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 # 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.

FATF as in: Facebook As The Foe or Facebook As The Friend ?

Dear Mr Billingslea, dear Members of the FATF and dear civil servants in the room,

As you are nearing the end of a very productive year I wish to commend you on your very hard and wise work of the last year. If we look back on the objectives that the President laid out for 2018-2019 we can see the many accomplishments of this year. It has been a very productive year and one that will be remembered for many years to come. Because you will define what FATF truly stands for. 

Of course there are some commentators that challenge the legitimacy of your work on virtual assets. They outline that your so called open-ended mandate is by definition constrained by the boundaries set by Human RightTreaties, UN Resolutions, Fourth Amendments or rulings of the EU court ofJustice (Tele2) or the US Supreme Court (Carpenter). And they outline that effectively the FATF Standards are leading to a privacy infringement under those Human Rights agreements. I leave those comments aside for now. Historians and judges may be the judge for that.

For now, I wish to draw your attention to a practical dilemma that you will be facing the upcoming week. The dilemma is: does FATF stand for Facebook As The Foe or Facebook As The Friend? 

The answer depends on your own view: which society do you wish to leave behind for your kids?

FATF: Facebook As The Foe
While you were looking out of the frame of libertarian misuse of virtual currencies for all kinds of criminal purposes, you may have forgotten to look out the other window: at bigtech players such as Facebook and Google. Widening your view is of particular relevance now that you are about to endorse a virtual asset recommendation that obliges names of citizens to be sent along with virtual asset transfers (one way or the other).

Let's take a closer look at Facebook. They have thrown the privacy hundreds of million people under the bus. They opened up their systems to developers and allowed mass scale harvesting of personal data to other companies. They have come under severe criticism for this. And they changed a lot of operations, moved people out and such, all in other to counter the criticism about their harvesting of data. Bottom line: they need to remove personal data or ensure that they have proper consent from citizens that are properly informed on the whereabouts of their personal data.

Their latest project is a cryptocurrency / virtual asset programme, with the naam Libra. It leads to the creation of a world currency, backed by a combination of assets. And Facebook will cooperate with other bigtech and Fintech players to make it happen. As the Wall Street Journal outlines:

FATF-virtual asset rule: cryponite to send and harvest personal data without caring about consent 
I am wondering if you have thought trough your recommendation on standards for virtual assets sufficiently. Are you aware that Facebook itself will become a huge Virtual Asset Service Provider? Are you aware that it is now soliciting other big tech companies to become verification nodes in their virtual asset programme? And are you aware this means they don't have to ask any consent from the users who use their coins, to add name information in or with the transaction (whichever way they see fit, as long as they oblige). And this information must also be shared with counterparts (if any) meaning that if I operate a verification node, I am sitting on the information as well? 

The unintended consequence of what you are doing with the virtual asset rules is that, in times of personal data as the economic fuel for society, you are handing out cryptonite to all kinds of private sector players that want to have a free pass for passing on and harvesting personal information. All kind of other companies may follow suit as the FATF-rule is really an easy tool in the box of companies that actively seek to engage in regulatory arbitrage to avoid privacy rules as much as possible. 

Facebook as the Friend....?
The other alternative is that the FATF effectively sees Facebook as a friend. You are aware of the above consequence and view it as a necessary consequence that will be very helpful in capturing the criminals of the future. That would mean that with the FATF-rule you have deliberately chosen to marry with bigtechs.

Now if I Imagine the biggest data-harvesting company in the world marrying the world-wide law enforcers in the world I must say I am sort of afraid to imagine what their kids will look like. This would be too big a confluence of private and public sector roles and it will have a desastrous impact on the world. Some may argue that we were already living in Orwells 1984, but with this rule you will have definitely sealed the deal. 

What you may just do when agreeing to this virtual asset rule, is outlaw all the citizens of their world. Their data are free for all to harvest and in the process you will ride along to see if you capture a terrorist every now and then. 

Historic data does show, by the way, that all the virtual transaction data will not really help as evaluations of the impact of the travel rule indicate that the number of crooks preventively caught in 15 years of its use can be counted on one or two hands. It is always other law enforcement info that gets you to detect them beforehand, never the transaction data.  

