Ronny Boesing wants his customers to feel as though his exchange were actually monitored by a financial watchdog.
Boesing’s cryptocurrency exchange, CCEDK, registered in Denmark and currently in beta, puts an emphasis on security and transparency.
“Our strongest selling point will be that clients will know where we are, that the jurisdiction is Danish and that there’s complete transparency,” Boesing told Businessweek. “We link to our lawyer on our website in case anyone feels they need one.”
With the very public failings of Mt. Gox and Neo & Bee this spring, an emphasis on the security of customer deposits has emerged. CCEDK takes a multifaceted approach to guaranteeing its security.
First, 30% of all revenue will be set aside as a buffer against theft or criminal loss, Boesing said.
“The only way people will be able to lose money on our exchange is as a result of an investment loss,” he said in the Businessweek piece. “They’re protected from criminal acts.”
Second, CCEDK appears willing to embrace whatever regulations emerge in Denmark.
“Our aim at CCEDK is to follow all necessary rules and regulations within the Danish judicial system and to closely monitor AML (anti-money-laundering),” the site reads.
That the company is registered in Denmark is a point of focus. Boesing said this fact lets customers know who is running the exchange, and from where. This also allows the team to import “Danish values like integrity, honesty, transparency, and trust.”
We reached out to Boesing to understand how exactly this works.
Cointelegraph: What does it mean, in practice, for the buyer and seller to "meet" [wording from CCEDK’s About page] to conduct a transaction? Is that actually in-person?
Ronny Boesing: The transactions are made peer-to-peer, order-to-order, meaning again that buyer and seller set the value of each transaction from order to order.
CT: I would love to hear more about what inspired the model for your exchange's security. Particularly, why tie that to Danish jurisdiction and the prospects of future regulation there? Does that make a stronger statement than, say, cryptographic proof of reserves?
RB: I believe both statements would make strong points, as Denmark is now one of the few countries with little to no legal restrictions in regards to digital/virtual currencies, and your wording “cryptographic proof of reserves” sounds good as well, as long as “reserve fund” and “proof of reserves” is considered as having the same meaning. I guess it actually does, but we used the “reserve fund” as a way of describing it.
Bitcoinexaminer, who did a follow-up, put it quite nicely:
Besides, the exchange will keep 30 percent of its revenue aside in order to create a fund that can protect its clients from crime-related losses. This means that although the security measures used by the platform might be fallible, at least there will exist a buffer ready to shield the clients in case of capital loss due to some sort of criminal activity.