Regulation

Crypto regulation bills advance out of House committee

Published

5 months ago

22 June, 2024

Crypto regulation bills advance out of House committee

SEN. JOSHUA BRYANT (file)

“This is almost an embarrassing situation. I’m not sure we knew what we were doing when we passed the bill originally. … But I know we’re trying to do something. … I’m not sure whether we’re helping or hurting but I’m going to support it because I know we need to do something.”

So said Rep. Mike Holcomb (R-Pine Bluff) during the debate over two bills aiming to regulate crypto mines — Senate Bill 78 and Senate Bill 79 — each of which passed out of the House City, County, and Local Affairs committee Tuesday.

That really says it all. Almost a zen koan for the last year of misadventure and tomfoolery at the Capitol as the Legislature bobbles its way through the question of how to regulate noisy, thirsty, electricity-sucking crypto mines, and whether cities and counties should be allowed to come up with their own local measures to deal with the nuisance. Last year, the Legislature passed a law that badly bungled the issue; if they botched things this time, Holcomb said, they could always come back and try again.

Members of the public were in attendance to speak in the House committee, but members voted on each bill without hearing any of their testimony.

Crypto “mining” is the process by which bitcoin confirms transactions and creates new bitcoin, using a network of high-powered computers. Unfortunately, this big-money industry is noisy and terrible for the environment. Crypto mines have often proven to be a major problem for the rural communities where they’ve popped up.

SB78 and SB79 aim to regulate crypto mining and address some of the problems created by Act 851 of 2023, which sharply curtailed the ability of Arkansas cities and counties to regulate the industry.

The co-sponsors of Act 851, Sen. Joshua Bryant (R-Rogers) and Rep. Rick McClure (R-Malvern), are also co-sponsors of these new bills, which has some observers concerned. “I don’t let the same man take me snipe hunting twice,” Rep. Josh Miller (R-Heber Springs) recently commented during a committee hearing. Miller co-sponsored a more aggressive slate of proposals to regulate crypto mines along with Sen. Bryan King (R-Green Forest). Those proposals were blocked from even being considered a couple weeks ago when they failed to get the needed approval in the House.

In his opening remarks, Bryant looked back to 2023, when he assisted the crypto mine industry with Act 851. That original bill was reportedly written by the Satoshi Group, a dark-money crypto advocacy group. McClure has claimed that he wrote most of it, but said he may have erred in copy and pasting a significant portion from a bill from another state that the Satoshi Group sent him.

My view is that while SB78 and SB79 have holes and limitations, they are better than the status quo under Act 851 and will take at least some needed steps to alleviate the trouble. But every time Bryant opens his mouth, I have to admit I start worrying that this is yet another scam.

“The ask of an industry to have preemptive protections is not an unusual ask,” Bryant began.

I’m quite sure that much is true. But to turn such asks into full-fledged crony capitalism depends on lawmakers agreeing to be their lackeys. In Bryant, the crypto mine industry found their man.

Later, asked whether he had consulted with the crypto mine industry while working on his new bill, he said, “I did make sure that the language was not not going to crush them … they did assist to make sure I knew what industry standards were.”

SB78 restores local control to municipal and county governments to regulate crypto mine businesses (though not home mining operations); requires noise mitigation techniques, with specific examples noted but not mandated — and has no decibel limit; requires that if they do not use such mitigation techniques, the crypto mining facilities must be at least 2,000 feet from the nearest residential or commercial use structure (or located in an area zoned for industrial use); and prohibits the crypto mines from being owned by people or governments from certain countries, including China.

A great deal of attention in the committee hearing focused on the fact that the bill bans local governments from enacting prohibitions or certain regulations on home crypto mining.

Throughout the session, Bryant has insisted that his bills “restore local control.” And the fact that they really do so when it comes to crypto mine business operations is probably the best part of the bill! But why this insistence that local governments aren’t allowed to choose for themselves how to regulate crypto mining that happens at home? It sure sounds like a loophole.

Bryant had no good answer.

“I felt it was important because we do have local governments that just might decide — especially in Northwest Arkansas — might just decide they want to tackle this, and this is a preemptive approach to say [that] what’s inside my home…is a permittable activity,” Bryant said.