What will FATF stand for: wich kind of society do you leave behind?
Will FATF stand for Facebook as the Foe and will you reconsider virtual asset article 7b?
Or will FATF stand for Facebook as the Friend and will you outlaw all personal data of world citizens?

Next week the choice is up to you. I have a hunch you will be going for the Facebook is my Friend model. Because in your groupthink you may be driven to annihilate all kinds of perceived criminal evil even when the tools for doing so are ineffective. Or just beause your are inclined to do as is told and answer to call of your bosses as they said to approve the virtual asset rules. 

Thereafter, you may end up seeing your choice annulled by judges. This may be the result of lengthy procedures or otherwise geopolitical incidents in which one of the kids of the marriage of FATF and Facebook will have turned evil. And then, each one of you in the room will have to answer towards its citizens, politicians, children and grandchildren: how did you not see this coming? 

Don't finalise the paragraph 7b text
I call upon you to consider the above with an open mind and an open heart.
Do the right thing: vote to re-consider or postpone finalisation of the pragraph 7b text. 

Postponing allows for more time to explore all impacts and consequences and have a further debate on what you wish the true acronym FATF to stand for.

Simon Lelieveldt

PSD2, interchange fee and surcharging: lessons from history

Now that we have the second Payment Services Directive going live in a couple of jurisdictions, the news media are reporting on one of its prominent features: the retailers do not have the right to pass on payment fees to consumers for all cards that are subject to the EU regulation on multilateral interchange fees (MIFs).

As can be seen in the tweet below, the UK chose to extend this to 3 party schemes as well.

From today we're banning hidden charges for paying with your credit or debit card - a move that will help millions of people avoid rip-off fees when spending their hard-earned money. pic.twitter.com/EEk5jxdk7R

— Theresa May (@theresa_may) 13 januari 2018

As I expect quite some further discussions on this topic (and retailers circumventing the rules by introducing other types of charges to their customers) I figured it would be good to provide some background on the reasoning that is occuring in the area of MIF-regulations. A further look at history would even suggest that we need to take one step further back in order to rethink our analysis so far.

Some background on MIF-modelling (and subsequent regulation)
If we try to assess the arguments pro and con interchange fees, some important thinking in this area is done by Nobel prize winner Jean Tirole, who worked together with Rochet on competition in two-sided markets, such as payment-cards markets. At the heart of their studies is the question what the pricing structures are in two-sided markets and under which conditions and to which extend compensation payments between different sides of the market (interchange fees) are justified.

This work has been at the core of many regulatory strategies but it is subject to a lot of discussion. All market players, whether 3 or 4 party card schemes, issuing banks, acquirers, processors, retailers, consumers and regulators, heavily debate pro's and con's of interchange fees. And in doing so they must use the reasoning and models of Rochet and Tirol. In essence the model tries to determine which cost and interchange fee levels are relevant for competing products/platforms such as cards vs cash.

Do note however that already more than 10 years ago, Brookings Institution released a very good paper on interchange fees, concluding that it is impossible to prove one or the other side of the arguments on interchange fees, let alone determine which level of interchange fee is correct. I think their analysis still stands which means that in the end, interchange fee regulation is more about lobbying and power politics than actual econometric calculations.

Europe's reality under PSD2 and MIF regulation
What is happening under the current payments regulation in Europe, is that:
- a maximum cap is defined for the interchange fee of credit-card and debit-card transactions (reducing the cost to the retailer),
- retailers are forbidden to surcharge for payment costs, when the customer uses a card which has a capped interchange fee (reason being that they may not gain from reduced costs on the one hand while keeping surcharging intact on the other hand).

In essence this means that the EU has bought into the argument that multilaterial interchange fees were being set to high and require regulatory intervention (thus emulating the behaviour of other regulators such as the FED and Australian Reserve Bank). In doing so they accept and embrace academic models which mostly focus on the topic of optimal price regulation in a stationary market with alternative platorms/products.

Historic approach: where did the interchange fee come from in practice?
It strikes me that all the economists at play use an empirical description and mathematic approach to start their reflections on interchange fees. One very obvious element is missing in a lot of papers (except Baxter, who goes at length to discuss history): what were the market players thinking when they wanted to introduce these fees? What is the industry trade-off they are facing?

