“Code is legislation.” Whereas the catchphrase has caught on with the crypto crowd, it has little cache with the crew that really formulate legislation — legislators and people who execute the legislation — regulators. And therein lies one of many greatest challenges of regulating the cryptocurrency area — lawmakers are actually writing legislation on paper, whereas the blockchain is constructed on code. And whereas regulators can produce reams of laws, few (if any) can write a single line of code. Even because the legislation struggles (at greatest) to maintain tempo with technological advances, speeding to control in a piecemeal method can and infrequently does lead to unintended penalties.
Proper Code Not Legislation
Take as an example Singapore’s Fee Providers Act (“PSA”).
When the concept of the PSA was first mooted, it was heralded (particularly by these within the cryptocurrency trade) as a forward-looking piece of laws that may assist cement Singapore’s place as a worldwide hub for digital belongings.
While the PSA could have been hyped as the primary try by a serious monetary centre to control the rough-and-tumble cryptocurrency sector, a little bit of legislative historical past would reveal that its thrust and parry was much more restricted each in scope, scale and ambition.
Within the aftermath of the preliminary coin providing (ICO) bubble and bust, as an alternative of utilizing current laws (as has been the method within the US) and enforcement motion to carry the cryptocurrency trade to heel, lawmakers in Singapore selected a distinct method — to start out (form of) from scratch.
The Financial Authority of Singapore (MAS), which serves as each the central financial institution and regulator for monetary companies in Singapore, mooted a invoice that may cowl not simply digital tokens, however funds as effectively.
Earlier than the PSA got here into impact in January 2020, cost service suppliers had been regulated by the Fee Methods (Oversight) Act (“PSOA), whereas cash changers and remittance firms by the Cash-Altering and Remittance Companies Act (“MCRBA”).
There have been overlaps between the PSOA and the MCRBA and on the time it was believed that since cryptocurrencies had been rising in utilization, there was a necessity to control them in a simpler method, particularly for the reason that nascent asset class didn’t match neatly inside the current authorized framework.
As an alternative of attempting to remodel current laws, Singapore’s method was to start out over and produce every part underneath one piece of laws.
Enter the Fee Providers Act
At its core, the PSA was meant to do two issues — streamline the present two items of laws, the PSOA and the MCRBA, and create an “activity-based” piece of legislation that may higher address every part from digital funds (corresponding to digital wallets in apps) to digital tokens (corresponding to cryptocurrencies).
At first blush, Singapore’s method to regulating cryptocurrencies appeared promising.
On the one hand, MAS would have expanded powers underneath the designation regime of the PSA to make sure improvements in cost programs wouldn’t undermine monetary stability, whereas however, a licensing regime can be put in place overlaying not simply current cost companies suppliers, however aspiring cryptocurrency firms as effectively.
Below the PSA, there are seven key cost companies that appeal to licensing necessities:
- account issuance companies;
- home cash switch companies;
- cross-border cash switch companies;
- service provider acquisition companies;
- e-money issuance companies;
- digital cost token companies; and
- money-changing companies.
Related to the cryptocurrency trade had been licensing necessities underneath 5 and 6, e-money issuance companies and digital cost token companies and the licensing regime consisted of two broad classes:
- Cash-changing License
- Normal or Main Fee Establishment License (with the excellence between the 2 being one of many quantities processed and base capital necessities)
With Singapore’s licensing regime now in place, crypto firms (each overseas and home), desperate to burnish their credentials and look of compliance in an trade rife with fraud, raced to use.
Whose license is it anyway?
Sadly for the legion of “Crypto Bros” intending to use for a license underneath the auspices of the PSA, the record of admission necessities was lengthy and daunting, and for many of them, given their lack of expertise in monetary companies, unfamiliar.
An e-money issuance service for the needs of the PSA permits customers to make use of e-money to pay retailers or switch e-money to a different particular person and a plain interpretation of the act would cowl every part from stablecoins to pay as you go digital wallets.
Digital cost token companies underneath the PSA however dealt solely with shopping for or promoting digital cost tokens (“DPTs”), in any other case referred to as cryptocurrencies, or offering a platform to permit individuals to trade DPTs.
