Space: the final frontier. Outer space has been in the news a lot recently. The recent discovery of seven Earth-sized planets orbiting TRAPPIST-1 in February excited many people at the possibility to explore further into space. What’s more, different companies have been conducting successful experiments to launch commercial flights to space. Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic and Elon Musk’s SpaceX have both been conducting successful tests of their burgeoning passenger spaceships.

SpaceX launches previously used cargo capsule, a big stride toward eventually reusing spacecraft carrying astronauts https://t.co/QSMb8K0nHj

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) June 3, 2017

The allure of space goes beyond the human need to explore new places and see new sights. The financial gain could be huge as well. There are asteroids full of valuable elements, such as platinum. According to a 98-page client memo, Goldman Sachs said that a craft could be built for $2.6 billion and could extract anywhere from $25 to $50 billion worth of platinum from an asteroid.

Of course this raises many issues, one of which is the risk of inundating the market with platinum and tanking its value.

via GIPHY

Another potential issue is the Outer Space Treaty, drafted in 1967 by the U.S. and the USSR. The countries’ main fear was nuclear weapons being put in space, but the treaty laid the groundwork for space exploration. Essentially what the treaty established was that the act of space exploration should be used to benefit humankind. In fact, one line of the treaty explicitly says:

…Believing that the exploration and use of outer space should be carried on for the benefit of all peoples irrespective of the degree of their economic or scientific development…

When the treaty was signed, national governments, and not private companies, had the capital available to venture into space exploration. In 2017, the economic landscape is a bit different. If Goldman Sachs wants to send its own personal spaceship to an asteroid to mine it for platinum, will the profits be used “for the benefit of all peoples” as the treaty would require?

Article VI of the treaty, the only article that addresses “non-governmental entities,” says that the nation the private entity is located in would have to police its actions. It states:

States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty…

The U.S. would have to ensure that Goldman Sachs use the profits of its mining to benefit all peoples.

Space, as of right now, is technically res communis, or common territory, like a park or the high sea. Unfortunately, what you can and cannot do there is not as clearly defined as it is in these territories. The treaty prohibits “national appropriation by claim of sovereignty,” so does that mean that no one can build a hotel on Mars? And what about that gold mine (well, platinum mine) in the asteroid? Does Goldman Sachs even have the right to mine it, even if it can get there?

For now, space is a legal gray area. We have a long way to go before we become like The Jetsons or Zenon. But it’s still fun to think that one day we could get there.

via GIPHY

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Space Exploration: Can Private Companies Operate in Space? appeared first on Law Street.

On March 29, El Salvador became the first country in the world to ban metal mining. The ban passed through the El Salvador unicameral legislature with support from a sweeping coalition and is favored by nearly 80 percent of the El Salvadorian population. In spite of the overwhelming support for the ban, the anti-mining movement started with a handful of grassroots groups determined to push back against the country’s historical devotion to “pro-business” policies.

El Salvador: An Unlikely Contender

Like many Latin American countries, El Salvador opened its doors to multinational companies in the early 1990s in the hope that an influx of foreign investment would help steady its newly reformed political system. Entrance into the globalized economy appeared to be the best option for a country emerging from a long and brutal civil war. The region saw a spate of political pushbacks against neoliberal economic policies, but El Salvador remained devoted to the globalized economy.

Following the 1992 peace accords, the right-wing, pro-business Nationalist Republican Alliance (NRA) controlled El Salvador for 17 years. During this time, foreign money, much of it from mining, flooded into El Salvador. In 2001, the conservative government adopted the U.S. Dollar as its official currency. Officials pegged their currency to the dollar with the intention of stabilizing the economy and making El Salvador a more attractive destination for international investors.

Candidates from the socialist Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) have won the past two presidential elections but have largely continued the economic strategies initiated by the NRA. The FMLN leaders have not employed the kind of “anti-imperialist” rhetoric that has often been used by other socialist leaders in the region. When Salvador Sánchez Cerén, a former leftist guerilla, took power in 2014, he promised budget cuts and to maintain a close relationship with the United States. Sánchez’s predecessor and fellow FMLN member, Mauricio Funes, ruled the country as a centrist.

It is surprising that a country so roundly committed to foreign investment and the global economy would be the one to lead a charge against multinational metal mining corporations.

