Cryptocurrencies transcend borders, necessitating international cooperation to address the complexities and risks tied to this digital asset class. A unified global approach can ensure fairness, minimize regulatory loopholes, and uphold financial stability
The recent synthesis paper from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Financial Stability Board (FSB) has re-energised the global debate on cryptocurrencies. It has become evident that the recent consensus of the G20 on the necessity of crypto regulation is akin to passing the baton in a relay race of policymaking. The crypto industry finds itself at the centre of a long and winding relay race, with each stage raising more questions than answers.
In this IMF-FSB paper, a glaring issue takes centre stage — the futility of blanket bans on crypto-assets. These bans, encompassing both trading and mining activities, prove to be not only a challenge for financial regulators but also a counterproductive endeavour. The borderless nature of cryptocurrencies incentivises individuals and entities to evade such bans, amplifying financial integrity risks. Moreover, the migration of crypto activity from one jurisdiction to another introduces spillover risks, further complicating the already intricate global regulatory landscape.
In an increasingly interconnected world, the imperative is clear: achieving a global consensus on regulation. It could start with ‘acceptable common minimum’ regulation, with the liberty of each nation to build on that framework for its own market. Cryptocurrencies transcend borders, necessitating international cooperation to address the complexities and risks tied to this digital asset class. A unified global approach can ensure fairness, minimise regulatory loopholes, and uphold financial stability. However, the question lingers, why the delay in reaching a decision?
The answer lies in the inherent conflict between cryptocurrencies and the established authority of sovereigns to issue and oversee currencies. Some countries, like India, have taken a hardline anti-crypto stance, while the United States, with the largest crypto user base and substantial debt, grapples with a policy dilemma. The recent G20 meetings in New Delhi provided yet another platform for governments to deliberate and push a final decision on crypto regulation to a later day.
The recent synthesis paper from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Financial Stability Board (FSB) has re-energised the global debate on cryptocurrencies. It has become evident that the recent consensus of the G20 on the necessity of crypto regulation is akin to passing the baton in a relay race of policymaking. The crypto industry finds itself at the centre of a long and winding relay race, with each stage raising more questions than answers.
In this IMF-FSB paper, a glaring issue takes centre stage — the futility of blanket bans on crypto-assets. These bans, encompassing both trading and mining activities, prove to be not only a challenge for financial regulators but also a counterproductive endeavour. The borderless nature of cryptocurrencies incentivises individuals and entities to evade such bans, amplifying financial integrity risks. Moreover, the migration of crypto activity from one jurisdiction to another introduces spillover risks, further complicating the already intricate global regulatory landscape.
In an increasingly interconnected world, the imperative is clear: achieving a global consensus on regulation. It could start with ‘acceptable common minimum’ regulation, with the liberty of each nation to build on that framework for its own market. Cryptocurrencies transcend borders, necessitating international cooperation to address the complexities and risks tied to this digital asset class. A unified global approach can ensure fairness, minimise regulatory loopholes, and uphold financial stability. However, the question lingers, why the delay in reaching a decision?
The answer lies in the inherent conflict between cryptocurrencies and the established authority of sovereigns to issue and oversee currencies. Some countries, like India, have taken a hardline anti-crypto stance, while the United States, with the largest crypto user base and substantial debt, grapples with a policy dilemma. The recent G20 meetings in New Delhi provided yet another platform for governments to deliberate and push a final decision on crypto regulation to a later day.
add
The recent synthesis paper from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Financial Stability Board (FSB) has re-energised the global debate on cryptocurrencies. It has become evident that the recent consensus of the G20 on the necessity of crypto regulation is akin to passing the baton in a relay race of policymaking. The crypto industry finds itself at the centre of a long and winding relay race, with each stage raising more questions than answers.
In this IMF-FSB paper, a glaring issue takes centre stage — the futility of blanket bans on crypto-assets. These bans, encompassing both trading and mining activities, prove to be not only a challenge for financial regulators but also a counterproductive endeavour. The borderless nature of cryptocurrencies incentivises individuals and entities to evade such bans, amplifying financial integrity risks. Moreover, the migration of crypto activity from one jurisdiction to another introduces spillover risks, further complicating the already intricate global regulatory landscape.
