Contemplating 75 years of freedom: a dark story on three Dutch lessons never learnt

First of all I must warn all readers. This is not a happy blogpost. It is not funny. It is a dark and sobering tale of lessons that we should have learnt in the Netherlands. A tale about lessons that we never learnt. Lessons that still hold immense value today. Lessons that we owe it to be taken to heart when we reflect on the 75 years of freedom that we will celebrate next week.

From Rotterdam to Amsterdam: records and track records

This post connects two cities that I lived in for the longest time in my life. First of all; Rotterdam, the place of my birth. It was bombed to ashes early on in WorldWar 2. Except for one place: the city hall. Reason being? That's where the population records were. Cunning Germans, as my dad explained to me. 

Next up is Amsterdam, where the Anne Frank house and her statue form the background against which new children grow up in freedom. Where Stolpersteine remind us of those who lived here before us. Where the elder lady with her dog told us what is was like to grow up here. How the Germans were raiding the houses and pushing their bajonets into the ceilings to discover if people were hiding.

Amsterdam is the city of the 'dot-map'. It is the map that the Amsterdam city administration drew up on request of the occupying Germans, that wanted to know: where do the jewish people live?

It sounds like a simple question: an administrative thing, strange request perhaps, but why not just answer it? Let's cooperate collaborate. So the map says: One dot is 10 jews. Take it in and look history in the face.

The particular situation here in the Netherlands (J.H.Blom - source) was that our government had fled and the Germans put their officials in charge of the Dutch civil servants. This is a marked contrast with Denmark, where they let the Germans enter with the military but stayed in office and controlled their bureaucracy.

There is a lot more to read in the study of Blom but one of the very striking elements is the efficient bureaucracy in the Netherlands, in combination with a tendency to cooperate and answer properly to Authority. Whichever the source of Authority.

The very sad fact of the matter is that after the war we could learn that in Western Europe, the Netherlands turned out to be the country where 75% of its Jewish population died, as compared to 40% in Norway and Belgium, 25% in France and almost 0% in Denmark.

If we look history in the ugly eye, this is (literally) a track record that the Dutch must carry as a scar on and in their souls. A fact that obliges us to honour the deceased and make sure that we learnt something. But do we really?

History is distant and can be easily forgotten
This is all maps and statistics from earlier days. If we wish we can look away and forget. So let me warn you as I bring the lesson closer to home. To this end I draw on a pre-Corona visit that I paid to the excellent exposition covering 300 years of insurer Stad Rotterdam. now ASR. During the visit I stopped by and looked at the part on World War II, where I bumped into someone who turned out to have contributed to that part of the exposition.

He is a commited lawyer who until today still tries to resolve the administrative wrongdoings of the past. His story on what he found in archives, on what he did not find, was very sobering. He had seen files where a fanatic anti-semite employee hammered a J multiple times on the insurance policies of Jewish clients. And he explained how the Germans would start out with simple requests with more serious consequences kicking in later.

A typical example of this is the introduction of a generic duty to register and issue personal ID-s. This was formally introduced in October 1940 in the Netherlands and came info effect in April 1941. And then, one year later, all IDs of Jewish people needed to be stamped with a J. So we see bureaucratic evil of the end made possible by fairly innocent baby steps in the beginning.

Administrative witnesses of the insurance sector: during the World War 2
One of the most well known German tricks pulled in World War 2 in Amsterdam was the take over and manipulation of the Lippman Rosenthal brand by setting up a sort of second bank or branch-office with the same name. This second office was effectively German run and a 'robbery-bank' that sold off assets of Jewish clients. This bank plays a sinister role in the documents that I will be publishing here.

It started out with a request that Jewish people declare to their bank that they are Jewish, as via a specific Regulation, the only bank paying out the life insurances would be the Li-Ro-robbery bank. Here's the snapshot of the regulation and the form to be filled in.

Regulation outlining obligatioo to insurers to pay out
their clients only via the Li-Ro robbery bank

And here is the form and letter that people were sent. Please declare yourself to be Jewish.

Form with request to fill in if you are Jewish or not

Now the involved insurers didn't really all like this idea and they figured out: if we don't know for certain if someone is deceased, we can't really transfer all the money to Li-Ro bank. So the exposition shows a bank writing to the Li-Ro bank on this specific issue. 

