G20 to propose worldwide crypto rules in October

[vEmpire-DDAO]

The FSB (Financial Stability Board, a body of regulators from the Group of 20 economies - G20) said on Monday that it would propose global rules for cryptocurrencies somewhere near October.FSB says that the recent downfall of the crypto market showcased crypto's volatility and links to the wider financial system. The FSB has no power to impose any new laws, however, but its members could apply the regulations in their own jurisdictions.

Plenty of 'experts' are saying that the crypto industry should welcome the regulation with open arms, as centralization would, apparently, further stabilize the market and protect the investors' funds, but can it actually aid the market, or will it further hamper the adoption of crypto across the world - we're soon to find out.

[1715541271]

1715541271

[1715541271]

1715541271

[1715541271]

1715541271

[1715541271]

1715541271

[Upgrade00]

FSB says that the recent downfall of the crypto market showcased crypto's volatility and links to the wider financial system. The FSB has no power to impose any new laws, however, but its members could apply the regulations in their own jurisdictions.

Here's a link to the release for anyone interested in checking it out.
The recent turmoil referred to in the article is the current bear market, which is present in every speculative market, even stocks.
The idea that regulation benefits the public and prevents such situations is false.
We've had real estate crashes, stock crashes etc; while they are regulated.

Plenty of 'experts' are saying that the crypto industry should welcome the regulation with open arms, as centralization would, apparently, further stabilize the market and protect the investors' funds,

The term 'experts' get thrown around a lot, and doesn't have much meaning in present day reporting.
Centralization of a decentralized market does not make it better, it just makes it easier to control, which is the major aim of the report.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Plenty of 'experts' are saying that the crypto industry should welcome the regulation with open arms, as centralization would, apparently, further stabilize the market and protect the investors' funds

If G20 want to make a proposal, they should compose their write-up and send it to: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org. Bitcoin proposals are community driven. If a majority disapproves of them or if consensus is just not found, they are rejected.

If they still want to move on with their change, they can fork themselves off the network, but 'til there. Authorities hold no more power in this place. What "should" or "should not" happen is down to users to decide.

[goldkingcoiner]

Plenty of 'experts' are saying that the crypto industry should welcome the regulation with open arms, as centralization would, apparently, further stabilize the market and protect the investors' funds

If G20 want to make a proposal, they should compose their write-up and send it to: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org. Bitcoin proposals are community driven. If a majority disapproves of them or if consensus is just not found, they are rejected.

If they still want to move on with their change, they can fork themselves off the network, but 'til there. Authorities hold no more power in this place. What "should" or "should not" happen is down to users to decide.

Its just more scaremongering. They have been trying to scare the people to do with their Bitcoin as the regulators wish ever since Bitcoin was invented. They have never succeeded and never will. But they continue, trying as hard as they can to disrupt Bitcoin is some way. Their scaremongering methods are becoming more and more grand, now even going as far as involving the G20. However the scaremongering remains inefficient.

They will never succeed. They will fail, their banker criminal friends will fail and Bitcoin will stand.

[jackg]

Most places existed without regulations for quite a long time before they were actually brought in.

It's interesting they're after regulating things people aren't reliant on (while leaving things they're not very unregulated - oil and food prices or are those "more stable" now).


Are these regulations also designed to act as a replacement to offering financial education in schools (because it might come off that way and I can't see another reason for wanting stability).

The recent turmoil referred to in the article is the current bear market, which is present in every speculative market, even stocks.

They're present in every market afaik. European stock markets (which aren't considered speculative) often have a few good years, a few bad years and a few years fairly neutral (or at least used to).

[Poker Player]

I am going to emphasize something else that has not been emphasized before:

Plenty of 'experts' are saying that the crypto industry should welcome the regulation with open arms, as centralization would, apparently, further stabilize the market and protect the investors' funds, but can it actually aid the market, or will it further hamper the adoption of crypto across the world - we're soon to find out.

Centralization goes against the very essence of Bitcoin but more is being achieved every day and I understand that regulations will go along these lines. For shitcoins it doesn't matter but Bitcoin P2P was created in a decentralized way.

It seems to me that P2P Bitcoin transactions are going to take the same path as P2P cash payments, a decreasing path.

[stompix]

Oh, the G20 again

2018:
G20 & CRYPTOCURRENCIES
2019:
g20 FATF regulations
so on

Every year we have a G20 meeting and every year there is a topic about it, but the G20 is an organization that can't enforce anything, it can't adopt laws it can't force its members to implement laws, there are just recommendations or agreement that one takes and might be forgotten tomorrow.
What kind of regulation will the FSB pretend to China for example?  

Plenty of 'experts' are saying that the crypto industry should welcome the regulation with open arms, as centralization would, apparently, further stabilize the market and protect the investors' funds, but can it actually aid the market, or will it further hamper the adoption of crypto across the world - we're soon to find out.

Yeah, terra, celsius, 3ac, voyager, I lost count of how many centralized solutions have "protected" investor's funds these few months alone.

