Why Did China Ban Bitcoin Mining? Here Are The Seven Leading Theories

One of 2021’s biggest stories was the China ban on Bitcoin mining. On one hand, the news affected Bitcoin’s price and gave ammunition to the nay-sayers that think that governments will outlaw Bitcoin. On the other, the network kept working without a hiccup, recovered its hashrate in record time, and gained in decentralization. However, a question remained. Why did China exclude itself from this very lucrative activity in which they were dominating?

As Bitcoin entrepreneur John Carvalho not-so-eloquently put it, “I refuse to believe that China is stupid.” There has to be a reason, even if it’s a simple one. To help our audience solve the puzzle, NewsBTC decided to gather all of our theories in a single post.

China Ban Theory #1:  The Digital Yuan CBDC

This one is as straightforward as it gets. When China started cracking down on miners, NewsBTC reported: “As for the possible reasons, Bitcoin Magazine’s Lucas Nuzzi cites the upcoming Digital Yuan CBDC.” And Nuzzi said, “They’re literally rolling out their own coin (a CBDC) that will enable the mass surveillance and unbanking of dissidents.”

5 BTC + 300 Free Spins for new players & 15 BTC + 35.000 Free Spins every month, only at mBitcasino. Play Now!

So, did China kill a potential billion-dollar industry just to squash their CBDC’s competition? Is that it?

China Ban Theory #2:  Blackouts

Is China having energy issues? In that same article, we posed another theory:

Get 110 USDT Futures Bonus for FREE!

“In retrospect, we should’ve seen it coming. Only two months ago, following a suspicious blackout, NewsBTC reported:

According to the Beijing Economic and Information Bureau, there were concerns about the energy consumption related to these activities. PengPai quotes Yu Jianing, rotating Chairman of the Blockchain Special Committee of China, to claim that the country’s environmental requirements could lead to crypto mining being more “strictly regulated”. Jianing said this will be “inevitable.”

However, would they be decommissioning small hydropower stations if this was the case?

China Ban Theory #3:  Cleaner Energy Sources

Our report on small hydropower stations’ source was government-regulated media, so take it with a grain of salt. It starts with a claim that clashes heavily with theory #2:

“According to the article, the heyday of private power plants in China was the beginning of the century. Investors built thousands of hydropower stations because they saw them as a constant cash cow. For their part, the regions nearby saw them as a sign of progress and a solution to their energy problems. 

However, with the gradual surplus of electricity in China in recent years, the electricity generated by hydropower stations is often destined to being abandoned (commonly known as “abandonment of electricity”)”

However, the main reason for the decommissioning seemed to be repairing the original flow of the rivers. “Hydropower stations have always been one of the important factors restricting the ecology of Sichuan’s rivers,” said Wang Hua, deputy director of the Sichuan Provincial Water Resources Department. We went a step further:

“It’s possible that the government is trying to get rid of those plants. That would explain the article’s tone, it seems like it was trying to get investors to stay away from those hydropower stations. In light of this, China’s ban on Bitcoin mining could just be part of an even bigger play. They’re serious and methodically shaking things up over there. 

What could be their end-game? Is China just trying to go carbon neutral and repair the original flow of the rivers? Or is there something else at play here?”

However, something doesn’t add up. In another article about the ban, we highlighted that hydropower energy is clean energy.

“Did China make the mistake of a lifetime by banning Bitcoin mining or do they have a secret plan?

The fact that the electricity for crypto mining in Sichuan came from clean hydropower meant that many thought the province would be a safe haven for Bitcoin miners.”

China Ban Theory #4:  The New China Model

We explored Bloomberg’s theory about a “less founder-driven and more China-centric” model that China was supposedly exploring.

“If China is abandoning the Silicon Valley model, what will it replace it with? Insiders suggest it will be less founder-driven and more China-centric.

Why is China dwarfing its biggest industries and players? Is the “China Model” just concerned with scale? Or is control their focus? Are they cracking down on people and companies with too much power that work on a global scale?”

And even though it wasn’t quite believable, it introduced the concept that China was also cracking down on their biggest tech executives. Maybe this isn’t only about Bitcoin?

BTCUSD price chart for 01/02/2022 - TradingView

BTC price chart on Bitbay | Source: BTC/USD on TradingView.com

China Ban Theory #5:  Making Bitcoin Hard To Use

This one doesn’t explain the overarching theme of the China ban. It does add color to whatever theory you prefer. In an event, Yin Youping, Deputy Director of the Financial Consumer Rights Protection Bureau of the People’s Bank of China, said, “We remind the people once again that virtual currencies such as Bitcoin are not legal tender and have no actual value support.” And proceeded to list everything the PBOC was doing to combat cryptocurrency trading.

In the NewsBTC report about it, we said:

“Maybe their plan is simpler than we thought. It’s possible that The People’s Bank of China is just going to make it really really hard for the common citizen to access Bitcoin. And, China’ll use propaganda and repetition to keep people in check and scared of the unknown. One of Bitcoin’s prototipical adversarial scenarios. A battle that Bitcoin expected sooner or later.”

