Uncategorized
Stablecoin Legislation Must Ensure Financial Privacy

Both the U.S. Senate and House are considering bills creating a regulatory framework for stablecoins, and all of the usual crypto-skeptic refrains have been sung, including the hymn that crypto is for crime.
For instance, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) warned that the Senate’s GENIUS Act “will supercharge the financing of terrorism.” During debate on the House’s STABLE Act, Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA) worried about the use of “unhosted wallets to evade” anti-money laundering provisions.
Not surprisingly, both the GENIUS and STABLE Acts include significant sections on illicit finance, including subjecting stablecoin issuers to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). But lawmakers must ensure that the bills’ anti-money laundering measures don’t open the door to unfettered financial surveillance of stablecoin users.
Stablecoins are crypto tokens that are pegged to the value of another asset, like the U.S. dollar. The general idea is that the stable value of these tokens will promote their use as a digital medium of exchange. Stablecoins can be thought of both as an improvement to existing payment rails and as a way to bring the U.S. dollar “on-chain.” In other words, stablecoins are a 21st-century upgrade to cash. The Senate and the House have both advanced bills that would create a regulatory regime for “permitted stablecoin issuers” aimed, in part, at ensuring that stablecoins are, in fact, stable.
But these days, conversations about the dollar, financial services, and crypto seem to go hand-in-hand with conversations about preventing illicit finance. The BSA requires financial institutions to help federal agencies detect and prevent money laundering and other crimes by, among other things, keeping records of transactions and filing reports with the government. Both the GENIUS Act and the STABLE Act tackle illicit finance concerns by stating clearly that a permitted stablecoin issuer “shall be treated as a financial institution for the purposes of the Bank Secrecy Act.”
Designating a permitted stablecoin issuer as a financial institution is comparatively non-controversial. Putting aside the question of whether the BSA is a good (or constitutional) way to manage illicit finance risks, permitted stablecoin issuers look a lot like other entities, like banks and trust companies, that are already BSA financial institutions. But it’s not quite so simple.
The BSA’s surveillance framework requires financial institutions to “know their customers” and to monitor transactions taking place through the institution. However, such surveillance does not extend to transactions that take place between individuals without the involvement of an institution. For example, the BSA doesn’t apply when cash changes hands between two people, allowing individuals to transact privately.
While it’s infeasible to track cash transactions in the manner prescribed by the BSA, stablecoins can be tracked across a blockchain as they move between holders, even when the transfers happen between wallets that are unhosted by intermediaries. This characteristic is tempting to those who may want to extend BSA surveillance beyond its already expansive (and constitutionally infirm) boundaries.
Fundamentally, digital asset transactions that are genuinely peer-to-peer should not be subject to greater government surveillance than peer-to-peer transactions in cash. Applying anti-money laundering provisions to unhosted wallets — which more closely resemble physical wallets holding cash than bank accounts — would be a massive expansion of financial surveillance and an unwelcome intrusion into the abilities of Americans to order their financial lives outside the eyes of the government.
Both the GENIUS and STABLE Acts make clear — to varying degrees — that stablecoin issuers must have customer identification programs only for customers who either hold accounts “with the permitted payment stablecoin issuer” (GENIUS) or who are “initial holders” of a payment stablecoin (STABLE).
But the other BSA requirements the bills would impose on stablecoin issuers, including maintaining anti-money laundering compliance programs, retention of records of stablecoin transactions, monitoring and reporting suspicious activity, are not so clearly limited. This leaves the door open to the imposition of broader surveillance requirements on stablecoin transactions that take place away from the issuer, which would be a major encroachment on Americans’ rights to transact privately.
Fortunately, the sponsors of both bills seem to read the surveillance obligations narrowly. Representative Bryan Steil (R-WI), one of the sponsors of the STABLE Act, explained during the bill’s markup that requiring BSA surveillance of “every single self-hosted wallet” would “be a dramatic invasion of personal liberty” and that “Americans should not be treated the same as financial institutions.” And Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), one of the sponsors of the GENIUS Act, said during that bill’s markup that “[r]equiring issuers to monitor transactions on various blockchains would be costly and . . . time-consuming.”
This sentiment about the scope of the BSA obligations imposed must be clearly reflected in the text of both bills to definitively close the door to more expansive future interpretations.
Despite the characterizations by some skeptical members of Congress, preserving financial privacy is not simply a gift to criminals. Easy government access to financial information poses risks to everyone, particularly those with unpopular political views or anyone otherwise in the minority. Such surveillance is at odds with the rights of free people (including rights recognized in the U.S. Constitution) to live without unwarranted governmental monitoring.
One step to ensuring that those rights are not further infringed is to guarantee that the stablecoin legislation under consideration unequivocally protects from surveillance stablecoin transactions occurring without a financial intermediary.
Uncategorized
Fed Joins OCC, FDIC in Withdrawing Crypto Warnings for U.S. Banks

The Federal Reserve has joined its fellow U.S. banking regulators in deleting its crypto guidance of previous years, including notices that banks should get pre-approvals before they get involved in crypto activity.
Now, all three agencies — including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. — have joined in reversing those previous policies, leaving crypto matters at banks in the hands of their managers and compliance executives. In the absence of guidance, the banking industry awaits new laws from Congress to define how the digital assets industry should operate in the U.S.
«These actions ensure the Board’s expectations remain aligned with evolving risks and further support innovation in the banking system,» the Fed said in the Thursday statement announcing the change.
Banking supervision of its state member banks is one of the multiple roles performed by the Fed, which is better known for its monetary policy work. The agency’s move on Thursday will specifically remove four pieces of crypto guidance the board signed onto in 2022 and 2023, highlighting risks to banks posed by the sector.
Fed officials «will instead monitor banks’ crypto-asset activities through the normal supervisory process.»
Read More: FDIC Reverses U.S. Crypto Banking Policy That Demanded Prior Approvals
Uncategorized
Global Tokenized Real Estate Market Could Explode to $4T by 2035, Deloitte Forecasts

