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.

Perspectives on (Ca-)Libra #2: On the Libra association (board) and business drivers

First of all apologies to many of you: I promised a blog on the reason why Libra would not qualify as e-money, but please accept my rain check for that. Right now, it is the day after constitution day for Libra. An event coloured by the absence of many payment industry players, that indeed felt the pressure of competition law too big to be able to join.

So yesterday, the Swiss association was set up, and we got a glimpse of more information on the organisation. I will discuss the ramifications and conclusion that we can draw later this afternoon in the Dutch radio-broadcast BNR Digital News. And this blog contains a brief analysis, which builds on my first blog that identified a couple of smokescreens by Libra.

My brief summary is basically:
- it is still a Facebook/David Marcus show, disguised as an independent association: the governance is still substandard in terms of industry best practices,
- Facebook has the fear of losing Africa to the Chinese and Libra is instrumental in helping them establish the foothold,
- Kiva and Payu are seeking actual microcredit expansion with practical product offers and Libra will be their vehicle,
- PayU, Andreesen and Xapo are regular VCs, in it for the money. If you're daring enough to step into bitcoin early, why not do the same with Libra? Worst case you lose a little money, best case, you're more on top of the world than ever.

The longread is below, but note that it is still only scratching the surface. Readers and other journalist may further research and draw additional conclusions.

Governance: still shaky
As it stands, the board that is now chosen has released info on its charter which is still very brief. It shows five board members which appointed three staff members of the Libra association. Interestingly, the head of the association is also the chair of the board and the PR role acts as the deputy chair. This is atypical, but my guess is that this is done to avoid the impression that David Marcus effectively pulls the strings.

If we compare the setting that has been now created with the one that the Dutch Payment Association has set up (after long deliberations and scrutiny by many lawyers to make a well developed governance structure) we can see some differences.
- Libra has no independent board directors
- Libra's chair of the board is also the head of the working payment organisation
- Libra has no formal Board of Appeal to deal with questions of acceptance as members, certification with respect to services/complying with rules and regulations.

The Dutch rules state:
An independent Board of Appeal makes it possible to appeal against decisions on acceptance and certification when parties are unable to reach agreement with the Executive Board, the Board and finally with the Appeals Committee of the Board.

And then an observation on what is missing. The association now has a director, a business development person, a policy/communication person. But not.... a legal council/compliance expert. As if the past months with all the varying regulatory discussions haven't happened at all. This is a very telling ommission; the organisation is all about commerce and not about compliance (but we knew that already...).

There is a lot more to say here, but I stand with my former analysis: the governance is ill conceived and not up to standard for a normal payment scheme/provider that Libra wants to be (as they announced in September to go for at least a payment license in Switzerland.

Libra members: three payment institutions remaining, not one
Reuters incorrectly informs the public in their article that the only founding member that is into payments is PayU. They missed out on the fact that Uber and Coinbase are e-money institutions which also act as payment institutions.

Of those, Uber is the youngest kid on the block. It ay either be too new to payments to understand the ramifications of the proposed governance or the underbidding and breaking of regulation may be part of the business strategy and it sees no risk here. Coinbase interestingly only has a UK license as e-money institutions and where most EMIs have their backup Brexit-license in place I don't seem to find it for them. I expect them to have a workaround or whitelabel agreement at hand however.

We should be paying more attention to Coinbase, as it is the linking pin that connects the five current board members. Also Vodafone (exempt under EU payments legislation) should not be forgotten (see PS1) as it has long standing unchallenged experience in avoiding proper banklike regulation of its payments processes.

The Board Members; interesting incrowd
Now what is Libra really up to?
For that we need to do a deep dive into the people and relationships.
I'll make a start below, but this is only scratching the surface.

The idea behind is that recruitment of board members always has a certain dynamics. In the Netherlands it is a well know fact that through charities (like the board of the Concertgebouw) top level executives meet and do networking. It also serves as a recruiting platform for next board members.

With this in mind we can see that Coinbase, Paypal and Kivi are the entities that connect the dots between the board members. And in essence, we can see that it is David Marcus who is at the center, having received what appears to be a blanc cheque from Zuckerberg to make this happen.

Therefore, let's start with David Marcus of Calibra (a Facebook tech subsidiary in US; interesting choice given the fact that Facebook Payments also holds e-money licenses in Ireland). Marcus is a serial entrepreneur, coming out of telco environments, with one of the companies being bought by Paypal and thus ending up at Paypal. He then moved to Coinbase and shortly thereafter Zuckerberg scouted him for the Facebook/Libra plan.

Marcus via Paypal to Ellis
He has worked together at Paypal with Laurent le Moal, who heads PayU. So there we have connection number one. Do note that the PayU representative Patrick Ellis is primarily a lawyer, but not with payments background. He is more a securities regulation guy with African and South African experience.

Haun via Coinbase/Cesares to Horowitz
Connection two is with Katie Haun from Andreessen Horowitz. She is a former prosecutor who was firmly into all kinds of legal cases and bitcoin dark markets. As such she undoubtedly also came in contact with the Winklevoss twins and most likely may have met Wences Cesares as well. Her work in crypto-land led Coinbase to invite her to their board: a classic defence mechanism to ensure good contacts with legal prosecutors/supervisory community. This board role at Coinbase resulted in an invitation to work at Andreessen Horowitz, where she manages a huge VC fund that invests in crypto. The people hiring her said: 'She is a credible face for crypto'.

Cesares via VC world and Paypal
Connection three is Wencles Casares of Xapo Holdings He set up on online financial firm early on, which was subsequently bought. Onwards he setup Wanako Games (with exit), Lemoncard (with exit). The he was smart to set up a safe storage facility for bitcoin for the super rich that invested early in bitcoin. So he is a serial entrepreneur, now well taken care of due to all the bitcoins in his possession (we can assume he is a whale and sometimes see him retweeting large bitcoin movements on the blockchain). Xapo itself was funded by the VC Community involving.

His involvement in charity can be tracked into his participation in Viva trust, aiming at financial inclusion in Latin America. Later on he also served as a board member at Kiva (which accidentally also holds a seat on the board of Libra). And then of course, he is still a board member of Paypal, so there we have some dots connecting. So he is smart, rich and you may want to see how in 2006 he bought a nice real estate venue to live back home but returned to California later. The house is now part of a charity foundation and acts as a meeting point/venue for businesses and such.

Davie via Kiva/Paypal (Prenmal Sha) and Cesares (Kiva-board)
Connection four is the connection to Kiva Microfunds. Matthew Davie is s serial entrepreneur, pretty much involved in the strategy area of this longtime charity. Do read this article on how Kiva was set up as peer to peer crowdfunding and further developed into a lending platform. This has inclusion written all over it. And Kive, by the way, since the start did all its payments via Paypal. This was due to their contact with Premal Shah, who had also been experimenting with his own microfinance project while working at PayPal. So again, dots are connecting to the Paypal line, with a crossover to the VC community via Cesares.

Again, there is a lot more to say, but I leave it up to the crowd to further investigate.

Business proposition and drivers
As for the business drivers, you may want to look into what Kiva is doing recently. It is setting up a Kiva Protocol in Sierra Leone, to do microcredits based on reputation. My good friend Dave Birch has been very keen on identifying early on that this was one of the future points for Libra already mentioned in their plans. So Kiva is basically doing the proof of concept for phase 2 of Libra.

Next up to PayU. They are not just a payment processing company, but also a VC company owning reddot payments. And that is a company that brings Wechat and Alipay to Africa. Even more notable is that they own a large share in Tencent (Wechat) and their role as a big investor in the payments game. What is interesting here is that PayU thus seems to be introducing the Libra competitors into Africa. At the same time they join the initiative that seems to be set up to counter this development.

Because this much is more clear to me now. Facebook has the fear of losing Africa to the Chinese and Libra is instrumental in helping them establish the foothold. Kiva and Payu in the meantime are seeking microcredit expansion and Andreesen and Xapo are regular VCs, in it for the money. If you're daring enough to step into bitcoin early, why not do the same with Libra? Worst case you lose a little money, best case, you're more on top of the world than ever.

Further blogs: on definition and e-money and securities regulation in Eu
I promise, the blog #3 will come. But first I hope this blog inspires many people to do some further digging.


PS 1. On Vodafone, mpesa and payments
John Maynard pointed out to me that Vodafone and Mpesa also come into play here. Which is true for two reasons. First of all as part of the business opportunity in Africa and the desire to seek solutions that go beyond the one country. Cryptically speaking one could say that Mpesa itself may be the result of incidental local stakeholder constellations rather than the logic of business and regulation.

But the second reason is that effectively, the mobile operators have a great record of ducking relevant e-money legislation in the EU. If you would browse many pages of history of the e-money directive and a number of mobile phone payment initiatives (feel free to do so here) you will see that At some point in time the EU mobile operators succeeded in getting an exemption in the PSD2 and the e-money directive of the net-effect that funds on mobile phone accounts will not be considered e-money or funds under the payment services directive, even though they can be used to make sms-payments or added-service payments.

The trade off in those days was that mobile operators had just paid huge sums for 3G licenses and lobbied the Ministries of Finance via their Ministries of Transport/Telecommunications to call for a specific exempted regime for electronic money when residing on a mobile phone account. I still see this as one of the best executed bank-lobbies by non-bank institutions, which prevented the whole e-money directive being applicable to them. See also this website 11a2.nl  or read this consultation feedback that tries to provide this adhoc idea with a reasoned basis.

Therefore, when we look at the EBA payments institutions register you will thus see Vodafone being exempted for their payment business. They have a long standing experience in being able to duck e-money regulation and avoid the rational interpretation of regulation and may well be thinking that with the power of Facebook behind the initiative, this may also work now. This holds particularly true if your aim is not the developed market, but to capture the underdeveloped market in societies which have less robust regulators and supervisors.

PS 2. The team doing the association work: David Marcus reassembles colleagues
- Managing director of Libra. Betrand Perez has had some tenure with Paypal and also worked at Zong (the David Marcus company that Paypal bought). The same goes for Business Development person . Kurt Hemecker. So we can see the classic recruiting movement of having a soccer trainer taking along some of his trusted players to the new club.

- Head of Policy and Communication is Dante Disparte, a profiled professional with Harvard Business School and NY Stern education and diverse work experience. I sense a flavour of business and geopolitical work experience, related to national security. This can also be seen in repeated statements from Marcus outlining that for the US to keep its role/position, Libra is a necessity (in order not to let Chinese take over everything).

PS 3. What's the rush: the Chinese central bank on its heels
In response to the Libra initiative, central banks are now reconsidering the relevance of issuing central bank based digital currencies. The Chinese central bank is actually moving forward very fast in this respect. It appears to use similar concepts as Libra and thus develop a state-owned issuer of e-currency. See the Coindesk article here.

My personal take is that it may not have to be the central banks, but could be the Ministries of Finance that take up the issuance of digital coins (just as they usually mint the physical coins). But that is a whole different discussion, laid out in this article: The Full Reserve Bank is up for grabs.

PS 4. And of course the VR/AR angle
I almost forgot. Introducing a new currency into a real world does not make a lot of sense, as existing currencies and e-money may be more efficient. But imagine that there is a virtual agumented reality world / economy. You convert fiat money, step in and then use the game money. Like the Second Life Linden Dollars. But it's not a game and game money any more. It's IOUs of central bank Libra (aka Facebook). That may well be the end game (and first mover advantage) that Zuckerberg is seeking.

FATF and EU need to fundamentally rethink their approach to virtual assets/currencies...

Virtual currencies are on the radar of regulators for quite some time. Yet it is clear that they still struggle with definitions (which always happens when new technologies arise). The FATF is a key example now that they are seeking to harmonise international guidelines for applying FATF-rules to the crypto-world.

In this post I will look at some of the issues at stake and explain why the FATF-exercise requires a lot more time and thinking before the FATF (or EU) move forward. Do note that this is a longread, more geared to specialists in the field, than the general public.

For the public it boils down to this. The US is pushing all countries in the world to a situation where with each virtual or crypto transaction, your information needs to be distributed (by definition) to other players in the value chain.

But as the crypto definitions in countries diverge (and the FATF-definition is ill defined, potentially covering everything in the world), the only sensible thing to do is to stick with the local definitions of crypto-assets and to demand transaction information to be stored locally at the point of transaction. Any law enforcer wishing access to that information should thus approach the relevant local authority for that information.

Apart from this legal argument, we must acknowledge the recent regime changes in the world. It is by no means clear that countries that used to obey the law and follow the rule of law, will do so in the future. Thus, foreign law enforcers may become tools in the hands of local undemocratic rulers.

That is an additional argument that requires the EU (but also the FATF itself) to avoid the situation that a local law enforcer in an undemocratic country can get EU data by harvesting its home companies data for the EU-info, without having an appropriate legal warrant under EU-rules.

And now for the longread part of it...

Definitions: always tough
Back in 2012, the ECB had a hard time grasping the concept of cryptocurrencies. They used the fact whether or not virtual currencies were regulated as their guiding principle:
A virtual currency can be defined as a type of unregulated, digital money, which is issued and usually controlled by its developers, and used and accepted among the members of a specific virtual community.

The US regulator (FINCEN) chose the following approach in 2013:
In contrast to real currency, “virtual” currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency. In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. This guidance addresses “convertible” virtual currency. This type of virtual currency either has an equivalent value in real currency, or acts as a substitute for real currency. 

FINCEN then applied the money transmitter laws in an extensive way to bring exchanges of virtual currencies into their supervisory remit.

Later on, the ECB changed its definition to:
For the purpose of this report, it is defined as a digital representation of value, not issued by a central bank, credit institution or e-money institution, which in some circumstances can be used as an alternative to money. 
The EU stance remained that cryptocurrencies did not conform with definitions of funds and such in the EU legislation, hence their exchange and use was not regulated as such. Of course the integrity and consumer risks were identified and warned for.

In the FATF-context (2015) we read:
Virtual currency is a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded and functions as (1) a medium of exchange; and/or (2) a unit of account; and/or (3) a store of value, but does not have legal tender status (i.e., when tendered to a creditor, is a valid and legal offer of payment)6 in any jurisdiction. It is not issued nor guaranteed by any jurisdiction, and fulfills the above functions only by agreement within the community of users of the virtual currency. 

While these definitions may seem to work at first sight, we still need some creativity to determine the boundaries of these virtual currencies. Essentially it is possible to bring any loyalty point scheme under these definitions, as they do not use a subject based qualification to determine what exactly virtual currencies are.

At that point in time, where the focus was mostly on payments and such, using the experience we had with e-money definitions, I suggested a framework based on objects of the digital values at hand:

	User cannot buy tokens at all (loyalty-type)	User earns tokens and can buy additional (hybrid of loyalty/payment)	User buys and sells tokens (payment-type)
Tokens used in digital issuer-domain only		World of Warcraft	World of Warcraft Lynden Dollar
Tokens used in digital or physical issuer-domain only	Starbucks	Nintendo Points -Digital Payment loyalty schemes for single retailers
Tokens used at other entities than the issuer	Frequent Flyer Programmes	Frequent Flyer Programmes	Bitcoin, e-money on mobile phone's

I think it would be fair to say that, while we pretend to have solved the application of crypto-legislation to the payment-type currencies, we actually haven't truly done so. There are still classification issues pending, but they may have appeared to be too irrelevant to matter,

Enter: ICO's and token frameworks
The next stage however was the widening of the blockchain concept, the application of crypto to generic tokens and the use of tokens as a form of share, security or other representation of objects, value, cash flows. This leads to a big confusion all around the world whether or not to view some tokens as security tokens, utility tokens and such. So, while our first definition already had flaws, we chose a new wording to cover this brave new world: crypto-assets or virtual assets.

As ESMA noted in their warning on ICO's at the time:
Where ICOs qualify as financial instruments, it is likely that firms involved in ICOs conduct regulated investment activities, in which case they need to comply with the relevant legislation.
So the essential discussion of application of financial law was left to local supervisors interpretations and definition of financial instruments.

The definition-side remained quite weak, with crypto-assets being loosely described as:
Crypto-assets are a type of private asset that depends primarily on cryptography and Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT). There are a wide variety of crypto-assets. Examples of crypto-assets range from so-called cryptocurrencies or virtual currencies, like Bitcoin, to so-called digital tokens issued through Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs). Some crypto-assets have attached profit or governance rights while others provide some consumption value. Still others are meant to be used as a means of exchange. Many have hybrid features. 

ESMA noted then that there were many variations and that it was not necessary to regulate all forms of crypto-assets. In 2019 they published an updated analysis with still a very weak definition of crypto-assets:
Crypto-assets are a type of private asset that depend primarily on cryptography and distributed ledger technology as part of their perceived or inherent value. A wide range of crypto-assets exist, including payment/exchange-type tokens (for example, the so-called virtual currencies (VCs)), investment-type tokens, and tokens applied to access a good or service (so-called ‘utility’ tokens).

In their report they distinguish between payment, investment and utility token, to immediately outline that this distinction does not cover everything. So the definition issue remains as well as the question: which type of digital token falls under which type of regulation. Hence the EU is in need of more EU clarity on the subject.

On the other side of the ocean, the SEC has further fleshed out how to interpret generic financial sector rules to digital asset issuance/use. In a long awaited guidance note the answer ends up being: it depends on the way you structure the functionality of the token/asset and the use between investors and issuer. So depending on those features, it may well be a regular financial instrument and facilitating trading may constitute a regulated business of operating an exchange.

The FATF-approach: hammering financial services law into hardly defined virtual assets
In essence, the idea of the FATF is now to make sure all crypto-related business is covered in a layer of regulation that at the least ensures proper KYC and AML/CTF rules. As such, this can be appreciated and understood as a recognition of the fact that cryptocurrencies and crypto-assets are here to stay. If we bring the sale of high-value items such as diamonds or gold watches under the FATF-KYC/AML remit, it makes sense to also do so for digital goods/assets/cryptocurrencies (whichever legal status they have).

We do have a problem however, which is that the definition used by FATF, since October 2018, is still shaky:
A virtual asset is a digital representation of value that can be digitally traded, or transferred, and can be used for payment or investment purposes. Virtual assets do not include digital representations of fiat currencies, securities and other financial assets that are already covered elsewhere in the FATF Recommendations. 

This definition is so wide, that the FATF needs to explain:
The FATF emphasises that virtual assets are distinct from fiat currency (a.k.a. “real currency,” “real money,” or “national currency”), which is the money of a country that is designated as its legal tender.

The further definitions of virtual asset service provider clarify the intent of the FATF-definition: they wish to cover both former virtual currencies and the ICO area and use a very broad definition to describe virtual asset service providers. These are companies that for a business conduct:
i. exchange between virtual assets and fiat currencies; 
ii. exchange between one or more forms of virtual assets; 
iii. transfer of virtual assets; 
iv. safekeeping and/or administration of virtual assets or instruments enabling control over virtual assets; 
v. participation in and provision of financial services related to an issuer’s offer and/or sale of a virtual asset

These definitions are very shaky grounds to use. One particular troublesome issue is that the virtual asset definition has a negative part: it does not cover currencies, securities and other financial assets that are already covered elsewhere in the FATF-recommendations. It is a catch all phrase that brings all loyalty points in the world under the FATF-remit. Now, the FATF will of course outline that that was not their intent, but as soon as you devise a crypto-based loyalty scheme, who is going to decide?

And taking it one step further: if I convert my multilevel marketing scheme into digitally represented agreements on a blockchain, do these new tokens qualify as a contract (not covered) or as their value and virtual assets? And how does this interpretation play out in the US vs the EU legislative context?

I am certain there is a host of applications/use cases where we will find the FATF definitions being not suitable for use. How about CO2-emission rights. World of Warcraft-tools. Shared ownership of my house or my bycicle. I would urge the FATF to do some more thinking in that respect. The negative catch-all in a definition (it is a virtual asset when all other definitions in our recommendations fail) is just not good enough.

I can only commend the FATF on one point however. The positive thing about the definition is that it speaks of representation of value. This implies a monetary or self-invented value/currency. It does not state that it is about the representation of physical assets or objects (such as real estate). Or that value can also be understood to consist of anything in the real world, to which value can be attributed (ie. everything).

Applying FATF-money transmission rules to crypto-assets: technicalities!
Right now the FATF has closed its public consultation on applying the money transmission rules to crypto-assets. They are hammering a payments-network idea onto cryptocurrencies and crypto-assets alike to not just demand identification and transaction monitoring. The idea is to also apply the addition of originator and beneficiary into crypto-transactions:

(b) R.16 – Countries should ensure that originating VASPs obtain and hold required and accurate originator information and required beneficiary information2 on virtual asset transfers, submit the above information to beneficiary VASPs and counterparts (if any), and make it available on request to appropriate authorities. It is not necessary for this information to be attached directly to virtual asset transfers. Countries should ensure that beneficiary VASPs obtain and hold required originator information and required and accurate beneficiary information on virtual asset transfers, and make it available on request to appropriate authorities. Other requirements of R.16 (including monitoring of the availability of information, and taking freezing action and prohibiting transactions with designated persons and entities) apply on the same basis as set out in R.16

Where the approach worked in 2001 in a world where a payment was a payment, funds are funds and wire transfers are wire transfers how can it work in a world where fundamentally the core definition of virtual asset or crypto-asset is as vague as it is in EU and the US?

The whole exercises strikes me as a hasty effort, given that the authors have not noticed that also the interpretative note for Recommendation 16 should be changed to include virtual assets (exempting intra-VASP payments and e-commerce virtual currency payments from the scope). And it is clear that the US is driving the FATF to adopt the above change hastily - and without solid analysis - by June 2019.

To me, there is only one logical conclusion: in the decentralised world of virtual assets, with jurisdictions each applying different boundaries to crypto-stuff, there is no sufficiently harmonised basis to enforce the attachment of data to each transaction. Requiring service providers to hold the info and make it available by request is not a problem, but sending it out as we did with the former FATF7-rules is impossible due to the patchwork of diverging definitions.

In my response to the FATF-consultation I have outlined this problem:

In addition I would like to note that the divergent legal status of virtual assets (considering its wide definition) in different countries may have the consequence that under some local laws the transfer is not financial in nature and will not be covered under the financial legislation and AML/TF frameworks. It is possible that a sufficient legal basis is lacking in some jurisdictions to apply the crossborder wire transfer regime to such non-financial transactions and that data protection regulations take prevalence. This could be solved by applying the domestic wire transfer regime to transfers of virtual assets, regardless of their potential cross-border nature. The further application of this regime on the domestic level can then be geared to the specific legal qualifications for virtual assets in that specific jurisdiction.

My proposal is to follow the most efficiënt way. Strike out the part that says: submit the above information to beneficiary VASPs and counterparts (if any).  It is simply not proportional and economically sensible to demand as the FATF to include privacy-sensitive information in crypto-transactions. Officers can can have access by asking and demonstrating lawfulness of the request via international channels. But the day and age of using local tricks and harvesting local companies for EU-data should be over.

The area of digital assets, virtual assets is so ill-defined that the FATF cannot claim a full competency, as the legal basis in a number of jurisdictions will not be there. We should also keep in mind that the catch all definition - not elsewhere regulated under these FATF-rules - is still written under from the FATF role of being Financial Action Task Force, focusing on financial industry and financial services as the main objective. So if my home country defines certain digital goods as digital goods and not in scope of crypto legislation, that to me would be the end of the remit for the FATF (and it would remain out of scope of the catch-all clause as well).

So much for the technicalities.

Applying FATF-money transmission rules to crypto-assets: geopolitics
We should recognize that we are in a different moment in time than in 2001, when the FATF-7 rules were introduced. At that point in time the US was a beacon for democracy and rule of law. But it isn't any more.

It's role became fuzzy when it turned out that US law enforcers had used US based servers of EU companies (Swift) to get hold of EU-data. And this made the EU sensitive to the protection of its citizens against unwarranted overly ambitious law enforcing in other countries.

We should again be sensitive. The EU, but also the FATF, also have an obligation to protect their citizens from unduly harassment and intrusion by law enforcement authorities. And creating tons of data outside the consent-scope of the citizen does not sound like a good protection at all.

Right now, we can witness around the world, an increase in countries with all kinds of 'strong leaders' that violate human rights agreements, do not obey the rule of law, that are involved in money laundering schemes, do not listen to lawful requests of their constituents and ignore climate agreements.

I think the EU has a duty to not cooperate with implementation of so-called FATF-requirements when it is clear they are increasingly unable to protect the privacy and guarantuee the lawfulness of the data exchange. Requesting other states to go get the data (and ensure that it is proportional) is a better way forward.

In sum: improve definitions and reconsider the worldwide distribution of transaction data for virtual assets/currencies
While I think that FATF should fully reconsider its definitions and redo its homework, this virtual-asset momentum and this train that is being pushed by the US may be rolling too fast to stop it. So as a stop-gap one could propose to eliminat 7b or at least strike out the distribution line:

(b) R.16 – Countries should ensure that originating VASPs obtain and hold required and accurate originator information and required beneficiary information2 on virtual asset transfers, submit the above information to beneficiary VASPs and counterparts (if any), and make it available on request to appropriate authorities. It is not necessary for this information to be attached directly to virtual asset transfers. Countries should ensure that beneficiary VASPs obtain and hold required originator information and required and accurate beneficiary information on virtual asset transfers, and make it available on request to appropriate authorities. Other requirements of R.16 (including monitoring of the availability of information, and taking freezing action and prohibiting transactions with designated persons and entities) apply on the same basis as set out in R.16

The FATF-proposal is disproportional, technically unsound and uneconomic. We'd better store the citizens data locally and ensure distribution on piecemeal basis, based on solid legal grounds, only when there is a true virtual asset under local definitions.

To the EU I ask to protect my reasonable concerns as a private citizen and not implement the proposal that comes out, until it ensures that my data stay local where they are and are not distributed at large to possibly evil states, dubious countries and their law enforcers.

The latter holds particularly true when we can observe that the chair of the FATF, the US Treasury Secretary, is not living up to his national constitutional obligations to comply with the US law himself.


PS. I noted that the interpretative note to recommendation actually also holds an additional new definition, apart from the main text:
1. For the purposes of applying the FATF Recommendations, countries should consider virtual assets as “property,” “proceeds,” “funds”, “funds or other assets,” or other “corresponding value”. Countries should apply the relevant measures under the FATF Recommendations to virtual assets and virtual asset service providers (VASPs).

'DNBcoin': the Dutch central bank experiment with a blockchain-based coin

Today, the Dutch central bank published its Annual Report. This coincided with the death of our most famous soccer player, Johan Cruyff, so it's clear that there is not so much undivided attention to their whole report.

 Scanning through the report, I noticed an interesting paragraph in the sustainability-part of the report (p. 208), under the header of inclusion and accessibility of payments. It stated that DNB aims to develop a working prototype DNBcoin based on blockchain technology.

So, there we have it: central banks are entering the market of digital cash once again. After the announcements on RSCoin, the blockchain based electronic cash proposed for the UK central bank, the Dutch central bank is following suit.

So is this new and revolutionary?

No and yes.

No, because I recall that twenty years earlier, the Danish central bank sold its electronic cash solution (Danmont) to the market (withdrawn as a micropayment tool in 2005), as did the Canadian central bank (selling of its Mintchip). So there is not much news in central banks setting up electronic cash. 

What is new however is the environment in which this development occurs. Previously, central banks were keen on getting rid of cash as an inefficient payment method. As this starts to be succesfull (in Sweden and the Netherlands for example) the central banks adapt their position. The policy line now is that for availability and financial inclusion reasons cash still needs to be around as a payment mechanism.

So when we now see central banks moving forward in the electronic cash domain (now conveniently labelled: blockchain/fintech, instead of bitcoin) it might be to no longer spin it off to the market, but to create a permanent digital replacement of cash.

Therefore, this time it might be different.