The primary difficulty in fact is that the PSA can’t (nor was it designed to), seize the entire actions ancillary to e-money and DPTs, underneath the umbrella of a cost companies license.
As an example, a cryptocurrency trade working in Singapore can be required to use for a license underneath the PSA, however exterior of the next ongoing necessities for sustaining such a license, virtually no steering is offered for the way it ought to function the trade:
- AML/CFT necessities
- Periodic Returns — e.g. quantity of transfers
- Cyber Hygiene — primarily cybersecurity
- Enterprise conduct — together with safeguarding of shoppers’ monies, report of transactions, issuance of receipts, and so on.
- Disclosures and Communications — correct representations on the scope of its license and actions to prospects
- Annual audit necessities
Nowhere within the PSA or its attendant laws and rules does it point out {that a} crypto trade working in Singapore wants to carry consumer’s crypto separate from its personal, or that its house owners ought not even have their very own proprietary buying and selling agency that may commerce towards prospects on its trade.
The PSA actually doesn’t stipulate any restrictions on frequent shareholding between the house owners of a crypto trade and a market maker that plies the identical trade, regardless of the evident battle of curiosity.
Such necessities are discovered as an alternative in a completely completely different piece of legislation — the Securities and Futures Act (“SFA”), a well-established piece of laws that governs actions within the capital markets and ensures such fundamentals as the necessity for exchanges to keep up impartial custodians and different frequent sense measures to keep away from conflicts of curiosity.
At its core in fact is the wrestle with what precisely a cryptocurrency is.
Whereas US Securities and Trade Fee Chairman Gary Gensler considers that the majority cryptocurrencies fall underneath the definition of securities, the Chimera-like high quality of a lot of them resists simple classification.
And on the time that the PSA was mooted, cryptocurrencies had been handled as distinct and other than conventional securities.
Due to the classification bifurcation, regulators working underneath the PSA can be laborious pressed to correctly police the area, not to mention oversee it.
To Securitise or Not Securitise, That’s the Query
As an example, what if a Singapore firm was to supply crypto lending and borrowing actions in Singapore, how precisely would that be ruled?
In line with the PSA, the definition of a “digital cost token service” means:
(a) any service of dealing in digital cost tokens (aside from any such service that the Authority could prescribe);
(b) any service of facilitating the trade of digital cost tokens (aside from any such service that the Authority could prescribe);
Presumably, borrowing and lending crypto would fall underneath “dealing” for the needs of the PSA.
But neither the PSA nor its ancillary rules present for a way such “dealing” should be carried out.
How a lot are you able to borrow and the way a lot are you able to lend?
Who must you lend to and who are you able to borrow from?
How a lot of buyer belongings are you able to lend out to and to whom?
There aren’t any necessities that Singapore-based crypto firms segregate customers’ crypto from their very own, or preserve capital reserves in case a few of that lending goes awry, solely an obligation to “safeguard” buyer monies, no matter which means.
Additionally absent from the PSA are necessities that licensees preserve adequate reserves to fulfill withdrawals or different well-established threat administration measures required by the SFA and the Banking Act.
However it ought to come as no shock that the PSA couldn’t cowl all these eventualities — it was by no means designed to neither is it clear that it was ever meant to within the first place.
Gimme a License, Make it Two
As a result of the PSA gives a licensing regime, crypto firms with a license, obtain an virtually on the spot halo-like stamp of approval from a regulator in a serious international monetary centre.
And that halo doesn’t even must be crystalised to bear fruit, as was the case for Hodlnaut, a Singapore firm that provided eye-popping yields on crypto deposits and was granted an in-principle license underneath the PSA.
On 8 August 2022, someday earlier than Singapore’s Nationwide Day (Independence Day), Hodlnaut shocked prospects by saying that it was freezing all buyer withdrawals citing “latest market situations.”
In actuality, Hodlnaut, which in March 2022, had been granted an “in-principle” PSA license was off to the races by April of that very same yr, taking publicity to the in the end doomed algorithmic stablecoin UST.
Upon receiving its “in-principle” qualification to obtain a PSA license from MAS, yield-hungry depositors flocked to Hodlnaut.