In other words, he’s for local control unless a local government makes a choice he doesn’t like. No idea what he’s talking about regarding Northwest Arkansas, but my guess is that he’s still bitter about the fight over LGBT protections passed in Fayetteville.

In practice, it’s pretty unlikely that home crypto mining will become a nuisance. And it seems like it would be pretty convoluted and not worth the trouble to try to run a scam where you were actually running a big crypto mine business but doing it from what you claimed was a home residence, in order to dodge regulation. But after everything that’s happened, it’s reasonable to be a little paranoid.

Here’s the bill sponsors’ story about why home crypto mining is harmless: People can do a kind of small-scale version of crypto mining on their computer at home. They can purchase additional equipment to up their skill, but it’s generally not noisy. There’s nothing like the power drain from a football field-sized networked of computers or the water usage from the cooling system needed to keep those computers from overheating. It’s just a hobby, and maybe you can make a little money, though it sounds like it’s pretty hard to realistically compete with the big corporations. It wouldn’t be financially feasible or logistically possible to rig up something like a crypto mine business in a place that was zoned residential, they say. The various scenarios you’re imagining in your head — like setting up a shed in your backyard to run a crypto mine — wouldn’t work in practice for various technical reasons and because of how the power company interacts with such entities. An Entergy official backed all this, for what it’s worth.

And on top of all that, it would be kind of tough to regulate what people do in the privacy of their own homes. So regulating home crypto is unnecessary and infeasible, they say.

Be that as it may: Why include this restriction on local governments at all? If local governments don’t want to regulate home crypto operations because it doesn’t make sense to do so, they won’t. Why prohibit them from doing that via a state law?

Multiple legislators were quite strident in telling Bryant they thought this was a bad idea. There’s some dispute about whether or not the definition of “home” versus a crypto mine business is too vague, though Bryant claimed that the language in the original Act 851 would suffice. But after everything that’s happened, it just smells a little funny. We know that some crypto mines have exhibited bad behavior and an aggressive posture toward making use of state law to get their way. Why risk it? But Bryant wouldn’t budge.

A few lawmakers expressed concern that the bills didn’t have an explicit mechanism to directly remunerate victims of crypto mine nuisance or protect them if they take legal action with guarantees of covering attorneys’ fees. If companies fail to comply with requirements, they could be fined, but that money would wind up going back to various state agencies.

“We always seem to give the money back to the state,” complained Rep. Frances Cavenaugh (R-Walnut Ridge). “We don’t seem to think about the local governments and citizens that are damaged by these things.”

Bryant said that his hope was that after these new laws passed, crypto mines would start behaving themselves, so there wouldn’t be the kind of nuisance and harm to communities that Cavenaugh mentioned.

“In talking about victim restitution, it seems like there’s a place for that somewhere,” Rep. Tippi McCullough (D-Little Rock). “This has been very constituency driven and most folks would be hard pressed to go up against companies that have tons of lawyers and money to redress the ways that they have been harmed.”

The bill states that if plaintiffs pursue a complaint in district court against a crypto mine, they “may be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” Rep. Lanny Fite (R-Benton) asked why the bill didn’t mandate this (“shall”) rather than leaving it open (“may”).

Bryant said the judiciary doesn’t like to be told what to do.

But won’t that mean that the crypto industry’s high-powered law firms will intimidate plaintiffs with more limited funds, who might simply not have the resources to take them on?

“They’ll have to make sure they have a strong case,” Bryant said.

A few legislators fretted that the ban on foreign ownership cast too wide a net (it relies on various federal government lists of nations viewed as potentially troublesome or adversarial). A couple lawmakers offered examples of people who they argued would be unfairly shut out, such as someone who relocated to the U.S. from Venezuela but did not yet have citizenship, or an American living in Lebanon. The list of countries that would be banned include countries like Zimbabwe that hardly seem like a threat to U.S. national security. Truly bad actors, meantime, may be hard to catch if they use shell companies to obscure their ownership.

“Is it the best way to handle it?” mused McClure. “I’m not sure. We just don’t know. But this is a step to try to control that.”

Asked whether the provisions on foreign ownership would create a Constitutional issue under the Equal Protection Clause, Bryant said, “It may. In effectuating the language with the attorney general’s office, I think that’s a fight they’re willing to weigh in.” Oh, joy.