Now beware of the answer which dates to January 1943.  I will translate it here:

Through the contact that we have with the relevant authorities we have been informed that Jewish people that have been deported by government order will be totally taken out of the society and nothing will be ever possibly heard of them. As a result they are, sort of automatically, also completely annihilated in respect to your administration but we note that, if no further measures are taken, their remaining insurances would continue to exist.

It will be clear to you that the circumstances in which the aforementioned Jewish people find themselves in society - but with respect to you as well - have lead to a situation that is equal to that where an insurance policy ends due to the death of the insured, which means that we need to find a way to bring those insurance to a pay-out.

We invite you, the pay to us the relevant reserves that you have amassed to this end, while deducting a considerable reward for the risks that you have taken.We look forward to your proposal.

Administrative witnesses: after the war
Imagine that you survived this World War 2. And that you want to claim the insurance funds that you are entitled to. And the response being: please can you prove that the person you are referring to is actually dead? Survivors of the war atrocities had to endure long and terrible administrative procedures to restore their rights.

Here is a witness that matters. It is a letter dating from 1950 and it is a declaration by a Red Cross official. It specifies the dates of deportation as well as the names of three survivors who have had to make a personal declaration to the Red Cross. It says that

... it is clear from the declaration of those three people (out of 33.000 deported to Sobibor), who stayed of a longer period in time in the camp, that almost all people that came to Sobibor were almost immediately being suffocated by gas and cremated afterwards. Given that nothing has ever been heard since the conclusion is that the person in question has died on 11-6-1943 of the consequence of suffocation.

No happy ending.... 
There is no happy ending to this story.

Survivors had to fight administrative wars and it took until 1999 before some sort of settlement was made between representatives of the Jewish community and the Dutch Insurance Industry. Part of the settlement is that a Foundation for individual claims SJOA has been set up. And until today the foundation is still actively assisting and doing research to do justice.

Which brings me full square back to my neighbourhood in Amsterdam. There are not just the silent physical reminders of history, the Stolpersteine in the streets. We also find reminders on the web, in this list of holders of insurance premiums. If I type in the names of the streets around me, their names come back to help me remember what happened.

Three lessons to heed...
We, society in general but the Dutch in particular, owe it to all of those who gave their lives during the war, hoping for true freedom, to heed three lessons we appear to have never really learnt:

1- we must better understand the mechanics, the workings of records, administrations and bureaucracies and the ease with which what looks like a legitimate government action can turn into an evil one that starts a persecution on illegitimate grounds,

2- we must remember that it is the atrocities of World War 2 that made us formulate the Human Rights Declaration, which formulates the fundamental rights that protect us,

3- we must cherish and protect our fundamental right to privacy as one of the most important defenses against bureaucracies turning evil.

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.

Why some countries started using cheques and others chose giro

These days I am busy writing a book on the history of Dutch retail payments. The focus of the book is on the dynamics of the Netherlands, without the aim to compare with other countries or to explain country differences. Still, the process leads to some observations that I would like to share as they may be useful for other researchers in the field.

What explains the origins of giro and cheque countries?
One of the basic facts in retail payments is that there is a structural difference between so-called giro-countries (Austria, Switzerland, Japan, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium etc) and cheque-countries (France, US, Canada, Australia).

In his excellent dissertation on payments and network effects, Gottfried Leibbrandt sets out to answer this question. After a thorough investigation of literature, he concludes that network effects are an important factor that helps explain the typical development path per country. At the same time, he finds it hard to trace the origin of the difference between cheque- and giro-countries
1. There is no satisfying explanation for the country differences. Empirical studies find that country idiosyncrasies rather than variables like GDP and crime explain the differences in instrument usage.

In a similar vein, the first BIS working group on Retail Payments observes:
Use of different retail payment instruments in the so-called cheque countries and giro countries can be explained by the differences in: 
• concentration of market supply among traditional providers of retail payment services; 
• financial incentives for providers with respect to debit and credit transfers; 
• nature of the risks in the value transfer processes for the two types of payments; and 
• legal framework and regulatory environment.
Of course the above list is long enough to be right and the report also mentions numerous French regulations that influenced its use, in particular also the rule that payment with cheques should be free to the people. And indeed this legal factor must not be forgotten.