Real estate tokenization—once a niche experiment—may soon become a core pillar of how property is financed, owned and traded, according to a Thursday report by Deloitte Center for Financial Services.
The market of tokenized real estate could reach $4 trillion by 2035, growing at a compound annual rate of 27% from the current size of under $300 billion, the firm forecasted.
Tokenization of real-world assets (RWA) is a red-hot sector at the intersection of crypto tech and traditional finance. It consists of creating digital versions of assets like bonds, funds and real estate, that represent ownerships on blockchain rails.
The process offers operational efficiencies, cheaper and faster settlements and broader investor access.
For the real estate sector, tokenization’s appeal lies in its ability to automate and simplify complex financial agreements, the report explained, such as launching a real estate fund on-chain with coded rules handling ownership transfers and capital flows. An example for this is Kin Capital’s $100 million real estate debt fund tokenization platform Chintai with trust-deed-based lending, Deloitte noted.
The report outlines a three-pronged evolution of tokenized property: private real estate funds, securitized loan ownership, and under-construction or undeveloped land projects. Of these, tokenized debt securities are expected to dominate, hitting $2.39 trillion in value by 2035, based on the report’s forecast. Private funds could contribute around $1 trillion, while land development assets may account for some $500 billion.
Despite the advantages, challenges remain, the report noted, especially around regulation, asset custody, cybersecurity and default scenarios.
Read more: Tokenized Funds’ Rapid Growth Comes With Red Flags: Moody’s
Uncategorized
El Salvador’s Top Crypto Regulator Meets With U.S. SEC: ‘It Was Very Refreshing’

El Salvador’s Comisión Nacional de Activos Digitales (CNAD), the agency in charge of regulating digital assets in the Central American nation, is seeking to establish a cross-border regulatory sandbox with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
“We want to create international collaboration,” Juan Carlos Reyes, president of the CNAD, told CoinDesk in an interview. “Our biggest message is that digital assets don’t have any geographical barriers. Collaboration with regulators should not have international barriers either.”
El Salvador is in a unique situation in that it did not boast of strong financial institutions, or even of an existing ecosystem of developers, when President Nayib Bukele made bitcoin legal tender in 2021. That means the CNAD was able to start with a blank slate when it introduced a regulatory framework tailored to crypto.
Almost two years later after Reyes took over the agency, El Salvador’s advanced regulatory framework has incentivized crypto giants such as Tether, Bitfinex and Binance to open shop in the country.
The idea, Reyes said, is for the U.S. SEC to now use El Salvador as a live, real-world case study to evaluate streamlined regulatory approaches for digital assets — in other words, for the SEC to learn from El Salvador’s experience as it revamps its own regulatory framework in a post-Gensler world.
The pilot program proposed by the CNAD involves different scenarios: a U.S.-licensed traditional finance broker obtaining a digital asset license under CNAD regulations, and the development of two small-scale tokenization offerings facilitated by a CNAD-licensed tokenization company. Each scenario would be capped at $10,000.
These initiatives would support some of the objectives laid out by SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce in February, when she wrote that the SEC Crypto Task Force, which she now leads, would take a very different approach towards crypto regulation from here on out.
“CNAD really looked at [Pierce’s document] with a critical eye as to how we can help,” Erica Perkin, owner of The Perkin Law Firm and a member of CNAD’s advisory group, told CoinDesk. “We’re here. There’s data [the SEC] might want to collect. It’s difficult to collect in the U.S. … We’ve built a framework that’s nimble enough to work on the exact issues that the SEC is looking at, and we’re here to help and collect information on how we can best do that.”
The CNAD met with the SEC’s Crypto Task Force on April 22 to discuss the initiative. The meeting was constructive, according to Reyes and Perkin. “They asked good questions,” Perkin said. “They’re in an information-gathering phase. They were engaged and open to discussion.”
Reyes has already signed regulatory cooperation agreements with countries such as Argentina and Paraguay. In his view, the SEC seems to be ahead of the curve when it comes to understanding the regulatory needs of digital assets, whereas regulators in other jurisdictions have tended to see crypto regulation from a traditional finance perspective.
“The quality of people that make up the SEC Crypto Task Force is quite impressive. They get it. They understand the technology,” Reyes said. “We were able to have discussions that were on point about what’s needed in order to regulate the technology… It was very refreshing.”
-
Fashion6 месяцев ago
These \’90s fashion trends are making a comeback in 2017
-
Entertainment6 месяцев ago
The final 6 \’Game of Thrones\’ episodes might feel like a full season
-
Fashion6 месяцев ago
According to Dior Couture, this taboo fashion accessory is back
-
Entertainment6 месяцев ago
The old and New Edition cast comes together to perform
-
Business6 месяцев ago
Uber and Lyft are finally available in all of New York State
-
Sports6 месяцев ago
Phillies\’ Aaron Altherr makes mind-boggling barehanded play
-
Entertainment6 месяцев ago
Disney\’s live-action Aladdin finally finds its stars
-
Sports6 месяцев ago
Steph Curry finally got the contract he deserves from the Warriors