From Grassroots to Mainstream

Not long ago, El Salvador was actively courting multinational mining operations. After the civil war, the government began trying to rebuild the large-scale mining industry that had died out when conflict erupted in 1980. When global gold prices began to climb in the early 2000s, El Salvador received a flurry of exploration permit applications.

After some exploratory drilling, Pacific Rim Mining Corporation proposed plans for a mine named El Dorado to be built in the basin of the Rio Lempa–El Salvador’s primary source of drinking water.  According to Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch Division, El Dorado would use two tons of cyanide and 900,000 liters of water a day to extract over 1.4 million ounces of gold in about four years.

Rapid industrialization and population growth in the 1990s caused extreme environmental degradation. By the early 2000s, over 90 percent of El Salvador’s ground water was chemically contaminated and no amount of boiling, filtering, or chlorination would make it potable. The prospect of a cyanide and water intensive mine on the crux of the country’s primary source drinking water was, for many, too much to stomach. Locals feared the mine’s copious water consumption would suck up supply and that the cyanide would render it undrinkable in the process.

As word of the mine spread, groups began to form and resist the El Dorado mine and mining in general. By 2005, the grassroots movement had turned national. Local and international groups united to form The National Roundtable Against Metal Mining in El Salvador (La Mesa), and the population’s support for a metal mining ban had grown.

In May 2007, El Salvador’s anti-mining movement gained one of its most powerful allies–the Catholic Church. In response to anti-mining statements from archbishops in neighboring countries, the El Salvadorian Catholic Church publicly denounced mining, claiming “no material advantage can be compared to the value of human life.” By October of the same year, polls showed 62 percent of the population opposed metallic mining in El Salvador.

The conservative NRA party had previously blocked attempts by the FMLN to pass a legislative ban on metallic mining but public support for the ban had become irresistible. In March 2008, NRA President Antonio Saca instituted a nationwide moratorium on metal mining permits.

The Backlash

Though this moratorium remained in place until the passage of an anti-mining law last month, the presidential moratorium wasn’t permanent and could have been lifted at any moment. The situation was precarious.

Pacific Rim and other mining cooperations quickly filed legal complaints against El Salvador. These suits quickly devolved into drawn-out legal battles, in which mining corporations demanded hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation from one of the poorest countries in Latin America.

As these compensation claims crawled through World Bank tribunals, pro-mining operatives launched violent attacks against the anti-mining movement. From 2009 to 2011, at least four anti-mining activists were murdered. Rather than silencing the movement, these acts of violence galvanized support for the ban.

In late 2016, the World Bank slapped down Pacific Rim’s claim to compensation paving the way for a permanent ban.

A Future Without Mining

Over the course of a few years, the El Salvadorian government’s stance on mining underwent a 180-degree turn. Forces that once backed the mining lobby were forced to concede to a groundswell of opposition. As the effects of environmental degradation and exploitation become more apparent, El Salvador’s grassroots movement provides hope for similar ones around the world.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How El Salvador Became the First Country to Ban Metal Mining appeared first on Law Street.

Human life has become incredibly dependent on electronic technology. The rate of citizens in the developed world who own cell phones, laptops, and other devices have gone sharply up since 2000 and the electronics industry is currently valued at $2.4 trillion worldwide, second in value only to the oil industry. While the proliferation of electronics in our lives have provided new sources of entertainment, increased information access, and made communication easier, the industry also takes an incredible toll on the planet.

Electronics must be built from resources that are generally found underground, which requires high-intensity mining operations. During production, mechanical devices are treated with a variety of toxic chemicals and at the end of their lifetime, electronics are often shipped to developing countries where they become dangerous sources of hazardous waste. However, much of this happens out of sight of the consumer, making the environmental costs of the electronic industry largely invisible to many parts of the world.

Image courtesy of baselactionnetwork via Flickr

An Overview of the Market

Currently, China is the fastest growing player in the electronics industry, because of a combination of its incredibly low labor manufacturing costs and its lack of domestic environmental regulations. Many Asian exporters, Japan and Hong Kong in particular, have steadily shifted large sections of their electronics markets to China as they find themselves unable to compete with China’s low manufacturing costs (labor costs are about 10 percent lower in China than in Hong Kong and overall production cost savings can range between 35 percent to 75 percent depending on the product). Over the years, China has also instituted several supply embargoes on countries that don’t actively participate in trade with Chinese electronic products. The electronics industry continues to grow  stronger and stronger in China as the country makes it a more central part of its economy.

