Perspectives on Ca-Libra # 1. Getting rid of three smokescreens

This week the world has witnessed the announcement by Facebook of Calibra, a digital currency wallet and company. The wallet holds Libra, a virtual currency, with the idea to be used globally. Its distribution and use will be further promoted, organised and executed via an association of partners, called the Libra-association. The information pack (download here) also outlines more technical details on programming languages, future plans and committment to regulatory compliance.

Immediately thereafter, a storm of analysis emerged in order to understand the initiative. Quite some politicians and regulators are eager to quickly respond and that is completely understandable.

Facebook is not just the grocery shop around the corner, dabbling about with some new technology. It has allocated significant resources to the development of Libra. With a customer base of at least 2 billion (close to 25% of the worlds population) it is an entity that in itself acts as a world-wide platform and does not need others to achieve a network effect.

Perspectives as the approach for this series of blogs
As the Libra-initiative can be viewed from many angles, I plan to write this series of blogs and label them as perspectives. It's always helpful to view things from a couple of angles and that is precisely what I intend to do. This means we will be looking into definitions, regulatory regimes, business case and previous historical analogies. And as we go along I will take stock of developments and responses.

As you may notice, I will be judging Facebook by a very high standard. The reason for that is simple. If an organisation has so many resources available, I expect them to come up with careful, consistent and accurate thinking, wording and technology. And as a sneak preview: this is not what we got over the last week.

While the maturity of the exercise may look impressive to some observers, the huge inconsistencies and home-brewed interpretations of what a blockchain is cannot be a coincidence. We can see an announcement that Calibra will become available in 2020, while the state of thinking mid 2019 is 'early in the process'. This is accompanied by a PR-smokescreen on cryptocurrencies, that doesn't help our understanding the effort.

So the very first challenge that exists, when discussing the Ca-Libra virtual currency initiative, is to separate fact from fiction and to be precise in terminology. That is why this first blog seeks to get rid of the three biggest smokescreens that we were facing this week.

Smokescreen #1: libra association is not an ecosytem but a payment association with added functionalities
If we start with the source of payments revenue for Facebook, this originally all boiled down to payments related to Flash games (in 2015). But technical problems in Flash would hit their revenue. So they quickly understood the need to be more flexible and to be able to operate different business propositions and solutions. Therefore they moved towards licenses in the US (cash via messenger) and in Europe. They also moved the US e-cash system to France and UK, but announced 2 months ago that they would drop it in Europe per June 15, 2019.

And now, per June 18, 2019 Facebook essentially announce to re-up their game, but not with electronic euro's but with a self-invented world currency, backed by other currencies and liquid financial instruments. To blow away the first smokescreen, let's analyse the difference between the old Facebook e-cash or e-money with fiat currencies and the new Facebook libra, as distributed by Libra Association.

What we can see is that Facebook seeks to move the fiat-currency of its e-money system out of its direct control and responsibility as an issuer. Facebook Payments Inc is currenlty the entity that is responsible and guards all the relevant rules with respect to working with the e-currency. But in the new construct Facebook Calibra is merely one validator that can use the Libra-system under open source rules. So we see the fiat-e-currency companies of Facebook stepping aside and a new Libra association entering the playing field. At the same time, the technology shifts from in-house proprietary systems to an open-source codebase in the hands of no one in particular.

Top organisation	Facebook Inc	Facebook Inc
Type of asset	Virtual Currency	E-money
Denomination	Libra (self-invented)	Pound, Dollar
Issuer / Currency creation	Libra ‘association’	Facebook Ireland
Nature of issuing	No direct issuance to customers. Direct issuance to validators.	Direct issuance to customers Direct redemption at issuer
Secondary market	Secondary/tertiary market with reselling - disbursement via exchanges/other institutions	No reselling of e-money.
Fee structure for Reselling	Unknown, but most likely the price for validators is unequal to that for exchanges or customers.	Issuance at par and redemption Of full amount minus some cost
Issuing without Customer demand	Currency base may change without actual demand of customers.	Issuance as part of buy-transaction of the customer
Reserve pool	100% reserve in basket of currencies	100 % reserve in Denominated fiat currency
Technology	Open Source community	Proprietary
Control and use of technology	Unknown contractual arrangements and safeguards for entities in the value chain	All usage governed by contract with issuer and financial law

Bringing the currency to the public or ducking the issuance responsibilities?
Of course one could frame the above shift of roles as bringing a currency to the public. Facebook is however dumping its core-responsibilities with respect to shaping and operating a currency-system and moving a lot of activities to an ill-equipped new Libra association with no track record at all.

While Calibra states that it will comply with all relevant legislation, we can see that the actual information of the Libra Association in this respect is pretty thin. They issue a currency-like digital token/record but do not explain which legal regimes would apply. Also their actual claim as whether they are a not-for-profit organisation does not align fully with this twitter thread outlines that it is a regular company with wider statutes.

If it looks/talks/qucks like a payments scheme, it is a ...?
In payment terms - which is what Facebook says to be aiming for - the Libra Association is essentially a payment scheme. Such a scheme defines the rules for an ecosystem that wishes to transact electronically. Examples are Visa and Mastercard, organisations that need to abide with a lot of rules in order to avoid them becoming a place of illegal cartel-agreements on price and illegitimate contract terms to end users.

With payment schemes we have huge and long discussions and deliberations of price levels. There is the obligation to ensure that there is no obligation to buy processing power from the scheme itself. There are policy views and obligations that schemes should be interoperable and open. And then there is a mountain of rules that specifies how to use the brand and which technical criteria must be complied with in order to be allowed to connect to the system.We find very little of this in the current papers on the association.

