SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Germany's top regulator this week called for global regulation of the cryptocurrency industry to protect consumers, prevent money laundering and preserve financial stability.
Mark Branson, the president of Germany's financial market regulator BaFin, also known as the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority of Germany, said a that hands-off approach that would "just let the industry grow as a playground for grownups" was the wrong tactic.
"We've seen the self-regulated world. It will not work," Branson told journalists in Frankfurt on Tuesday evening.
Branson was speaking hours after U.S. prosecutors accused Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, of misappropriating billions of dollars and violating campaign laws in what has been described as potentially one of America's biggest financial frauds.
[...] Regulation of the industry has been loose and patchwork at best. Germany requires licences for banks to deal with cryptocurrency.
[...] The European Union has been working on a new Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCA) that some, including European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde, say would need to be broadened out in a future iteration and branded "MiCA 2".
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday December 20 2022, @06:34PM (3 children)
Regulation could make sure that 'stable' coins claimed to be backed by something of value aren't actually backed by empty promises and more magic beans. They could make sure the books aren't cooked. A lot of the monkey business at FTX wouldn't have happened if federal auditors were reviewing the books.
Note that until the recent debacles, several more traditional firms including banks already had their toes in the water. A strong message that crypto won't get them out from under regulation would likely have cooled their already tepid interest.
Note that FTX was already running commercials during sports broadcasts including the Super Bowl, marketing to much less sophisticated investors trying to make themselves look like a bank or a more conservative investment firm in the public's eyes.
The people forced out by foreclosure might have found a nice starter home they could actually successfully maintain or they might have had to remain renting and saving, but at least they wouldn't be renting with their savings wiped out and a foreclosure on their record. The McMansion building boom would have been cooled considerably if nobody could get a loan for a McMansion.
I don't think it's too much to ask that there be enough regulation to keep the books un-cooked and to make sure assurances are actually something like true. If someone wants to set up a 'Wild Blue Yonder Over the Rainbow" coin backed by nothing and "what books?" for accounting, that's fine as long as they say so and have the big red warning sticker on it, as long as pension funds and such are banned from touching it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 20 2022, @11:37PM (2 children)
What makes you think regulation doesn't already do that? Truth in advertising laws, for example.
I can list a bunch of recent, fully regulated frauds where the regulators "could make sure", but they didn't.
I doubt federal auditors routinely review anyone's books. That's not how they operate. And there's always the two book trick: a real accounting book for yourself, and a fake one for the regulators. The fraudsters got this.
Those debacles are an even stronger message.
And? They aren't now.
So what? If things had gone differently, it'd be a slightly different class of gullible person you'd be defending and a slightly different class of "too big to fail" that you'd be criticizing. Remember there would still a Destructor no matter what form it took. The only way to stop it is to get rid of the underlying engine: leverage and easy credit.
What makes you think it isn't now? There's no law that allowed FTX to get away with what it did. That was all highly illegal. But that's how enforcement regulation works. It's after the fact.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday December 21 2022, @12:37AM (1 child)
You have successfully argued that regulation needs to be vigorous and have teeth. I agree.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 21 2022, @01:05AM
If we're going to have it, sure. If we don't have it, then it doesn't need to be anything.