Furthermore, the production of electronics is reliant upon 17 rare earth metals (REMs) and access to these metals strongly impacts a country’s ability to grow within the industry. China currently controls between 90 and 95 percent  of the planet’s rare earth metals, giving it a huge advantage within the market. Some may misinterpret China’s control over the industry to mean that 90 percent of rare earth metals are found in Chinese land. However, only about one-third of the world’s REMs, most notably dysprosium and neodymium, can actually be mined in mainland China, although the level of mining in China is still incredibly high. What is actually true is that China is responsible for the production of 95 percent of the rare earth metals worldwide; a large portion of Chinese mining and processing happens in the developing world, most notably in Central Africa, which has a number of REMs that can’t be found anywhere else.

Before we delve into the mining process, it should also be noted that while China controls a huge section of the rare earth industry, other countries do have large reserves on their mainlands. This prevents China from having a complete monopoly on the industry and from shouldering all the responsibility when it comes to global pollution. Australia, for instance, controls the vast majority of tantalum, which is crucial for almost every single electronic device.

The Environmental Impacts of Mining

Without rare earth minerals, electronics cannot be produced. However, REMs are buried underground and require high-intensity mining operations for extraction. Mining inevitably creates a huge burden on the local environment, both in terms of groundwater and air pollution. The mineral extraction process generates an incredible amount of waste–80 tons of waste is produced from just one ounce of gold–and much of this waste, including toxic metals, cyanide, and various acids, ends up in the earth and the groundwater of the surrounding area. This can completely contaminate the aquifers where mining takes place, both causing large-scale biodiversity loss and devastating effects on local communities that lose their source of drinking water. The same processes release large amounts of dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere and cause staggeringly high rates of respiratory illness in miners.

Air Pollution from mining isn’t just localized to the immediate area; gold mining, for instance, is a leading source of airborne mercury in the United States after coal-fired power plants. These problems are further compounded by the fact that most mining happens in developing countries where environmental regulations are minimal and poor communities are unlikely to receive government protection.

Rare earth mineral mining is also uniquely hazardous to the environment because it has a more complex extraction process than common minerals do. REMs must be physically removed from the earth, then crushed and milled into dust form. They then undergo a flotation stage to separate the material bastnaesite from the rubble mixture. The isolated mineral bastnaesite is then treated with acids, oxides, and a variety of other solvents to corrode away the common minerals. What is left is the rare earth minerals in their crude form, which must be further purified and then combined into alloys to reach commercial standards.

This 10-day process can be contrasted to gold, which only requires a one-step separation process, to illustrate how complex the process of extraction and production is for rare earth minerals. Due to this added complexity and the nature of the acids used in the refinement, there is a much higher potential for chemical pollution to surrounding areas with REMs as compared to other mineral extractions.

The Social Impacts of Mining

The effects of the mining industry on the environment are significant, but the social influence of the industry has also been highly disruptive. While the majority of Rare Earth Mineral production happens in China, Africa has the largest or second largest reserves of several crucial REMs and other common metals, including bauxite, cobalt, industrial diamonds, manganese, phosphate rock, soda ash, vermiculite, zirconium and several platinum metal groups.

South Africa and Zimbabwe together make up the majority of the world’s platinum metal group deposits and South Africa possesses every single rare earth metal except Bauxite and crude oil, which makes it work well as a trading partner with the Bauxite rich nation of China. However, African countries domestically control a very small share of the profits of these reserves, and the entire continent on average only receives about 15 percent of global exploration, expenditure, and mining investment. The bulk of the industry’s profits goes to foreign mining companies, which have played a role on the continent in some way, shape, or form since the 1800s, although their share has steadily decreased somewhat in the past 20 years. Furthermore, government corruption in many of the mineral-rich African nations has funneled large percentages of the funds from the mining industry away from domestic development, depriving many areas of the supposed benefits of this trade relationship.

