Regulation

Why Swiss and Hong Kong crypto regulations will lead the DeFi revolution

Published

5 months ago

29 June, 2024

Why Swiss and Hong Kong crypto regulations will lead the DeFi revolution

The following is a guest post from James Davies, CEO of Crypto Valley Exchange.

Regulators worldwide, international organizations, and market participants have published many consultation papers, recommendations, and opinions. The writers include groups like the Global Financial Markets Association, the Institute of International Finance, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, the Futures Industry Association, the Financial Services Forum, and IOSCO (International Organization of Securities Commissions).

All major players from Coinbase to Circle are publishing responses to the regulatory framework and legislative drafting worldwide.

All of this is brought together in an IOSCO paper, “Policy Recommendations for Crypto and Digital Asset Markets,” which, rather unbelievably, doesn’t mention permissionless protocols once and only decentralized in passing.

I pity the regulator that bases its crypto policy development on this publication. Separately, IOSCO published a “Policy Recommendation for Decentralized Finance,” which combines their analysis with the Financial Stability Board (FSB) report “The Financial Stability Risks of Decentralised Finance.”

However, and this is a major criticism, the papers miss the core idea of decentralized projects. Trying to succinctly explain where they are wrong and what they can do to shift the perspective takes more input from insiders. The essential goal of decentralized projects is “to create the project features as the result of emergent behaviors through the actions of unrelated and replaceable actors.”

These effects are emergent, making decentralized projects so difficult to regulate. The report makes some reasonable insights, such as run-risk on assets from liquidity mismatch, such as the events that collapsed TerraUSD/Luna, and the roll-forward of this hitting Celsius very reminiscent of the events in 2008, the “collateral chain” risk.

Notably, traditional finance regulators still do not cover this well, where banning new activities dominates integration and understanding.

It also makes valuable points on cross-border regulatory arbitrage; however, this is where it demonstrates very precisely that it doesn’t understand DeFi. These structures make identifying appropriate legal ownership/control and relevant legal authorities difficult. It presupposes that there is a legal ownership and control point, the antithesis of decentralization.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t some DeFi entities that do have these, and while running via smart contracts on-chain are not more like centralized entities, these, though, will get picked up in the core of the rest of the crypto regulation.

IOSCO doubles down on these misapprehensions about how decentralization works in some of their recommendations to regulators, especially the recommendation to identify responsible persons. Comments suggesting layer-1 blockchains might be considered clearing and settlement operations feel bizarre.

Other areas to look at include leverage, lending pool structures, tokenization, pseudonymous information, reporting, IP, and off-chain/on-chain touchpoints. Continued adoption and growth are undoubted and will have major impacts on world economies and traditional finance over time.

Most notably, every respondent to IOSCO, that is, every major regulator, when asked to provide an overview of current regulatory treatment, stated that they do not have separate regulatory frameworks specially dedicated to DeFi activities. They further note that whilst respondents state that they have regulation for crypto underway, they are not specifically targeting DeFi. Respondents also express their views that existing frameworks can apply to DeFi protocols.

Like social scientists everywhere, the Bank of International Settlement also seeks to understand the DeFi landscape. Their process is being examined through the lens of categorizing DeFi. While they appear to do an adequate job in this respect, it comes across in the conventional manner of treating each project as a standalone company.

To summarize the areas of concern from IOSCO:

Conflicts of interest arising from vertical integration of activities and functions
Market manipulation, insider trading, and fraud
Cross-borderrRisks and regulatory cooperation
Custody and client asset protection
Operational and technological risk
Retail access, suitability, and distribution.

How should regulators look at DeFi?

Rigid classification-based regulation has led to many unintended consequences; Sarbanes-Oxley requirements drove companies away from public markets. The subprime mortgage crisis resulted from a focus on individual loans and not their aggregation. The initial responses to the rise of the Internet and digital business were slow and reactive. By the time regulations arrived, companies already had established practices. Uber and Airbnb’s growth was restricted by a patchwork of local regulations that didn’t support these business models.

Urban planners misunderstood the effect of adding roads, leading to more traffic issues rather than less. The climate models debate focuses on specifics rather than the emergent effects, clouding the issues.

Regulators should start with governance structures, not individual properties. DAOs typically have a presence of some form, such as an organization with a corporate identity, often because a Labs entity needs something to hold the equity to pay real-world bills.