Where is the cheque in the Netherlands?
In the Netherlands, a well functioning system of so-called cashiers notes existed, alongside regular cash for quite some time. Then in 1814, the establishment of the central bank and the introduction of bank notes introduced competition for the cashiers. In the early 1830s one of the cashiers fought a heavy legal battle to preserve the use of its cashiers notes, but eventually gave in to the reality that the bank notes were becoming the standard.

Ever since, the central bank was careful not to obstruct the cashiers and bankers too much in their business operations. So as a practical measure, the central bank took care to set its fees for deposits and discounted bills of exchange at a less competitive rate than the market. But fact of the matter remains that a possible candidate for a privately issued Dutch payment cheque, was no longer available.

Some parliamentary proceedings suggest that the legal rules with respect to bills of exchange 'wissels' were insufficient to really create a sound basis for the use of cheques as a payment instrument. As a result the market used bank notes in combination with clearing arrangements.

This intrigued me so when looking for more information on the topic I encountered a college book (by Mr. W. Molengraaf) that suddenly shed more light on the situation in other countries.

What Molengraaff states is that cheques came into existence in the United Kingdom as 'sight-bills' on a banker. They were brought into circulation as an alternative payment instrument to circumvent the stamp duty that would apply to a regular bill of exchange. He continues to state that also in France the cheques owe their existence solely to tax considerations.

Up next I figured I would take a look at a US stamp duty register from 1866. And we can indeed see the difference there. A bank check would cost 2 cents, regardless of the sum involved, while a bill of exchange would cost 5 cents and possibly more when higher amounts were involved.

To me it's clear that stamp duty may well be an important part of the puzzle, explaining the difference between giro and cheque-countries. But we should add an analysis of market structure, competing instruments to complete the picture.

The particular Dutch situation.... 
In the Dutch situation we will see that the discussion on setting up postal giro services started around 1902, already with references to the situation in other countries. It took us more than 10 years to decide on the establishment of the postal giro services and indeed market structure and some regulatory capture may have influenced the discussion. Also it became pretty clear that the incumbent bankers and cashiers did not want to move forward with their own version of bankers giro. But that's stuff for a next blog.

In the mean time, if you enjoyed this blog, you may want to let me know that you're interested to be informed when my book on hundred years of Dutch giro payments will be published. This will help you understand more of the intertwined dynamics that are at work when retail payment systems and instruments are developed.

Just send an e-mail here and I will notify you when the book is coming up.

Reflection on almost 100 years of retail payments in the Netherlands

These next few days we will be processing the last Chipknip transactions in the Netherlands. This marks the end of a period of almost hundred years of consumer payments in the Netherlands. Here is a brief reflection on this period. My hope is that we retain our innovative mindset and that we abandon old school practices like: competition on technology and inward-thinking-based marketing practices.

The beginnings
It all started out with a certain demand of the public and small retailers, around 1900. It took however more than ten years before the city giro of Amsterdam (1916) and the national giro of the Netherlands (1918) were set up. In the period leading up to this moment, the cashiers were asked whether they wished to improve their services, as this might lead to the parliament to conclude that no national giro was necessary. Their response was too meagre as a result of which they created their biggest rival: the national giro system, operated by government.

This system effectively created a benchmark for the private industry by offering (some time after it's start) payment services for free to the public. Today we would call this the Internet model, but in those days, this lead to repeated discussions on the undue competition element. Bankers and cashiers assumed that the national giro was cross-subsidized by government; while effectively the reverse became true. The national giro acted as a cash cow that covered some of the other costs for the Ministry of Transport (including the costs of post offices etc).

The city giro Amsterdam has stood out mostly for its innovations: the use of modern bookkeeping machines, the introduction of photo-imaging (in the 1930s) to process payments easier as well as the early introduction of a payment card to the public. The national giro, in turn, was early to create a mechanism of inpayments that could be used by government services, that used similar (punch card) standards.