In the worst case scenario, the mining industry has helped to fuel conflict in some of the least stable countries in Central Africa. The most serious case of this is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where copper, cobalt, and tantalum reserves are controlled and leased to China by a variety of different militia groups. The funds from these mining operations are used by both the government and the rebel forces to finance the weapons and supplies used in the D.R.C.’s ongoing Civil War, which has taken over 5 million lives. While the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation strongly dissuaded many mining companies from dealing in “conflict minerals” and financing the warfare, rare earth trade continues to move in and out of the area, especially with China.

Disposal and its Consequences

After extraction, rare earth metals are manufactured into complete products and must be moved over extensive supply chains and across national borders to reach consumers (this has its own burden of CO2 emissions, as does any product involved in international trade). On the other side of extraction is disposal, when the technology is finally thrown away. This happens faster than would be necessary because of product obsolescence, which often involves designing products that break within a few years so a new one must be purchased, and perceived obsolescence, which is a marketing device used to make consumers believe they need newer, better products.

The average life cycle of a cell phone, for instance, is only 18 months. Both product obsolescence and perceived obsolescence are used to fuel the electronics business by ensuring that consumers buy new products regularly, but they cause large shares of electronics to be thrown away every year that could be designed and marketed to have much longer lifetimes.

While all waste comes with an environmental burden, electronic waste, or e-waste, is particularly dangerous to the environment because of its unique components. Rare earth metals themselves can be to the environment, but electronics are also produced with a number of chemicals that are considered extremely hazardous, such as arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium and polybrominated flame retardants. More than 20 million tons of e-waste are generated each year, with 3.4 million tons coming from the United States alone. Many electronics are difficult to recycle by nature of their design and the chemicals that compose them, which means that more than 60 percent of electronic products have to be disposed of by traditional methods.

E-waste that isn’t recycled and stays in the country where it was purchased, often ending up in landfills where chemicals can leach into local groundwater. Alternatively, e-waste may be burned in incinerators, despite the fact that this releases dioxin, which is one of the most toxic known substances in the world. E-waste that is recycled, however, isn’t generally recycled but rather shipped to developing countries, which will often allow the import of old electronics. Some degree of this is actually recycled and repaired, but huge quantities become pure waste, accumulating in piles that are even less contained than landfills in the developed world. This leads to hazardous chemicals leaching out rapidly and polluting the ground and waterways of the areas they’re dumped in.

The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and Their Disposal was held in 1989 and entered into force in 1992. The primary purpose of the convention to address the mass dumping of waste from the developed to the developing world. The convention declared that any waste that could be categorized as flammable, explosive, poisonous, toxic, ecotoxic, corrosive of infectious must be disposed of as close as possible to where it was used and in the most environmentally friendly manner. In 1995, an amendment was added that banned the shipment of e-waste and other hazardous waste to the developing world for final disposal. However, the amendment did not ban the same shipment as long as the developing country was in agreement and the purpose of the shipment was recycling and not just disposal. Of course, in reality this leaves room for difference of interpretation and many developing countries willingly accept e-waste; what happens after it is dumped is generally difficult for the Basel Convention to track or regulate with any certainty.

Proponents of exporting e-waste to the developing world argue that it’s a beneficial arrangement in that it gives poorer nations access to repairable technology and metal materials. The recycling industry abroad also provides jobs and income for residents, who often live in the poorest parts of the Africa and Asia and depend on the industry for their livelihoods. Foreign exports also provide access to markets for recycled materials that simply don’t exist in developed countries, arguably ensuring that as little e-waste as possible is actually wasted.

However, it’s also true that the recycling processes abroad are incredibly unsafe for the humans who conduct them, which is why developed countries rarely allow such processes to take place domestically.  The disposal methods are often crude and dangerous and can involve burning circuit boards to isolate the lead material, burning the plastic off wires in order to access copper, and dissolving heavy metals in acids over fresh water. These operations often take place in residential areas and are performed with little to no safety equipment.

Image courtesy of baselactionnetwork via Flickr

Conclusion

The electronics industry has a significant impact on the environment at several important steps in its life cycle. Resource extraction through mining places a considerable burden on groundwater and the atmosphere, especially because most areas where REM mining takes place have very little environmental regulatory oversight. Furthermore, the mining industry can have negative social impacts on unstable countries where government corruption and internal conflict is high. The problem is compounded by the relevance of the mining industry to the economies of many African countries, which both need the revenue and have the ambition of furthering their national resource control to become key players in the electronics industry themselves.