Solely a month after being sprinkled with MAS pixie mud, Hodlnaut was providing 14 per cent annualized returns on 180-day mounted deposits, that it deployed to the in the end doomed Anchor Protocol utilizing UST, an algorithmic stablecoin the place it earned yields of just about 20 per cent, clearing a cool 6 per cent within the course of.
When UST ultimately misplaced its peg and its sister token LUNA grew to become virtually nugatory, hundreds of Hodlnaut’s prospects, lured by the promise of 14 per cent annualised returns, would quickly discover that they had been not capable of withdraw cash from the platform.
A part of the issue in fact was that firms like Hodlnaut don’t even have “belongings” within the conventional sense — they’ve liabilities.
Whenever you deposit cash with a financial institution, that’s not the financial institution’s asset, it represents an unsecured mortgage to the financial institution (other than authorities deposit insurance coverage to a set quantity) and a legal responsibility on the financial institution’s books.
In return for having the privilege of borrowing cash from you, banks want to keep up what’s referred to as capital adequacy ratios — the ratio of a financial institution’s capital in relation to its risk-weighted belongings and present liabilities.
If the financial institution carries plenty of dangerous belongings on its books, it wouldn’t be capable of obtain very a lot as deposits, which is why banks carry plenty of Tier 1 capital (CET1), the very best high quality of regulatory capital, which has the flexibility to soak up losses instantly ought to they happen.
Hodlnaut’s prospects loved no such privilege.
Whereas firms like Hodlnaut boasted of their belongings underneath administration, these “belongings” had been actually unsecured loans that the corporate owed to its prospects.
However as a result of these “belongings” had been cryptocurrencies and Singapore has particular laws governing DPTs — they didn’t come underneath the auspices of the SFA or the Banking Act, however the PSA as an alternative, laws that’s significantly ill-suited to cowl such eventualities as within the case of Hodlnaut.
If it Acts Like a Financial institution, Regulate it Like One
It’s been mentioned that if it appears to be like like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, odds are it’s a duck.
Though firms corresponding to Hodlnaut aren’t banks, they behave as if they’re and should be regulated as in the event that they had been — utilizing a mixture of the SFA, Banking Act and the PSA.
As an alternative, the PSA offered firms like Hodlnaut with a veneer of legitimacy and regulatory stamp of approval as in the event that they had been working to the identical requirements as firms ruled by the Banking Act and the SFA, with out holding them accountable to such.
So was Singapore improper to have cobbled collectively the PSA in such a rush?
“Sure” and “no.”
The PSA represents a progressive piece of laws emanating from one of many world’s main monetary facilities, and stitched collectively by lawmakers intent on constructing the longer term.
Typically talked about in the identical breath as New York, London, Zurich and Hong Kong, however missing the identical hinterlands and geographical benefits of these cities, Singapore is merely doing what it could actually to keep up its edge as a monetary centre.
Which explains why in 2018, Singapore launched into a course of to take a stab at governing what many different regulators had decided was “ungovernable” — cryptocurrencies.
As a result of Singapore doesn’t profit from the large hinterland like New York, or the strategic location of Hong Kong and London, it has to leverage the benefits that it does have — velocity and agility.
Sadly, legislating for any new know-how, particularly cryptocurrencies, requires a “Goldilocks Strategy” — not too quick, however not too gradual both.
And maybe legislators can lean on the Hippocratic Oath for steering — primum non nocere — first, do no hurt.
Whereas a haste to control doesn’t prima facie do hurt, arguably the creation of a licensing regime with out the mandatory infrastructure to help such a framework does.
First Do No Hurt
Slightly than attempt to match the spherical peg of cryptocurrencies into the sq. gap of the PSA, an alternate may have been to not difficulty licenses to start with.
Singapore may have used all the present instruments on the disposal of regulators to police the cryptocurrency trade which US Securities and Trade Fee Chairman Gary Gensler famously labelled the “Wild West.”
And which means the PSA, SFA and Banking Act, while catering for such exceptions and carve outs the place current legislation proved cumbersome and inapplicable.
Exterior observers could also be fast to evaluate Singapore’s early experiment with regulating cryptocurrencies to have failed primarily based on the variety of high-profile insolvencies and collapses related to the city-state.
However that remark can be misguided.