In this respect it should be noted that the national giro, during the previous century, was plagued by several operational distortions, leading to 'giro stops'. One big one occurred in the 1920s and shut the system down for almost a year, other ones happened after the second world war. These stops instilled a big trauma into the organisation with the effect that when in 1965 a change was made to using punch cards and mainframes, this was done with meticulous scientific precision in order not to fail. Ever since, the postal giro (later Postbank) would be very keen and strong in the area of operational logistics and control.

Competition on standards and technology
For the most part of the evolution of Dutch payments, there were differences in technology used. A first attempt to bridge these differences occurred after the second world war when a commission on the integration of giro traffic tried to bridge the bankers vs giro gap. This didn't work out.

In the mid 1960s the bankers were keen to find funding in the retail market and realised they needed a better clearing system to process faster payments. While they were in the process of deliberating this move, the postal giro offered them to join/use the same standards as they were, in order to achieve uniform processing. For strategic reasons, the banks decided not to do this and chose a slightly modified technology and numbering system of their own. Remember: this was of course the age of shielding off markets by technology.

The net effect for the consumers and companies was less positive however. In the end it took some 30 years to create bridging standards/protocols to integrate the different payment standards of bank and giro. And even when the digital, networking time started (in the 1980s) banks and giro found it hard to abandon the classic competition by technology paradigm. For the EFTPOS network they did use a common standard and this also seemed to work for the Chipknip e-money products. Yet, due to misunderstandings and distrust at the board room level, the Postbank decided to jump the Chipknip ship to start the separate Chipper product. Again, the effect was that consumers and retailers were burdened with dual standards in a market that is too small to do so.

Inward based marketing of the big banks
With the deregulation of financial markets and the privatisation of the Postbank, all providers of payments were commercial companies. The Dutch banks grew bigger and with that their bureaucracies. Postbank gradually lost its touch-and-feel as a former public entity and became a bank like all others. The best event that symbolises this is the abolition of the Postbank brand by ING.

The net effect of becoming bigger and more ambitious is that straightforward customer research and marketing gets stampified. This is a word that I coined to denote the fact that in those big banking bureaucracies the responsibilities of employees - with the only exception of the board - becomes limited to the size of a postal stamp. The result is that these companies (marketing) departments require more time for internal debate, offcie politics and consensus-finding which they can't spend at finding out how to best serve the customer.

The consequence of this stampification is that the banks lose touch with their customers and reality. Our last retail payment product, the Chipknip, showed this most clearly. The ridiculous local battle between two competing e-money schemes (although perfect from a competition perspective) created so much nuisance for retailers that this inspired them to get back at the banks. Infuriated by high terminal switching costs, they found the newly set up competition authority at their side to fight the banks cartel behaviour.

As such our retailers were quite successful: the banks were being fined and a part of the fine was channeled towards them (via a Covenant) to improve the EFTPOS situation in the Netherlands. This Covenant was even prolonged to ensure a continued collective rebate for retailers on EFTPOS fees. Effectively we could thus see the retailers as being the clear winners in the last 15 years of retail payments here in the Netherlands. [And as with today's MIF-debate we can wonder whether the benefits they derived from emptying the pockets of banks did really end up in the consumer pockets by lower prices.]

Back to inward-based-marketing: the best (and typical) example is the way the Chipknip product was initially taken off the market. Banks informed the customers that they all had to unload their Chipknips at specific loading/unloading points. This lead to a big confusion and questions on twitter. Eventually some individual banks decided to give the money back on the basis of the internal administration so that customers didn't need to bother going to an obscure loading point. And then, quickly, all banks decided to do this.

I sincerely hope that we will no longer witness these old school thinking marketing methods in the new year. Banks need to find a way to innovate and listen to clients and society or they will be trapped in old behaviour that is only comprehensible from a stampification point of view but not understandable for customers outside the bank.

Outlook
If history is anything to go by, we may well see a repetition of the SEPA-dynamics in the banking domain. What I mean with that is the following: as banks are busy lining up their internal systems in order to conform with a whole range of upcoming new EU regulation (keywords: PSD2, MIF, AML), the non-banks will be able to build all kinds of new products at the fringes of the payments market.

Most of these new products won't be made from a payments perspective but will solve a user problem. Creating a payment button in these products doesn't require much more than a direct customer relation and a European direct debit agreement. So we might well see the banks moving into a back-seat role of providers of the payment rails for non-bank providers of user services.

