World Gold Council Hits Back at #DropGold Campaign: Crypto Can’t Replace Gold

Siamak Masnavi

On Thursday (May 2), Adam Perlaky, Manager of Investment Research at the World Gold Council, hit back at Grayscale Investments' recent #DropGold campaign by explaining why his organization believes that "cryptocurrencies are no replacement for gold."

As CryptoGlobe reported earlier, on Wednesday (May 1), New York-based cryptoasset investment firm Grayscale Investments ("Grayscale"), a subsidiary of Barry Silbert's incubator and venture capital firm Digital Currency Group (DCG), launched a #DropGold campaign that features a funny TV commercial, which tells investors that "in a digital world" they should not allow their portfolios to be "weighed down" by gold and "digital currencies, like Bitcoin, are the future":

 

 

Grayscale's commercial says that cryptocurrencies are better than gold because "they are secure, borderless, and unlike gold, they actually have utility."

Michael Sonnenshein, Grayscale's Managing Director, told The Block that "Barry Silbert, CEO of the fund's parent company DCG, had the idea for the campaign, hoping to target the older generation in particular":

 

"We're going after a narrative around gold being where investors should go when markets turn south or as a hedge against inflation...We're highlighting the absurdity of gold."

 

Well, today, the Wold Gold Council hit back at the #DropGold campaign by publishing a blog post titled "Cryptocurrencies are no replacement for gold". In this post, Perlaky, who is the Manager of Investment Research at the World Gold Council, tries to explain that "although cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology look promising as a whole, they clearly do not represent a substitute for gold either in theory or in practice."

Perlaky argues that gold is better than cryptocurrencies for the following reasons:

  • "is less volatile"
    • "Cryptocurrencies extreme daily and intraday volatility disrupts its use as a medium of exchange and discourages strategic investments"
    • "Gold’s volatility is slightly above the stock market as a whole, in line with most fiat currencies over time."
  • "has a more liquid market"
    • "Gold trades $150bn a day, nearly 100x that of bitcoin"
    • "Gold pricing is consistent across exchanges in all forms "
  • "trades in an established regulatory framework"
    • "We have seen how lack of regulation has led to multiple crypto exchange defaults and fraudulent activity, resulting in losses amounting to billions"
    • "... gold trades in a widely authorised and regulated market with transparency"
  • "has a well understood role in an investment portfolio"
    • "has been a source of returns rivaling the stock market over the long-term"
    • "protects against inflation"
    • "is a portfolio diversifier, useful during downturns in the market"
  • "has little overlap with cryptocurrencies on many sources of demand and supply"
    • "Gold demand is diverse, coming from jewellery, investment, technology and central banks"
    • "Cryptocurrency demand is highly speculative or investment related, as there is little proof of its use as a medium of exchange"
    • "Gold has a track record dating back to 600 BC, whereas bitcoin has only a 10-year track record."
  • "is a safe-haven investment"
    • "Gold has a track record dating back to 600 BC, whereas bitcoin has only a 10-year track record."
    • "Cryptocurrency performance has been remarkable over the long-term but has seen massive haircuts during some periods and has failed during periods when it should have thrived"
    • "... there is nothing to prevent an enhanced cryptocurrency from being launched, devaluing those already in existence."

Perlaky concludes his post by saying that although "they continue to acknowledge the innovation taking place in the cryptocurrency and blockchain spaces and believe there will be a role for this technology in the future," they believe that "cryptocurrencies are not a replacement for gold and gold should remain a component in all investment portfolios."

Featured Image Credit: Photo via Pexels.com

$4.9 Million: Ransomware Hits Mexico’s State-Owned Oil Firm to Demand 565 BTC

Mexico’s state-owned oil company Pemex has been hit by a ransomware attack that’s seen extortionists demand 565 BTC (around $4.9 million) to decrypt its files.

The attack has reportedly forced Pemex (Petróleos Mexicanos) to halt critical operations and to disconnect 5% of its network from the internet. Workers, according to Bloomberg, reported internal memos initially told them not to turn on their computers, although they were turned on later on.

On Twitter, Pemex posted a statement claiming its operations aren’t being disrupted, although some replied claiming systems are down and causing disruptions:

According to Bleeping Computer Pemex wasn’t affected, as initially thought, by the Ryuk ransomware, but by a DoppelPaymer infection, which is a fork of the BitPaymer infected that earlier this month infected Spain’s largest radio network.

In leaked ransom notes and on the Tor payment site, the ransomware extortionists reportedly ask Pemex for a total of 565 bitcoin (around $4.94 million) to give them a way to decrypt its files and stop the attack. The payment site explains the price is set according to “network size, number of employees, annual revenue.”

The attackers also give the victim a chance to negotiate with them a different amount, either via email or via an online chat function available on the website. Bleeping Computer reports the online chat on the payment site is empty, which means Pemex didn’t attempt to negotiate the ransom.

Featured image by Dmitry Demidko on Unsplash.