The FSB brings more regulations worldwide for this summer: More MICA

[LeGaulois]

For those who do not know the FSB

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) is an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system. It was established after the G20 London summit in April 2009

What's happening:

International regulations framing the cryptocurrencies industry are expected to be significantly strengthened by this summer.
FSB has published the outcomes of its recommandations about the regulation of the industry.
https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P160223.pdf

Problem:

- the financial system faces a risk of destabilisation.
It's a WOW white paper. They even invented a new word: "cryptoisation", the transition from existing established currencies to digital assets (= the dedollarisation)
Geez, LeGaulois is cryptoized

- risks of interconnections between traditional and decentralised finance. For exemple, this case of interconnection (related to FTX):

"That's why I warned about the dangers of allowing crypto-currencies to become intertwined with the banking system," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.). "Under no circumstances should taxpayers be left to bear the brunt of the collapses in the crypto industry - a market rife with fraud, money laundering and illicit financing."

Borrowings at Signature - a commercial bank best known for its multi-family home loans before jumping into the cryptocurrency craze - have more than doubled from the highest amount it has seen in several years. Silvergate, meanwhile, had no bank loans for home loans a year earlier.

The $1.1 trillion Home Loan Bank system provides low-cost financing to its more than 6,500 members, which include commercial lenders, savings banks, credit unions and insurers. Comprised of 11 state-licensed cooperatives, the Federal Home Loan Banks, also known as the FHLBs, were created to support housing finance during the Great Depression. Today, they inject liquidity into the banking system, using implicit government support to borrow money cheaply.

While helping banks build liquidity is part of the FHLBs' mission, some observers say that supporting spinoffs from the crypto industry is a far cry from the original intent.

Good job, you asked for regulations claiming it will help the mass adoption? While it does the opposite...
MICA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) et TFR (Transfer of Funds Regulation) will be worldwide very soon

[1714147985]

1714147985

[1714147985]

1714147985

[1714147985]

1714147985

[1714147985]

1714147985

[1714147985]

1714147985

[franky1]

also look out for the BIS
they are building bridges between countries CBDC and setting limits on banks holdings of cryptos

banks themselves wanted 5% or more of decentralised crypto holdings(bitcoin) but the BIS bit back by saying its 2025 proposal(currently draft) will only allow banks to hold 2% of its total collateral/reserves in decentralised cryptos like bitcoin. and another X%(yet to be agreed) for stable coin based cryptos

[cr1776]

...

Good job, you asked for regulations claiming it will help the mass adoption? While it does the opposite...
MICA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) et TFR (Transfer of Funds Regulation) will be worldwide very soon

You are right.  The only people helped by these regulations are the people in power.  You can have as much regulation as you want and there will still be scammers.  People like Warren are no friend of freedom, she wants power and control.  Global regulation is particularly bad because it will end competition between jurisdictions.  In all likelihood you'll end up with a terrible, global regime which will only entrench those in power and enrich them while stopping everyone else from getting out from under their thumb of the century+ long fiat disaster.   With global regulation you might as well completely shut down bitcoin and crypto and general and embrace a digital fiat where every move that every single person in the world makes will be tracked, analyzed and controlled.

They like to muddy the water:  "cryptoisation" - transitioning from fiat currencies to digital fiat is digitalization.  If by crypto, they mean bitcoin, then it means much more: decentralized, censorship resistant among many other things.  Digital fiat is the dream of statists, fascists, communists, socialists and all other authoritarians around the world.  They can stifle dissent and control everyone and they will do so.  Look at Stripe, PayPal and various credit card processors and banks.  They are already trying it even when it involved a billionaire (or extremely wealthy), sitting President of the US.  What will they do to regular people if they can?

also look out for the BIS
they are building bridges between countries CBDC and setting limits on banks holdings of cryptos
banks themselves wanted 5% or more of decentralised crypto holdings(bitcoin) but the BIS bit back by saying its 2025 proposal(currently draft) will only allow banks to hold 2% of its total collateral/reserves in decentralised cryptos like bitcoin. and another X%(yet to be agreed) for stable coin based cryptos

Yeah, the BIS doesn't like crypto either.  CBDCs are worthless to regular people, even worse that paper fiat.  At least with paper fiat you can make a donation without someone people able to track it.  And stable coins?  When have they ever worked out well? lol

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[LeGaulois]

I didn't know that but now it makes sense why SignatureBank decided a few weeks ago to reduce its reserves. It said it was for a diversification of its activities but look like they're just anticipating...

