The United Nations Organization (UN) has also decided to participate in the ongoing global discussion on cryptocurrencies.It did so with a document entitled "All that glitters is not gold: The high cost of leaving cryptocurrencies unregulated", published by UNCTAD ( United Nations Conference for Trade And Development), the main permanent subsidiary body operating within it in the sectors of trade, development, finance, technology, entrepreneurship and sustainable development.The document in question does not examine financial innovation from a strictly technical point of view, but from a political point of view.Fortunately, it would be worth commenting, as within it there are some fairly disconcerting gaps on cryptocurrencies, if not real blunders such as to finally risk invalidating the reasoning that even the drafters have tried to carry out in an attempt to understand the implications of an increasingly wider use of virtual assets, at least in some areas of the globe, without a well-defined framework of rules.Among the most interesting points in this sense, it should be emphasized how the UN has identified a real enemy against which to direct its censor fury.These are crypto advertisements, moreover the subject of arrows by many politicians, according to which they would represent a misleading tool for investors and consumers.Censor rages which, perhaps, could also be reserved for other financial assets no less dangerous than cryptocurrencies, which is not currently the case.The document launched by UNCTAD is aimed in particular at developing countries, where cryptocurrencies have long been identified as a useful tool for promoting economic growth.Just think of the many African countries that have decided to turn to blockchain technology and virtual money to bypass atavistic delays and difficulties of various kinds, starting with the practical impossibility for many people to manage their assets with simple tools such as a bank account.It is therefore precisely to these countries that some of the recommendations contained in the document seem to be addressed.In particular, those relating to the need to create a regulatory framework capable of eliminating some of the major problems associated with the use of virtual money.Precisely in this context, however, there is a first quite sensational error, namely the one relating to the need on the part of cryptocurrency exchanges operating in this area to verify the real identity of users through KYC (Know Your Customer) procedures, without however carrying out the necessary distinction between custodian and non custodian wallets, i.e. between those offered by money changers and private individuals.Exchanges, in turn, should also be obliged to register in special public registers, a recommendation already addressed within the European Union and, consequently, entirely acceptable.While a further recommendation leaves some perplexity, namely that of increasing transaction and exchange costs on crypto exchanges, which should be decided in total autonomy by the platforms in question.No less debatable is the part relating to the issuance of virtual currencies by central banks, in which we can see the supposed alternativeness of CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) with respect to cryptocurrencies.On the contrary, the recommendation to avoid advertising on cryptocurrencies can be considered less absurd, a theme which, moreover, has already emerged in the Western world, giving rise to a not exactly linear trend of the discussion.Cryptocurrency advertising has been a topic of discussion for years now.Just think in this sense of the recent decision of Facebook, which went back on a resolution of 2018 following which the ads in question had been banned.A decision shared by Google with the update of the guidelines, as a result of which this kind of advertising had become practically impossible, like that on other financial services.The path taken by TikTok is different.While the Chinese platform had banned users and influencers from creating content on the topic, institutional advertisements had instead been able to continue to be shown.In this case, the rationale of the decision was aimed at eliminating scams and deceptions, even more dangerous in a social network frequented by young people less equipped with tools capable of recognizing attempts of this kind.The topic then returned to the fore at the beginning of the year, when the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) and the FCA (Financial Conduct Authority), respectively the guardians of advertising and financial services within the United Kingdom, had decided to proceed with the ban on 50 companies operating in the crypto sector, considered responsible for having spread misleading advertisements.Without their removal by May 2, the ban would have been final.In the document drawn up by the UN, however, it seems that cryptocurrencies in already developed countries do not involve excessive problems, unlike what is claimed for developing ones.A rather eccentric point of view, considering how the problems connected to them are capable of doing damage at any latitude.So much so as to push some to argue that the document almost seems to want to deny equal opportunities of access to virtual assets and the potential associated with them.Read also: Why Wikipedia has closed the door to cryptocurrency donations