What makes this payment scheme special, a payment-scheme-plus ?
What sets Libra apart from Visa and Mastercard is that the association is effectively an issuer of the currency. This means a blurring of operational roles and scheme responsibilities, which is generally considered as a bad practice in governance terms. But what is most striking is that the membership rules are not geared towards controlling/monitoring and creating a safe and sound currency. We find no mention of specific prudential licenses or governance/quality certifications required for different roles under the scheme and as a member (or shareholder).

The only thing we read is: we seek to expand, we want to incentivise the use of the token and for this we don't want the small players in the market. We aim for the big players with market power. We separate the wholesale participants from the retail participants (allowing for price upticks). And then - the devil is in the details - the customer pricing format is based on a FOMO-principle (do you want your transaction processed: please throw in some more gas).

I am curious what reasoning Facebook and its founding members have had in this respect. The whole association setup is ostensibly aimed at market dominance, without proper governance safeguards and without any guarantees as to operational security and safety and soundness of the system. If I were a competition regulator I would jump at the opportunity to wait for the founders to sign the participation agreement and deliver a letter to their doorstep, next day, to start investigating the market abuse that might be at play here.

Governance claims and reality: a scheme is a supertanker without effective governance
I have been reading all the statements on the public structure of the association with a lot of amusement. Facebook is claiming that it will bring the intellectual property into the public domain and of course all the members of the association have a voice. So this seems to be well arranged with room for consultation, discussion and changing course.

The reality is completely different, as everybody in the banking sector knows. There is sufficient experience with clearing houses and associations (even with a relatively small number of shareholders) that are unable to essentially change course, once set up. Large associations like EPC, Visa, Mastercard, are effectively orphans without parents. Stakeholders are always irritated about the fact that these associations set their own course and associations always claim their shareholders have no vision. Bottom line: if you transfer your Libra-currency design into this domain, it is quite likely to be persistent. So don't expect any radical changes after this one is live; it will be gradual evolution from here onwards.

Not just a scheme for the payment instrument, but the unit of account (and a security as well)
There is another difference between Libra and Mastercard and Visa that I would like to highlight. The regular payment schemes seek to transact efficiently, taking existing currencies/structures as a basis. But this scheme introduces a new currency itself and regulates this currency via the management of reserve assets. It demonstrates that the aim of Facebook is to design its own Facebook buck, push it into the public domain and then profit from the benefits of having their own unit of account in place, while hiding behind the members and the open source philosophy when things go wrong.

A specific element in the scheme is that the unit of account is backed by a basket of currencies and financial instruments. Effectively this means that if you buy one Libra, you buy a couple of foreign currencies. Or put differently: you participate in an open ended money market / investment fund. And you use the digital representation of your participation in this fund as a means of payment.

This is a bit of double work as this means the association and the scheme are not just subject to payments legislation but also to investments/securities legislation. But it is legally possible: the payment would legally not be a discharge of obligations via a financial payment, but via a payment in kind (currency basket).

So what do we see here?

The Libra association is a mere manager of the governance and operational arrangements and activities that come with using the virtual currency Libra and participating in the Libra 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).

The Libra association itself will be steering future technical development and is charged with the project goal to move the whole infrastructure towards a permissionless setup. This is completely impossible (as these associations act with oil-tanker dynamics) but that brings us to the next smokescreen.

Smokescreen #2: Libra is not a blockchain, not a cryptocurrency but a digital virtual currency /financial instrument
It was fascinating to see that the carefully crafted and prepared introduction of the Libra sought to position it as blockchain and as a cryptocurrency. This creates a lot of noise. Also, the use of similar words for different concepts and organisations is confusing.

We should distinguish between:
1- Calibra, the organisation, a 100 % subsidiary of Facebook, acting as a validator node,
2- Calibra, the branded digital wallet developed by Calibra to carry the Libra virtual currency,
3- Libra, the digital currency that will be in the Calibra wallet
4- Libra, the reserve pool of assets that backs the digital currency,
5- Libra Core, the Network or 'blockchain' that forms the core operating technology for clients and validators,
6- Move, the programming language developed for the Libra Network.
7- Libra, the association governing, promoting and executing the virtual currency system,
8- Libra members, big commercial players that may join the Libra association, provided that they are a validator.

What struck me in the communication is the flagrant re-definitioning by Facebook of the concepts blockchain and cryptocurrency. Facebook really wants to be seen as doing some cryptocurrency stuff. But they don't. Just for fun I will be comparing the Facebook FAQ with the wisdom of the Wiki-crowd.

Libra is not a blockchain
Facebook succeeds in not mentioning the facts that blockchains are, by definition and terminology, a chain of blocks, linked together. Wiki has it right.

What is a cryptocurrency exactly: native currency of an open blockchain
Wiki states, that the decentralized control of cryptocurrencies works through distributed ledger technologies, typically a blockchain. Personally I would not have mentioned those ledgers as the blockchain is not so much a ledger as a journal (log roll of transaction entries). And apps are creating the ledger feeling for blockchains. But let's look at the wording in the image.

The wording of Facebook is interesting. It speaks of using cryptocurrency due to the use of strong crypto. This leaves out the issue that cryptocurrencies may be native to blockchains (as in chains of blocks). And then Facebook moves on to cryptocurrencies being built on blockchain technologies.

