Discussed: 16 May 2025 at 03: 00
Economic experts have criticized the government’s plan to introduce the electronic Government Token (G-Token ) as a new funding tool, warning that it may contravene existing laws and mislead the public.
The government approved the digital token scheme on Tuesday, which is intended to act as a substitute channel for issuing securities to financial investors. The G-Tokens guarantee yields higher rates than typical bank loan interest rates.
But, Thirachai Phuvanatnaranubala, the former finance minister and deputy mind of the Palang Pracharath Party’s monetary matters group, has raised legitimate issues.
He noted that the common debt control act of 2005, which regulates common borrowing, does not take into account digital assets.
According to Mr. Thirachai, Section 10 of the Act allows borrowing under the form of debts, if there is written proof of debts.
The legislation was intended to regulate private-sector activities rather than state funding, despite the legalization of online tokens under the 2018 Digital Asset Business Emergency Decree.
He emphasized that amending the 2005 Act to give the Ministry of Finance the necessary authority and create a constitutional framework for issuing common debt via electronic tokens would probably require this action.
The policy’s lack of transparency even raised some concerns for Professor Arnat Leemakdej, a professor at the Faculty of Commerce and Accountancy.
He noted that the government has never adequately explained how the currencies will work or whether their price may be fully supported by asset-backed securities to ensure holders that they will get their money up whenever they want to buy the currencies.
He cited primary government documents that suggested a five-billion baht backing for the tokens, arguing that this implies maintaining an equal reserve.
Prof. Arnat questioned the lack of any mention of a steward to oversee these deposits. He even criticized the exchange proposal to record G-tokens, claiming that they do not appear to have a potential for capital gains.
They have results of only 1 to 2 %, he said, and they act more like discounts deposits than investment items. This resembles” selling a fantasy” more than “offering a real investment opportunity”