Where and how to look for innovation in payments ?

This week I had the pleasure of joining a panel on retail payments innovation as a part of a seminar by van Doorne and Innopay on the Payment Services Directive and the future changes for the payment industry. Panel chair Gijs Boudewijn challenged me to formulate some thoughts on the future direction of retail payments. I answered that the best place to look would be in places and via perspectives that we could be overlooking right now.

1. Is it access to the account or a traceable id that matters?
There is a lot of discussion on the text of the second Payment Services Directive and on the legal and technical mechanisms that are required to make access to the account work. Due to their origin, these discussions are quite bank centric and the implementation issues surrounding this topic will drain a lot of resources of many players involved.

While being busy with this PSD2 issue, we may overlook the fact that all one really needs is a simple chip-id. In the Netherlands for example, one could use the chip-id of public transport ticket issuer TLS as a basis for use in hip and new proprietary retailer/consumer applications. These would combine the chip-id with an intelligent voucher/billing/customer system that utilises SEPA-direct debits in the back-end. It would provide a smooth customer and retailer experience while the bank only sees regular transactions.

My proposition here is that if we're all looking towards access to the account as the hot spot for innovation, we may be looking in the wrong direction. It might be more about the traceable id.

2. The retailers have landed in an interesting position
In his tomorrows transactions blog Dave Birch referred to an analysis by Peter Jones from PSE on the impact of the interchange fee regulation, published in the Journal for Payments Strategy and Systems. The main conclusion of it was that financially the retailers are the winners by getting a cap on their fees. I agree with that and would be inclined to broaden this perspective.

By tradition banks were the players with the monopoly on payments technology and security knowledge. Even in the 1980s, the collective of retailers in the Netherlands had done a feasibility study to set up their own Point of Sale system. This showed they could set it up for € 5 million euro but they didn't want to take the risk of it failing. So they left it to the banks (to complain about high fees later).

Since that time, the knowledge on processing and payments has become available to a wide range of players, to the extend that banks are now lagging in expertise and capability (while being locked into old technology solutions). The consequence is that retailers will be well able to develop or use in-house apps, customer relation services and payment mechanisms that use the bank infrastructure, without being subject to the rules of the Payment Services Directive.

The main development is therefore that the obliged intermediary role of banks in providing payment mechanisms is gone and will erode. Retailers can regain their customer relationship by themselves or in cooperation with any other ICT-provider that allows them to identify the customer and provide a processing infrastructure. Some interesting innovations can therefore be expected at the outer boundaries of the PSD, as a consequence of the possible exemptions.

I expect both physical and e-retailers to use the non-bank, non-payment space that the PSD defines to achieve exactly what they're after: increased customer retention, increased conversion and a smooth payment experience. Bottom line: we might better be looking outside of the PSD to see innovation in action.

3. On ledgers and tokens
As a final thought I would encourage everyone to try a different mindset for the developments that we are witnessing. Because in essence, anything that happens (in payments/retail) boils down to either tokens (coins, notes, points) or ledgers (private or public). Now let's see what happens if we apply this framework.

We might then appreciate the bitcoin emergence as an innovation in the area of collective ledger provision with distributed trust. We could reposition Linked-In as a privately owned, open and self-administered ledger, that logs individuals achievements that are relevant in the work domain. The same would hold for Facebook and many other e-commerce companies. We would call banks the keepers of the trusted and well protected financial ledgers and would also note that in the public domain, a whole range of ledgers are being interconnected for the sake of security, anti-fraud measures etc.

We could also look at the world of tokens, in its many variations. Tokens of shopping behaviour (saving points), tokens of access (tickets), tokens from government (coins and banknotes), tokens of appreciations (awards, prizes) and tokens that prove identity or personal characteristics. Some of those tokens might be valuable and lead to a change of some of the ledgers, while others would have a role in their own right (voucher for a free coffee).

While it is clear that there are quite a few interesting new developments in the ledger-space, could it be that it is the token-domain where the true action is going to be ?

Payments as an afterthought
In sum: the non-bank, identity-based, non-regulated commercial domain might well be the area where we can see innovations that show us how today's technology can be made to work best so that payments become the afterthought that they are.

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.

Bitcoin legal classification in Germany: much ado about ... ?

