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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(i) stored on an electronic device;

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

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

Redeemability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 5, 2020


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perspectives on Ca-Libra # 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.

Facebook obtained its e-money license : is it the gamechanger for the bigtech disruption of finance ?

About three weeks ago, Facebook has obtained it's e-money license in Ireland. This was in the making since early 2014 and it begs the question whether or not this will mark a big shift in the banking landscape.

Bigtech going for finance?

One could argue that the move by Facebook is another of many steps of big tech players moving into the financial arena and disrupting the financial sector. Where Google has lead the pact from London (with a license in 2007), Amazon chose Luxembourg (license in 2010, passport-out in 2012). With Facebook going down the same path, could we expect Apple or Microsoft to also set up their e-money institution?

My guess is that the bigtech will indeed all move towards some form of e-money license in Europe. It will allow them a direct billing and payment relationship with their customers as well as a role in terms of payment provider for their platforms and services. This is not to say that they will move there fast. If I'm correct, my Google account payments still do not flow via their e-money institution but via a normal bank.

Now, if this happens indeed, will the bigtech further move into financial services or just stick with digital cash and consumer credit?

Bigtech won't dive deep into finance

I don't expect the bigtech to move into full finance for many reasons. We've seen some of the current players moving still quite slowly and sticking to the straightforward business of e-money.

Moving towards other business lines leads to increased complexity and regulatory burden. Bear in mind that the future revenue opportunities for financial institutions as a whole are quite limited and not so attractive. Finally, financial institutions are often held to a higher standard with respect to maintaining their customers privacy, whereas customer data are the lifeblood for Bigtech.

Further move towards less-cash society

The main impact of bigtech going e-money will therefore be the acceleration of our move to wards a less-cash society in which strong brands, platforms and retailers issue their own payment instruments and digital cash. From the outset, Facebook cash could become a big hit as it has the user base, a regular usage pattern for its users and the possibility to best integrate it's e-money functions within their own platform

Only time will tell whether Facebook is also viewed by the public - reputationwise - as a partner to be trusted with your money. But we can rest assured that their offerings will certainly contribute to a less-cash society.

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.

Dutch central bank will strictly supervise banks / payment institutions that deal with virtual currencies (and companies)

Just one hour ago DNB, the Dutch central bank and bank supervisor, issued a warning on bitcoin. It was not the regular warning or disclaimer for consumers, but a warning for the payments industry. Essentially DNB concludes that virtual currencies (bitcoins and altcoins) are viewed as products with a very high risk profile. DNB also announces that it will strictly supervise banks and payment institutions:

DNB will therefore strictly assess the compliance with applicable law (a.o. Wwft and Wft) for those banks and payment institutions that decide to get involved - in whichever way - with virtual currency-companies or that decide to invest in virtual currencies themselves. In 2014, DNB will investigate whether banks and payment institutions are actively involved with new payment products such as virtual currencies and (it) will assess the degree to which these institutions control/manage their integrity risks. The control should include effective measures with respect to client acceptance and the monitoring of new innovative suppliers. 

Guidance considerations
The brief statement of DNB contains some considerations that are the basis for this decision. A first consideration has to do with anonimity. DNB notes that transactions are being recorded in a public transaction ledger. Given that these transactions cannot be matched to physical persons and the virtual currencies are usable as a means of payment, they are an attractive chain of a money laundering process.

The current anonimity in virtual currency systems has consequences for banks and payment institutions. As a result of this anonimity, the buyers and sellers of virtual currencies become indirect relations of the bank. Thise indirect relations can also affect the reputation of the institution which leads to a 'derived' integrity risk. Without having that intention, banks and payment institutions could be facilitating money laundering.
DNB doubts whether banks and payment institutions are able - as a part of their controlled business operations and integrity of policies - to take the appropriate measures for transactions or clients that involve virtual currencies.

A meteorite or a pebble in the virtual currency pond ?
With the statement being just published it is too early to tell whether this is a meteorite that effectively wipes out the virtual currency business in the Netherlands or whether it is merely a pebble that aims to ensure that all virtual currency businesses doing business in the Netherlands ensure full identification and transaction monitoring.

My best guess is that the strong wording is used to stress the urgency and degree of concern that the Dutch bank supervisor has on this matter. So anyone operating in the Dutch environment better take this to heart.

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.

Google Wallet roll out.... without Google Bucks

It's about five years ago that I discovered, by accident and curiosity, that Google Payments Limited had applied for an e-money license at the FSA. Ever since, people have been wondering how Google would enter the payment space. Would they offer a wallet with virtual cards or would they issue their own new virtual worldwide currency (googles, googlets or gees)?

In good tradition, Google started out doing field tests with the wallet (which would sit in the mobile phone) and announced this in May 2011. The wallet was to contain your credit-card cards as well as a google-pre-paid card. And payment was possible with Paypass while the wallet would also facilitate the savings of loyalty-points. The card information was stored in the Secure-SIM-element in the phone and they experimented quite a bit since then.

So where do we stand now?

Well, the Google Wallet is now being rolled out and the Google development team sent out this video to further explain the wallet concept and roll-out. The most important change is that they decided to move the card-information to the cloud. This allows the Wallet to be used both via Phone and via the Web, with all your card details and important digital documents (ID's, transit pass etc) residing in a safe digital environment. So their distribution model for the application is now changing to making APIs available so that merchants and issuers can easily integrate the Wallet in their site/services.

As such, we can thus see Google moving into an integrators role, rather than a payment instrument issuer role. In fact, at some point in time, the company thought about issuing Google Bucks, according to Eric Schmidt, but abandoned the plan. The concept would consist of a “peer-to-peer” money system by which users seamlessly transfer cash to each other via a hypothetical application. However, various laws about currency and money laundering in different parts of the world made this too complicated to realize.

For now, the peer to peer payments in the Google Wallet are no longer on the agenda. And from a historical perspective (see my other blog) I think it is a good choice. Yet.... one of the developers did mention on this subject: it's impossible for now, but stay tuned for some announcements in the future.

So, are we still in for a surprise here?