Why the EBA report is good news for digital currencies
EBAs' report actually makes many concrete short-term recommendations that will help digital currency businesses continue to innovate and flourish.
Last week, the London-based European Banking Authority released a 46-page “Opinion on Virtual Currencies”, covering both centralised and decentralised digital currency systems as reported by Cointelegraph. The EBA is entrusted with ensuring effective and consistent regulation of financial institutions across the EU and this document provides a thorough evaluation of the risks presented by digital currencies, as well as initial thoughts on how they might be regulated.
Many of the headlines have focused on the EBA’s “ban” on regulated financial institutions holding, buying or selling digital currencies. However, the report actually makes many concrete short-term recommendations that will help digital currency businesses continue to innovate and flourish, without the immediate burden of full-blown regulation.
The Risks (and benefits)
The report begins by listing the risks and benefits it perceives as being inherent in the use of digital currencies. The reduced transaction costs, shorter processing times, increased financial inclusion and greater privacy/security are all acknowledged, although it is claimed that none of these are really issues in the EU anyway (!) and therefore won’t have much impact.
Much has been made of the seventy risks that are then listed as arising from digital currencies. These range from Bitcoin exchanges disappearing with customer funds to financial regulators getting criticized for not enacting appropriate regulation! Many of these risks aren’t new - financial regulators have already faced them with cash and other payment systems, investment products and technologies. This is not to say these risks aren’t real, and they should be tackled head-on by the digital currency community.
The Long-Term Response (maybe)
So what to do about this impending Bitcoin apocalypse? The EBA makes it clear that they believe the appropriate long-term response to these risks is to institute comprehensive, bespoke regulations. It warns against forcing a square peg into a round hole by placing digital currencies under the remit of existing legislation, such as the Electronic Money or Payment Service Regulations. This rules out a quick-fix, but at least recognizes the fundamental differences between fiat and digital currencies, and between the approaches required to regulate them effectively.
These bespoke controls would look very similar to those in place for other payment systems, with customer due diligence, reporting requirements, registration/authorization and separation of client funds all in place for various types of digital currency business. However, one proposal sticks out - the creation of “scheme governance authorities”, non-governmental entities that establish and govern the rules for the use of a given digital currency - i.e. the Bitcoin Foundation on steroids.
The EBA admits that this “may, at first, appear incompatible with the conceptual origins of [digital currencies] as a decentralized scheme” - and they’d be right. Vague assertions are made that such an authority could itself be decentralized, although it would also have to be a “legal person.” It’s highly questionable whether any attempt to regulate the digital currency protocol itself, rather than the businesses offering digital currency services, would succeed.
But all of this is, by the EBA’s own admission, still pie in the sky. Such a regulatory scheme would take years to develop, fine-tune and implement. During this period the way digital currencies are used may well change drastically, organizations such as the UK Digital Currency Association will lobby for changes, and other jurisdictions will propose alternative approaches.
Of more interest are the short-term recommendations made in the report - concrete measures that could have an immediate impact on digital currency businesses in the EU.
The Short-Term Response
The EBA’s immediate recommendations focus on maintaining a separation between regulated financial services businesses and digital currencies. Key to this is their recommendation that:
"[National] supervisory authorities discourage credit institutions, payment institutions, and e-money institutions from buying, holding or selling [digital currencies].”
Barclays was never exactly falling over itself to go long on Dogecoin, but this will certainly provide another reason not to. However, this does not prevent banks from being indirectly involved with digital currencies, for example by offering bank accounts to digital currency businesses - a point explicitly made by the authors. The recommendation is also notable in excluding “investment firms”, which also fall within the EBA’s remit - hedge funds etc: fill your boots!
Also of note is the recommendation that digital currency exchanges should be brought within the scope of anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing requirements. This is of importance to the many digital currency businesses that have been unable to obtain bank accounts - banks often cite the lack of AML/CTF oversight as their reason. In the UK this might mean these businesses would fall under the oversight of HMRC - not ideal, but a step in the right direction.
The short-term measures recommended in this report give digital currency businesses a few years of breathing space to continue innovating, without the heavy burden of compliance.
They also give some much-needed legitimacy to these companies by bringing them within the remit of AML/CTF regulations. Perhaps most significantly they prevent the big players from moving in too early, and dominating a diverse new industry that is still experimenting and challenging the status quo. This can only be a good thing for the future of digital currencies.
About the author
Tom is the COO at Elliptic.co and leads its business development, regulatory compliance, and marketing activities. He began his career at a major global IT consultancy, before moving into finance and the commercialisation of new technologies emerging from universities. He was a co-founder of MOF Technologies, a nanotechnology start-up. Tom gained an MPhys (First Class) in Physics from the University of Oxford, followed by a PhD in Atomic and Laser Physics.