Which is true of course, but if I use all the parts of an air plane to build a firmly grounded restaurant, this doesn't mean that my restaurant is still an operational air plane. It is built on air plane technology, but the wording matters. Facebook puts up a smoke screen here to position itself in the blockchain community.

Libra is not a cryptocurrency
The funniest part of the Facebook FAQ was the mere statement that the Libra is a new cryptocurrency designed to have a stable and reliable value. Coming from a perspective where cryptocurrencies are inherent elements of open, truly decentralised permissionless blockchains, this is an interesting statement. It demonstrates that Facebook wishes to be a cryptocurrency but it isn't.

The text above also shows that Facebook has its eyes on the stablecoins that are around. These stablecoin are, in my view, privately issued currencies, with the goal of a fiat peg. The stable-'coin' is used a lot in the cryptoworld to facilitate fiat/crypto exchanges in times when the financial system is not online. The fact that this currency is used a lot in the cryptoworld, does however not make it a cryptocurrency in the terms of an inherent currency of an open permissionless blockchain.

Libra, what is it then, in regulatory terms?
My conclusion, after quite some pondering and tweeting is the following.

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 the scheme owner and scheme operator of the Libra virtual currency. This currency/investment can only be bought directly by members of the Libra association. Other entities or customers must revert to second tier players, exchanges or peer-2-peer applications. Technical development of applications is encouraged and rules to secure the application by contract or licensing seem to be absent.

Due to the blending of scheme and operations, the Libra association cannot really be viewed as the beginning of a proper payment scheme. Functionality, pricing and membership rules make Libra and the Libra association an easy target for consumer/data protection and competition supervisors, bank supervisors and securities supervisors.

Smokescreen #3: Libra is not a charity exercise that seeks to operate a public good but a commercial enterprise
A huge amount of effort has gone into convincing the public this week that Libra is all about helping the rest of the world. Getting more inclusive finance. Making payments faster, easier and such. It is striking that these statements mirror the claims that originally come from the Bitcoin community or from the Fintech community.

Of course those claims strike a chord. People may well be fed up with their banks and the perception of banks with slow procedures and expensive fees for foreign payments are an easy target for PR-people who want to position their initiative in a friendly way to the public. Who doesn't want to take on the banks and improve the world.

Commercially, the thinking of Facebook is most likely to be that it needs to counter the We-chat Pay dangers and all other Fintech movements that lead to easy in-app payments. Payments will increasingly be an afterthought and harvesting the data in those payments will allow for even higher ad revenues, as Facebook will see what works and what doesn't. Interestingly Facebook did not increase the speed of its current developments; it chose to move up the value chain, towards setting up its own currency and hoping that it will work as a unit of account (and may stay in the system for long).

Of course, the move by Facebook is a big signal. But we must note that there are still also other players that could make the same move. Which would lead to some form of a duopoly (as with Mastercard and Visa) and the need to agree on interoperability or on open access to infrastructures of the big techs involved. I did not come across this notion a lot, so far.

The public good narrative: unbelievable coming from Facebook
What struck me most, coming from Facebook as a centralised company that is not interested in respecting democracies and laws written by those democracies, is the sketch of opportunities in the White Paper. And do have a look at the phrasing on public good.

Given that by now I hope to have convinced you that the design of the Libra association and its constituency is far below the usual standards to be expected from payment schemes, you can imagine that I was unable to reconcile these laudable beliefs with the actual proposition.

If you truly wish to create a new public good, a new worldwide currency, it is not impossible to deliver this with private sector entities. There is a whole range of public policy theories (delivery of universal services or service of general interest) that can help out here. But putting the richest, biggest enterprises of the world in one room, to distribute a world currency/investment proposition without proper safeguards or recognition and qualification of the activities of the issuing association is not the way I would go about.

Facebook cloaking its plans in cryptoterms,but why? 
Let's face it. This whole complex open source, cryptocurrency story that Facebook has published is not necessary. If Facebook Payments Inc or Facebook Ireland wishes to change its currency mechanism towards a different setup it could do so itself. Why is there a need to involve other stakeholders with a trendy and hip storyboard on decentralisation, blockchains, cryptocurrencies and such?

It can't be a money issue. Facebook has sufficient resources to fund the whole exercise itself. And the quality of the exercise could then convince other commercial partners to join. So why the need to step out of its digital currency issuing role itself?

To me it is pretty clear that Facebook seeks to move up in our lives. Doing our financial business is not enough. It is all about entering our mind at a deep level. At the fiat currency level. We should think prices in terms of Libra, not in terms of fiat currency. And there is a good power reason for it. Because as long as Facebook uses digital fiat currencies it can be under the rule of the government that issues it. Now, by having a basket of currencies, Facebook can kick out currencies/countries if need be. State regulators and supervisors lose their power.

In addition, Facebook chooses to limit its own role and hide behind am Swiss association, to cover the fact that they don't want to take the responsibilities that come with issuing a worldwide association. They are suckering/forcing partners into joining this programme, without alerting them to the obvious violations of competition rules that may arise. They leave out all mentions of safeguards and contractual arrangements that can aid in ensuring operational integrity for this worldwide currency. Rather they throw the technology in the public domain, knowing well that this means that it's use cannot be fully controlled.

It is no surprise why politicians and regulators were keen to act. Their immediate response was that this was a further extension of an a-moral company that stops at nothing. As Maxine Walters outlined in the US, when asking Facebook to stop further development:

Reversing the statements to see what's hidden in plain sight: ruthless selfishness
As a thought exercise I was wondering. If they claim that it is a blockchain and cryptocurrency, while essentially it isn't, shouldn't we also reverse the other statements to see what is truly happening here.