These entities, though, are often controlled entirely through the DAO. Requiring DAO registration and setting up specific corporate entity types that match how they operate would add value. Setting transparency, reporting, voting, staking, delegation, and control rules would remove the ambiguity on how to operate. Weed out abusive entities that want to rug pull and encourage entities that want to operate in a decentralized manner genuinely.

There can be many further developments related to operation style, such as requiring those that border otherwise regulated activities to have the appointed people selected by the DAO to face future regulatory developments in these areas. However, engaging and setting a framework for DAO establishment would be a good start.

A second area for examination would be about mutual recognition, currently regulation is fragmented, in some areas such as derivatives markets mutual recognition works well, in payments and crypto it acts as a barrier to growth creating a difficult patchwork of regulation. If DAO regulation were recognized between major regulators, then regulating in one country would enable access to other countries, a major incentive to projects to choose a grown-up location for their DAO, a good indicator to users of the intent of those involved in the project.

More thought needs to be given to dealing with emergent properties related to aspects such as clearing and settlement. There are compelling reasons why these should exist. For a start, trading on-chain assets supported by on-chain collateral causes real issues for existing traditional finance aspects. We all want to support this tokenization and transparency push, but this doesn’t come without traditional finance equivalents. This is about the disintermediation of existing power bases and control and the empowerment of new economy models, but friction in these systems needs to drop to establish. It is almost the precise point of free markets.

Ethical behavior, transparency, and clarity at the top of the list, along with DAO registration and support, can begin this. Regulators will need to become much more educated in the mechanics of these protocols and their operations to ensure they slowly build the right regulation, not just restrictive regulation.

How Switzerland and Hong Kong have gotten right what the US gets wrong

The crypto industry is still largely in its infancy, and regulators are still figuring out how to oversee its various aspects, but not all efforts are equal.

Once a beacon of innovation, the US has become a challenging jurisdiction for crypto finance projects, let alone decentralized versions. It is well documented how the country’s relatively strong anti-crypto stance and enforcement-heavy approach has stifled growth, driving founders to seek more welcoming environments.

Meanwhile, Switzerland and Hong Kong have crafted regulatory frameworks that accommodate crypto and permissionless projects.

The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) doesn’t regulate protocols based in Switzerland if the activities conducted on the protocol result from the actions of actors based outside Switzerland. They are accessible, transparent, and engaging. Self-regulatory approaches, in general, are well supported.

The Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) of Hong Kong assesses each Defi project on a case-by-case basis, balancing a “same business, same risk, same rules” approach for crypto in general with a more nuanced position on permissionless protocols. At the same time, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has confused and caused the US to fall behind the pack.

The EU is focused on examining everything through a payments lens, and the UK talks a better game than it implements. By embracing crypto’s unique needs and fostering a culture of entrepreneurship, these jurisdictions have become the go-to destinations for crypto companies seeking regulatory clarity and freedom to experiment. They are likely to do the same with DeFi.

As DeFi continues to evolve and transform the financial landscape, the role of regulatory frameworks becomes crucial in shaping its trajectory. With digital assets gaining momentum, tokenization under discussion, and traditional finance entering the space, the quest for regulatory environments that not only accommodate but also nurture DeFi is intensifying more even than just centralized crypto entities.

Navigating the DeFi Regulatory Landscape

With the current hot crypto market and lots of capital flowing into projects, the number of projects establishing DAOs over the next 18 months will be huge.

From a regulatory perspective, it’s time for them to set out their intent for these entities and the services that will be possible through these protocols.

Regarding the regulatory landscape for current DeFi projects, we see why more and more industry professionals feel drawn toward Switzerland’s approach. While the EU’s MiCA Regulation offers a comprehensive, harmonized framework with detailed rules for consumer protection and market integrity – appealing for projects seeking a uniform environment for cross-border European operations – Switzerland’s principle-based approach, flexibility is more compelling for projects not focussed on payment services. Not every project fits neatly into a one-size-fits-all mold; Switzerland seems to understand that.

Switzerland’s willingness to foster a supportive ecosystem, exemplified by Crypto Valley in Zug, is remarkable. Being part of a vibrant community with access to capital and opportunities for experimentation and growth is a crypto native’s dream.

Switzerland’s regulatory philosophy and pro-business stance make it particularly appealing. Innovative projects will have a better opportunity, be more likely to get regulatory clarity early and emerge from this thriving ecosystem, pushing DeFi boundaries and shaping finance’s future evolution. Switzerland’s approach resonates persuasively.

Hong Kong: A Financial Renaissance

Hong Kong is redefining its role as a crypto hub by implementing its new Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) regime. This regulatory framework introduces a structured yet dynamic environment that supports crypto innovation while maintaining robust safeguards.