In an increasingly interconnected world, the imperative is clear: achieving a global consensus on regulation. It could start with ‘acceptable common minimum’ regulation, with the liberty of each nation to build on that framework for its own market. Cryptocurrencies transcend borders, necessitating international cooperation to address the complexities and risks tied to this digital asset class. A unified global approach can ensure fairness, minimise regulatory loopholes, and uphold financial stability. However, the question lingers, why the delay in reaching a decision?
The answer lies in the inherent conflict between cryptocurrencies and the established authority of sovereigns to issue and oversee currencies. Some countries, like India, have taken a hardline anti-crypto stance, while the United States, with the largest crypto user base and substantial debt, grapples with a policy dilemma. The recent G20 meetings in New Delhi provided yet another platform for governments to deliberate and push a final decision on crypto regulation to a later day.
The recent synthesis paper from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Financial Stability Board (FSB) has re-energised the global debate on cryptocurrencies. It has become evident that the recent consensus of the G20 on the necessity of crypto regulation is akin to passing the baton in a relay race of policymaking. The crypto industry finds itself at the centre of a long and winding relay race, with each stage raising more questions than answers.
In this IMF-FSB paper, a glaring issue takes centre stage — the futility of blanket bans on crypto-assets. These bans, encompassing both trading and mining activities, prove to be not only a challenge for financial regulators but also a counterproductive endeavour. The borderless nature of cryptocurrencies incentivises individuals and entities to evade such bans, amplifying financial integrity risks. Moreover, the migration of crypto activity from one jurisdiction to another introduces spillover risks, further complicating the already intricate global regulatory landscape.
In an increasingly interconnected world, the imperative is clear: achieving a global consensus on regulation. It could start with ‘acceptable common minimum’ regulation, with the liberty of each nation to build on that framework for its own market. Cryptocurrencies transcend borders, necessitating international cooperation to address the complexities and risks tied to this digital asset class. A unified global approach can ensure fairness, minimise regulatory loopholes, and uphold financial stability. However, the question lingers, why the delay in reaching a decision?
The answer lies in the inherent conflict between cryptocurrencies and the established authority of sovereigns to issue and oversee currencies. Some countries, like India, have taken a hardline anti-crypto stance, while the United States, with the largest crypto user base and substantial debt, grapples with a policy dilemma. The recent G20 meetings in New Delhi provided yet another platform for governments to deliberate and push a final decision on crypto regulation to a later day.
The recent synthesis paper from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Financial Stability Board (FSB) has re-energised the global debate on cryptocurrencies. It has become evident that the recent consensus of the G20 on the necessity of crypto regulation is akin to passing the baton in a relay race of policymaking. The crypto industry finds itself at the centre of a long and winding relay race, with each stage raising more questions than answers.
In this IMF-FSB paper, a glaring issue takes centre stage — the futility of blanket bans on crypto-assets. These bans, encompassing both trading and mining activities, prove to be not only a challenge for financial regulators but also a counterproductive endeavour. The borderless nature of cryptocurrencies incentivises individuals and entities to evade such bans, amplifying financial integrity risks. Moreover, the migration of crypto activity from one jurisdiction to another introduces spillover risks, further complicating the already intricate global regulatory landscape.
In an increasingly interconnected world, the imperative is clear: achieving a global consensus on regulation. It could start with ‘acceptable common minimum’ regulation, with the liberty of each nation to build on that framework for its own market. Cryptocurrencies transcend borders, necessitating international cooperation to address the complexities and risks tied to this digital asset class. A unified global approach can ensure fairness, minimise regulatory loopholes, and uphold financial stability. However, the question lingers, why the delay in reaching a decision?
The answer lies in the inherent conflict between cryptocurrencies and the established authority of sovereigns to issue and oversee currencies. Some countries, like India, have taken a hardline anti-crypto stance, while the United States, with the largest crypto user base and substantial debt, grapples with a policy dilemma. The recent G20 meetings in New Delhi provided yet another platform for governments to deliberate and push a final decision on crypto regulation to a later day.