As for the bridges between CBDCs, not so surprising since they were the ones making bridges for
- the economic and monetary union in Europe. With the euro currency and even with ECU (probably the 1st euro)
- long before, to assist in the settlement of the reparations imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles after the world war #1
- and many other bridges. If I'm correct it started to be here after the crisis in 1929.

Too many internationnal agencies now lurking at the cryptocurrencies industry. That doesn't smell good to be honest

[franky1]

the hyperledger group(banker prototype exploration) has been round for 8 years now. and many crypto dev groups have been consulting with them and then sandbox testing concepts for those banks by making adaptations to existing blockchains to then use existing blockchains to make the stuff hyperledger is looking for.

it becomes no surprise that some of the ideas/buzzwords/concepts in crypto that flourished since 2017+ have resembled idea's that have been buzzworded about in hyperledger consultations since 2015

i wont name them, because certain people will just social drama some defensive debate about "franky" to distract from the discussion of the regulations that have changed crypto and used and abused crypto to speed up the work of the bankers wanting to monopolise crypto. via everything from sponsoring devs to delay bitcoin evolution just to sandbox their idea's..  to regulating bitcoin into slowed down progression

[LeGaulois]

Yeah, that's something I started to realize about 5 years ago. I continued to believe there is still a hope and people see the truth but nowadays I am desperate and I am convinced that people have some responsibilities in. That's why I was saying Bitcoiners kill Bitcoin, and governments are happy

Finally we fall into the same finance, filled with the same wolves and the same ideologies. The ideologies we wanted to get rid of and made us take an interest in Bitcoin in the first place.
I have to admit the 'hyperledgers' are very smart, great done.

Adding stuff like LN, Ordinals and who knows what they will give us in the years coming, I will be less and less interested in Bitcoin, and possibly leaving it because this is not what I was originally sold

I got scammed!

[franky1]

im simply sticking with legacy transactions. and not going to store value in other tx formats with trojan backdoor opcodes and bloated miscounted weight that fictionalises how much data is actually being sent into blocks and around the network

it is noticeable how some of the prime players that promote segwit and TR are themselves still storing their real value on legacy too. which shows they dont fully trust their new schemes they put into the code. (sipa and luke JR are prime candidates of pushing for segwit and TR yet both have their main stashes on legacy)

but yea all the corporate sponsorship of devs to promote the silly "extras" which have not helped bitcoin grow its transaction count per block. but just done to allow gateway tx formats to be used to push people towards using other networks for payments. either with deceptive promises of better features/cost on other networks or by causing certain things on the bitcoin network that have resulted in a reduction in tx count utility of blockspace.

alot of these new tx formats have caused alot of new cludgy code whereby these new formats are not even finalised "features" so if bitcoin core devs were to be replaced(yep humans retire) and a new team were to improve bitcoin and remove the cludge and bad code of unfinalised crap. id rather stick to the simple operations and formats that just do what they have always done. that dont need bug fixing. thus avoid any risk of issues when they try to bug fix the new formats which could break those formats operationally

as for the macro economics of the businesses involved. yes the "mass adoption" lobbying of declaring bitcoin a currency then a asset currency then a commodity has allowed alot of the old institutional invaders to treat bitcoin differently, we should have instead persisted with treating bitcoin as a property thus protecting people via many laws such as property law,

did you know that a legacy TX cannot be "locked" to peg value to another network token. thus legacy cannot be treated as a commodity when traded, thus the CFTC cant really put controls and regulatory policy on people only handling legacy payments
(commodity =  base product used to create other products)
yep we can lobby that legacy gets treated different than segwit. much like a dollar received by a employer(income) is treated differently than a dollar received via a stocks/share portfolio(capital)

this can evolve into certain situations where exchanges that handle commodity coins(btc on segwit) have to be licenced by both SEC and CFTC, whereby we can lobby exchanges that only allow deposits and withdrawals of legacy become only regulated by at most SEC
EG legacy swaps treated like merchant sales/auctions of private property
and if done right if we can re categorise legacy as private value property. then even the SEC cant touch people and businesses that only handle legacy utxos

,, but hey chances of moral people wanting to support this is low. as you say, there are too many wolves in the hen house

[bbc.reporter]

Good job, you asked for regulations claiming it will help the mass adoption? While it does the opposite...
MICA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) et TFR (Transfer of Funds Regulation) will be worldwide very soon

Hehe I very much agree! This is certainly because much of the people in the community are using the coins in the cryptospace for speculation. They think regulations will make it much easier for more people buy and pump their coins to all time high. They also think that regulation will bring validity that they made the correct decision on their investment.