The comprehensive VASP licensing ensures crypto platforms meet stringent criteria for liquidity, customer protection, and cybersecurity, fostering a balanced approach to regulation and innovation. By permitting retail trading of cryptocurrencies, Hong Kong nurtures a vibrant ecosystem that attracts retail investors while upholding necessary safeguards. It has yet to develop Defi specific regulation, we can only encourage to look at this holistically, developing DAO regulation first, but the approach to the rest lends confidence that this is a good location for businesses to establish whilst we wait.

Regulatory routes forward

Countries mustn’t follow in the footsteps of those who have failed to innovate in this field. The US, for instance, has been slow to adapt to the changing financial landscape, with regulatory uncertainty stifling growth and innovation. Meanwhile, US companies keep demanding clarity on regulation, with giants like Coinbase and their legal team demanding the SEC engage in rulemaking. Similarly, countries like Japan and South Korea have struggled to integrate crypto into their traditional financial systems, leading to a lack of progress.

Countries, including the US, must divide and approach centralized and decentralized activities differently. Some decentralized activities, such as market rate set risk, have many risks that could be prevented fairly easily under the right approvals regime. We know this will come and squeeze some major players, but early transparency on the direction will save the industry a lot of costs.

Currently, we look to countries like Switzerland and Hong Kong, which have taken a proactive approach to crypto, to lead in creating a supportive regulatory environment that will foster innovation and growth in Defi. By learning from their example, other countries can catch up and move forward rapidly.

While the future of decentralized tech watches the American Dream turns into a coma, Swiss developers are pouring Aperol and planning their ski trips.

Fuente

Regulation

Crypto community gets involved in anti-government protests in Nigeria

Published

4 months ago

1 August, 2024

BlockChainBulletin Staff

Crypto Community Engages in Nigeria's Governance Protests

Amid the #EndBadGovernanceInNigeria protests in Nigeria, a notable shift is occurring within the country’s cryptocurrency sector. As the general public demands sweeping governance reforms, crypto community leaders are seizing the opportunity to advocate for specific regulatory changes.

Rume Ophi, former secretary of the Blockchain Stakeholders Association of Nigeria (SiBAN), stressed the critical need to integrate crypto-focused demands into the broader agenda of the protests.

Ophi explained the dual benefit of such requirements, noting that proper regulation can spur substantial economic growth by attracting investors and creating job opportunities. Ophi noted, “Including calls for favorable crypto regulations is not just about the crypto community; it’s about leveraging these technologies to foster broader economic prosperity.”

Existing government efforts

In opposition to Ophi’s call for action, Chimezie Chuta, chair of the National Blockchain Policy Steering Committee, presents a different view. He pointed out The Nigerian government continued efforts to nurture the blockchain and cryptocurrency industries.

According to Chuta, the creation of a steering committee was essential to effectively address the needs of the crypto community.

Chuta also highlighted the creation of a subcommittee to harmonize regulations for virtual asset service providers (VASPs). With the aim of streamlining operations and providing clear regulatory direction, the initiative involves cooperation with major organizations including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN). “Our efforts should mitigate the need for protest as substantial progress is being made to address the needs of the crypto industry,” Chuta said.

A united call for support

The ongoing dialogue between the crypto community and government agencies reflects a complex landscape of negotiations and demands for progress.

While actors like Ophi are calling for more direct action and the inclusion of crypto demands in protest agendas, government figures like Chuta are advocating for recognition of the steps already taken.

As protests continue, the crypto community’s push for regulatory reform highlights a crucial aspect of Nigeria’s broader fight to improve governance and economic policies. Both sides agree that favorable regulations are critical to the successful adoption and implementation of blockchain technologies, signaling a potentially transformative era for Nigeria’s economic framework.

Read also : OKX Exchange Exits Nigerian Market Amid Regulatory Crackdown

Fuente

Regulation

Cryptocurrency Regulations in Slovenia 2024

Published

4 months ago

1 August, 2024

BlockChainBulletin Staff

Cryptocurrency Regulations in Slovenia 2024

Slovenia, a small but highly developed European country with a population of 2.1 million, boasts a rich industrial history that has contributed greatly to its strong economy. As the most economically developed Slavic nation, Slovenia has grown steadily since adopting the euro in 2007. Its openness to innovation has been a key factor in its success in the industrial sector, making it a prime destination for cryptocurrency enthusiasts. Many believe that Slovenia is poised to become a powerful fintech hub in Europe. But does its current regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies support such aspirations?