These days I noticed an interesting discussion in my Twitter time line and on the web on the fact that the German government has 'recognized' Bitcoins (even as legal tender, as cnbc reported for some time). There were many reports on the matter, outlining that Bitcoin is apparently gaining further acceptance among regulators. But as the reports were a bit confusing I felt it would be good to track the sources.

German MP Schäfflers enquired about tax-treatment for Bitcoins
It turns out that a German MP, Frank Schäfflers, has been asking his Ministry of Finance how the taxation rules applies in situations where people use Bitcoin as an instrument of trade/payment. And later on he asked a follow up question whether or not the use of Bitcoins as a payment mechanism would be exempt from VAT (as is the case with German legal tender). Here is the link to the source documents.

The German Ministry of Finance outlined in its response that:
- commercial transactions where bitcoins are being used for payment, have the tax regime on the basis of the transactions' commercial nature; so the use of bitcoins doesn't disturb the regular taxation rules,
- goverment agencies are still discussing how to tax the value increase of bitcoin holdings over a year,
- bitcoins are not legal tender, nor e-money, but a form of private currency which classify as 'Devisen oder Rechnungseinheiten': under the German supervision law (article 11, sub 7).

The Rechnungseinheiten can be translated as unit of accounts, but the explanation of the German Ministry of Finance is that this definition covers - amongst others- all private currencies or units of accounts which are not based on legal tender. Essentially is a catch-all definition to capture any sort of privately agreed payment mechanism that can be used in multilateral clearing or settlement.

The regulatory logic: classification rather than recognition
While to the observer it may appear that the German regulator is leapfrogging into the modern world by outlining the status of bitcoin, the reality may be less exciting. The German Ministry of Finance merely outlined how, given the existing rules on taxation and payments, bitcoins qualify under their supervision law. This is rather a technical exercise and it can be seen that only for income tax issue (what to do with bitcoin holdings that change in value), they haven't yet got an answer.

So yes, the bitcoin has a legal status, but then again: any new development, instrument or technology already is subject to the law book. The fact that the Ministry has now pinpointed the article of the law book where they think the object fits, may therefore not be so spectacular.

If we look at the Netherlands, a similar situation appears. Anyone is free to determine whether to exchange services by paying for them or by using other forms of payment. . I could buy a bread in exchange for washing a car. And if the bakery would accept bitcoin rather than washing their car, it would work as well. The use of bitcoin can be considered payment in kind. Given this regulatory payment mode, our legal system is already recognising alternative forms of payments.

The same holds for the taxation part. The VAT rules on services do not change if the payment leg of my transaction is different. And the income tax rules don not change either. The Dutch rules state that if you hold something which has value, it must be registered on the tax declaration. In this declaration, the bitcoins in a wallet thus show up as the money in my bank account does.

As for the legal tender part of the discussion: I view that as an overrated concept. While in earlier times, the concept of legal tender meant that the other entity in a transaction had to accept the notes and coins, this obligation has been struck out of our Dutch law book many years ago. But it still lingers in the mind of many people and may of course in some other countries still be more relevant.

Future developments
What I find most interesting about the news is the quick and fast coverage that new forms of payments and regulation get in the media and with the public. We can see that the developments are positioned as the story of the recognition of bitcoin by the regulator or as the coming of age for bitcoin. Regardless of the angle of these reports, it is clear that things are happening and moving in the area of private, digital, distributed currencies. And it will be interesting to see this area develop further.

The ECB-report on virtual currency schemes: some reflections

The last month, the ECB published a report on virtual currency schemes. I have been reading this with great interest as it signals the involvement of the central banks in a new area: virtual currrencies. The relevance of this report must therefore not be misunderstood. We should remember that in 1994, the EMI-report on pre-paid cards signalled the start of the regulation of prepaid-cards and electronic money products. And in a similar style, this report may become the starting point for regulation of virtual currencies.

In general, central banks are to be commended for monitoring the developments in the area of money, retail payments and near-money products. If you're a central bank, an institution that is responsible for true money, than it it always good to know what other forms of money are in circulation. And as such the report of the ECB demonstrates that the European central banks are alert.