I leave the result for you to ponder and thank you for bearing with me in this ultralong blog.
Up next I expect blog 2 to be about EU-definitions and legislation.

THE THREAT
As we, as Facebook are in it strictly for our own goals, we intend to hide our true intentions and motivations so we can fool the community and our partners in the ecosystem to go along. 

We believe that many more people should buy financial and identity services from our company specifically, even when doing so will come at a higher cost than the available alternatives. 

We don't believe that people have an inherent right to control the fruit of their legal labour. 

We believe that global, open, instant, and low-cost movement of money will create immense economic opportunity and more commerce for us in particular. 

We believe that people will increasingly trust centralized forms of governance. 

We believe that a global currency and financial infrastructure should not be designed and governed as a public good. 

We believe that we don't bear a final responsibility ourselves to help advance financial inclusion, support ethical actors, and continuously uphold the integrity of the ecosystem.

PS. I have changed the definition on June-24, to reflect that the currency is a mini-investment fund which is used in an app/ecosystem that would qualify as a payment instrument. Definition blog will follow.

DAO-fork at odds with Ethereum terms and conditions

Last month, Antonio Madeire nicely summarized the discussion on the DAO-hack and the fork which brought Ethereum classic into being. I remember that my contribution to the discussion at that time was that the Ethereum developer community should not revert to a hard fork but to the judge and/or arbitration.

Governance and terms and conditions
The other day, I was discussing with Ian Grigg, a long time mutual topic of interest: making technology work by adding proper arbitration to smart contracts and agreements. This can even be done in code, as he had demonstrated way back in the 1990s in his ricardo system.

This prompted me to actually take a look at the Ethereum terms and references to see what it said about disputes. Well, have a look yourselves:

All disputes or claims arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the Terms, the breach thereof, or use of the Ethereum Platform shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with said Rules. All claims between the parties relating to these Terms that are capable of being resolved by arbitration, whether sounding in contract, tort, or otherwise, shall be submitted to ICC arbitration...... 

.... And so on.

What does this mean for Ethereum governance?
While I hugely appreciate the development of Ethereum and all the efforts that have gone into it. it does strike me that when push came to shove, the developers brushed aside their own terms and conditions. The use of Ethereum was instrumental to setting up the DAO, so why not revert to the ICC Arbitration?

My guess would be that, not being lawyers or into governance, the developers used the tools that came in handy and quickly. Alternatively, it might be the case that they might have invested in the DAO themselves quite considerably.

Regardless of the exact reasons behind not using the dispute resolution mechanism, the paradox is that, while there is a formal basis for dispute resolution under Ethereum, the likelihood exists that in future instances of trouble, the developers will again fork their way out of trouble.

Create an additional dispute resolution layer.
Any practical use and implementation of Ethereum should therefore come accompanied with additional agreements on dispute resolution, so that organisations that cooperate on the basis of the ethereum blockchain create their own governance basis.

The DAO - Ethereum incident: if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen !

Ok, I admit: I may be a payments or banking dinosaur and an old school kind of guy. I have personally witnessed the emergence of new payment methods (POS, I-pay, VbV, purse, online-purse, Paypal, EMV, etc) as well as the failure of banks (Icesave, DSB). And I have a keen interest in the history of banking and finance.

With this background I have been intrigued by the Ethereum-DAO incident and its further follow up. What now seems to happen is that an undemocratic, interest driven community that hasn't secured or enforced proper governance and safeguards, is taking the right in their own hands when some digital assets of theirs appear to move in different places than envisaged.

Lay-out of options to solve the issue
Pondering the issues at hand was stimulated by this very good presentation by Gavin Wood last Monday at the Dutch Blockchain Conference. See below



In the presentation Gavin Wood presents 3 options:
- do nothing
- soft fork by community
- hard fork by community.

How logical the 'community' approach appears to be, I couldn't escape at noticing that the concept of community is limited to those directly involved as owners/investors in ether. All of those people were aware that they're investing in a very speculative, new technology and digital asset.

Gavin introduces the concept of moral consensus by the people, rather than the machine, to solve the issue. This consensus is not really the people, he explains, but the miners. In my view this means that the bottom line is that the interested actors take the right into their own hands to cheat the attacked back out of his possessions.

What's missing: the legal consensus
What's truly missing in the discussion is a fundamental fourth 'community' option:
- owners of 'stolen' ether  call the police (in whichever jurisdiction) so that a judge may determine whether or not this is a theft or otherwise.

Any system existing on earth, is always under some jurisdiction which allows formal legal arbitrage on differences of opinions as to whether this is theft. And lacking the proper arbitrage rules in this obviously not so smart contract, this is the domain where the Ether and DAO community should revert to.

Any other road than turning to the formal/legal mechanisms to solve this issue, constitutes a power batlle between interested parties. One party claimed to offer autonomous smart contracts without human intervention (but slides back as soon as they lose money on it) and another party took them up on the offer and fights back to keep the first party to their offer.

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen
From a macro point of view, I don't see a reason why a response in forking by the ethereum community is justified. We're just witnessing a private, risky enterprise doing not-so-smart-things with not-so-smart contracts. This will mean that a limited remit of private investors (that know that they are risk investors) lose their assets to someone else.

As tough as it may be to see someone mess up your assets/system in front of your own eyes, it is hoewever the ultimate consequence of a philosophy in which one proclaims that is exclusively the machine that drives the asset moves.

