It may change the number of your measurements (number of Bolivars needed to buy a dozen eggs), but the fundamental distance (productivity needed to raise chickens to produce a dozen eggs) does not change. All you do is create additional overhead as citizens have to spend more time and effort trying to keep track of and compensate for changing currency values (i.e. waste productivity on financial bookkeeping, rather than on producing actual goods and services).

    U.S. sanctions have nothing to do with it. A healthy economy is mostly domestic - most trade happens inside the country (U.S. imports + exports are only about 20% of its domestic GDP), so can't really be hurt by foreign sanctions. U.S. sanctions end up hurting Venezuela only because its government has completely crippled its domestic economy with its boneheaded economic policies.

  5. Re: Neither is food. Yay late-stage socialism! by bkmoore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ....Bernie Sanders has three homes and made $3.6 million dollars last year....Leftists and socialists violently riot....

    Bernie Sanders never said people shouldn't own their own homes or be able to make money. He's for "medicare for all" because he believes that health care is a human right and that the role of government is to guarantee some basic human rights. If you're politically opposed to the idea of health care as a basic human right, make an intelligent intellectual argument as to why healthcare is not a right and why the government shouldn't provide medical insurance, but don't just attack the man and try to paint him as a hypocrite for owning three homes or having a job. He's not against individual property ownership or private enterprise.

    It wasn't leftists who rioted in Charlottesville last year and ran over a counter protestor. It wasn't a leftist President who regularly and openly encourages violence at his political rallies, then promises to pay the legal bills if his supporters beat someone. It wasn't a leftist who committed the most deadly domestic terrorist attack in our nations history. You're trying to frame the debate in your own terms.