[ChrisPop]

I think regulation is needed for crypto assets as that will not only provide investors' a safer environment that will give them confidence that their funds are in good hands, but will also open the doorway for more institutional investors.

Regulation does not necessarily mean monitoring of every transaction, but instead I see it as tighter rules for centralized exchanges and lenders like Celsius, BlockFi, etc.
For example I personally don't feel safe giving out personal data to an exchange that is not regulated (monitored). Moreover I don't know what are they doing with the funds in their accounts.
Again, regulation does not mean protection from market volatility, but from bankruptcy, poor capital management and so on.

[avikz]

The FSB (Financial Stability Board, a body of regulators from the Group of 20 economies - G20) said on Monday that it would propose global rules for cryptocurrencies somewhere near October.FSB says that the recent downfall of the crypto market showcased crypto's volatility and links to the wider financial system. The FSB has no power to impose any new laws, however, but its members could apply the regulations in their own jurisdictions.

Plenty of 'experts' are saying that the crypto industry should welcome the regulation with open arms, as centralization would, apparently, further stabilize the market and protect the investors' funds, but can it actually aid the market, or will it further hamper the adoption of crypto across the world - we're soon to find out.

G20 is no authority body to impose anything. They can only nake recommendations and that's going to be the case. It depends on the country itself whether they want to impose any rules or not and if they want to, they can use the recommendation as a guideline. So that's fine! I don't see any impact here!

Let them do their job and we will do ours. That should be it! Nothing to worry about. Rather it is very much possible that a favorable guidelines will be issues.

[Eternad]

It will give a good and bad effect to crypto in general.

Good:
Those scams project will finally cannot operate anymore freely without any regulators looking at them. Those institutional whales that manipulating the market illegally will be lessen due to stricter regulations. Exchange and DeFi will be the number one sector that will be heavily affected by this.

Bad:
Regulations means KYC. User will be forced to comply to KYC for proper regulating of crypto market. The volume will decrease substantially because wash trading will be lessen.

[suzanne5223]

Plenty of 'experts' are saying that the crypto industry should welcome the regulation with open arms, as centralization would, apparently, further stabilize the market and protect the investors' funds

If G20 want to make a proposal, they should compose their write-up and send it to: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org. Bitcoin proposals are community driven. If a majority disapproves of them or if consensus is just not found, they are rejected.

If they still want to move on with their change, they can fork themselves off the network, but 'til there. Authorities hold no more power in this place. What "should" or "should not" happen is down to users to decide.

I believe the concept of the proposed worldwide crypto rules planning by the G20 is a misconception from the OP end because the creation G20 was established on the creation of policy that will promote financial regulations, reduction of risks, and prevent future financial crises.
I believe this is what they are planning to do not a proposal of the block or consensus amendments.

[fiulpro]

Centralization is only going to help the market when the government won't try and favour fiat or CBDC'S over Cryptocurrencies, how is that possible? They will for sure try and make laws so that people are able to hold their CBDC's but are not able to transfer of hold funds into crypto or use their bank accounts for trading which is something that happened few years back in India. Other than that people would have to pay excessive amount of tax on the cryptocurrencies which on the other hand would be pegged against the Schemes and stuff the government will have for CBDC's. Complete integration is not an option, positive integration would be good but only to an extent.

[YOSHIE]

Do they (FSB) not see that the crypto market turmoil has occurred from year to year, what can they do, if global regulations are proposed and planned for next October, then what can the (G20) or central banks do about that rule, to investors and crypto users, generally.

Wait, if this is the reason the FSB.

"Failures of market participants, apart from inflicting huge potential losses on investors and threatening market confidence arising from the crystallization of behavioral risk, can also rapidly transmit risk to other parts of the crypto asset ecosystem," the FSB said.

Ok, it doesn't matter the FSB reports to the G20 or the Central Bank, let's say the rules have been approved all relevant rules are obeyed by the global, used speculatively and unregulated.
Can the FSB, G20 or the central bank guarantee investors from the risk of loss when the crypto market plunges even more.

[Silberman]

The FSB (Financial Stability Board, a body of regulators from the Group of 20 economies - G20) said on Monday that it would propose global rules for cryptocurrencies somewhere near October.FSB says that the recent downfall of the crypto market showcased crypto's volatility and links to the wider financial system. The FSB has no power to impose any new laws, however, but its members could apply the regulations in their own jurisdictions.

Plenty of 'experts' are saying that the crypto industry should welcome the regulation with open arms, as centralization would, apparently, further stabilize the market and protect the investors' funds, but can it actually aid the market, or will it further hamper the adoption of crypto across the world - we're soon to find out.

Not only they want to force regulations upon us but they also want to tell us how should we feel about it, those people are crazy, as some of the most powerful people around the world and the power to create laws they can create regulations if they want, but to think they also want us to be happy when we are going to be forced to go through their dumb centralization plans is ridiculous, after all it is not like centralization has protected the stock market from the monumental crashes we have seen in the past.

