After Releasing Oil-Backed Petro, Venezuelan President Hints At Gold-Backed 'Petro Oro'

Authored by Molly Jane Zuckerman via,

After the 'successful' launch of the Venezuelan government-backed cryptocurrency the Petro on Feb. 20, President Nicolas Maduro has already hinted at second government cryptocurrency soon to be released, according to government-sponsored news outlet TelSsur.

image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

This time, the government-backed cryptocurrency will be backed not by oil, but by gold.

image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

During a Patria Para Todos [Fatherland For All] party event at the National Theater in Caracas, Maduro announced,

“The petro is a cryptocurrency unique in the world that is supported by oil, and I have a surprise that I will launch next week, the Petro Oro [gold], backed by gold, even more powerful.”

Since the petro’s Initial Coin Offering (ICO) opened on Feb. 20, $735 mln has allegedly been raised, according to Maduro’s Twitter. No official numbers for the ICO had been released by press time.

Some Venezuelans on Twitter have used the hashtag, “#AlFuturoConElPetro,” [the future with the petro], to support the release of the coin. User José David Cabello R wrote,

“#AlFuturoConElPetro against any meddling, against the economic war, against the blockade. For the peace and Venezuela.”

Before the launch, foreign investors from Brazil, Poland, Denmark, Honduras, and Norway had reportedly said they were open to receiving the petro, which is backed by one barrel of oil per coin, for goods and services.

Venezuela is currently facing hyperinflation of more than 4,000 percent in the last year, with the national currency, the Bolivar, having lost around 96 percent of its value.

The president’s decision to launch a cryptocurrency was at odds with the views of the country’s opposition-backed parliament on crypto, which declared the petro an illegal currency on Jan. 9.

Critics in parliament see the petro as a way for Maduro to avoid the financial sanctions imposed by the West on Venezuela.


JimmyJones mtl4 Thu, 02/22/2018 - 10:41 Permalink

I am no fan of this Communist but I am a lesser fan of Global Banks controlling Currency issuance so I wish them well in this endeavor but messing with the money system is what got JFK killed,  Saddam killed, Omar killed and is why Iran is in the cross hairs

We don't know that he gave all his gold away.

In reply to by mtl4

Ghost of PartysOver a Smudge by an… Thu, 02/22/2018 - 11:13 Permalink

Dang, who would have thought that such a scumbag socialist would do something like this.  A crypto actually backed by an asset?  Whodathunkit.  Could this loser actually be leading the world back to the Gold Standard?  I hate to say it but that is something I would consider getting involved with.  Say adios to the empty suit crypto's.

In reply to by a Smudge by an…

OverTheHedge Ghost of PartysOver Thu, 02/22/2018 - 11:35 Permalink

I think this is a fine idea. Venezuela sells gold crypto-coins for cash, and gets a nice stream of foreign currency to play with. All they have to do is actually have enough gold to cover the coins, which is not a problem if it is the government doing the audit. Eventually, they may decide that they will be unable to honour said coins, but that will be in years to come, and probably will only be a problem for foreigners. 'Tis a splendid plan.

In reply to by Ghost of PartysOver

Ramesees Ghost of PartysOver Thu, 02/22/2018 - 11:56 Permalink

Sounds like Ghost of PartysOver really understands crypto! It has to be "backed by *something*"!


Your statement is wrong on multiple levels:


Firstly, currency (or "money") is simply a vehicle for value transfer. A commodity "backing" a currency means nothing. Whether a currency is backed by pork bellies, gold, timber, oil, or dirt doesn't matter - only as good as the entity that promised the backing. In the 1500s, when you brought your timber from interior France to Marseille for construction into ships you could be paid with a Rothschild bank note, which you could be sure you could exchange for equivalent value when you took it to a Rothschild branch in Amsterdam. That's what made Rothschild banknotes useful.

You can be sure that you will get equivalent value for the US Dollar in all cities in the world. Doesn't matter that it's not backed by anything.


Furthermore, and shifting gears to crypto here: the intrinsic value of Bitcoin is that it cannot be interfered with by anyone. That's what it's backed by. Not maff. Not nothing. Uncensorable value transfer. Plus it's very easy to transfer. Its other intrinsic value is its rarity. 


Gold's only intrinsic value is its rarity, but it's difficult to cart around.


A cryptocurrency backed by Venezuelan gold or oil means no more than the Bolivar backed by Venezuelan gold or oil - not even worth toilet paper. The cryptocurrency will be censorable by Maduro and I don't trust him to make good on his promise to give me oil when I buy a bunch of Petro crypto. He can take my money instantly though via the internet, so it's even worse than the Bolivar.





In reply to by Ghost of PartysOver

rf80412 Ramesees Thu, 02/22/2018 - 12:33 Permalink

Gold's only intrinsic value is its rarity, but it's difficult to cart around.