At the end of the life of an electronic device, its disposal poses yet another danger to the environment because of the number of dangerous chemicals that go into each product. Historically, the bulk of the burden of e-waste is felt in the developing world where the waste is dumped. Dangerous chemicals enter the surrounding environment and the workers charged with disposal expose themselves to terrible health risks. While the Basel Convention has had an important influence on fighting international dumping, it’s still practiced widely and e-waste is still a huge problem globally.

Unfortunately, both the problems of extraction and disposal are largely outside of the view of the consumer, giving the issue little salience among most participants in the electronics industry. As the second most valuable industry on earth, the electronics market is certainly not going to slow down anytime in the near future, until perhaps REMs become a truly scarce resource. Since the environmental burdens of electronics are necessary to increase industry profits and the vast majority of the consumer base does not know or care about these burdens, it’s difficult to say whether or not effective solutions to these will eventually be produced.

Resources

African Compass International: Rare Earth Elements 101

Australian Atlas of Mineral Resources, Mines & Processing Centres: Tantalum

The Economist: Planet of the Phones

Electronics Take Back: Responsible Recycling vs. Global Dumping

Electronics Take Back: Where’s the Harm – From Material Extraction?

Eugene Becker, USEF: Mining and Exploitation of Rare Earth Elements in Africa as an Engagement Strategy in US Africa Command

Forbes: China’s Rare Earth Monopoly Needn’t put a Electronics Stranglehold on America

Forbes: What 60 Minutes got Wrong about Rare Earths and China

Geology News and Information: REE – Rare Earth Metals and their Uses

IISD: A Brief Introduction to the Basel Convention

I Fix It: The Problem With E-Waste

The National Geographic: Conflict Minerals

Pew Research Center: Mobile Fact Sheet

Pew Research Center: Device Ownership Over Time

Rare Element Resources: Rare Earth Elements

Statista: Leading Countries in the Electronics Industry in 2012, Based on Market Size (in Billion Euros)

World Health Organization: Electronic Waste

World’s Top Exports: World’s Top Export Products

WTEC: China’s Electronics Industry

World’s Richest Countries: Top Electronics Producers

Yahoo Finance: Consumer Electronics to Reach $289 billion by 2014

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Invisible Burden of Electronics appeared first on Law Street.

Bitcoin first started making headlines in 2009 and has continued to grow into one of the world’s most well-recognized, thorough, and usable cryptocurrencies. But with multiple legal controversies and the general public’s skepticism when it comes to something as new as “cryptocurrency,” it’s difficult to tell whether Bitcoin has much of a future. Read on to learn more about the currency and its future.

What is Bitcoin?

Bitcoins are widely known as a digital or cryptocurrency. Unlike conventional currencies that are regulated by central authorities in their respective regions (such as the Federal Reserve Bank for the United States Dollar), Bitcoin is border-less and managed by a cryptographically-secured peer-to-peer network. The demand for Bitcoins determines their value in the market, and their supply is determined by complex mathematical algorithms developed by the founder–a person who goes by the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. This supply generation process is called Bitcoin mining. So, Bitcoins are usually created by being “mined” by computers solving a complex string of processing problems, although one can now purchase existing Bitcoins.

Only fifty were created at the time of the cryptocurrency’s genesis and the maximum number of coins that can be issued is locked at 21 million. Just like the lowest value that the United States dollar can be divided into is one-cent pennies, a Bitcoin can at most be divided into eight decimal places. It gained prominence in April 2013 when its value spiked to $266 US Dollars compared to only $22 earlier that  same year. More than 10 million coins had been issued at that point at a total market value of $2 billion.

Courtesy of Idology.com.

Who likes Bitcoins?

Proponents of the cryptocurrency appreciate its purity in terms of supply and demand without any governmental interference. Bitcoins mitigate privacy concerns because they eliminate the need to enter information such as name and address for online transactions. For many tech aficionados, the cryptocurrency provides the thrill of following a new trend in the virtual world. Bitcoins are now being accepted by many platforms like WikiLeaks, restaurants, mobile payment applications, and retail apps that have partnered with major consumer brands like GAP and Sephora.

