Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, with support from Nomura Research Institute, publishes first study comparing global crypto regulations.
The Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, with support from the Nomura Research Institute (NRI), has published its first global study comparing the regulation of cryptoassets across 23 jurisdictions.
The jurisdictions included in the report are: Abu Dhabi, Australia, Bermuda, Canada, Estonia, European Union, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Malta, Mexico, China, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Thailand, United Kingdom, and United States.
The general picture that it paints won’t surprise anyone involved in crypto – highlighting a confused mix of inconsistent approaches, with progress hampered by a failure to even employ common international terminology.
Interestingly, the report found that the nations with the most sophisticated regulatory frameworks tend to be those with more relaxed traditional financial regulations and low domestic crypto activity. Conversely the nations with more domestic crypto activity tend to be those which are trying to shoehorn cryptos into existing laws and regulations.
It also highlights that, thus far, regulators around the world have been focused almost exclusively on Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) and exchanges, paying scant attention to things like alternative token distribution methods, like airdrops and forks, or even crypto mining.
Illustrating the confused global approach is distribution of regulatory authorities that issued the first official statements on cryptoassets in their respective jurisdictions. In 40% is was a Central Bank, 17% a Financial Supervisory Body, 17% a Government Department, 8% a Tax Administration, 8% a Legislature, 5% an AML Regulator, and in 5% several simultaneously.
Another important observation was that the vast majority of examined jurisdictions have distinguished cryptoassets that exhibit characteristics of a security from other types of cryptoassets. This has meant that activities dealing with cryptoassets that qualify as a security are automatically subject to securities law.
Perhaps most fascinating is the analysis of the terminology used by regulators from 2013-19. For example, in the early years of 2013-14, it was common for official authorities to refer to cryptoassets as ‘bitcoin’ – something that died away around 2017. Today almost half of regulators use the term “Virtual currency”, but other are also using an array of terms including “Cryptocurrency”, Digital currency”, “DLT asset”, “Virtual asset”, “Cryptoasset”, “Digital financial asset”, and “Digital asset” – all to refer to the same things!
The full report can be read here.
AYO.NEWS says:
We highly recommend anyone interested in cryptocurrencies takes a look at this thorough 123-page report – it’s a long but fascinating read, packed with insights and nice graphs and visualisations.
The confused mix of terminology is a natural result of the rapid emergence of a totally new field, of which existing experts and officials had little or no understanding. We expect to see terminologies naturally tend towards standardisation over time – though it would undoubtably be beneficial for all to speed this process.
Regarding the countries with more relaxed traditional financial regulations and lower domestic crypto transactions taking the lead with the most sophisticated crypto-specific legislative frameworks, we would suggest this is simply due to the fact that its easier for small nations to pivot quickly.
Taking Malta as a case in point – its much easier to create and pass completely bespoke legislation in a smaller government, where there are fewer people who need educating and convincing, and fewer special interest groups with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.
The smaller the nation is, the quicker the benefits of embracing the new industries like cryptocurrency become noticeable too – leading to a self-reinforcing enthusiasm for things like crypto and blockchain businesses.
Leave a Reply