Let’s explore Slovenia’s cryptocurrency regulations and see if they can propel the country to the forefront of the cryptocurrency landscape. My expectations are positive. What are yours? Before we answer, let’s dig a little deeper.

1. Cryptocurrency regulation in Slovenia: an overview

Slovenia is renowned for its innovation-friendly stance, providing a supportive environment for emerging technologies such as blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Under the Payment Services and Systems Act, cryptocurrencies are classified as virtual assets rather than financial or monetary instruments.

The regulation of the cryptocurrency sector in Slovenia is decentralized. Different authorities manage different aspects of the ecosystem. For example, the Bank of Slovenia and the Securities Market Agency oversee cryptocurrency transactions to ensure compliance with financial laws, including anti-money laundering (AML) and terrorist financing regulations. The Slovenian Act on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (ZPPDFT-2) incorporates the EU’s 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (5MLD) and aligns with the latest FATF recommendations. All virtual currency service providers must register with the Office of the Republic of Slovenia.

2. Cryptocurrency regulation in Slovenia: what’s new?

Several notable developments have taken place this year in the cryptocurrency sector in Slovenia:

July 25, 2024:Slovenia has issued a €30 million on-chain digital sovereign bond, the first of its kind in the EU, with a yield of 3.65%, maturing on 25 November 2024.

May 14, 2024:NiceHash has announced the first Slovenian Bitcoin-focused conference, NiceHashX, scheduled for November 8-9 in Maribor.

3. Explanation of the tax framework for cryptocurrencies in Slovenia

The Slovenian cryptocurrency tax framework provides clear guidelines for individuals and businesses. According to the Slovenian Financial Administration, the tax treatment depends on the status of the trader and the nature of the transaction.

People:Income earned from cryptocurrencies through employment or ongoing business activities is subject to personal income tax. However, capital gains from transactions or market fluctuations are exempt from tax.
Companies:Capital gains from cryptocurrency-related activities are subject to a 19% corporate tax. Value-added tax (VAT) generally applies at a rate of 22%, although cryptocurrency transactions that are considered as means of payment are exempt from VAT. Companies are not allowed to limit payment methods to cryptocurrencies alone. Tokens issued during ICOs must follow standard accounting rules and corporate tax law.

4. Cryptocurrency Mining in Slovenia: What You Need to Know

Cryptocurrency mining is not restricted in Slovenia, but income from mining is considered business income and is therefore taxable. This includes rewards from validating transactions and any additional income from mining operations. Both individuals and legal entities must comply with Slovenian tax regulations.

5. Timeline of the development of cryptocurrency regulation in Slovenia

Here is a timeline highlighting the evolution of cryptocurrency regulations in Slovenia:

2013:The Slovenian Financial Administration has issued guidelines stating that income from cryptocurrency transactions should be taxed.
2017:The Slovenian Financial Administration has provided more detailed guidelines on cryptocurrency taxation, depending on factors such as the status of the trader and the type of transaction.
2023:The EU adopted the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation, establishing a uniform regulatory framework for crypto-assets, their issuers and service providers across the EU.

Endnote

Slovenia’s approach to the cryptocurrency sector is commendable, reflecting its optimistic view of the future of cryptocurrencies. The country’s balanced regulatory framework supports cryptocurrency innovation while protecting users’ rights and preventing illegal activities. Recent developments demonstrate Slovenia’s commitment to continually improving its regulatory environment. Slovenia’s cryptocurrency regulatory framework sets a positive example for other nations navigating the evolving cryptocurrency landscape.

Fuente

Regulation

A Blank Sheet for Cryptocurrencies: Kamala Harris’ Regulatory Opportunity

Published

4 months ago

1 August, 2024

BlockChainBulletin Staff

A Blank Sheet for Cryptocurrencies: Kamala Harris' Regulatory Opportunity

photo by Shubham Dhage on Unsplash

As the cryptocurrency landscape continues to evolve, the need for clear regulation has never been more pressing.

With Vice President Kamala Harris now leading the charge on digital asset regulation in the United States, this represents a unique opportunity to start fresh. This fresh start can foster innovation and protect consumers. It can also pave the way for widespread adoption across industries, including real estate agencies, healthcare providers, and online gaming platforms like these. online casinos ukAccording to experts at SafestCasinoSites, these platforms come with benefits such as bonus offers, a wide selection of games, and various payment methods. Ultimately, all this increase in adoption could propel the cryptocurrency market forward.

