You wait ages for a bus, then several come along at the same time. The past week has seen three major developments in Australia regarding the regulation of cryptocurrencies, digital assets and the industry in which they operate.
First, there was the Final Report of the Senate Select Committee on Australia as a Technological and Financial Centre. Among other things, the Committee has recommended a specific regulatory framework for Digital Currency Exchanges, a formal custody regime for digital assets, a classification (or “token mapping exercise”) for the various types of digital assets, and a legal framework to recognize Decentralised Autonomous Organisations as a form or company structure.
Second, AUSTRAC issued a Statement on De-banking, that urges banks and financial institutions to take a case-by-case approach when reviewing potential risks associated with clients engaged in Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Rather than applying a blanket ban or refusal to deal with Blockchain and crypto businesses, banks and other providers should exercise more discretion, and adopt workable and practical solutions to meet their risk management and KYC/AML obligations. Echoing the overarching theme of the Senate Select Committee, AUSTRAC recognises that de-banking crypto risks stifling innovation, and/or forcing crypto businesses to resort to less than ideal alternative service providers.
Third, ASIC released its Response to submissions made under the recent consultation on Crypto-assets as underlying assets for ETPs (aka Report 705 on CP 343). While there is some overlap with the scope and terms of reference of the Senate Select Committee, ASIC maintains its position that it does not want to be responsible for developing policy on regulating digital assets (that’s the role of Government); while at the same time stating in very clear terms how it believes cryptocurrencies should or shouldn’t be classified (and regulated). For example, ASIC did not accept the view of many respondents that crypto-assets which are not deemed financial products should be treated as commodities. In part, because there is no definition of “commodity” in the Corporations Act; but also because the discussion has been more about market operators, rather than the specific nature of the assets themselves.
Meanwhile, ASIC remains very prescriptive about the criteria for approving certain cryptocurrencies as the underlying assets for exchange traded products (ETPs) – including criteria which received push back from the industry as being too restrictive or inflexible. On the other hand, ASIC does appear to accept that if crypto-assets cannot be defined as financial products (or commodities), then a distinct category is required. This is the case that has often been put forward by the industry, namely the need to define instruments commonly known as utility tokens. To its credit, ASIC has made a fair stab at coming up with a workable definition of crypto-asset as:
“a digital representation of value or rights (including rights to property), the ownership of which is evidenced cryptographically and that is held and transferred electronically by:
(a) a type of distributed ledger technology; or
(b) another distributed cryptographically verifiable data structure.”
While the overall tone of these developments is encouraging, they still reveal a need for greater consistency (and inter-agency co-ordination), and the lack of a well-articulated policy on this fast-growing FinTech sector.
Next week: Is crypto finally going mainstream?