The one who adapts his policy to the times prospers, and likewise that the one whose policy clashes with the demands of the times does not. - Niccolo Machiavelli Hey, you got something going here. I think we’ve got a chance for some progressive policy that actually focuses on poor and working people. - Cornel West

There are laws, there are regulations, and there are policies.

Laws can be international. They form a body of rules established by custom or treaty. They are (for the most part) recognized by nations as binding in their relations with one another.

If and when enough countries formally recognize one such law by ratifying the relevant instrument, each country can and should take steps at a national level to reflect the same.

This is how universally-recognized norms and standards become part of a domestic conversation. It is most evident — and, yes, debated — through decades-long work on human rights.

One recent example is the Paris Agreement on climate change. This entered into force on 5 October 2016 after 55 Parties (that is, countries) representing at least 55 per cent of global emissions ratified it. Yes, it has its dissenters, but that is a debate for a different forum.

There are the beginnings of a discussion on the legal frameworks for Bitcoin in specific jurisdictions, although it is still the subject of a great deal of confusion. There is currently no international law or treaty with respect to cryptocurrency in general, or to Bitcoin in particular.

Regulations can also be international. Often they are exercised by international organizations. They allow governments and individuals to be held accountable for the impact that their actions have in other parts of the world.

Examples include International Health Regulations that are binding on 196 countries. These particular regulations oblige each country to report disease outbreaks so that action can be taken at an international level or within other countries.

In the wake of the 2007–2009 financial and economic crisis and its ongoing effects, efforts are being made to contain the damage caused by speculative flows of capital. It is premature to suggest that these are anywhere close to satisfactory.

Almost all of the debate on Bitcoin and regulation takes place within national jurisdictions. This is leading to a staggering range of variation across jurisdictions and confusion about its utility.

Not surprisingly, this cacophony of noise — a regulatory Babel— is where narrow, nationalistic and competitive perspectives emerge.

If this is the case, then what are the advantages of exploring Bitcoin from the perspective of international and national public policy?

Policies are unlike laws and regulations because their intent can be openly aspirational. They can spell out principles, help to build consensus, and generate momentum around common purpose.

They can, potentially, promote recognition of difference and/or harmonization, and by doing so help to limit negative competition. They offer the space within which further work of a legal or regulatory nature can take place.

The good news is that a basis for an international and national public policy discussion for Bitcoin, and for its contribution to Sustainable Development, already exists.

Alongside the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals, the international community committed to something called the Addis Ababa Action Agenda in 2015. This emerged from the Third International Conference on Financing for Development.

Why does any of this matter for Bitcoin?

Combined with ongoing demonstration of its use cases, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda provides the basis and reference points through which Bitcoin can continue to build legitimacy.

It provides a framework within which start-ups can prosper. And it is the means through which adoption —by the institutions of State and across society and markets — can intensify.

This is because the Addis Ababa Action Agenda concentrates on the “means of implementation” for the Sustainable Development Goals.

These “means” include interdependent mix of financial resources, technology development and transfer, capacity-building, inclusive and equitable globalization and trade, regional integration, as well as the creation of a national enabling environment for innovation.

For Bitcoin start-ups trying to operate within a confusing legal or costly regulatory space, this should be of interest.

The means of implementation have, for instance, given rise to a new Technology Bank for Least-Developed Countries based in Turkey. Its job will be to promote science, technology and innovation for development in the poorest countries in the world.

Your government signed off on this action agenda. What it might not have yet is policy in your country that makes it meaningful for the work you are doing with Bitcoin. That can and, with the right engagement, should change.

What, then, is the starting point for a public policy discussion on Bitcoin for Sustainable Development? These should be familiar:

Bitcoin is global. We need global, regional and national policy that is based on a shared set of principles and shared expectations; Bitcoin is peer-to-peer. We need human rights to be at the centre of any policy that considers its utility and effects; Bitcoin is multi-functional. This requires an open mind to its categorization so that its entire potential can be applied across the 17 SDGs (as a financial rail, as a store of value, as a distributed ledger, etc.); Bitcoin is innovative. It requires quid pro quo adjustments to legal, institutional and regulatory conditions within which it can contribute to the SDGs; and Bitcoin is neither well known nor widely understood. It needs space for incubation, testing and demonstration.

Mature and risk-informed public policy on Bitcoin requires consideration of all of the above.

All good. So who does the talking for Bitcoin?

Bodies representing aspects of Bitcoin include the Bitcoin Foundation and the World Blockchain Council hosted by the Dubai Future Foundation.

Then there are non-affiliated libertarians, and developers, miners, speculators, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and, occasionally, their legal representatives.

Bitcoin’s inroads into the financial services industry in the last 24 months adds another set of constituents. And let's not forget everyone who owns a wallet.

For public policy discussion, issues of representation need to be worked out. Then comes the question of who to connect to.

At the global level, one go-to is the Internet Governance Forum. This is the main venue to discuss public policy on the future of the digital world, and last year United Nations Member States extended its remit for another ten years.

It also means connecting with the Bank of International Settlements, the institution tasked with “promoting global monetary and financial stability through international cooperation.”

These institutions are far from perfect.

The IGF is relatively weak when contending with innovation. It can seem a million miles away from the sharp end of innovators testing and creating value in the real economy.

Similarly, BIS has struggled with issues such as financial inclusion that frame the policy issues on risk that informs the work of national central banks. Progress has been slow since it is dealing primarily with the legacy banking system.

Nevertheless, public policy engagement will be a necessary next step in the maturing of Bitcoin.

The challenge ahead is quite clear. If Bitcoin is to make a lasting contribution to Sustainable Development, its supporters will need to engage in a more orderly manner with the global and national institutions that inform public policy.

If it is unable or unwilling to do so, expect legislative and regulatory hurdles that will likely be both fragmented across jurisdictions and retrograde in effect.

Worst of all, this could put a drag on opening new markets, or not reaching some at all.

For the SDGs that, like Bitcoin, promise empowerment, inclusion and sustainability, that would be a shame.