Talk:Petro (token)

Americentric point of view
This article suffers from a lot of Americentrism. The structure needs to be revised, and the opinions stated in the cited articles should all be placed under an "opinions", "responses", or "criticisms" section. When there are that many quotation marks inside the bulk of an article, it undermines Wikipedia's legitimacy and commitment to neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.86.30 (talk)

No article for Jean Paul Leidenz
There is no article for Jean Paul Leidenz, so no need to wikilink.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Calculating Petro to US$, euros, GBP, yens, Bitcoin, ethereum and other flat + cryptocurrencies and price of barrel
Is it even possible have a exchange rate of USD/PTR, EUR/PTR, BTC/PTR, ETH/PTR, JPY/PTR, LTE/PTR, GBP/PTR, etc? Ryan (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Not without difficulties. The Venezuelan government determines the price. The price is determined by their interpretation of oil prices. The petro will also be offered through the government's foreign exchange system (which isn't the most organized system in the world). The petro was not made to be dependent on the general oil prices market because that is why Venezuela is in this situation in the first place. But, I guess time will tell...ZiaLater ( talk ) 11:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Officially lowercase?
Can we find a source to indicate that the official name is lowercase?  Eye snore  21:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * In the official white paper, it is stylized as uppercase.ZiaLater ( talk ) 11:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this even a cryptocurrency?
Weiss Ratings calls the petro a "fiat currency" while others state that it is not even a cryptocurrency since it is centralized by a government.ZiaLater ( talk ) 11:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a valid question. A cryptocurrency functions through blockchain ledgers, but the detail which makes it murky is that this currency seems to have a semi-centralized system of servers processing the blockchain ledgers, rather than a distributed one. This currency has half the characteristics of a cryptocurrency, namely that it operates based on digital blockchains. To choose whether or not to define this as a cryptocurrency is perhaps an academic question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.86.30 (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Cryptocurrency is a technical term. If it is created by a government or if a government is the main operator of miners is irrelevant. --MarioGom (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It is pretty obvious that it is indeed a blockchain-based currency (i.e. cryptocurrency). Now they have a block explorer documenting 35695 blocks so far (example). I'm removing the supposed adjective from the lede, since that's not implied by the backing secondary sources, and clearly contradicts primary sources too. --MarioGom (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Not actually backed by oil.
The government says it's backed by oil, but this isn't actually true. They just say they value it at a barrel of oil, but it's not _actually_ backed by oil, it's not a token of a venezuelan oil barrel, they just imply it is. It's entirely fiat. Source: the smallprint itself. 88.109.241.215 (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is no place for original research. --MarioGom (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a weird definition of OR you're using there. Citing a primary source isn't "research", most of this article is primary sourced (because no 3rd party peer reviewed etc has anything positive to say about this nonsense). 88.109.232.19 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, that's not what "primary source" means. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what the IP meant, but I know there are reasons to believe that the Petro is actually based on unexploitable oil reserves: Reuters August 30, 2018.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Scams/Misleading competitors
The Petrodollar is not the same as the Petro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.91.66 (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