A federal district court recently ruled that Bitcoin is indeed a currency, given that it can be either used to purchase goods and services directly, or to purchase currency that can in turn be used to purchase goods and services. According to a study conducted by the European Central Bank, Bitcoins do not pose a risk to price instability given that their supply is capped at 21 million coins, and will not negatively affect  the economy as long as the government monitors it to ensure that its not being used for fraudulent purposes.

Who doesn’t like Bitcoins?

Opponents worry that the unregulated and anonymous nature of cryptocurrency lends itself to be used for illegal trade, tax evasion, money laundering, and investment frauds like Ponzi schemes. Dread Pirate Roberts, the owner of Silk Road, an online drug market in the deep web that is now shutdown, blatantly admitted that Bitcoin helped him win the war of drugs against the state.

Opponents also criticize Bitcoin’s algorithmic design for specifically inducing rise and fall in its value. But unlike traditional currencies, Bitcoin is not insured by the government in case it gets devalued enough to cause a major financial crisis in its market. Some claim that Bitcoin is being used more like a stock than a currency and that once the initial hype dies down its value will eventually decrease to nothing because it doesn’t have anything to offer except for its cool factor. Since Bitcoin is primarily digital (though coins are now available), it can be lost forever if a user loses his/her computer or account in which it’s stored.

What’s next for Bitcoin?

Bitcoin’s future is somewhat uncertain. While the cryptocurrency is still growing, there are many concerns that it’s not worth it. Detractors point out things like a possible Ponzi-style scheme involving Bitcoin in North Texas as indicative of the worthlessness of the currency. On the other hand, Bitcoin-based ventures have been growing, such as the development of startups like Coinffeine, which aims to create a new way to exchange Bitcoins. These are just a few examples of the ways in which Bitcoin is slowly breaking its way in into the mainstream, albeit with many setbacks.

Conclusion

Bitcoin. and other similar digital currencies, is just one of many interesting developments that has come about because of the internet. In essence, it’s a pretty revolutionary and fascinating idea, but whether or not it is actually good for the global economy remains to be seen. The potential for the use of Bitcoin as part of illegal activity though, should not stop people from using it for legitimate means. It’s only through incorporating online tools into the mainstream that it will become a genuinely useful and productive innovation.

Resources

Primary 

Bitcoin: Official Site

US District Court: Securities & Exchange Commission v. Trendon T. Shavers  and Bitcoin Savings & Trust

Additional

European Central Bank: Virtual Currency Schemes

Techland: Online Cash Bitcoin Could Challenge Government, Banks

Coindesk: Confirmed: Bloomberg Staff Are Testing a Bitcoin Price Ticker

CIO: In Kenya, Bitcoin :Linked to Popular Mobile Payment System

ParityNews: The Internet Archive Starts Accepting Bitcoin Donations

Webcite: In Bitcoin We Trust: The Berlin District Where Virtual Currency is as Easy as Cash

Readwrite: What’s Bitcoin Worth in the Real World?

Wire: Today’s Bitcoin Shows Why It’s Not Really a Currency

Fox Business: The Consumer Risks of Bitcoins

Slate: My Money is Cooler Than Yours

Washington Post: Imagining a World Without the Dollar

Social Science Research Network: Are Cryptocurrencies ‘Super’ Tax Havens?

The New York Times: Winklevoss Twins Plan First Funds for Bitcoins

Forbes: Goodbye Switzerland, Hello Bitcoins

Treasury Department: Application of FinCEN’s Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies

GAO: Virtual Economies and Currencies: Additional IRS Guidance Could Reduce Tax Compliance Risks

Forbes: IRS Takes a Bite Out of Bitcoin

The New York Times: New York and U.S. Open Investigations Into Bitcoins

TechCrunch: New York’s Financial Services Subpoenas Bitcoin Firms To “Root Out Illegal Activity”

Salome Vakharia

Salome Vakharia is a Mumbai native who now calls New York and New Jersey her home. She attended New York School of Law, and she is a founding member of Law Street Media. Contact Salome at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bitcoin: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.