In Dutch payment history, the banks have been very keen not to disclose their cost/benefit considerations and finances. It was only in 2005 that they allowed McKinsey - as a notary - to have a full look at all internal costs and benefits, in order to draw up a report on costs/benefits based on a full insiders view. I have been personally committed to this effort and helped making it become a reality based on the belief that a lot of misconceptions can be eliminated by being open on ones business model.

However, while this report shows the situation in 2005, it doesn't tell us where the interbank fees came from. The archives of banks do however and to me it is stunning that very few academics in the interchange fee domain have tried to uncover these sources to calibrate their reasoning. Because if they would, they might be able to enrich their analytical approach.

Core question: can we avoid double charging for the retail customer ?
Reading through the old reports of collective groups of players in the Dutch payments domain, we can see an interesting game-theoretic approach to the multilateral fee discussion (which I will be disclosing more in detail in an upcoming publication on the history of Dutch retail  payments).

In essence, in the 1980s the emergence of new players, that were going to be piggy backing on an existing infrastructure without interbank compensation, fueled an existing debate on the distortion of the cost/benefits of banks. Banks with a lot of private consumers would usually bear many processing costs, while banks with corporate customers would reap the benefits. And the winner in the game would be new players, for example investment funds, that would hold pooled accounts for customers funds at a large bank, without having to pay anything for the incoming deposits that came from all the Dutch banks.

Setting an interchange fee in this context leads to:
- a more appropriate allocation and compensation of payment costs along the payments value chain: the entity that benefits from a payment will also bear part of the originating cost,
- the elimination of free-riders in the system,
- interbank understanding that consumers would not be levied fees for instruments where an interchange fee arrangement existed.

The explicit reasoning in a well documented cost/benefit study here in the Netherlands (never officially published as banks made sure to not disclose their thinking) was that it was of course also possible to not introduce an interchange fee system. The involved payment experts noted however that this would lead to bank fees on both the consumer and corporate side of the market. Absent coordination and agreement of reasonable interchange fees, the expectation was that those individual fees of banks to their respective customers would be higher than necessary.

In addition, the bankers expected the corporate side of the market to also add on surcharges and administrative charges to the consumer, which meant that effectively the consumer would then pay twice for payments processing costs: one time at the issuing bank and the other time at the retailer/corporation side, where the payments costs were incorporated into the price of services. Thus, for the Dutch society as a whole, this situation with mark ups on payment processing costs starting at the bank individual level, would undoubtedly be more costly, than the situation where the bank layer coordinates its cost/fee level and thereby avoids double charging of the customer.

The EU-choice revisited: higher payment costs as unintended side-effects of the MIF-regulation
It is clear that the EU perspective on interchange fees is:
- we don't trust the diverging interests of banks and competing card schemes in combination with competition to lead to an appropriate level of interchange fees, so we set an interchange level by ourselves,
- we also don't trust merchants and want to avoid them pocketing the benefits of lower interchange fees at the costs of consumers.

In practice we may now see in Europe that:
- issuing banks have shifted their income base and costs to consumers are increasing,
- acquiring banks will use other fee mechanisms to charge the retailer for the relevant payment costs in the card chain (as long as it exists as such, because a move to instant sepa credit transfers looks pretty enticing of course),
- retailers will use other fee mechanisms or labels (service charges) to charge the consumers for payments,
- consumers are paying higher fees to their issuing bank,
- consumers will effectively be paying twice for the relevant payment costs, in spite of the EU goal that they don't.

Where Europe has chose to intervene in interbanc dynamics, in order to achieve the best result for society, I am not sure if this will indeed work out as such. Yet, I must confess I am not an academic scholar in MIF-models and I get dizzy when reading all the equasions. However, I sense that some of the MIF-modelling doesn't match the actual game-theoretic constellation that occurs in practice.

Personally, I would rather place my trust in the diverging conflicts of interests between closely collaborating banks in an industry (leading to an interchange fee level that is scrutinised among quarreling bank experts) to keeping my payment costs appropriately low, than the good intentions of regulators that expand their interventions towards those mechanics themselves (thereby unleashing the possibility of double charging to me).