History of its development
The NYT released a piece on the history of the development of the Petro: The Coder and the Dictator (March 20, 2020). Some of this should probably be included--MaoGo (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Most of it, actually. That's a great and amazing story, and as well researched as we're likely to get - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the Petro a cryptocurrency?
Spanish Wikipedia calls it a token as it is not related to a blockchain. Does the Petro qualify as a cryptocurrency?--ReyHahn (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Spanish article discussion can be consulted, where some of these concerns have been brought up. I also note how it is called a token there and that this article should be considered for a move. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not clear the Petro is anything as yet. There is no standardised definition of "cryptocurrency" either. But we probably can't call the article "Petro (alleged cryptocurrency)" - David Gerard (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * what do you think about moving it to Petro (digital currency) or Petro (token)?--ReyHahn (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Or even just Petro (currency).--ReyHahn (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure any of those names are more supportable given the Reliable Sources than the existing name, and it's not clear they're an improvement - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are 3 stories of the petro: A) The Venezuelan govt (Maduro himself often) made a number of statements about the Petro which implied, or flat out stated, that it was a security token of Venezuelan oil processed at one particular facility. At other times they said it was based on reserves. Either way it seemed like a tokenization of their oil, which's mebe worth a try given the problems they have. For crypto entusiasts it sounded like an exciting experiment. B) The actual currency itself, which wasn't a security token at all, of anything. It specifically was not backed by oil, it was entirely fiat, like bitcoin. When Maduro said it was backed by oil (and later, gold) he was simply lying: at no stage was the actual 'currency' ever backed by anything whatsoever: not oil, not theoretical reserves, not gold reserves, nothing; statements about it's backing from the venezuelan authorities were direct lies. For crypto experts it sounded like yet another ICO based on thin air & attempted hype and probably worth absolutely nothing. And C) what actually happened, which, last I checked, was nothing whatsoever. Last I heard there had never been a single trade in petro, not even a test. It's unknown how many people sent how much money to the V. Govt., but it is certain they didn't recieve what they paid for...regardless of whether they beleived the petro was backed by oil, or pegged to the price of oil, or gold, or whatever...no petros were given out. People sent money to purchase 100 Petros (for eg), and just did not recieve any petros. It's a straightup scam, though probably the V. govt. hoped it would do something at some point and didn't intend, originally, for it to be like this. At this point it seems pretty clear they've just pocketed the money and written it off as a failed experiment. Maybe they'll release the coins as best they can at some stage, but they're valued at 0.0tobeavoidedliketheplague so it doesn't really matter.


 * SOURCING any of this is a mess. The theoretically authoritative souces are the V. Govt. which was lying (probably lies draped in a thick layer of not really understanding what they were saying), the 'RS' are mostly newspapers trying parse the (often contradictory) V. Govt. statements. The more expert analysis of the currency itself doesn't qualify as RS (crypto being a shady shitfest at the best of times), the more up to date eyes on the matter are even less RSy and often OR, and now Jimenez has come forth with his story...even assuming it's mostly true or trueish from his point of view, it doesn't do much to clarify things. Antyhing that wiki appears to be willing to accept as RS is simply analysing the worthless statements of the V. govt.


 * I can answer the question: yes it's a cryptocurrecny, a dormant one, which has never been distributed and does not and can not trade. It's stillborn, but could, theoretically (and pointlessly), still be launched. No it doesn't involve security tokens, although it was overwhelmingly advertized as though it did, it doesn't, even if it had ever launched, which it wasn't, it wouldn't. I'm not gonna try arguing over sourcing for any of that though. The whole thing is a massive pile of shit that is best ignored. 81.140.215.189 (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Similar problem we had on Libra (digital currency) - it doesn't exist, but it's clearly notable even as vaporware. So we do need to have an article on it if we have sources, which we sort of do - but its nonexistent nature needs to be stressed - David Gerard (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Petro (cryptocurrency) → Petro (token) – Per the reasons given in the talk page. More accurate and less controversial definition. Said title has been adopted in the Spanish Wikipedia. NoonIcarus (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 11:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Cryptocurrency has been notified of this discussion. ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 11:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Venezuela has been notified of this discussion. ~  Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 11:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. "Token" is vague and not really clear - it's not a single token, for sure.  Petro is a failed cryptocurrency, but it was still an attempted cryptocurrency?  Open to other options, but per David Gerard above, Diem (digital currency) is named a currency despite not actually being used as such (yet?).  SnowFire (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to either Petro (token) or Petro (digital currency). The Petro is (allegedly) supported on oil reserves, it is regulated by the government, and its price is not subject to supply and demand.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to "(token)" - I think it's fine where it is, it's mostly an idea promoted around the concept of "cryptocurrency" than anything that's interacted with. The interesting aspect is not the "token" itself, if any - it's everything else about the concept as promoted. I would go so far as to say that the Spanish wikipedia moving it to "(token)" would not be a good move to emulate just because they did it there - David Gerard (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why nothing on Results?
The article as of 26 June has major sections on History, Design, and Reception. Nothing wrong with that; those are all important aspects of the thing.

But here we are in mid-2021, three years after introduction of this state-sponsored token, and the article is mostly devoid of anything about the main question. Results? Three years on:   "How did it go?" "What is the daily/weekly/monthly circulation of the thing? Is this token actually trading? If so, at what price on global markets?  Is the thing getting any use beyond monopooly markets where the government of Venezuela can force?  N2e (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we should delete this article. Dombov89 (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)