[Yogee]

...Regulation does not necessarily mean monitoring of every transaction,

Maybe you mean "not just for monitoring" because regulations were created for such purpose plus other things. Regulations made big centralized exchanges to enforce KYC on new registrations and to their existing users. Regulations also forced these platforms to change rules on deposits. Remember the blocking of privacy coins and then the funds suspected of going through mixers or coinjoins? Those are all for tighter monitoring in accordance to AML policies and the FATF Travel rule.

[Charles-Tim]

There are over 20200 cryptocurrencies that are existing, the number are increasing as there are newly created projected that are later launched. Many of them were scam and if there is regulation, there can still be scam but it will be reduced. Bitcoin is over 10 years now, nothing has been done, let us see if it will be just like what that should be implemented but not again implemented as it was before. All altcoins needs regulation, they are not commodity but securities.

[franky1]

Plenty of 'experts' are saying that the crypto industry should welcome the regulation with open arms, as centralization would, apparently, further stabilize the market and protect the investors' funds

If G20 want to make a proposal, they should compose their write-up and send it to: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org.

i re-highlighted the part you missed
the industry.. is not the protocol... its the businesses around the edges of crypto

it does not requiring the devs on the mailing list to decide.
and the devs on the mailing list are not the "community".
but it does reveal your mindset when you and your buddies talk about "the community" where you think it is only about the devs opinion authority, decisions that counts (you can blame ur buddy doomad for that insane interpretation of his definition of 'community' which the rest of you now think..

regulators do not need devs authorisation. the actual bitcoin community is users and businesses and mining pools and pretty much anyone interested in crypto.

regulators wanting to create regulations in the G20 countries can. and they will affect businesses set up in their countries. which we have seen done in the past with things like the NY bitlicence.. businesses decided to move out of NY and set up else where. and simply not service NY customers.

there are 200 countries in the world and if the G20 go to insane with regulations then businesses will just set up in the other 180 countries

[darkangel11]

The FSB (Financial Stability Board, a body of regulators from the Group of 20 economies - G20)

That's an unfortunate name. The FSB is also the infamous Russian intelligence service

FSB says that the recent downfall of the crypto market showcased crypto's volatility and links to the wider financial system.

Recent? So there was no downfall in 2014, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020... They should take their heads out of their asses because bitcoin was always volatile and altcoins are on another level with that. Even the luna thing isn't something new. We had altcoins die every year. Somebody should remind them about bitconnect.

[BlackHatCoiner]

the industry.. is not the protocol... its the businesses around the edges of crypto

Businesses, regular users, developers; they're all part of the protocol. In a way.

it does not requiring the devs on the mailing list to decide.

I was rather sarcastic than serious. What I meant is: If you want to make a proposal, such as "bring centralization for the sake of investors", better find consensus for that. Proposals are community driven, not authority driven. And that's beyond the protocol.

and the devs on the mailing list are not the "community".

They're not the community, they're part of the community. And they're knowledgeable enough to have made the best proposals so far. Their actions and substantial discussions reveal they're adept at affecting the rest.

I agree that they're irrelevant to regulation.

[seoincorporation]

From reuters we can see the focus of this regulations:

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) said on Monday it would propose "robust" global rules for cryptocurrencies in October, following recent turmoil in markets that has highlighted the need to regulate the "speculative" sector.

The fact that they want to regulate the Speculative sector means how angry are they with people becoming millionaire with cryptos. Let's see what rules and regulations they come with, and let's hope they leave this decision to the experts, because we know how complex is this topic.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/technology/global-financial-watchdog-step-up-crypto-regulation-2022-07-11/

[Agwu]

I think one of the reasons many cryptocurrencies will not survive this harsh market condition is because they are not built with long term sustainability features.

Some of them have high transaction costs and there  by making it difficult for investors and holders. Imagine charging over 40% at this critical period.

[coolcoinz]

The fact that they want to regulate the Speculative sector means how angry are they with people becoming millionaire with cryptos.

I think they simply want to put their dirty paws on some of the profits. They see the industry is growing and more countries and funds are interested in it, which means there eventually be huge inflows. Lately there were even articles about Swiss Post wanting to offer bitcoin custody services, so this is eventually going to be an important global asset. It's all about profits so regulators want to be able to track these profits and make sure people pay their taxes.

[ChrisPop]

I think one of the reasons many cryptocurrencies will not survive this harsh market condition is because they are not built with long term sustainability features.

Some of them have high transaction costs and there  by making it difficult for investors and holders. Imagine charging over 40% at this critical period.

Not just them, but most of them designed solely to attract eye balls, but then when you actually stress them a little you'll see the fragile infrastructure.
Put that into contrast with Bitcoin - a state-of-the-art cryptocurrency who has been going strong for 13 years already with no hacks and continuous development.

[Husires]

Why do I feel that what will happen will be like this:

• Agree on a global minimum crypto tax of 20%.
• All platforms, companies and services that offer crypto services are required to do identity verification for transactions over a thousand dollars.
• Recognize these currencies as assets, not money.

Then all you need to do is increase taxes and keep track of currencies to put the market under your control.