So as this all happens, you just better buckle-up, take the hit and make sure there are no more accidents waiting around the corner. And if you're not up for it, it's time to leave the play under the motto: If you can't stand the heat, better stay out of the kitchen. When seen from a financial history perspective this whole incident is just one silly drip in the ocean of follies that has ever occured.

Up next: proof it or put in arbitrage
In a practical sense, the lesson is easy. Either have full formal proof of smart contracts, allowing you to  check all possible states of the implementation, or include an arbitration and third party mediation into the smart contract.

It's not a new concept: I've been speaking with Ian Grigg numerous times on the relevance of arbitration for smart contracts (see also his blog on this). So with this incident, the lesson will surely sink in somewhat faster, whether you're into the bitcoin blockchain or the new kid on the block.

'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.

The Euro Retail Payments Board: first meeting and outlook

On Friday, the 16^th of May, the Euro Retail Payments Board (ERPB) held its first meeting (with this agenda) in Frankfurt. The ERPB is the successor to the SEPA Council, which aimed at realising the SEPA-project. Whereas the SEPA Council was co-chaired by the ECB and the European Commission, the chair of the ERPB is Yves Mersch, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB.

First Meeting

The first meeting was dedicated to agree to the mandate, functioning and work plan of the ERPB. The ERPB Members decided to set up a working groups on post-migration issues relating to the SEPA credit transfer and SEPA direct debit schemes as well as one working group on pan-European electronicmandate solutions for SEPA direct debits. In addition the ERPB acknowledged and asked the Cards Stakeholder Group (CSG) to carry out a stock-taking exercise and devise a work plan with respect to card standardization.

The ERPB further discussed the expansion of the SEPA Direct Debit scheme (SDD) with a non-refundable (one-off) direct debit. It was agreed that the EU legislators would be asked to clarify legal refund-conditions when evaluating the Payment Services Directive and that a possible scheme would be launched only after this review was complete.

In order to further investigate the future use of pan-European electronic mandatesfor SDD, the ERPB set up a separate working group. Finally, the EPC presented the latest update on the migration to SEPA. Whereas the migration to credit-transfers was very close to completion, there remained work done for direct debits. The ERPB called upon all stakeholders in the euro area to complete their migration to SEPA payment instruments as early as possible and before the deadline. 

Outlook for the ERPB

The launch of the European Retail Payments Board marks a new starting point for discussing the future of European payments with all stakeholders involved. The inclusion of payment institutions and e-money industry can add considerable value given their different approach and background. These providers live and breathe Internet-based technology, seek EU-standardisation and do not have similar legacy-systems as the banks. I expect this to lead to fruitful debates and exchange of insights.

Some observers may cite the lack of legislative powers as a disadvantage of the ERPB. Others may wonder if it is possible to achieve results in a body that only meets twice a year. I would submit however that in ten year’s time, the sceptics will look back in surprise to see how the ERPB has positively shaped the outcome of the European debate on retail payments. The Dutch experience with similar standing committees (see this separate blog) demonstrates that there is a lot of unlocked potential that lies in the trust and bonds that will be formed and shaped by this collective effort. 

ECB provides outlook on retail payments in Europe at EPCA-conference

Pierre Petit, deputy director general (payments and market infrastructure) of the European Central Bank, has outlined the ECB’s  views on European retail payments. He made his remarks at the EPCA Summit 2014, where he defined the role of the European Retail Payments Board (ERPB) and the follow-up on the SecurePay recommendations on access to payment accounts.

New players to be part of drive towards integrated European payments market

The ERPB is to become a forum for driving the further development towards an integrated European payments market in the post-SEPA situation. Petit confirmed that the first meeting of this group is to take place in May, and new industries such as e-money providers and payment services institutions are to join in these discussions, along with other representatives of both consumers and providers.

The ERPB will aim to further stimulate the development of the European retail payments market by working together on topics such as innovation and integration.  The group will identify  and address strategic issues and work priorities, including business practices, requirements and standards. Issues could include the development of a single e-mandate solution or the improvement of interoperability between national e-payment schemes.

Security requirements for payment account access services

The ECB announced that it would this month publish the responses and the results of the consultations on security for payment access to the accounts. The publication would be for information only, given that the European Banking Authority will be providing guidelines on security measures under the revised Payment Services Directive.

Although the ECB does not want to impose formal requirements as there is a risk that the EBA could take a different position, it is likely that the two-factor authentication model of the SecurePay forum will remain the norm for retail payments account access services and mobile payments.

Mount Gox tumbles off the learning-curve

This week, Mount Gox, a very large provider of bitcoin services, couldn't live up any more to its services agreements with bitcoin users. It provided exchange and storage services for bitcoins, but due to a technical implementation flaw, the bitcoin holdings of users were compromised. Essentially it wasn't clear who really owned the bitcoins. The website went black and users can no longer claim their bitcoins.

Tumbling off the learning curve
I view the failure of Mt Gox as a logical consequence of the learning curve that bitcoin holders and bitcoin companies face. The bitcoin, although considered decentralized, is just as centralised a system as any other value transfer mechanism. However, for ideological reasons, the developers chose to only describe the technical heart of the system (the algorithm) leaving the rest up to the market.

This open source code approach has some advantages, among which a very speedy development of applications. Yet, we are for some time now witnessing what it means if systems lack a central authority or scheme manager. There is no entity taking responsibility and chasing users or companies because they don't abide by:
- usage conditions (demanding user identification),
- security requirements and certification of tools,
- specific legal frameworks.

