Perspectives on (Ca-)Libra #3: Why the Libra is not e-money (on the history of e-money and stablecoins)

Quickly after the announcement of Libra, I, stated that Libra could not be viewed as e-money. Now has come the time to explain my earlier analysis (of June 2019) as to the organisational set up and regulatory qualification of Libra.

Libra is a privately issued and distributed digital  and virtual ‘currency’, that is intended to function as a means of payment. It is not a true currency because its actual composition/counter value is a basket of fiat-currencies and financial instruments. It is not e-money as the Libra is not ‘monetary value’. The digital value qualifies as a financial instrument (a mini-participation in an open ended investment fund) and is used in an open source payment instrument, to be used for payment and acquiring. Both payments and securities legislation apply, as well as the relevant competition and consumer protection rules. 

The Libra association is a manager of the governance and operational arrangements and activities that come with using the virtual currency Libra and participating in the Libra (payment) scheme. This Libra scheme is a private and commercial arrangement which:
- defines a unit of account for a new virtual currency: the Libra,
- defines the asset mix that backs one currency unit,
- lays out the distribution and management rules of the currency units and reserve funds,
- lays out commercial rules and does a private placement to further promote the use of the Libra by giving them away (for free or at a discount). 

Definitions of e-money and term: monetary value
The reason why Libra, as a basket of different currencies, cannot be considered e-money is that it doesn't qualify as such under the definition as it is not monetary value. And to comprehend the definition we must understand that the e-money directive has had a first version and that the European Central Bank was clear on its analysis. E-money is a fiat currency in a digital shape and must be treated as such in terms of: reporting requirements for monetary aggregates, redeemability (at par), assurance that customer fiat money equivalent was kept safe etcetera.

The definition and use of the term 'monetary value' in the first version reflects that all we could think of was digital tokens that one-on-one reflected the physical or existing scriptural account-money forms. This is particularly clear from the consideration 19 in the Opinion of the central bank on the first draft directives.

What we can see here is a central bank ensuring that redeemability against the fiat currency is obliged, in combination with a definition of e-money which does not allow offering e-money at a discount:

"electronic money" shall mean monetary value as represented by a claim on the issuer which is:

(i) stored on an electronic device;

(ii) issued on receipt of funds of an amount not less in value than the monetary value issued;

(iii) accepted as means of payment by undertakings other than the issuer.

Redeemability

1. A bearer of electronic money may, during the period of validity, ask the issuer to redeem it at par value in coins and bank notes or by a transfer to an account free of charges other than those strictly necessary to carry out that operation.

To me, the full analysis and reasoning behind the e-money rules, can only mean that e-money thus covers the 100% forms of convertible fiat currencies. The whole regulatory construct and monetary safeguards in the e-money directive wouldn't work for other constructs. Also, the idea of issuing anything else than a digital equivalent of fiat-currency would have been hypothetical.We are talking the days that each digital player would seek maximum acceptance of the public of any new forms of payments, by piggy-backing on the trust/security mechanisms of the fiat instruments. Introducing a non-fiat-related digital currency was just a step too far and it's not what the E-money directive was meant to support.

When the second e-money directive came in and was aligned with the EU payments directive, it changed some of the structure and definitions. The ECB opinion as to redeemability and monetary matters remained unchanged however, so in essence the rules are still of the same construct. E-money means a one-on-one converted form of existing fiat money and all kinds of monetary statistics, redeemability etc are still in place for the wide variety of mechanisms that now use this regulatory avenue.

We must also understand that at that time we were nowhere near the existence of worldwide consumer platforms with such inherent power to dictate an alternate currency alongside fiat currencies. But now we do have those, including one that tries to issue and launch a Libra. Given the EU e-money directive however, the only reason this Libra would qualify as e-money is when it would be a 100% EU currency backing the Libra. As this is not the case, the Libra will not qualify as e-money.

Should we adapt the EU definition for e-money then?
In theory one could argue that the e-money definition needs adjustment in order to allow the Libra basket of currencies to be regulated. But this doesn't make sense from a financial instruments/securities perspective.

Whenever you dilute a 100% currency basket in the users own currency towards a different asset base, you reform the token at hand into a investment basket. The user is exposed to an additional form of currency and counterparty risk, which does not exist when using the 100% e-money form. Of course the issuer of the financial instrument can proclaim the new asset base to be stable. Or almost stable, but the rules of the financial instrument game are different. If you issue such combinations of assets, you must warn the user of risks, assess whether he/she may be up to the investment/risks that they are taking and so on.

Not obliging Libra to have to do so would be creating an uneven playing field towards all kinds of other providers of financial instruments that equally seek to provide their financial services to customers via a similar asset package that can be bought in tiny portions. In addition, the monetary concerns involved in overissuance of the e-money product may go beyond the geography of the central banks involved as monetary authorities in the currency basket. Merely allowing a basket of currencies as backing for an e-money product would not be consistent with the ECB analysis on relevant monetary considerations and rules to ensure financial stability.

So, as stable as you may give your product a name or try to sell it to the public or regulators, all regulatory and market experts know that no currency basket will ever be stable. Effectively, suggesting the fact that it would be stable for the end-user would be mis-selling of the product, misleading the consumer and what have you. So name it stablecoin as you like, but it remains a risky participation in an investment fund/currency basket. And all rules under EU securities to such investments do apply. Meaning disclosure rules, but also rules as to who can trade/distribute this instrument. It will not at all be open to trade for everyone, without restrictions.

Does paying with Libra involve a payment instrument then?
Next up is the question what exactly qualifies as a payment instrument in the Libra setup. In my view the financial participation is a digital asset/financial instrument. And of course, if you wish, such an instrument could be used to pay. Rather than sending someone digital fiat currencies, the provision of the tradeable digital financial instrument would consist the payment. The payment with Libra would thereby be a payment in kind, as if I exchange a bread for a bottle of water.

So is there a payment instrument involved and where is it?

Next up is the question if we can see a payment instrument, a payment order and a payment transaction under the Payment Services Directive, leading to the placing, transferring or withdrawing of funds. I think the main idea in this respect is to take the intentions of Libra to serve as a worldwide payment system as a starting point. This means we will have to take a close look at the question if tools are provided to the user (yes) meaning those tools (wallets) may qualify as payment instruments, if they move funds, which are defined as:

banknotes and coins, scriptural money or electronic money as defined in point (2) of Article 2 of Directive 2009/110/EC;

If the Libra is not banknotes and coins nor eletronic money, we only have the wonder if it could qualify as scriptural money. But this is indeed where it becomes a bit complicated. As the ECB put it, when advising on the Payment Services Directive:

12.10 The term ‘scriptural money’ is used in the proposed directive without being defined, e.g. in Article 3(b), Article 4(8) of the proposed directive and paragraph 7 of the Annex to the proposed directive. It is suggested that a definition of scriptural money should be established (in the definitions article), bearing in mind that only central banks and credit institutions (which include e-money institutions) may hold such funds.

So we have two options. We could consider the Libra issued by Libra association to the Libra association members (who are all registered security companies, allowed to offer, trade and sell financial products to the public and each other) a form of scriptural money. This is not illogical, given the explicit intentions of the Libra association and it would require the regulatory flexibility to allow for a self issued unit of account / securities product to be viewed as a form of money.

The other option is of course to not view the Libra as scriptural money and not apply the Payment Services Directive to a payment instrument which has a worldwide scope and impact. Although this may sound illogical, it is not illogical at all. The apps and tools that are used to pass on the Libra to other consumers would still have to comply with all securities related regulations. Users would have to sign up, pass suitability tests, issuers, brokers and exchanges of the Libra would need to have their MIFID licenses and such, so the customer would still be protected.

The exercise does show however that the Libra association has had little consideration to the relevant EU requirements and definitions when choosing Switzerland as their jurisdiction. Their guess may have been that they might be able to convince the local regulator to bend the rules a little, but the choice of a currency basket (and financial instrument structure) effectively deters its worldwide inclusive use for cross-border payments. Alternatively, a choice for a single currency basket might work, which would make it regular e-money, to which the PSD and all kinds of KYC/AML rules apply. Yet, this would mean that there needs to be a single issuer in the business model, as the reselling of e-money is prohibited under the EU regulations.

It is this considerable ignorance of relevant EU rules that has made it clear to me that Libra and Facebook will at no point in time be able to make their business model work. A brief visit to any innovation hub at any central bank would have made the above inconsistencies clear, but they apparently chose to ignore this. And the reason may be that the Swiss policy papers on stablecoins may have provided them with the impression that there was some leeway here. But even the relevant local supervisor has explained to them that both securities and payments legislation applies and that their business model will not work.

Then again, this is Facebook, pushing and moving so why could they have been so wrong in their assessment?

My hunch is that Facebook have applied a US centric approach to the whole regulatory debate on issuance of stablecoins and forgot how the regulatory regimes between EU and US differ. But for that I refer to the PS.

The main conclusion for now is: Libra does not qualify as e-money and the transfer of Libra might constitute a payment transfer, depending on the view one has with respect to the application of the word scriptural money under todays context.

February 5, 2020


PS. Regulatory regimes for stablecoins (US) and e-money (EU)
To put this in perspective for US readers, I want to shed a regulatory light onto the difference between stablecoins and e-money and the relevance of 1990s legislative landscapes in the US en Europe with respect to payments. The background against which the e-money directive was being developed here in Europe, was one in which - just as now - all over the world, people were thinking about the best forms of regulation of a new phenomenom: e-cash: electronic cash or Internet cash.

At that point in time I worked for the Dutch central bank and I investigated the difference between the existing regulatory regimes in Europe and in the US payments (see the American Law Review article here). And the big thing to take away here is that:
- the US had both banking supervision laws and money transmission laws,
- Europe did not have money transmission laws and only bank supervision regulation (somewhat harmonized under EU rules).

The consequence of this difference is that the US regulators had a clear money transmission framework that they could use, to apply to new forms of Internet payments and digital coins. In essence they all proclaimed new internet payment stuff to be some fort of money transmission, either by their design or by their nature. And thus: the regulation of those new forms of payment was easily done. No change in laws was required.

In Europe, there was no uniform payment legislation on a European scale. Different member states had different local rules on payments. We had to have a euro in place and many years of deliberation before we even ended up with a harmonised Payment Services Directive in 2007. So we had no payments legislation but we did have some form of e-cash begging to be regulated somehow. As the ECB had clearly outlined its concerns in this respect.

So the fierce debate in Europe was: should e-money be considered the functional equivalent of banking?

The main reasoning was: upon issuance of an e-money token of 1 euro, the issuer receives one euro of the public. This means attracting deposits from the public, which is part of the banking definition. Whereas central banks and Ministries of Finance felt this way, the Ministries of Economic Affairs succeeded in convincing them that an intermediate, light-weight banking regime should be set up. So we got an E-money Directive, creating EU license regimes for organisations that issue electronic money to the public, upon receipt of regular fiat money, which electronic money is then used for all sorts of payments.

The digital e-money had to be issued and redeemed at a 1 on 1 level (at par) and the e-money organisation had to safeguard the full reserve in a separate financial vehicle (or insurance arrangement). No license would be given if the safeguards weren't in place, so this means that the European e-money regime boils down to a regulatory regime which safeguards e-money. Or, what most US people would view as stablecoins (digital tokens, to be issued, traded, sold and transacted on the basis of an at-par rule with the original fiat currency).

Now back to the US. Initially the US payments regulation thus seemed well suited to adapt to new technologies. The birth of the bitcoin and other currencies created an issue. In essence, the US regulators didn't care to define a separate token or form of e-money into their payments regulation. They just stated that virtual currencies were a form of currencies and hence the money transmission regulations should be in place somehow.

Therefore Tether and TrueUSD are registered with the Fincen, but without the legal European safeguards in place to guarantuee the peg. Then again the New York bitlicense regime does have those safeguards, but it is clear that no US regime for stablecoins exists. We can see that the US now lags in regulatory terms. It has fragmented state laws on payments, where EU caught up with harmonised payments legislation and harmonised e-money legislation. And the European e-money regime is essentially the unified EU stablecoin regime for tokens that seek a 1-1 peg with a fiat currency.

Zimmermans' relevance for discussions on human rights and ICT-security surveillance

If we look at economic and social risks of new technologies, outsiders will often immediately fall into the trap of considering this to be about the illegal use of peer-2-peer networks, applications such as bitcoin etc, for socially unwanted activities or even criminal activities. From there on it is a small step to forbid such activity, regulate it, overregulate it. But we should take a wider perspective here.

For me, Phil Zimmerman was the person who made a lasting impact, when he explained, somewhere in the late 1990s, during a speech at a digital money conference his considerations behind developing Pretty Good Privacy (see also his explainer himself: Why I Wrote PGP). His argument was mainly that the new digital society has to be built in such a way that it guarantees a situation in which a people are still able to communicate and act in way which is not invaded or controlled by government tools/techniques. Whereas the old analogue world would allow the people smart analogue ways of creating their own spaces for communicating and fooling government with fake analogue id's and such, it would be much harder to do this in a digital world. Hence the need for a peer-2-peer simple mechanism as Pretty Good Privacy.

Zimmerman outlined one very significant theme during his speech. He noted that the assumption of a continuous benevolent government is not realistic. Governments come and go, some may be more democratic than others and even strong democracies may turn into dictatorships, depending on the circumstances. It is therefore important to design society, governments and the technologies that we use to manage society, guarantee that a balance exists between the powers of government and those of the public. The public, the people should always be allowed to remain digitally out of sight of government. Such a robust structure would be important to ensure a fair treatment of the people over a long period of time.

It is clear that this requirement: to allow for and to actually create areas where the government cannot see what happens means that those areas are scary for regulators. Will they facilitate crime by doing so? Perhaps. Will they allow for huge pockets of creativity? Certainly ! But it will be the strong governments that are able to allow this. They will act from a position of strength and not be afraid. The weak governments, or the scary governments, or the ill-intending governments will seek to monitor everything and control all digital activities. This will certainly fail. But while doing so, they may instil tools that are very dangerous tools in the hand of governments when they turn from benevolent to evil. It will tilt the balance towards a situation that ill-intending governments can no longer be overturned by a social revolution.

There is no need for governments to be afraid of technological progress in the hands of the people. It is a good thing, to be cherished and to be allowed. The simple labelling of such activity as possibly criminal is the wrong frame. The reverse is also wrong: regulators with good intentions are not by definition tools in the hands of dictators. The right frame is: dictators exist just as criminals. Society should ensure that neither of these can become too powerful due to technological of legal measures and it is for this reason that we need to balance our human rights to privacy with the goal to prevent criminality.

Finding this balance is not easy but over the last weeks we have witnessed too many occasions where governments seem to go to far. German police wanting access to home devices. The FATF-ruleon surveillance for virtual assets. Ghost accounts into Whatsapp. Giving your social media handles when entering the US. We should not let ourselves be caught in this wrong direction over intrusive government behaviour.

There is a very legitimate reason to develop and create new technologies that safeguard the public and it is a pity that many policy makers in the world may not have been hearing the clear message that Phil Zimmerman sent them. They really could do with open their minds more. So for them I’m embedding this video. Just to be able to learn from history.

Why Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin cash both make sense !

The other day I was reading an excellent blog by Vinny Lingham on the differences between Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash. What I appreciated very much is his attempt to take the heat out of the intense discussions between 'followers' or 'supporters' of these two bitcoin types. And his overview inspired me to reflect a bit more on the reason why actually both Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash make a lot of sense and why there is no need for petty bickering given the open source philosophy on which both protocols are based.

Essential philosophy of Bitcoin: everyone may participate in each role

If we look at the design philosophy of bitcoin, the essential idea is that all participants may act as a user or a producer (miner) at the same time. This is very much in line with all other P2P business models that we see emerging, based on networked technology. With AirBnB, owners of houses also become producers and numerous other sharing platforms seek to achieve the same.

The combined producer/consumer role in bitcoin is very much in line with the design principle to outsmart the centralized institutions of a central bank that issues fiat-currency or with similar players as banks which have their own specific their role in the money-value chain. 

However, the obsession with the dominant role of central banks and banks is so strong in the bitcoin world, that there is too little attention for standard logistics/economics, when looking at the basic proposition of provision of payment services by all to all. So let's have a look at those logistics.

Logistics of any peer-to-peer value exchange system

Anyone participating in payment systems will recognise that a full peer-to-peer system is intrinsically inefficient. Imagine a market fair where all participants are both buyers and sellers. They could pay each other after each sale and hand over cash or other payment instruments. This provides everyone with instant security and payment, but also with cash in hand and time spent to make and accept payments.

Now, if the fair happens regularly, some smart participants will come up with a more efficient idea, which is to not pay after each sale, but to keep track of all payments and net out the payments via clearing cycles. Effectively this is what already happened during the payment days of late medieval fairs and can be witnessed in all kinds of informal or formal constellations (clearing houses etc) that have come into existence since then. 

The conclusion is therefore that, wherever payments are made, at some point in time a new underlying structure will evolve in which specialisation occurs. Those that are very active participants will have different roles and interests than those that only use it sometimes. And it's the active community that will seek some efficient alternatives, while the less-active part will go with the flow. Eventually you will end up with a specific constellation that works for that payment community. 

In these constellations, you will see distinctions in roles such as:

- small users

- big users

- big providers of payment mechanisms

- clearing agents for providers

- settlement agents for providers

- super settlement agents (mostly, but not necessarily, central banks).

The inevitable specialisations in the bitcoin community

If you start a payment system, such as bitcoin, from scratch by allowing everyone to fulfill every role in the system, economics dictate that in the end specialized roles will occur. We've seen this happening early on with the difference between light-wallets and full nodes. Similarly different players have chosen to serve a different part of the value chain.

In the context of an open source protocol, it is just as inevitable that opinions differ on the most efficient way forward. And that's where both Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash have a valid proposition. 

As the blog by Vinnie Lingham outlines, the Bitcoin Core community sticks with the idea that as a design principle all users must be able to run a full node. Scaling and performance issues for the payments mechanism can be solved by adding an outside transaction layer, meaning that Bitcoin Core chooses to be the settlement layer (in classic payment terms). 

Bitcoin Cash on the other hand takes the economics of payment systems as a starting points and accepts the economic reality that in practice, the majority of bitcoin users will not (and cannot) be producers at the same time. Their philosophy is to not tamper with security choices in the area of digital signatures but simply increase the block size, in order to cater for the end-user need to have easy, cheap, simple and fast value transfers. In doing so, they remain IMHO closer to the original idea in the Bitcoin paper (provide an alternative easy fast and cheap transfer mechanism) than Bitcoin Core. 

Stop bickering please !

I am amazed at the amount of energy and emotions that are wasted in the crypto community in what comes down to petty bickering. Whether this is between Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash or between whichever of the other cryptocurrencies, blockchains or DLT-designs. 

It is and was inevitable for the bitcoin protocol to run into the standard efficiency problem for evolving payment and settlement mechanisms. It is just as inevitable that different solutions exists and both Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash are equally valid. The one just wants to end up becoming a settlement layer provider while the other wants to be stick to the user layer of payment systems. Where is the harm in that?

The open source philosophy means that we will see in practice which solutions play out best for the ecosystem(s) and rather than bickering about advantages or disadvantages we should cherish the variation and choice that the open source philosophy brings.