Regulations will only bring more control on the how much liquidity can go in the cryptospace market. This implies that with less liquidity there will be less pumps. It will also bring more restrictions on how to use the cryptospace. This implies that it will be less attractive to use for moneylaundering, tax evasion and other forms of criminality. This will also certainly make the price dump.

[goldkingcoiner]

also look out for the BIS
they are building bridges between countries CBDC and setting limits on banks holdings of cryptos

banks themselves wanted 5% or more of decentralised crypto holdings(bitcoin) but the BIS bit back by saying its 2025 proposal(currently draft) will only allow banks to hold 2% of its total collateral/reserves in decentralised cryptos like bitcoin. and another X%(yet to be agreed) for stable coin based cryptos

In the short term, this probably would have a bad effect on Bitcoin/Crypto prices. Of course we want more buyers and more holders. But in the long term, all this does is give Bitcoin/Cryptos a longer period in which we can buy at lower prices. The inevitability of this doing damage to the banks while rebounding profits for everyone else still exists.

And to be honest it seems most likely to me. We do not need banks to sell us crypto. We never have.

Nobody can stop the adoption now because it is already nearing a monetary revolution which is virtually impossible to reverse or stop. They might have had better luck 14 years ago. We have what, over 500 million estimated crypto holders? Thats more than a third of the population of China.

[el kaka22]

I do not think that this would be bad, the main reason for it is the fact that the harder regulations there are, the more at ease you can use it because you are following the rules that government gives you. When there are no regulations, and you do something with crypto, you are not entirely sure if it's legal or not, but this method makes sure that you are on the right side of the law.

Maybe that doesn't matter to you personally, but trillions go through banking systems and Wall streets and London market, these all could go into bitcoin if the law says it's okay to do it, and that means price could be as high as a million dollars with that kind of money.

[franky1]

also look out for the BIS
they are building bridges between countries CBDC and setting limits on banks holdings of cryptos

banks themselves wanted 5% or more of decentralised crypto holdings(bitcoin) but the BIS bit back by saying its 2025 proposal(currently draft) will only allow banks to hold 2% of its total collateral/reserves in decentralised cryptos like bitcoin. and another X%(yet to be agreed) for stable coin based cryptos

In the short term, this probably would have a bad effect on Bitcoin/Crypto prices. Of course we want more buyers and more holders. But in the long term, all this does is give Bitcoin/Cryptos a longer period in which we can buy at lower prices. The inevitability of this doing damage to the banks while rebounding profits for everyone else still exists.

And to be honest it seems most likely to me. We do not need banks to sell us crypto. We never have.

Nobody can stop the adoption now because it is already nearing a monetary revolution which is virtually impossible to reverse or stop. They might have had better luck 14 years ago. We have what, over 500 million estimated crypto holders? Thats more than a third of the population of China.

bitcoin has currently under 85m crypto holders. (85m utxo) there are many hundreds of millions with custodial user agreements that "promise" to give their customers crypto should they request a withdrawal but remember #NotYourKeyNotYourCoin

as for the cbdc vs btc
fiat/CDBC will always be inflationary
when people transition from fiat to CDBC the incentive wont be that they will give good savings interest or give out $1000 for free to each new account. they will simply keep CBDC inflation at 2% while letting native fiat inflation go to stupid hyperinflation thus change the ratio from 1:1 swap to cbdc1:$1.1 ->c1:$2 and so on thus debasing and hyper inflating native fiat

this will work well for banks as their debt contracts for $32trillion become only 16trill CBDC units if the ratio is 1:2thus, which a side effect is if bread was say $2 in fiat in 2022 would be $4 in fiat but 2 CBDC units

thus appearing as offering a retail discount for goods/services if you use cbdc units

[LeGaulois]

It does the opposite. More regulations there are and harder it is to use cryptocurrencies.

When I started to use it, about 10 years ago, I was able to use it without to be bothered with something, or the need to think twice before paying something with BTC. Bitcoin has never needed governments and their laws to evolve. For example, there were no laws for years, yet Bitcoin grew.