Analytical basis could improve
I must say however that I was also somewhat disappointed. The analytical framework presented in the report is a bit shaky in my view.  It does not rest on the nature of the subject discussed (virtual tokens and currencies), but on how they are 'regulated'. As an approach, I find this little convincing. Furthermore I noted that 'unregulated' is not defined. Does it mean that central banks or supervisors are not involved or that no regulation applies at all?

As an alternative I would point out the possibility of using frameworks suchs as this one (taken from the American Law Review):

It is interesting to note that the empty box in this table can now be filled with: Bitcoin as an example of a system where money can circulate freely without returning to a central mint.

Which electronic tokens are currency of money and which are not?
The ECB distinghuishes between three virtual currency types, in terms of openness of the systems involved.

Type 1 is a closed link system in which the digital tokens are only usable in the system itself. The example the ECB provides is the World of Warcraft Gold. And although the picture suggests that there is no link to the real economy, the ECB notes: However, there seems to be a black market for buying and selling WoW Gold outside the virtual currency scheme. If Blizzard Entertainment discovers any illegal exchange, it can suspend or ban a player’s account. 

Type 2 contains systems where users pre-pay services of a supplier in the form of private issuer tokens such as facebook credits. And type 3 systems are open systems of privately issued tokens/currency that can be bought and sold. It is in this category that bitcoin and Linden dollars are placed.

What is lacking in this model, is the Type of model 1b where there is no formal buying or selling of tokens, but there is a relation to the physical world. It is the world of loyalty points and tokens, which can be earned and redeemed, but never exchanged for money itself. The ECB places these under the category II.

It appears to me that in doing so, the ECB doesn't distinguish sufficiently between loyalty tokens and payment tokens,which each have a different role to play in the business model of their issuer. An alternative table might have been:

	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

The missing element: mobile money
What intrigues me is that the digital money on mobile phones is not a part of the discussion. It is by its definition (an exemption in the e-money directive) an unregulated form of digital money. Yet, the ECB has been so long accustomed to the strange sequence of events that made the European Commission decide that money on antenna's of MNO"s is not electronic money, that they forgot to include it in the analysis.

The reputation argument.....
Finally I noticed that the ECB finds, that if these virtual currency schemes (however defined) grow too much, they might give rise to a reputation issue for the central banks. Here again I think the analysis is a bit too strongly worded. Central banks can simply outline their scope of work and responsibility by stating that they  are not in any way responsible for money that they didn't issue and supervise. By clearly and repeatedly informing the public of this fact, the public can then choose to take a risk with the virtual currencies or stay out of them.

Yet, I wouldn't be surprised if this reputation argument (or a comparable public policy objective: transparancy) becomes the main angle from which future supervision of these schemes will be justified.

Use twitter to create banknotes: the punkmoney concept

This year in May, I was visiting the 15th Digital Money Forum (well organised as ever, by Dave Birch and his team at Hyperion), and ran across a very elegant alternative payment concept, that makes use of Twitter as a technology. The concept was called: Punkmoney and its developer Eli Gothill explained on the forum the workings and background of the concept (see the presentation here and read an interview with Eli on the background here). With the concept, he took a step back in time, skipping to the times before money was used widely.

In these early times, we can imagine societies to be local communities in which the economy consisted of exchange of services and committments. The scale of the village/community was limited and thus a trusted network of users would exchange services, goods or favours, knowing that either directly or over time, the service or favour (helping in building a house) would be returned. Later on in history the concept of money took over, so that the chain of exchange would become longer. A favour or service would then be paid for with money, that could be used to buy a service or good elsewhere.

Now, what Punkmoney does, is to use Twitter to re-create the old 'favour/gift-economy' in which no money existed. In order to print your own banknotes on Twitter, all you need to do is use your existing account and the hashtag #punkmoney. In English you might call these: Twitnotes or in Dutch: Twitbiljet. So let's see what a Twitnote looks like in real life:

As you can see, this is a promise from me to Occupy Amsterdam (@potbanging_NL) to deliver a brief talk on the financial history of Beursplein. As I used Twitter, it is a public statement that everyone can read. As such it is also read by the Punkmoney tracker, which makes a record of the statement. This central database registers all promises made on Twitter with the hashtag #punkmoney and thus serves as a register in which you can see which promises were made.