Another concern raised was the lack of explicit water regulation in the statutory language. This was an area that one of King’s proposals addressed — watching the questions, it was hard not to notice that the debate would have been more robust, with more options on the table, if his measures had at least been included in the discussion.

Bryant clarified that there was no noise ordinance, or specified noise limit, included in either bill. Such ordinances were too hard to measure or enforce, he said. Instead, Bryant settled on non-specific language that regulates noise as “reasonably calculated by industry standards.”

“The industry knows what they do to regulate the output of noise,” he said. “We’re going to let the industry…and the judgments of the courts, decide what is a reasonable nuisance.”

Part of the idea behind the lack of an explicit noise ordinance, based on prior testimony, is that the listed noise mitigation techniques were supposed to be so powerful that noise wouldn’t wind up being an issue.

But McCullough pointed out that these mitigation techniques seemed to be open-ended. She asked whether the language meant that the requirement could be satisfied by “putting some cotton balls outside the walls and saying, ‘we tried to reduce the noise.’”

Collins made the important point that the bill’s language truly was so open-ended as to be almost useless, offering examples of mitigation techniques but no specific requirement. “All this stuff about cooling and ‘closing the envelope,” he said, is “meaningless” — nothing more than possible suggestions. “You really could put cotton balls up. That’s a noise reduction technique and that’s permitted.”

Bryant nevertheless expressed confidence that “we can curtail the nuisance without becoming a burden on industry.” He said “the language as a whole” meant that it came down to what a “reasonable person” would conclude about how much noise was a nuisance.

“I think I’m pretty reasonable and it looks like it just says apply noise reduction techniques,” Collins responded.

Asked why Act 851 wasn’t simply repealed. Bryant said that wouldn’t have solved the problems (though in fact the law caused at least certain aspects of the fiasco). Asked whether SB78 and SB79 were “stopgap bills” requiring further action in the 2025 session, Bryant said they were: “There’s going to be a lot more discussion, not only in 2025, but between now and then.”

After about an hour and a half of debate, Rep. Carol Dalby (R-Texarkana) moved for immediate consideration. This effectively blocked the members of the public who showed up to testify from speaking. A few Nos were heard from the section where Democrats were seated, but her motion passed on a voice vote. The bill itself likewise passed on a voice vote.

Collins voted no. “I think it does some helpful things,” he said. “In a lot of ways it’s positive. In some ways it falls short.”

This was a little painful to hear, because most Democrats in the House declined to vote for the King proposals, which might have opened up the debate to consider more aggressive regulation methods. These Democrats wound up representing a decisive block that stopped King’s proposals from being considered, helping to hand a victory to Rep. David Ray (R-Maumelle) — who vehemently argued against King’s measures in the House with a litany of crypto-lobbyist talking points. Collins was among those who declined to vote for King’s proposals at the time, stating that he disapproved of non-budget bills in the fiscal session regardless of the merit of such proposals.

But the shortcomings of the bill’s regulatory plan were not the reason for Collins’ no vote. Rather, he said, he believed that the ban on certain foreign nationals was dangerously too broad. “We’re casting a net that is too wide and too narrow,” he said, catching innocent people and missing true threats. “We can’t put that back in the bottle if we pass this,” he said.

After SB78 passed, the weary legislators heard Rep. Jeremiah Moore (R-Clarendon) and Sen. Missy Irvin (R-Mountain View) present SB79. The two bills are complimentary, with the sponsors on each bill collaborating and signing on as co-sponsors on the other.

SB79 creates a state-level regulatory system to work in tandem with SB78, including a process for the attorney general to investigate potential violations of rules against foreign ownership by prohibited nations such as China, and a state licensing system that requires a permit from the Oil and Gas Commission, including compliance with all aspects of SB78 and SB79.

“The status quo is untenable,” Moore said.

A smaller group of lawmakers asked questions on SB79. Moore was asked about the removal of a permit fee for crypto mines that was in an earlier version of the bill. Could that return via the rules process? Moore said he didn’t expect that to happen.

McCullough worried that the Oil and Gas Commission’s duties were too open-ended without sufficiently clear mandates. Irvin said she didn’t want to be too prescriptive. She said she trusted the commission to be good partners with the Legislature in developing rules and regulations.

