An often overlooked hurdle in the formulation of legislative apparatus for cryptocurrency is the challenge of adapting cryptocurrency to the classifications and language of financial regulations.
Also Read:
Language Barrier Between Regulators and Crypto Community
A recent article authored by Jonathan Chester, the chief executive officer of Bitwage, featured discussing the hurdles posed by attempting to conform cryptocurrency to existing regulatory language and classifications from individuals experienced with cryptocurrency law.
Juan Llanos, the fintech and regtech lead at Consensys, alluded to the gap in the perceptual understanding of key terms between members of cryptocurrency community and the regulators tasked with overseeing the virtual currency markets.
Mr. Llanos stated “At this point in time, all token distinctions and definitions come from the emerging crypto industry, not regulators. In the eyes of regulators, there are no clear-cut token definitions, only ‘activities’ and ‘products’ regulated under existing law. That is to say, several regulators are claiming jurisdiction over crypto assets inasmuch as these emerging assets fit their subject matter focus.”
As a consequence of unique ways in which cryptocurrency phenomena sit within the regulatory purview of individual regulatory agencies, fundamental definitions pertinent to cryptocurrency often differ greatly between different governing institutions. “Some regulatory agencies have defined ‘virtual currencies’ as ‘monetary equivalents’ for purposes of money transmission and anti-money laundering; others have defined them as digital goods tradable in markets for purposes of ‘commodities’ regulation, yet others have defined them as ‘property’ for taxation purposes,” said Mr. Llanos.
Conforming Crypto to Language of Securities Law
Thus far, Mr. Llanos asserts that “the default position of securities regulators seems to be to consider them securities or investment contracts when they fit the conditions of the Howie test.” In response, Mr. Llanos argues that the cryptocurrency industry “has been relatively successful in explaining the fundamental differences between virtual/cryptocurrencies on one hand, and protocol, investment or application tokens on the other, depending on the rights they grant, the layer of technology where they reside, and the value or utility they provide.” Mr. Llanos states that the dialogue has seen utility tokens increasing described as “consumer tokens, when the value they provide is predominantly consumptive, rather than speculative.”
Mr. Llanos concluded that “There is today a global legal vacuum with respect to certain tokens that have a strong utility and consumptive value because they don’t fully fit the definition of ‘investment contract’ under Howie or its international equivalents,” adding that “the challenge for both regulators and entrepreneurs is that some of the digital cryptographically protected units of value known as tokens that are emerging have a dual nature: they’re both consumptive because they grant access to a technology service, for example, and at the same time provide an investment opportunity for purchasers.”
Swiss Regulators Excessively Focus on AML Considerations
Thomas Linder, the lead blockchain partner at Swiss law firm, MME, discussed the regulatory apparatus for cryptocurrencies in Switzerland.
The recently published regulatory guidelines pertaining to initial coin offerings in which tokens were classified as falling into one of three categories: payment tokens, utility tokens, and asset tokens.
Mr. Thomas describes the categories as reductive, stating that “Oftentimes projects fall into two or even all three categories,” in addition to alluding to “hybrid” tokens that do not fit neatly within the parameters of the three juridical classifications. Mr. Thomas also stated that “It seems like the regulatory authority is trying to stretch the law so that everyone is in the [anti-money laundering] bucket.”
Reports of bitcoin Bans Often Conflated
Over the years, numerous governments have been reported to have banned bitcoin. On occasion, reports purporting bitcoin’s illegality within a specific jurisdiction ignore the nuances of regulatory language in favor of clickbaity proclaim.
In January 2017, the (CBN) published a circular cautioning banks and financial institutions not to transact in bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Following widespread claims that the CBN had banned bitcoin, the deputy director of the CBN’s banking and payments system, Musa Itopa-Jimoh, later that the CBN was “just issuing caution to Nigerians.” The deputy director stated that “A lot of people misinterpreted it that we wanted to stop bitcoin. We can’t stop bitcoin […] Central bank cannot control or regulate bitcoin […] just the same way no one is going to control or regulate the internet.”
How do you feel that we can bridge the gap between the language of financial regulation and the language of the cryptocurrency community? Share your thoughts in the comments section below!
Images courtesy of Shutterstock
Want to create your own secure cold storage paper wallet? Check our section.
The post appeared first on .
Ancora1919, an Italian company that has produced luxury pens since the early 20th century, has announced that it will soon accept pre-production orders for limited edition Ethereum pens. The company also sells limited number of bitcoin pens.
Also Read:
Italian Pen Manufacturer Reveals ETH Pens
Upmarket pen manufacturer, Ancora1919, has announced that it will soon launch a limited run of . As with the company’s recently offered bitcoin Pens, the number of Ethereum Pens will be limited to 888 rollerball pens and 88 fountain pens.
The pens will be sold a distributed using a model emulating that of a tokensale. During the “pre production stage,” customers will be able to purchase the pens for a 50% discount compared to retail prices. Pre-production will take place from the 8th of April until the 8th of May, during which the rollerball pen will be available for $1,000 USD, and the fountain pen will be priced at $1,250. From the 12th until the 27th of May, Ancora’s “production stage” will see the rollerball pen priced at $1,250, with the fountain pen costing $1,500. Finally, the Ethereum Pens will be made available for retail sales from the 1st of July onward, with the pens priced at $2,250 and $2,500 respectively.
The company will also offer a limited number of pens incorporating additional precious metals in exchange for cryptocurrency. Ancora’s “Platinum numbers” will cost 15 ETH each (approximately $6,960 at current prices), Gold 10 ETH each ($4,640), and Silver 5 ETH each ($2,320).
Ancora1919’s website states “Unlike Ethereum […], the maximum supply of Ethereum Pens will remain capped for all time.” The nib of Ethereum Pens will be made of 18K gold.
Ancora1919 Cashes in on Cryptocurrency Boom
Ancora conducted the pre-production state of it’s sale during December 2017, initially offering a 60% discount on its the pens.
The bitcoin Pen will enter the retail phase of its sale from the start of June, with rollerballs priced at $2,250, and fountain pens priced at $2,500. bitcoin Pens are also available as Platinum, Gold, and Silver “numbers,” priced at 1 BTC (approximately $7,700), 0.5 BTC ($3,850), and 0.25 BTC ($ 1,925).
Ancora will announce “new currency pens series” on the 1st of June.
What do you think of Ancora’s crypto-themed pens? Share your thoughts in the comments section below!
Images courtesy of Shutterstock, eth-pen.com, Ancora1919
Want to create your own secure cold storage paper wallet? Check our section.
The post appeared first on .