Gold has a great deal more intrinsic value than its rarity, but it's really only the electronics industry that makes any substantial use of gold for its physical properties - i.e. easy to work and non-tarnishing, unlike copper and silver - rather than the value people attach to it.

In reply to by Ramesees

MEFOBILLS Ramesees Thu, 02/22/2018 - 12:46 Permalink

Firstly, currency (or "money") is simply a vehicle for value transfer. 

Beware this sort of thing.  In ancient Greece under Trivium system, they would spend weeks defining terms before they even began debates.  So, when one person spoke a word, then that word had a very specific meaning in the minds of debaters.

Currency, or money is not simply a vehicle for value transfer.  Simply stating something doesn't make it true.

Aristotle was the first to note the true nature of money is LAW.  When people mis-define money it leads into cul-de-sac's of bad thought.  This has serious consequences.  An example:  Spain thought that gold and silver was money.  Silver inflation due to imported silver from the America's then caused Spain to stop producing.  Spain soon slipped away and became a non-actor on history's stage.

Money divides down at the moment of transfer, allowing said transfer to go forth.  It is a medium that allows exchange of goods, and to settle debts.  It's is also a "legal" device.  Value is a nebulous term.  The exchange between parties is allowed to go forth due to money's dividing down characteristics.  Money's value can be held to some standard, and the best standard is to legally relate your money to amount of goods and services in flux at that moment in time.  In this way, money is anchored to that which it is exchanging.

Even relating money to oil or gold is one step removed, but is still better than today's money being related to debt instruments which in turn have no relation to goods and services in flux at that moment in time.  

When Maduro allowed Petro to be good for taxes, that is when Petro became money.  No doubt if it is good for taxes, then it is good for public and legal debts as well.

This gold backed unit I don't know enough about yet.  I can say this about gold systems from recent past, bank credit rode on top of said gold using fractional reserve in a 10:1 ratio. This was a fraudulent system, which grabbed legal backing due to payola to government.  

It always boils down to the law whether we like it or not. If government's become fraudulent, that is another problem.  These crypto systems have block chain which is transparent and could be useful to make money moral and legal, something Aristotle thought about.

In reply to by Ramesees

MEFOBILLS Ramesees Thu, 02/22/2018 - 13:32 Permalink

The definition of money =  Law.

Any other definition is incomplete, even incorrect.


The U.S. dollar is based loosely on debt instruments created by banks.  97% of bank credit money supply relates to bank debt.  Over 70% of money supply issued by banks is debt's relating to land.   Land in turn is not industry, nor is it goods and services.

To spread the dollar around the world, after WW2, dollar became part of gold trading standard.  If there was imbalance in goods and services between trading nations, gold would flow toward the nation selling too many goods.  This then caused national exchange rates to be adjusted to bring goods trade back into balance.

The dollar also became the same as gold for reserves in private banks around the world.  Hence, the term reserve currency.  

Reserves are necessary to then issue your nations national unit.  This makes countries want to grab dollars to then issue their own currency by way of private banks. 

The dollar is then not backed by nothing.  A debt instrument comes into being from nothing, and the bank credit comes into being simultaneously along with the debt.  The debt in turn is making claims on land (at 70%) which then pushes land prices.

The dollar also has infrastructure by way of being reserve currency, and oil was also made to be priced in dollars, thus creating more dollar demand (1973 Saudi Agreement).

Yes, the dollar is fraudulent, it does not flux in relation to goods and services, it was made (or morphed) to undermine other countries sovereignty, especially as banker reserves.

The dollar suffers from Triffins dillema in that the U.S. cannot independently conduct its own national policies.  The dollar has become "international" bank credit and is not a sovereign legal currency.  The dollar was hijacked by the "international.'

The dollar is used by private banks around the world, and soon as they adopt a different unit, that is the day you need to worry about.  Right now, Euro is more likely to fail, and this means Euro flight into dollar markets.


In reply to by Ramesees

Ramesees MEFOBILLS Thu, 02/22/2018 - 13:52 Permalink

That's just incorrect. Money is a means of transferring value. Any other definition is incorrect.

In a post apocalyptic world, without government, if canned food were used as payment for goods and services, the canned food would be money. No law required.


And to be perfectly candid, your (mis)definition of the US Dollar's backing implies a complete misunderstanding of how the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury work.



In reply to by MEFOBILLS

MEFOBILLS Ramesees Thu, 02/22/2018 - 15:05 Permalink

Please don't confuse ZH readers.

In a post apocalyptic world, people will revert to Credits and Debts, the same system they used before the advent of money.

You fix Maria's window and she is in debt to you.  Maybe she gives you a BJ and discharges her debt to you.