With this in mind, let’s look at the current state of cryptocurrency regulation in the United States, a complex and confusing landscape. Multiple agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), have overlapping jurisdictions, creating a fragmented regulatory environment. This lack of clarity has stifled innovation as companies are reluctant to invest in the United States, fearing regulatory repercussions. A coherent and clear regulatory framework is urgently needed to realize the full potential of cryptocurrencies in the United States.

While the US struggles to find its footing, other countries, such as Singapore and the UK, are actively looking into the cryptocurrency sector by adopting clear and supportive regulatory frameworks. This has led to a brain drain, with companies choosing to locate in more conducive environments.

Vice President Kamala Harris has a unique opportunity to change that narrative and start over. Regulation of cryptocurrencies. By taking a comprehensive and inclusive approach, it can help create a framework that balances consumer protection with innovation and growth. The time has come for clear and effective regulation of cryptocurrencies in the United States.

Effective regulation of digital assets is essential to foster a safe and innovative environment. The key principles guiding this regulation are clarity, innovation, global cooperation, consumer protection, and flexibility. Clear definitions and guidelines eliminate ambiguity while encouraging experimentation and development to ensure progress. Collaboration with international partners establishes consistent standards, preventing regulatory arbitrage. Strong safeguards protect consumers from fraud and market abuse, and adaptability allows for evolution in response to emerging trends and technologies, striking a balance between innovation and protection.

The benefits of effective cryptocurrency regulation are multiple and far-reaching. By establishing clear guidelines, governments can attract investors and mainstream users, driving growth and adoption. This can, in turn, position countries like the United States as global leaders in fintech and innovation. Strong safeguards will also increase consumer confidence in digital assets and related products, increasing economic activity.

A thriving crypto industry can contribute significantly to GDP and job creation, which has a positive impact on the overall economy. Furthermore, effective regulation has paved the way for the growth of many businesses such as tech startups, online casinos, and pharmaceutical companies, demonstrating that clear guidelines can open up new opportunities without stifling innovation. This is a great example of how regulation can allay fears of regressive policies, even if Kamala Harris does not repeal the current progressive approach. By adopting effective regulation, governments can create fertile ground for the crypto industry to thrive, thereby promoting progress and prosperity.

Fuente

Regulation

South Korea Imposes New ‘Monitoring’ Fees on Cryptocurrency Exchanges

Published

4 months ago

1 August, 2024

BlockChainBulletin Staff

South Korea Imposes New 'Monitoring' Fees on Cryptocurrency Exchanges

Big news! The latest regulatory changes in South Korea are expected to impact major cryptocurrency exchanges like Upbit and Bithumb. Under the updated regulations, these platforms will now have to pay monitoring fees, which could cause problems for some exchanges.

Overview of new fees

In the latest move to regulate cryptocurrencies, the Financial Services Commission announced on July 1 the revised “Enforcement Order of the Act on the Establishment of the Financial Services Commission, etc.” update “Regulations on the collection of contributions from financial institutions, etc.” According to local legislation newsThe regulations require virtual asset operators to pay supervisory fees for inspections conducted by the Financial Supervisory Service starting next year. The total fees for the four major exchanges are estimated at around 300 million won, or about $220,000.

Apportionment of costs

Upbit, which holds a dominant market share, is expected to bear more than 90% of the total fee, or about 272 million won ($199,592) based on its operating revenue. Bithumb will pay about 21.14 million won ($155,157), while Coinone and GOPAX will contribute about 6.03 million won ($4,422) and 830,000 won ($608), respectively. Korbit is excluded from this fee due to its lower operating revenue.

Impact on the industry

The supervision fee will function similarly to a quasi-tax for financial institutions subject to inspections by the Financial Supervisory Service. The new law requires any company with a turnover of 3 billion won or more to pay the fee.

In the past, fees for electronic financial companies and P2P investment firms were phased in over three years. However, the taxation of virtual asset operators has been accelerated, reflecting the rapid growth of the cryptocurrency market and increasing regulatory scrutiny.

Industry reactions

The rapid introduction of the fee was unexpected by some industry players, who had expected a delay. Financial Supervisory Service officials justified the decision by citing the creation of the body concerned and the costs already incurred.

While larger exchanges like Upbit and Bithumb can afford the cost, smaller exchanges like Coinone and GOPAX, which are currently operating at a loss, could face an additional financial burden. This is part of a broader trend of declining trading volumes for South Korean exchanges, which have seen a 30% drop since the new law went into effect.

Fuente