Nowadays, they bother me with KYC, they bother me with taxs and accounting, they bother me because when I pay for something the merchant can ask my ID. I have no use of a decentralized currency in a centralized system in which a few crooks control and adapt to their needs.
Adding devs selling their soul and their ethics because hey, finally, money is power, you can always buy everything, as long you pay a correct price

Take a company's point of view: if if wants to run its business, it need to do more paper work. Control inflows-outflows via algorythms, blockchain analytics companies, gets a licence, and so on...

When there are no regulations, and you do something with crypto, you are not entirely sure if it's legal or not

If there is no law, that means it is legal. Otherwise a country creates a law to frame it or to ban it.

but trillions go through banking systems and Wall streets and London market, these all could go into bitcoin if the law says it's okay to do it, and that means price could be as high as a million dollars with that kind of money.

Speculators is perhaps the last thing Bitcoin needs. Less there are, better it is.
Otherwise we enter in the same trap of the capitalism's cancer.

edit

when people transition from fiat to CDBC the incentive wont be that they will give good savings interest or give out $1000 for free to each new account. they will simply keep CBDC inflation at 2% while letting native fiat inflation go to stupid hyperinflation thus change the ratio from 1:1 swap to cbdc1:$1.1 ->c1:$2 and so on thus debasing and hyper inflating native fiat

this will work well for banks as their debt contracts for $32trillion become only 16trill CBDC units if the ratio is 1:2thus, which a side effect is if bread was say $2 in fiat in 2022 would be $4 in fiat but 2 CBDC units

thus appearing as offering a retail discount for goods/services if you use cbdc units

adding a link if someone is interested to read about
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/03/Future-of-inflation-partIII-Agarwal-kimball

[bbc.reporter]

I mentioned something years ago in some threads in the press subforum, however, no one appears to think that it might happen yet. This is the regulators might begin requiring limits on who can and who cannot buy cryptocoins and tokens based on income. If for example your income is less than $100k a year, then you are not eligible.

Another speculation on what might occur is the regulators will allow 1 or 2 stablecoins to exist, they will create a regulatory system where everything that goes in and out of the cryptospace will be through only those stablecoins. This is for the regulators to control how much liquidity should go in and go out of the cryptospace.

[franky1]

I mentioned something years ago in some threads in the press subforum, however, no one appears to think that it might happen yet. This is the regulators might begin requiring limits on who can and who cannot buy cryptocoins and tokens based on income. If for example your income is less than $100k a year, then you are not eligible.

nah its more like if your unemployed and you are suddenly investing $25k, you will get reported to the tax fraud office because they suspect your getting income thats not declared. and the authorities then get a court order to freeze your account while a tax evasion investigation transpires.. oh wait many regulated exchanges already do this

Another speculation on what might occur is the regulators will allow 1 or 2 stablecoins to exist, they will create a regulatory system where everything that goes in and out of the cryptospace will be through only those stablecoins. This is for the regulators to control how much liquidity should go in and go out of the cryptospace.

banks actually want to hold crypto

for instance the BIS stuff is where the central banks were pushing BIS to allow upto 5% bitcoin holdings and it was the BIS that pushed back and put in its draft to only allow 2%
(central banks dont offer services to citizens. its more about internal investment between the banks)

as for stable coins. well stable coins are backed by dollars.. and guess what. those dollars have to be stored in bank accounts . so ofcourse banks are going to partner up with stable coin operators. to service all withdrawal and deposit requests


.. my tin foil hat is now on:
however when CBDC come about(gain more utility majority than old fiat). stable coins owner bank accounts will get some changes where people will use CBDC as the "new stable coin" instead of old fiat
i see a future where regulated crypto exchanges will have people needing to buy CBDC(swap fiat for cbdc) to then deposit into regulated exchanges to then buy crypto
.. tin foil hat is now off

the WEF/IMF/BIS/SEC dont want bitcoin deemed as "legal tender" and instead treated as just an investment asset
because they dont want retailers/merchants to be default accepting bitcoin as common money
they want to keep it as a niche thing and not a thing that makes fiat/CBDC useless

they in many countries wont outright ban its use to buy goods/services but they wont want to decree/mandate that all merchants/retailers should accept bitcoin
this detail is moot, much the same as america doesnt decree/mandate that US retailers accept euro. but that does not mean euro is banned/non currency.. and retailers can still choose to accept euro if they want. its just not treated as legal tender in the US