Collins again raised concerns about the restrictions on certain foreign nationals and governments. “Both of y’all mentioned the word enemies,” he said. He read out the names of some of the 28 nations on the banned list, drawn from certain federal regulations: Nicaragua, Lebanon, Haiti, Ethiopia, Turkmenistan, Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

“Do you all think that all of these countries are enemies of the United States?” Collins asked.

“There’s a reason why they’re on that list, according to the United States of America,” Irvin said. “I trust that list.”

Asked whether there were any examples of crypto mining benefiting local communities or creating jobs, Moore and Irvin did not provide any. Later, mentioning potential tax revenues, Irvin said, “I think there is an economic benefit, for sure. But I don’t know that we can define that.”

After a little less than forty minutes of discussion, Dalby once again made a motion for immediate consideration, and the committee once again passed the bill on a voice vote without hearing a word from the public.

Source

Regulation

Cryptocurrency Regulation in Slovenia 2024

Published

4 months ago

1 August, 2024

Chain Feed Staff

Cryptocurrency Regulation 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 significantly to its robust 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 favorite destination for cryptocurrency enthusiasts. Many believe that Slovenia is poised to become a powerful fintech hub in Europe. But does its current cryptocurrency regulatory framework support such aspirations?

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

1. Cryptocurrency Regulation in Slovenia: An Overview

Slovenia is known for its pro-innovation 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.

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 supervise cryptocurrency transactions to ensure compliance with financial laws, including anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorist financing regulations. The Slovenian Act on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (ZPPDFT-2) incorporates the EU’s Fifth 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?

This year, there have been several noteworthy developments in the cryptocurrency sector in Slovenia:

July 25, 2024: Slovenia has issued a €30 million on-chain sovereign digital 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 legal framework for cryptocurrency taxation in Slovenia

Slovenia’s cryptocurrency tax framework provides clear guidelines for both individuals and businesses. According to the Slovenian Tax Administration, tax treatment depends on the status of the trader and the nature of the transaction.

Individuals: Income earned from cryptocurrencies through employment or ongoing business activities is subject to personal income tax. However, capital gains from trading or market fluctuations are exempt from taxation.
Society: Capital gains from cryptocurrency activities are subject to a corporate income tax of 19%. Value added tax (VAT) generally applies at a rate of 22%, although cryptocurrency transactions considered as means of payment are exempt from VAT. Companies are not allowed to limit payment methods to cryptocurrencies only. Tokens issued during ICOs must comply with standard accounting rules and the Corporate Tax Act.

4. Cryptocurrency Mining in Slovenia: What You Should Know

Cryptocurrency mining is not restricted in Slovenia, but the 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 natural persons and legal entities must comply with Slovenian tax regulations.

5. Timeline of the evolution of cryptocurrency regulations in Slovenia

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

2013:The Slovenian Tax Administration has issued guidelines according to which income from cryptocurrency transactions should be taxed.
2017:The Slovenian Tax Administration has provided more detailed guidelines on cryptocurrency taxation, based on factors such as the trader’s status and the type of transaction.
2023The EU has adopted the Markets in Cryptocurrencies Regulation (MiCA), which establishes a uniform regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies, their issuers and service providers across the EU.

Final note

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

Source

Regulation

A Blank Slate for Cryptocurrencies: Kamala Harris’ Regulatory Opportunity

Published

4 months ago

1 August, 2024

Chain Feed Staff

A Blank Slate for Cryptocurrencies: Kamala Harris' Regulatory Opportunity

Photo by The Dhage of Shubham ON Disinfect

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

Vice President Kamala Harris is now leading the charge on digital asset regulation in the United States, presenting a unique opportunity for a clean slate. 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 gambling platforms like these online casinos in the uk. According to experts at SafestCasinoSites, these platforms have advantages such as bonus offers, a wide selection of games, and various payment methods. Ultimately, all this increased adoption could push the cryptocurrency market forward.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at the current state of cryptocurrency regulation in the United States, which is 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 hindered innovation, as companies are reluctant to invest in the United States, fearing regulatory repercussions. A cohesive and clear regulatory framework is urgently needed to unlock 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 embracing the cryptocurrency industry with clear and supportive regulatory frameworks. This has led to a brain drain, with companies opting to set up in more hospitable environments.

Vice President Kamala Harris has a unique opportunity to change this narrative and clean up the future. cryptocurrency regulation. 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 fostering a safe and innovative environment. Key principles guiding this regulation include 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 many and far-reaching. By establishing clear guidelines, governments can attract investors and traditional users, spurring growth and adoption. This, in turn, can position countries like the United States as global leaders in financial technology and innovation. Strong protections will also increase consumer confidence in digital assets and related products, boosting economic activity.

A thriving cryptocurrency industry can significantly contribute 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 companies such as tech startups, online casinos, and pharmaceutical companies, proving that clear guidelines can unlock new opportunities without stifling innovation. This is a great example of how regulation can alleviate 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 cryptocurrency industry to thrive, driving progress and prosperity.

Source

Regulation

Think You Own Your Crypto? New UK Law Would Ensure It – DL News

Published

4 months ago

1 August, 2024

Chain Feed Staff

Think You Own Your Crypto? New UK Law Would Ensure It – DL News

The UK Law Commission has developed a bill that will address a situation of legal uncertainty.
The commission’s goal is to ensure that cryptocurrencies are legally treated as personal property.

UK law is not entirely clear whether cryptocurrencies can be considered personal property.

This is according to the UK Law Commission, which argues that while most investors assume that when they buy cryptocurrencies, they are “acquiring property rights in the same way as buying, say, a watch or a laptop.”

“As the law currently stands, this is not necessarily the case,” the respected legal body said in a new report on Tuesday.

The report was accompanied by a solution: a new bill to consolidate the legal status of digital assets as personal property.

This could be huge for the estimated 4.7 million Britons valued hold cryptocurrencies.

“This will allow the courts to determine a range of issues,” the report says.

If passed, the law would help clarify how cryptocurrencies are treated in cases of bankruptcy, estate planning or theft.

Flexible law

The commission is an independent body responsible for reviewing UK law. It began investigating whether English and Welsh property laws apply to digital assets in 2020.

Join the community to receive our latest stories and updates

At the time, then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak expressed ambitions to transform the UK into a cryptocurrency hub as Britons invested more.

In 2023, the commission decided that, in most cases, the legislation of England and Wales is sufficiently flexible to regulate cryptocurrencies.

This means that any asset, from Bitcoin to non-fungible tokens and some types of digital contracts, can be considered personal property, without Parliament having to write extensive new laws.

There was one small area of uncertainty, however: it was unclear whether cryptocurrencies fell within the two categories of personal property recognised under UK law.

These two categories are made up of tangible assets (cars, laptops, bags) and intangible assets (contracts, stocks, and debt).

The bill that will now go to Parliament to be converted into law aims to remedy this situation.

Without that clarification, courts may try to lump cryptocurrencies together with intangible assets, said Adam Sanitt, head of litigation, knowledge, innovation and corporate support EMEA at law firm Norton Rose Fulbright. DL News in March.

This is problematic because intangible assets are creations of the legal system, while cryptocurrencies are not.

“How the law treats digital assets, what rights you have over them, how you own them, how you transfer them to other people—that treatment is different, because digital assets don’t exist by virtue of the legal system, but independently of it,” Sanitt said.

The money in your bank account, for example, is a legal creation. The government could pass a law to cancel it.

However, if the UK passed a law banning Bitcoin, Bitcoin would not cease to exist.

Sanitt said: “That’s why digital assets are so important: neither the government nor the legal system can take them away from you.”

Contact the author at joanna@dlnews.com.

Source

Regulation

The Solution the Cryptocurrency Industry Needs

Published

4 months ago

1 August, 2024

Chain Feed Staff

The Solution the Cryptocurrency Industry Needs

The cryptocurrency industry has performed remarkably well since its inception, but now faces a critical hurdle that requires careful consideration and regulatory expertise to overcome. Despite the industry’s rapid growth and rate of global adoption, the gap between the industry and global regulation is only widening as new innovations break through into the public domain.

Although efforts are being made on both sides, regulators’ lack of familiarity with cryptocurrencies and the industry’s lack of regulatory expertise are hindering innovation in the sector. To address this issue, traditional financial institutions (TradFi) such as MultiBank Group have started venturing into the cryptocurrency sector.

The regulatory gap

Over the past decade, the cryptocurrency industry has grown dramatically as tech entrepreneurs and forward-thinking thinkers have founded a plethora of crypto platforms and protocols to push the boundaries of the space. The problem faced by these newcomers, who are often unfamiliar with the hurdles posed by financial regulators, can quickly overwhelm and stall operations.

On the other hand, regulators more attuned to TradFi systems may be equally stifled by the complexities of decentralization and blockchain technology. The unfamiliarity experienced by both innovators and regulators creates a stark regulatory divide between both sides, leading to misunderstandings and potential conflicts.

To overcome this lack of communication, a bridge must be built to bridge the gap, ensuring future stability for the cryptocurrency industry and clearer legislation from regulators.

Efforts to bridge the gap between industry

The gap between the cryptocurrency industry and regulators is slowly narrowing as efforts to regulate cryptocurrencies and Web3 space activities are gaining momentum. Specific regulatory actions are taking place in many countries, aimed at providing greater oversight of cryptocurrency transactions, cryptocurrency exchanges, and initial coin offerings (ICOs).

Despite being a positive step in the right direction, these new regulations can differ significantly between jurisdictions around the world. This fragmentation results in a regulatory environment filled with obstacles, bottlenecks, and varying requirements and prohibitions. As cryptocurrency companies and TradFi institutions attempt to navigate the minefield, the regulatory maze becomes increasingly convoluted.

TradFi institutions like MultiBank Group are working to solve this problem, as one of the largest financial derivatives institutions in the world with over 12 licenses across all continents. Founded in 2005, the Group has an impeccable and trustworthy reputation globally, extensive expertise in financial regulation and has now ventured into the cryptocurrency space via MultiBank.io.

MultiBank.io: TradFi Excellence in the Crypto Space

Expanding into the cryptocurrency space via MultiBank.io has enabled MultiBank Group to provide regulatory clarity and trust to the digital asset industry. With a substantial daily trading volume of $12.1 billion, the timely decision to enter the cryptocurrency space has the potential to set regulatory precedents and standards for years to come.

By helping to develop sensible and well-considered regulations, MultiBank.io’s established reputation allows the company to communicate effectively and clearly with regulators. Unlike others in the industry without regulatory expertise, MultiBank.io facilitates the Group’s commitment to rigorous regulatory standards, the scope of oversight and establishes the necessary transparency.

The company’s approach ensures that regulatory licenses are pre-acquired, compliance is met globally without jurisdictional barriers, and transactions remain secure at all times. By helping to create robust regulations that are both clear and innovation-friendly, MultiBank Group looks forward to standardizing the entire cryptocurrency industry for other potential innovators.

One of the biggest challenges in establishing a clearly constructed bridge between regulators and the cryptocurrency industry is effective communication. By leveraging its institutional background TradFi and acting as an intermediary with regulators, MultiBank Group is able to translate the needs of the industry to those who shape it.

This quality of mediation is essential to ensure that regulation helps develop essential technological advances rather than hinders their establishment and growth. Through the lens of TradFi when looking at the complexity of the cryptocurrency industry, MultiBank Group is able to deconstruct unfamiliar crypto arguments for regulation and create a safer and more secure space.

Where TradFi and Crypto Meet

Regulations are crucial for traders, investors, and everyday users of crypto platforms and their safety when participating in crypto markets. While strict regulations are necessary for stable market integrity, innovation should still be considered, something MultiBank Group considers a priority.

Where TradFi and cryptocurrencies converge, the Group is there to provide a balanced approach to ensure promotion for both the cryptocurrency industry and regulators seeking to protect both retail and institutional investors. This balance is critical to maintaining a thriving space where cryptocurrency innovation can thrive without compromising the security of user funds or data.

As more TradFi institutions like MultiBank Group enter the cryptocurrency space with ever-expanding expertise in regulatory understanding, the future of the industry is increasingly encouraged. The financial freedoms of the cryptocurrency space coupled with regulatory oversight for financial security will be the guiding lights for the future success of the entire cryptocurrency industry.

No spam, no lies, just insights. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Source