As a result we have seen a whole community of interested companies and users climbing up the payments, banking, investments and monetary learning curve. The inevitable consequence is that those who do not get it right, will pay a price, while the others continue to learn. Due to the digital nature of bitcoin, these developments unfold rapidly, allowing us a compressed overview of lessons from financial history.

Frijda's theory of money (1914)
The essential lesson at stake is that the usage of any value transfer mechanism does not just rest on its acceptance by users, but just as well on the rules and regulations that underly the value transfer. In 1914, the Dutch lawyer Frijda analysed this topic in his dissertation on the theory of money. At that time discussions emerged on the nature of banknotes. Did they have value because they were exchangeable for bullion, because they were defined as legal tender or because the public used and accepted it?

Frijda pointed out that the underlying legal framework that safeguards property in a society constitute a necessary precondition for the use of payment instruments. Without such safeguards, people will tend to stick to other stores of value rather than attaching value to local bank notes. Until today this effect is clearly visible: consumers tend to hold and use foreign cash or commodities if they live in country with a lot of curruption, a weak system of justice and an instable monetary climate.

Trust is built by institutions and markets
What makes money tick is a solid institutional basis, upon which trust can be further developed. The latter part can be done by a combination of regulation (supervision) and self-regulation (market action). Which brings us back to the Mt Gox case.

Following the events of this week, a statement was released by the bitcoin companies Coinbase, Kraken, BitStamp, Circle, and BTC China. The industry leaders committ to safeguarding the assets of customers, to applying strong security measures, to using independent auditors to ensure integrity of their systems and to have adequate balance sheets and reserves to be able to ensure continuity.

In sum we can now see both a gradual development of both the institutional framework for virtual currencies and the market-driven self-regulation. This reflects the fact that - whether you like it or not - trust for financial services is always built on institutions, regulations and self-regulation.

The bitlicense: current state of thinking in New York

A week ago, the New America Foundation organised a meeting (Cryptocurrencies, the new coin of the realm) on the topic of virtual currencies and regulation in New York. Some news bulletins picked up on the meeting and the future New York Bitlicense regime. The good thing is that the New America Foundation has streamed the whole event, so it allows me (and you) to listen first hand to the speech by Benjamin M. Lawsky, Superintendent of Financial Services, New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS).

I will outline some of the highlights of his contribution below as I think that the New York discussion represents a good example of the issues at stake when it comes to regulation of Bitcoin. I expect to further touch on those issues in my contribution to the Bitcoin Pre-conference expert session of the EPCA-summit in Brussels (March 12-13).

Open source code currencies and open source code regulation
In his speech, Lawsky outlines the current remit of the NY department of Financial Services. It acts as the supervisor for money transmission companies in New York. The DFS-starting point is therefore that in some instances dealing with virtual money may effectively constitute money transmission, which needs to be regulatred. This is similar to the approach in the FINcen guidance of one year ago.

The New York regulator chose to emulate the open source code approach of virtual currencies. And thus, Lawsky refers to the DFS-approach as 'open source code regulation': regulation based on a public exchange of thoughts, allowing the best insights to be used. Given their current remit, the main idea is to see where the money transmitter rules need to change in order to suit the nature of virtual currencies.

As for the further process in 2014, Lawsky explained that the DFS will move towards further regulation this year and will most likely hold a  market consultation for the proposed regulatory framework for companies that want a so-called 'bit-license.'

What will the bitlicense be like?
When listening to the speech, my impression is that the core fundamentals of the bitlicense will be:
- very strong customer disclosure, requiring companies to outline that transactions are irreversible and that the digital currency may be very volatile,
- a strict adherence to know-your-customer requirements, essentially demanding that anti-money laundering rules are adhered to,
- a robustness/capital requirement, ensuring that the company will be able to withstand some of the market shocks that may occur when dealing with volatile digital currencies/commodities,
- safety and soundness requirements, ensuring a certain quality of operations and consumer protection.

As for the nature of capital and collateral requirements, the DFS is still wrestling with the concept of virtual currencies. This has to do with the angle and object of regulation. While it is easy to require capital safeguards for banks that deal with attracting and lending money, this is harder to apply for companies that issue, distribute or redeem virtual currencies.

Similar questions arise when defining the scope of transaction monitoring. Should only the purchase and redeem-transactions be subject to rules or does the supervision extend to a full transaction logging of all transactions with the virtual currency? Should those transactions be in a public ledger and to which extend can they be anonimized?

Step-up regulatory approach with a safe harbour
Although the DFS is still contemplating its exact licensing regime, I expect it to also contain a safe harbour provision. This would allow companies that comply with customer disclosure and know-your-customer rules, to continue to operate, while further obtaining the full bitlicense. Such a regime would assist in lowering the barriers for virtual currency platforms/traders/exchanges and create an easy entry towards the proper regulatory regime.

Lawsky outlined that the regulator prefers companies to be in his state and regulated, rather than driven off-shore. A safe harbour rule helps achieve that and fits a model where a light-weight, low-barrier entry model is developed to prevent legitimate providers from leaving the jurisdiction, while creating a sufficient barrier for the illegitimate players in the market. This is also a realistic approach considering the alternative channels for illegitimate behaviour: cash and banks. In the words of Lawsky:

Let's be frank: a lot more money has been laundered through banks than through virtual currencies'

Boldly go where no man has gone before?
I commend the DFS for their open minded approach to the topic of regulation of virtual currencies. I do disagree however with one of the remarks of the Superintendent. He outlined that regulators are in new and unchartered waters when it comes to virtual currencies.

I don't think they are.

Since day and age, people have used all kinds of symbols, coins and means of representation of goods that worked fine for transferring ownership of property. We created a number of laws and institutions to ensure these property rights and a fair treatment of parties to certain contracts. In doing so we were able to move from coins to paper-based money to deposit accounts. At the same time we created digital representations of shares, bonds, IOUs and agreed that ledgers at private companies and government institutions could officially represent a claim on goods, services, bits of land, anything.

Then, when it comes to new forms of money, we also have recent experience. In the late 1990s we witnessed a very similar type of discussion on bank supervision and specialised supervision regimes for new forms of 'electronic-money' as it was called in those days. It took some time and deliberation to get to grips with pre-paid digital representations of fiat-currencies, but we found our way in the end.

The challenge: finding the right regulatory framework
The true challenge is to first consider the fundamental nature of virtual currencies and then determine the appropriate regulatory framework. In essence, the DFS is doing the reverse as their starting point is their existing legal competence as supervisor of money transmitter businesses. While there is a lot of logic to it, it might be useful to reconsider alternative types of regulation that exist.

It's my hunch that perhaps an exchange/trade oriënted regulatory framework might make more sense as the basis for regulation, than the money transmitter framework. So that is what I will explore in my next blog.

The proposed EU-directive on Bank Accounts: wrong tool

Today, the European Commission will announce a proposal for a Directive on Bank Accounts that covers the following areas:

- comparability of bank account fees: the aim is to make it easier for consumers to compare the fees charged for bank accounts by banks and other payment service providers in the EU;

- bank account switching: the purpose is to establish a simple and quick procedure for consumers who wish to change from their current bank account to a different one, with the same or a different bank or other financial institution;

- universal access to bank accounts: the aim is to allow all EU consumers, irrespective of their country of residence or financial situation, to open a payment account, which allows them to perform essential operations.

 

With the proposal the Commission continues its standard policy towards the financial sector: ride the road of regulation as long as the sector is still unpopular with the public. It has done so with regulation 2560 (on fees) which had to motivate banks to speed up intercountry payment processing in Europe and it has in a similar vein used the regulatory process for the Payment Services Directive. Repeatedly we see the banking sector respond with initiatives to improve operations and just as repeatedly we see the European Commission and Parliament find that this was not sufficient and move forward with regulation.

 

At face value, the goals of the Commission with this Directive seem laudable. But what would interest me most is the degree with which the Commission has done its regulatory homework. Quite some time ago, there were EU-initiaves and rules on 'better regulation', which meant that a solid cost-benefit analysis would be required by the Commission before proceeding with further regulation. In the process of discussing switching cost, the Commission did not follow these rules however (see blog).

I remember that at the time I was amazed by the ease with which the Commission bypassed the work done by an EU expert group on user mobility in bank accounts (of which I was a member). The consequence was that, without having proper data as to the degree of problems experienced, the nature of the problems in different countries, the discussion remained a yes/no discussion. So I was quite interested to see if in the mean time there is more hard evidence on the table to determine the nature of the problem that needs to be solved (and to see if it is a European or a national problem).

A quick look at the impact assessment tells me that not much has changed. It is essentially a fast forward reasoning towards the norm that unless everyone in Europe switches bank accounts quite a lot, the market is evidently failing and thus regulation is necessary. Furthermore there is a blind eye as to the different types of service providers: the document assumes all players to be banks with a full service package. In terms of analysis, it is skewed as it misses one alternative explanation for low bank switching rates. That explanation could be that, from a consumer budget point of view, it is more economical and rational to use the scarce time to chip off a small percentage of other purchases (mortgage or lending percentages, tablet-purchases or mobile phone subscriptions) than to spend a lot of time comparing and switching banks and earning very little revenue in the process (see also the presentation here that discusses which assumptions lead to which regulatory preference).

Seeing the current state of discussions (a directive proposal) it seems hard to imagine that the plan would be withdrawn or modified seriously. Still, it would be useful if the Commission had done their homework a bit better and at least had chosen a proper regulatory tool. If indeed the provision of bank accounts accross the EU is a concern, why not choose Universal Services Obligation as the regulatory mechanisms, that is most suited?

We used this mechanism before in Europe, to designate the amount of public telephone's that had to be available to the public. And setting it up for banking isn't hard to do (read this Tilburg University Report) but it does require one thing: a better cost/benefit analysis:
Furthermore, designating all banks to take care of the product dimension of a Universal Services Obligation (e.g., consisting of only a basic bank account service) may be the most effective way of implementing it, provided that the USO has a minimal scope. However, with regard to the geographical dimension of a USO, designating all banks leads to unnecessary cost duplication, so that it is worthwhile to consider other options, such as self-regulation and a franchising mechanism in combination with an auction. In addition, technological developments in a sector are very relevant when assessing the need or desirability of universal service obligations. By interfering in these processes without having made it clear in advance that there is a problem, such developments may be distorted; hence the importance of carrying out a cost-benefit analysis as a starting point.

I think the citizens of Europe are best off with goverments that only regulate when the facts are evident and the tools of regulation are properly geared to the problem at hand. At this point in time, with this Bank Account Directive, I believe we are heading for another emotion-based, cost-increasing all-in Eu-wide regulation, which underlying problems (if any) could have been solved much cheaper and easier by using other more appropriate regulatory tools.


PS. The post is updated at 1823 to include some of the impact assessment data.
 