China Ban Theory #6: Preparing For Evergrande’s Default

Was the Chinese government just closing the exits? They knew that the Evergrande situation was inevitable and didn’t want people to have the Bitcoin lifeboat available. In our report, we said:

“To recap: the government saw this coming from a distance. They knew the crisis was going to repeatedly hit the country and banned Bitcoin mining to scare the population into not buying the hardest asset ever created. Bitcoin, the true hedge against the collapse of every economy.”

China Ban Theory #7: FUD To Get More Bitcoin

According to John Carvalho’s wild and full of assumptions theory, China bans something related to Bitcoin every cycle to manipulate the price and get more BTC. The country has no incentive to ban the industry. They make too much money mining, plus they control the ASICs manufacturers, plus mining machines inflate the value of chips, and they control that business too. So, Carvalho’s theory is:

“The main ASIC manufacturer, the Chinese company Bitmain, had a new generation of miners ready. So, the CCP “decided to create a demand for the aftermaket and combine it with the FUD.” As they usually do, they sold their Bitcoin and made their shorts. Then, China banned Bitcoin mining and the whole country turned off the ASICs. The world perceived the ban as real, just “look at the hashrate.” This is the first time this happens. Then, China sold a small portion of its ASICs to the USA.”

According to him, Bitcoin mining in China didn’t stop, they’re just not signing the blocks. Of course, he doesn’t have any proof, and neither do we. This is just a theory, like all the others.

What’s really going on in China? What’s the reason behind the great China ban of 2021? We wouldn’t know for sure, but we have many suspicions. Let’s hope 2022 gives us solid evidence, new insights, or, at least, a plausible explanation.

Featured Image by PublicDomainPictures on Pixabay | Charts by TradingView

Source

Tagged : / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

Crypto regulation is coming, but Bitcoin traders are still buying the dip

Looking at the Bitcoin chart from a weekly or daily perspective presents a bearish outlook and it’s clear that (BTC) price has been consistently making lower lows since hitting an all-time high at $69,000.

Bitcoin/USD on FTX. Source: TradingView

Curiously, the Nov. 10 price peak happened right as the United States announced that inflation has hit a 30-year high, but, the mood quickly reversed after fears related to China-based real estate developer Evergrande defaulting on its loans. This appears to have impacted the broader market structure.

Traders are still afraid of stablecoin regulation

This initial corrective phase was quickly followed by relentless pressure from regulators and policy makers on stablecoin issuers. First came VanEck’s spot Bitcoin ETF rejection by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 12. The denial was directly related to the view that Tether’s (USDT) stablecoin was not solvent and concerns over Bitcoin’s price manipulation.

On Dec. 14, the U.S. Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee held a hearing on stablecoins focused on consumer protection and their risks and on Dec. 17, the U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) voiced its concern over stablecoin adoption and other digital assets. “The Council recommends that state and federal regulators review available regulations and tools that could be applied to digital assets,” said the report.

The worsening mood from investors was reflected in the CME’s Bitcoin futures contracts premium. The metric measures the difference between longer-term futures contracts to the current spot price in regular markets.

Whenever this indicator fades or turns negative, this is an alarming red flag. This situation is also known as backwardation and indicates that bearish sentiment is present.

Bitcoin CME 2-month forward contract premium versus Coinbase/USD. Source: TradingView

These fixed-month contracts usually trade at a slight premium, indicating that sellers are requesting more money to withhold settlement for longer. Futures should trade at a 0.5% to 2% annualized premium in healthy markets, a situation known as contango.

Notice how the indicator moved below the “neutral” range after Dec. 9 as Bitcoin traded below $49,000. This shows that institutional traders are displaying a lack of confidence, although it is not yet a bearish structure.

Top traders are increasing their bullish bets

Exchange-provided data highlights traders’ long-to-short net positioning. By analyzing every client’s position on the spot, perpetual and futures contracts, one can better understand whether professional traders are leaning bullish or bearish.

There are occasional discrepancies in the methodologies between different exchanges, so viewers should monitor changes instead of absolute figures.

Exchanges top traders Bitcoin long-to-short ratio. Source: Coinglass.com

Despite Bitcoin’s 19% correction since Dec. 3, top traders at Binance, Huobi, and OKEx have increased their leverage longs. To be more precise, Binance was the only exchange facing a modest reduction in the top traders’ long-to-short ratio. The figure moved from 1.09 to 1.03. However, this impact was more than compensated by OKEx traders increasing their bullish bets from 1.51 to 2.91 in two weeks.

Related: SEC commissioner Elad Roisman will leave by end of January

The lack of a premium in CME 2-month future contracts should not be considered a ‘red alert’ because Bitcoin is currently testing the $46,000 resistance, its lowest daily close since Oct. 1. Furthermore, top traders at derivatives exchanges have increased their longs despite the price drop.

Regulatory pressure probably won’t lift up in the short term, but at the same time, there’s not much that the U.S. government can do to suppress stablecoin issuance and transactions. These companies can move outside of the U.S. and operate using dollar-denominated bonds and assets instead of cash. For this reason, currently, there is hardly a sense of panic present in the market and from data shows, pro traders are buying the dip.

The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Cointelegraph. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision.