Regulation

Making Comprehensive Crypto Policy Out of Regulatory Patchwork

Published

5 months ago

14 June, 2024

Making Comprehensive Crypto Policy Out of Regulatory Patchwork

Even as cryptocurrency and other digital assets resident on blockchain have increasingly permeated the public consciousness, the question of regulatory authority has largely gone unanswered. Often, seismic events in the financial industry, like the collapse of FTX, lead to clarity.

Here, unfortunately, instead of leading to any kind of consensus, the early signs indicate that the demise of FTX and its repercussions on other crypto companies have only reinforced the disagreements between the different stakeholders on how, or even whether, to regulate crypto.

Aitan Goelman is a partner with Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP and the former Director of Enforcement at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This article is part of Crypto 2023.

By now, most people are familiar with the saga of FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder, majority owner, and, until recently, wunderkind CEO of the now-defunct crypto exchange. Before his abrupt fall from grace, “SBF,” as Bankman-Fried has become known, had the ear of public officials, regulators and celebrities, and a public image as the kinder, gentler, face of crypto.

After a November 2022 article in Coindesk reported that the bulk of the holdings of Alameda Research, SBF’s trading firm, were in FTX’s token, a run on the bank was triggered. That led to SBF’s resignation and forced FTX and related entities into bankruptcy, with FTX’s customers and investors out billions of dollars. SBF was subsequently indicted in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) for a variety of crimes, including wire fraud, conspiracy and money-laundering, stemming from his alleged use of assets belonging to FTX’s customers to plug a shortfall in Alameda and his alleged lies to investors.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed enforcement actions against SBF as well, alleging that his actions violated the securities laws and the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), respectively.

Until FTX’s demise, it and SBF had been seen as the white knights of the crypto world, repeatedly riding to the rescue of other troubled companies in the sector. This made some contagion from FTX’s collapse inevitable, although to this point, the damage appears largely confined to other crypto companies, customers and investors, rather than to the traditional financial system.

It is worth noting that, while SBF is now incarcerated and faces a potentially lengthy prison term and unfavorable comparisons to Bernie Madoff, he had previously been a champion of increased regulation of the crypto markets, including by lending his support to proposed federal legislation which would have undoubtedly prohibited much of his conduct, including the use of customer funds to prop up Alameda.

There has never been a dedicated regulator of crypto, at least in the U.S. Various federal agencies, including the Department of Treasury, the SEC and the CFTC, each have different pieces of regulatory responsibility. Certain state agencies have carved out roles for themselves as well, with the New York Department of Financial Services, for example, issuing its own “BitLicenses.”

In this patchwork of different regulatory authority, the legal basis for the CFTC’s jurisdiction is clearest. The Commission has repeatedly held that crypto can be a commodity under § 1(a)(9) of the CEA, which falls under its regulatory umbrella, and this interpretation has been endorsed by federal courts as well. As a result, the CFTC has asserted its regulatory authority over crypto derivatives, and its anti-fraud and anti-manipulation enforcement authority over transactions in spot crypto.

There has been considerably less consistency in the SEC’s approach to crypto. In the last administration, the SEC seemed relatively uninterested in crypto. Its only notable effort was to belatedly take action against the spate of Initial Coin Offerings (ICO), which were fairly clearly unregistered securities offerings, but eschewing any attempt to more broadly regulate crypto.

The SEC has been far more aggressive under Chair Gensler, who has repeatedly suggested that the vast majority of tokens are securities. Gensler’s Enforcement Division has launched a host of investigations into different tokens and has adopted an expensive interpretation of “investment contracts” under SEC v. Howey, 328 U.S. 293 (1946).

Despite this, the SEC’s ability to show that these tokens are actually securities under current law is far from certain. The agency did manage to persuade a New Hampshire district court that the cryptocurrency LBRY was a security. However, it is facing a stiff challenge in SEC v. Ripple, 20 CIV 10832 (S.D.N.Y. 2020), where the defense, led by former SEC Chair Mary Jo White and former Enforcement Director Andrew Ceresney, are arguing that Ripple’s token is not a security by using public statements (and, now, internal SEC communications) made by another former top SEC official, William Hinman, about why Ether did not qualify as an “investment contract” under Howey.

This has resulted in an unusually public turf battle between the CFTC and SEC, and even led CFTC Commissioner Caroline D. Pham to issue a statement condemning the SEC’s decision to bring charges in SEC v. Wahi. Quoting Federalist No. 49, Commissioner Pham called the SEC action “a striking example of ‘regulation by enforcement,’” and encouraged the CFTC to use “all means available” to enforce the CEA in the crypto space.

In this regard, the SBF charges can be seen as a victory for CFTC. Although the SEC charged SBF with securities fraud, it is related to lies he told to FTX investors, something that is inarguably in the SEC’s wheelhouse. The SEC did not allege that the underlying crypto itself – FTT – was a security, while both the CFTC and the S.D.N.Y. alleged that crypto is a commodity.

All three agencies subsequently filed consent charges against SBF’s accomplices and confidantes Caroline Ellison and Gary Wang, both of whom are cooperating with the government against SBF.

Notably, the SEC did charge Ellison and Wang with manipulating FTT, which the agency described as a “crypto asset security.” The CFTC didn’t address the legal status of FTT in particular, but cited bitcoin, ether and tether as examples of “digital asset commodities.”

This pattern of charges could indicate the early outlines of an agreed-upon division between the agencies for tokens that are considered “securities” and those that are not, with the SEC claiming jurisdiction over the former and the CFTC over the latter.

However, the fact that the SEC defined FTT as a “security” in its charges against Ellison and Yang, but not in its case against SBF, demonstrates that the agency is bolder in pressing its expansive definition of “crypto asset securities” when it knows it won’t have to fight that issue in front of a judge.

Prior to FTX’s implosion, there seemed to be an emerging consensus (or something close to it) that Congress should establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for crypto. This included the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which in October 2022 recommended that Congress pass legislation to provide federal regulators with rule-making authority over the spot market for “crypto assets that are not securities.”

The FSOC did not say which regulator should be given such authority, but it appears that it had the CFTC in mind. Further, securities were excluded from the recommended regulatory authority, a move that clearly seemed designed to reassure the SEC that there would be no encroachment on its territory.

There are two major pieces of draft crypto legislation circulating on the Hill, and both explicitly provide the CFTC with regulatory authority over large parts of the spot crypto markets.

The Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act (“DCCPA”), introduced in August by Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and John Boozman (R-AR), extends the CFTC’s regulatory authority to spot crypto. While the bill defines certain cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, as commodities, it offers no detailed guidance on what crypto assets would be classified as “securities,” which the bill exempts from CFTC jurisdiction.

To pass, this bill will have to overcome SBF’s earlier public endorsement – a boon at the time, but now may taint the legislation by association.

The Responsible Financial Innovation Act (RFIA), sponsored by Senators Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), goes even further toward endorsing the CFTC as the primary crypto regulator. It gives the agency oversight over digital assets that are not securities and lays out fairly restrictive standards for determining that a crypto asset is a security.

The senators noted in a joint press release that “understanding that most digital assets are much more similar to commodities than securities, the bill gives the CFTC clear authority over applicable digital asset spot markets” – leaving little doubt as to their intent and openly differing with Chair Gensler’s public statements.

Beyond these differences, the two bills have many provisions in common. Both would allow the CFTC to self-fund by imposing user fees on crypto companies, an ability which mimics an authority the SEC has long had and which could be a game changer for the perpetually cash-strapped agency.

The last time Congress significantly expanded the CFTC’s responsibilities – when the Dodd-Frank bill brought swaps under the agency’s ambit after the financial crisis of 2008-09 – the CFTC’s budget did not keep pace with its enlarged remit.

The ability to impose user fees would help ensure that the CFTC, whose budget (about $320 million) is still a rounding error compared to that of the SEC (approximately $2 billion), can effectively carry out its enhanced mission.

Another feature shared by both pieces of draft legislation is the establishment of a new self-regulatory organization (SRO) exclusively for the crypto markets. This is something former CFTC Chair Tim Massad has said should be done regardless of what happens in Congress, and he has suggested that it be overseen jointly by the SEC and CFTC.

The collapse of FTX and its knock-on effects in the broader crypto industry has led to renewed calls for urgent action by Congress. But it hasn’t led to unanimity, or even consensus, about the need for legislation, much less how to regulate the industry.

Instead, it has largely reinforced the positions already held by the various stakeholders. SEC Chair Gensler has used the FTX saga to reiterate his position that the SEC already has regulatory authority over most coins, and it simply needs more money to do the job.

In contrast, CFTC Chair Benham, in congressional testimony soon after FTX declared bankruptcy, noted that the CFTC-regulated American subsidiary of FTX (FTX US Derivatives – once known as LedgerX) was still solvent, demonstrating the effectiveness of CFTC supervision.

Crypto enthusiasts reacted to the implosion of FTX by arguing that there are fraudsters in every industry. Some also noted that centralized exchanges like FTX are in many ways the antithesis of the ethos of crypto, which was intended to be a decentralized form of finance independent of the need to trust in institutions or other market participants.

Unsurprisingly, the FTX saga hasn’t dented the faith of true crypto zealots, who continue to believe with almost religious ferocity that Web3 and blockchain represent one of the most consequential developments in human history – more important than the development of the internet, approximately equal to the discovery of fire, and perhaps slightly behind the invention of the wheel.

More surprisingly, some hardcore crypto skeptics are pointing to the very limited contagion from the FTX collapse as evidence that crypto should not be regulated. They argue that if crypto is brought into the mainstream financial system, it would have the imprimatur of government approval and this would encourage more retail investors to speculate in crypto. As a result, the entire economy would be exposed to the volatility, money laundering, fraud and manipulation that are ubiquitous in (and, to some crypto haters, an inextricable part of) crypto.

This regulatory debate illustrates the adage that “where you stand depends on where you sit.” Chairman Gensler, who was an aggressive proponent of the CFTC’s remit when he chaired that agency during the Obama Administration, now believes that virtually all crypto qualifies as a “security.” And then you have the chair and enforcement director of the SEC during the same administration, who are representing Ripple in its battle against the SEC and are among those arguing for a more limited interpretation of a “security.”

Meanwhile, crypto companies continue to avoid U.S. jurisdiction. They do so primarily by moving offshore (the headquarters of FTX, like many crypto firms, was in the Bahamas) and by “geo-blocking” Americans, a technique that prohibits those the computer identifies as being located in the U.S. from accessing their platforms – but this is, of course, a far from hermetic seal against anyone with a VPN.

The absence of legislation and regulation doesn’t mean the law surrounding crypto is stagnant – it continues to develop through litigation and the interpretation of various enforcement actions. But true clarity won’t come through the slow churn of the legal system, it will come through legislative action. Ironically, FTX’s collapse has, in some ways, complicated the path to Congressional action.

In addition to the now-poisonous association with SBF, both draft bills are under renewed criticism for granting primary regulatory jurisdiction to the CFTC instead of the SEC.

But suggestions that the CFTC is the crypto industry’s “regulator of choice” and more susceptible to capture by the industry simply don’t hold up against the facts. In 2022, more than 20% of the agency’s enforcement actions were related to crypto. Further, the CFTC sought – and, more often than not, successfully obtained – increasingly significant sanctions.

Under its current funding structure, the agency undoubtedly does not have the resources to be fully effective. However, if any legislation retains a grant to the CFTC of authority to levy user fees on crypto actors, the agency’s efforts in the crypto sector will be even more robust.

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