Bitcoin.... dubious payment mechanism

Every now and then, Bitcoin keeps on popping up in posts (including mine). At first I only looked at the technical bit, but I've come to understand that essentially the amount of coins issued in the system will be fixed. Furthermore, in terms of governance, there is little known about the developer and designer.

So that leaves us with a payment instrument with:
- security by obscurity, both in technical and governance terms,
- uncertainty as to legal rules/jurisdiction applied,
- a limited amount of coins to be issued.
And let me be clear. All of the above mean that it is unfit for use and essentially only an activity that may somehow benefit or amuse the owner.

So, we can be brief about what it is. If presented as a solid payment mechanism, we must officially consider it a mere scam, designed to fool some subcultures in this world to believe that there may be something as a free unregulated worldwide anarchistic form of money that can work. History shows that while some of these systems may work for a while, they will never work for similar time periods as regular currencies do, and the reason for that is the lack of governance, security and legal underpinning.

To illustrate this in a simple way. Bitcoin has a fixed amount of coins. Now imagine a country with a limited amount of money available. This country cannot sustain the use of a limited amount of coins to pay for ever increasing trade and a growing economy. Unless it has a central bank monitoring the amount of money in circulation in relation to economic growth. But Bitcoin doesn't come with a central bank, so the coins will continue to increase in value until they become unpayable. As such it has all the characteristics of a ponzi-scheme. Which means: the last owners of IUOs will pay for those that have exited early.

[Update June 13, 2011: I've come to understand that in technical terms the scheme is open and transparant, yet I'm still struggling with the monetary and governance side of it. And it does take more than pure trust in technicalities to get a payment system to survive.]

Lessons from (Dutch) payment history

Around the year 2000 I was working on both my historical research about the development of payments in the Netherlands and in the payment policy department of the central bank. As a result I started to gain some more insight into the 'unchangeable' dynamics of the payment industry. I summarized these in a presentation that I gave on the First European Financial Cryptography Conference in Edinburgh. You can download the presentation here.

The location in Edinburg was very historic by the way. We were in the library, if I recall correctly, the library of the former parliament of the city. And we were in the hometown of John Law, a famous payment innovator, who was born in Edinburgh and at one point in time wrote: Money and Trade considered (with a Proposal for supplying the Nation with Money). Being asked to provide a key note speech, it seemed appropriate to me to refer to John Law, both in the title of my presentation as in the caveat at the end.

Overlooking many centuries of payment history, my main conclusions were:
1 - Payment techniques travel along with trade,
2 - as did John Law:
3 - The most efficient model is the centralised (giro) model . .
4 - but religion/legal rules determine local specifics of instrument use
5 - Kings and governments always want a piece of the action
6 - Country specific instruments only work with a fair deal of trust
7 - Security must be learnt - the Dutch banknotes
8 - Convertability into ‘real value’ is essential but not essential
9 - Accepted because confidence in the ability to respend it
10 - Any payment is in itself quite uninteresting to the user
11 - The payment product is a hygiene factor
12 - User risk depends on more than technical security
13 - Operating a payment system can be very profitable
14 - Respect existing deeply rooted traumas and successes
15 - Interoperability has never been a major problem for end-user
16 - Reduce the number of messages in payment protocols
17 - Don’t overvalue anonimity
18 - Multifunctionality won’t work with more than 1 organisation
19 - Critical role for government and the large retailers
20 - How to make new payment mechanisms work ?

And while all this took place at the second floor of the library in Edinburgh, his original book, as sent to parliament, was downstairs. What really made my day is that afterwards, when I went down, the librarian was so kind as to allow me to have a look at the original book, Money and Trade, that John Law sent to parliament (despite the fact that the library was officially closed and it was officially her free Saturday)

Paying cash more expensive than using the debit-card

Here's an interesting bit of research done in the Netherlands. All shops, banks and central bank have joined forces to evaluate the cost of payments with cash, when compared to debit-card. The results are that it has taken us in the Netherlands some 15 years to ensure that the full cost of debit-card payments are lower than cash-payments.

The research outlines that:
- full cost of payments in retail are down from 839 million euro in 2001 to 788 million in 2006,
- in 1992 a debit-card payment was triple as costly as a cash payment
- in 1998 the debit-card payment with PIN was roughly twice as costly as a cash payment
- in 2006 the debit-card payment is almost the same price as a cash payment (20-18 cents in retail-environment),
so that now, at the end of 2007 it's safe to state that the full cost of Dutch debit-card payments to merchants are lower than cash payments (on a per transaction basis).

As a consequence, the retailer representative organisations advise all merchants to use the debit-card rather than cash and to stop old habits that date from earlier days: the surcharging for use of the debit-card. Because other research by the central bank shows that still 20 % of the retailers surchagre an amount of approximately 23 cents for payment wit a debit-card.

So one landmark achievement is that over here in the Netherlands we have started to beat cash in terms of real cost.

Comes with it another interesting development. One fifth of the retailers surcharges 23 cents for a debit-card transaction that costs them 20 cents. Leading to a 3 cent per transaction profit. The bank-side of this equasion is that banks sell their debit-card transaction for 5 cents, while it effectively costs them 13 cents (see McKinsey reports in 2005). Meaning that debit-card payments have turned into a profit maker for retailers and a bleeder for banks.

This makes you wonder why it would make sense for banks to still subsidize debit-card payments to merchants with a one cent per transaction 'efficiency-stimulus' as agreed in the 2005 Covenant.