IMF published notes on the regulation of crypto assets and on the institutional arrangements for fintech regulation and supervision. The note on the regulation of crypto assets identifies selected elements of regulation and supervision that authorities should consider when deciding on a regulatory framework for crypto assets. The note on institutional arrangements for fintech regulation and supervision presents findings from a review of the institutional arrangements in 10 jurisdictions; it highlights that the fintech institutional framework mostly mirrors the established responsibilities for financial-sector policy, supervision, and development.
Note on regulation of crypto assets
The note briefly summarizes some of the most relevant risks related to crypto assets and concentrates on how regulatory frameworks could address these risks. To illustrate the analysis, some country examples are compiled in the Appendix. Some of the risks incurred by investors are, for instance, operational and cyber risk of wallet providers and the crypto trading platform; market, credit, and default risk of issuers; comingling risk of assets; liquidity risk of both issuers and service providers; market manipulation; misselling; and fraud. Crypto assets are also vulnerable to misuse for money laundering and terrorist financing. In addition, crypto assets may generate contagion and business model risks, which may potentially become systemic and warrant a prudential response.
The note highlights that regulators need to continuously monitor the crypto-asset landscape to understand the direction of industry developments. Ongoing efforts to address data gaps to monitor markets and potential contagion effects to the existing financial sector are welcome. Regulators need to take a proactive approach to address any risks potentially emerging from industry developments and swiftly build capacity and expertise in new instruments and new technology, given the high reputational risks involved. Capacity and resources of supervisory authorities, in addition to the potential damage to trust in the financial sector, will need to be evaluated in each case. Moreover, regulators also need to clearly communicate the role of regulation and supervision to the public, emphasizing the risks that are borne by investors and consumers. While regulation should be tailored to jurisdiction-specific features, a consistent approach and international cooperation will be key to prevent and minimize regulatory arbitrage and potential inconsistencies in the application of laws and regulations.
Note on institutional arrangements for fintech regulation and supervision
The note reviews the institutional arrangements for fintech regulation and supervision in 10 jurisdictions, including both advanced economies and emerging market and developing economies. These jurisdictions are UK, France, US, Hong Kong, United Arab Emirates, Dubai and Abu Dhabi, Japan, Malta, Singapore, and Switzerland. The note describes the division of responsibilities among national authorities, the organization of supervisory authorities’ main fintech functions, and domestic and international coordination on fintech matters. The note highlights that countries differ in the emphasis placed on promoting the development of fintech as opposed to regulating it. Some regulators prioritize traditional prudential and conduct objectives. Others give more weight to innovation, inclusion, competition, and development.
Most supervisors have set up a core fintech group and an expert network. The core group is usually full time and is supported by a network of experts across the agency which is available to help as needed on specific issues. Domestic and international coordination takes various forms. Coordination among domestic agencies typically makes use of existing senior-level structures; when fintech issues arise, they are referred to a sub-committee or result in the creation of a taskforce to develop proposals. International coordination arrangements range from bilateral agreements and initiatives (for example, fintech Memoranda of Understanding) to multilateral ones coordinated by the standard-setting bodies. In addition, a new multilateral network, the Global Financial Innovation Network, has recently been set up to exchange lessons learned, develop a common sandbox and help firms navigate between different jurisdictions as they aim for scale internationally. Finally, the note emphasizes that, looking to the future, regulators need to be prepared to change their institutional arrangements quickly, given the speed and ubiquity of fintech development.
Keywords: International, Banking, Insurance, Securities, Fintech, Crypto Assets, Institutional Arrangement, Cyber Risk, IMF
Previous ArticleFCA Becomes AML and CTF Supervisor of UK Cryptoasset Activities
The European Banking Authority (EBA) published four draft principles to support supervisory efforts in assessing the representativeness of COVID-19-impacted data for banks using the internal ratings based (IRB) credit risk models.
The European Council and the European Parliament (EP) reached a provisional political agreement on the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD).
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) launched a consultation (CP6/22) that sets out proposal for a new Supervisory Statement on expectations for management of model risk by banks.
The European Commission (EC) published the Delegated Regulation 2022/954, which amends regulatory technical standards on specification of the calculation of specific and general credit risk adjustments.
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) Innovation Hub updated its work program, announcing a set of projects across various centers.
The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published two consultation papers—one on the supervisory statement on exclusions related to systemic events and the other on the supervisory statement on the management of non-affirmative cyber exposures.
Certain members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs issued a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) published a consultation paper on the advice on the review of the securitization prudential framework in Solvency II.
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) published bulletins on lending in decentralized finance (DeFi) system, on blockchain scalability and fragmentation of crypto, and on extractable value and market manipulation in crypto and decentralized finance.
The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) issued a statement on PRA buffer adjustment while the Bank of England (BoE) published a notice on the statistical reporting requirements for banks.