Now back to the Twitnote. My Tweet says NT at the end, which means that it is non-transferable. Another option might have been to state: TSA, meaning: Transfer Subject to Approval. In addition, my promise is quite exact in that it specifies specific moment in time when I will deliver a brief presentation (13 October on  a global noise manifestation). Alternatively I could have left out this specific time and have noted: expires in 2 years/months/days.

Of course there's a lot more technical details to be told on how to transfer and redeem notes. But the important thing to note here is that anyone who is seeking alternatives for money in its current form, can easily use the punkmoney concept in his/her community to start exchanging goods/services by using Twitter.

As I understand from Eli, he is going to be presenting his Punkmoney system/concept to the banking community on the next SIBOS (a very important banking conference for all companies, banks, central banks etc. in the world). And I truly hope that the delegates there will recognize the elegance and beauty of his design.

Outsider ideas in the payment space.... seldom really new..

One week ago Rabobank Nederland announced that it might de-activate the possibility to use their debit-card outside Europe, in an effort to eliminate fraud. And today the Financieele Dagblad has an article in which it becomes clear that an entrepreneur claims that this is actually his idea and not Rabo.

He's written the idea of functional/geographic application controls (including de-activation for certain geography) down as his idea, sent it to the Rabobank. And some time later he even spoke with Rabobank. And now that he discovers that Rabobank will in practice block geographic use, he claims that Rabobank has stolen his idea. It appears that he's in full swing with preparation of a court case.

I think this court case may not be effective. Application and functional controls in the payment area are around since ages. There can be checks and limits on payments via certain channel, with certain amounts, to or from a geographic area, number of times of use, branche-codes and what have you. And we have seen these developing over the years. In a planned talk on this issue in 2004 I already mentioned the user control of these application controls.

In this particular case (blocking a geographic area for card use), it was clear ten years ago that there would come a time that EMV-debit-cards would be blocked for use in countries that hadn't fully migrated to EMV. And that the amount of fraud would essentially determine the timing.

Now I do understand the serendipity-element in this story. It must be frustrating for an outsider to think that he has found the golden idea in payments and observe one bank (that he spoke to) introducing 'his' idea. However, this was certainly not a unique idea, but an inevitable, already foreseen consequence of technology migration and fraud.

Digital Money Forum 2012... 15th anniversary and lively as ever

The Digital Money Forum is an event that this year reached it's 15th anniversary. And a special event it is. My previous visit to the Forum was probably some ten years ago, when everyone was pretty much into the e-money way of life. But technology, money and society continue to develop and that's where Dave Birch and his team of Consult Hyperion come in. In setting up the forum they provide for a lively and thought-provoking event where money is dealth with from all different angles. And as before, it was a pleasure to participate.

So this years event was special in many ways. We all got a better look at the evolving phone payment landscape, delved into possible future scenario's for the world and money, we spoke about the future and death of cash, about social inclusion and lots, lots more. And, quite fascinating, I got to issue my own currency, PunkMoney, via Twitter, by promising the developer, Eli Gothill, two beers and a financial history tour in Amsterdam.

A bit more on the principles of Punkmoney (as I understand them). If we look at money it is an invention to facilitate transactions in society. But before the official money we had mutual obligations and trust relations in society. I would help my neighbours out with building their house, assuming they would do the same for me, in time. And so on. So there was this web of mutual obligations and promises that cemented the relations in society.

Now what Punkmoney does is to leave all the monetary issues and digital money aside and elegantly replicate this web of promises. With some rules as how to form proper messages, Twitter as the carrier and a software enige that scans twitter for any promises of Punkmoney. And when it finds one, it registers it and there you have it. Not the real money, but something even better: real promises. Just as trustworthy as... yourself.

After Punkmoney, we moved on to another kind of money. Monopoly money, sitting on a Samsung phone (with an application neatly developed by Easan).

Six teams on six tables started playing and as for me personally, I was literally quite lucky. I landed on 3 airports in the beginning of the game, won some lotteries and eventually turned into a big shot property owner. I turned out to be the winner of the competition, with an awesome price: this incredibly beautiful banknote (an official German forgery of a UK 20 pound note; part of the Bernhard operation):

Some more on that will follow on my financial history blog later.