Money came along later, especially when people congregated in agricultural settlements.  The first money was barley weights issued by the temple for temple work.

If a settlement gets together and they agree to make canned food money, or shells, or whatever, then that takes on law.

If the settlement authorities (the king?) agree that credits and debts are to be discharged with canned food, and somebody doesn't agree to it, then there will be consequences.  In other words, law has gotten between credits and debts as a third party.

Our evolutionary history is credits and debts.  Then came agriculture, then barley, then beer.  People liked hanging around, screwing, having drunken parties more than hunter-gathering.  The Temples then created barley as money/weight, and later gold/weight became a substitute for barley weights.

In Egypt for example, they used pottery shards as money, and on the shard listed the amount of grain that shard represented.  

Even later,  gold got the king's stamp (law) became coins, and then over 2000 years of coin history started.  

In reply to by Ramesees

MEFOBILLS eclectic syncretist Thu, 02/22/2018 - 13:09 Permalink

Ya got more oil reserves than any other country, and you can't even feed your own people. I'll pass...


Economic Hitman techniques, along with World Bank, encourage countries to become good at one thing.  For example, if you are in a coffee growing region, you can get loans to build out coffee infrastructure.  If you are good at extracting oil, to then purchase goods on world market, then you can get loans.

These loans will be in dollars, not your own national unit.  If you are a leader and don't take the loans, then expect to be suicided in your airplane.

Your country gets a loan from World Bank, or maybe IMF, and then you build out coffee plantations.  The dollars leave the country soon enough, but later the loan needs to be paid.  In early period of loan, it is a great party and dollars flow through leaders, eventually finding their way to Swiss bank accounts.  The leaders are in one the game... that or be suicided, screw the future.

Later, when you cannot sell enough coffee on international markets, to then get dollars, to then pay the loan your country's exchange rate suffers. 

You then come under bear raid attack by Western finance and banks, which drives down your exchange rate even faster.  This is a known mechanism used to short currencies, which then causes INFLATION of targeted country.  Inflation's in modern era area almost always due to exchange rates which in turn are due to debts that cannot be paid.

One crop specialized economies are always weak.   In 1933 when Germany was attacked by Zion, Germany was not self sufficient in food.  Germany had focused on exporting goods, and let her agricultural sector fall to the wayside.  Now that Russia is under sanction, they are diversifying their economy, and finding out it is good for them.  Russia is becoming self sufficient in food, and a great grain producer.

Autarky, meaning being self sufficient to the extent possible, is anathema to finance capitalism. 



In reply to by eclectic syncretist

veritas semper… MEFOBILLS Thu, 02/22/2018 - 20:04 Permalink

Well said. It just annoys me how many here seem to forget the rapacious colonialism of UK,US and other westerners,stealing from countries you now call "sh*tholes". Having the reserve currency helped too those exceptional and chosen. They created WB,IMF ,BIS,sanctions ,all instruments of modern imperialism(you do not need to invade a country to steal its resources,just load her on loans).

As I said,let's see how great JUSA  REALLY is and how great its economy WITHOUT the petro-dollar. I bet it's going to be much ,much worse than Venezuela.(50 mil on food stamps,70 % population on addictive drugs,no skills,do not even know to cook,crushed by debt)

In reply to by MEFOBILLS

HRClinton DillyDilly Thu, 02/22/2018 - 11:05 Permalink

The ‘War on Cash’ has already begun. The 1% “elite” want us to be dependent on (((their))) electronic FIAT money.

Having all of our savings in (((their))) banks will leave us vulnerable to dramatic situations, similar to what happened in recent years in Greece, Cyprus, Venezuela or India.

But if we start investing in Cryptocurrencies, which are decentralized and based on Free Market Principles, we will have an edge in case of a dramatic situation.

In reply to by DillyDilly

Canadian Dirtlump Callz d Ballz Thu, 02/22/2018 - 10:42 Permalink

No shit. I'm making one backed by unobtainium called MONGO-coin. How a country is going to go from people losing 20+ pounds, video of prisoners being fed their own fingers, people attacking and killing livestock, legit mad max mobile bands of highwaymen - to a refined society running on assklown crypto coins is beyond me.



In reply to by Callz d Ballz

rf80412 a Smudge by an… Thu, 02/22/2018 - 12:25 Permalink

Venezuela's oil is basically tar and loaded with sulfur and other stuff you don't want to put in your engine.  It requires more work to extract than poking a hole in the ground and letting a hot, pressurized fluid shoot out on its own ... and they have no ability to refine it domestically, so it used to all get shipped to the US.

But then an oil-backed currency doesn't make as much sense as simply trading the oil for goods and services.  However, their real goal may simply be to circumvent the dollar, and they conveniently have a specie that's both available in large amounts and inherently valuable enough in spite of those large amounts.

In reply to by a Smudge by an…