Cryptocurrencies aren’t (but) a part of the higher monetary system and it’s unclear in the event that they ever will likely be.
By carving out crypto and defending probably the most feckless of buyers from pointless publicity, it may very well be argued that on the very least, Singapore’s lawmakers are committing to “do no hurt.”
And whereas a lot of latest high-profile crypto failures are proximate to Singapore, lawmakers within the monetary centre may hardly be mentioned to have been their proximate trigger.
Disgraced crypto hedge fund Three Arrows Capital (“3AC”) could have had its workplace in Singapore, however its fund and accepted funding supervisor had been within the British Virgin Islands.
By the point 3AC’s founders Kyle Davies and Zhu Su ghosted buyers, its funding administration license issued by MAS had lengthy lapsed.
Terra-Luna’s Terraform Labs could have had an workplace and been included in Singapore, but it surely wasn’t regulated by MAS and its founders and principal workers weren’t from the city-state.
And even when Singapore’s buyers bemoan how the town state’s sovereign wealth fund’s funding in FTX gave the cryptocurrency trade the aura of “investability” and “reliability,” neither the trade nor its officers are regulated by MAS neither is the corporate included in Singapore.
As an alternative, cryptocurrency buyers and merchants no matter jurisdiction want to acknowledge that maintaining their belongings secure in the end falls on private duty greater than the rest.
Regulation, licensing and official endorsement will do virtually nothing to ensure funds are SAFU — to maneuver ahead, legislation and regulation alone is a paper tiger, laws must be mixed with know-how.
No Extra Paper Tigers
One doable means of giving tooth to laws is requiring sensible implementation of safeguards for purchasers.
As an example, a license underneath the PSA, whether or not in-principle or in any other case, may require a declaration of all public pockets addresses managed by the license-seeking entity to the regulator.
Even when the licensee loathes to make its public pockets addresses recognized to one and all (uncertain at greatest, else how would you are taking deposits?), absolutely the authority issuing the license should be entitled to oversight?
Third social gathering firms or auditors may then be tasked for validating and verifying belongings inside these wallets are adequate to fulfill buyer withdrawals, and as an alternative of periodically, this monitoring may very well be achieved in real-time.
Regulators may leverage the very blockchain know-how that they search to manipulate, utilising its inherent transparency as a device for oversight, fairly than counting on it posthumously after issues have gone improper.
Whereas monetary establishments function in a much more structured surroundings, lawmakers who wish to correctly police the cryptocurrency sector want to make use of the very infrastructure that the trade relies on for enough policing.
And that features real-time crypto asset monitoring, unscheduled inspections and pockets identification — the flexibility to take action already exists, however energetic policing and whistleblowing has been left largely to the group.
This may’t be the way in which ahead.
Final November, the Monetary Occasions recommended Hong Kong was well-positioned to wrestle the crypto capital crown from Singapore, given the latter’s latest setbacks and its knee-jerk response to carry again on all issues crypto-related — however such a view can be considerably untimely.
Singapore is commonly lauded for example of a startup nation that succeeded, however that course of was not with out trial and error and the PSA is prone to be no completely different.
While expedient, the PSA and its implementation must evolve, however maybe at a sooner tempo than already fast regulators and lawmakers in Singapore are already accustomed to.
The velocity at which Singapore rolled out the PSA is not any small feat, however removed from resting on its laurels, lawmakers within the nation may do extra to make it useable and to unfold its ambition past its present iteration.
If the raison d’etre of licensing is to supply a secure framework for stakeholders to function in, then arguably, the PSA has moved too rapidly.
With out enough infrastructure to help a complete licensing regime, which incorporates utilizing technological instruments to supervise the licensed, the PSA dangers changing into nothing greater than a advertising and marketing device, offering licensees with a coat of credibility, at the same time as they “crypto” covertly.
By Patrick Tan, CEO & Basic Counsel of Novum Alpha
Novum Alpha is the quantitative digital asset buying and selling arm of the Novum Group, a vertically built-in group of blockchain growth and digital asset firms. For extra details about Novum Alpha and its merchandise, please go to https://novumalpha.com/ or e-mail: [email protected]
For extra enterprise reads, click on right here.