Bitcoin Regulation

Bitcoin liquidity drops to 10-month low amid US bank run

The banking crisis has impacted United States-based exchanges the most, with traders suffering due to increased price volatility.

Bitcoin (BTC) market liquidity has dropped to a 10-month low, despite a bullish quarter in terms of price gain. The liquidity dry-up is partly attributed to the bank run in the United States and the ongoing regulatory actions against crypto companies.

BTC’s price has registered a 45% surge in 2023, making it one of the best-performing assets. The price gains come amid a looming financial crisis in the traditional financial market, with stocks and bonds seeing one of their worst years. As the financial crisis has worsened, several banks have collapsed.

The banking crisis has also directly impacted the crypto ecosystem. The collapse of crypto-friendly banks, such as Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, removed important U.S. dollar payment rails for crypto, leading to a liquidity crisis, especially on U.S. exchanges.

Liquidity on U.S. vs. non-U.S. exchanges. Source: Kaiko

The crunch in liquidity has also led to increased price volatility forcing traders to pay more fees in slippage. Slippage refers to the price difference between the expected price of a transaction and the price at which it’s fully executed. For a $100,000 sell order, the slippage for the BTC/USD pair on Coinbase climbed by 2.5 times at the beginning of March. During the same time frame, Binance’s BTC/USDT pair’s slippage barely moved.

USD vs. USDT price slippage. Source: Kaiko

The liquidity crunch has also led to higher price volatility on U.S. exchanges, where the price discrepancy between BTC and U.S. dollar pairs has increased drastically compared with non-U.S. exchanges. For example, the price of BTC on Binance.US is more volatile than the average price across 10 other exchanges.

Binance.US price difference vs. 10 exchanges. Source: Kaiko

Conor Ryder, research head of on-chain data analytics firm Kaiko, explained the drastic impact of the liquidity crisis on traders and the market. He noted that stablecoins are replacing U.S. dollar pairs, and although it lessens the impact of U.S. banking troubles, it has an adverse effect on liquidity in the United States. He added that it would indirectly harm investors there.

Bitcoin touches $29K! Why BTC is unaffected by regulatory pressure

Join us as we discuss the significance of Bitcoin reaching $29,000 and why it seems to be unaffected by all the regulatory pressure and collapsing banks.

In this week’s episode of Market Talks, Cointelegraph welcomes Brent Xu, founder and CEO of Umee — a decentralized finance hub built on the Cosmos SDK that offers tools for macro-level borrowing and lending applications. Before founding Umee, Xu led strategy at Tendermint while setting the strategic roadmap and partnerships for the Cosmos Ecosystem.

We start things off with our main topic for today: Bitcoin (BTC) touched $29,000, a new high for 2023, despite recent United States regulatory crackdowns on crypto firms and related uncertainty. This could also suggest the crypto market does not seem too bothered about the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s lawsuit against Binance and its CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao. Even the Crypto Fear & Greed Index — which aims to numerically present the current “emotions and sentiments” toward Bitcoin and other large cryptocurrencies — has been steadily increasing over the last month despite wobbles in the global banking sector. What does all this really mean for the crypto space, though? Should investors not be so worried about regulations?

This week Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Pakistan, Russia, India and Brazil decided to settle trade in their own currencies rather than the United States dollar. Why have they decided to do this, and will it have a significant impact on the U.S. and the dollar? Will there be any ramifications for the crypto space, if any?

We ask Xu what his vision is for how DeFi protocols and crypto exchanges intend to build out their own banking services in the future. Centralized crypto exchanges are under all sorts of pressure from regulators at the moment, yet we still see Fidelity Investments expanding its offerings, and Nasdaq is getting close to launching its crypto custody platform. We also get Xu’s thoughts on Fidelity Investment’s recent expansion.

There is a lot going on at the moment as far as regulations in the crypto space are concerned, mostly cracking down on the crypto sector. We ask Xu what his long-term vision is for the future of the regulated crypto space in the United States.

The United States Federal Reserve seems to be in an unending fight against inflation. The interest rate hikes don’t seem to have an end in sight either. Is the Fed losing its fight? At what point will we see a pause in interest rate hikes, and how realistic is it for the Fed to achieve its objectives for this year?

We cover all this and more, so make sure to stay tuned until the end. Market Talks airs every Thursday at 12:00 pm ET (5:00 pm UTC). Each week, it features interviews with some of the most influential and inspiring people from the crypto and blockchain industry. So, head on over to Cointelegraph Markets & Research’s YouTube page and smash those Like and Subscribe buttons for all our future videos and updates.

FTX fiasco set back the approval of Bitcoin spot ETFs: Valkyrie investment chief

The chief investment officer at Valkyrie Investments, Steven McClurg, explains how firms are working around a challenging regulatory environment to bring Bitcoin spot ETFs to the U.S. market.

In episode 11 of Hashing It Out, Cointelegraph’s Elisha Owusu Akyaw speaks to Steven McClurg, the chief investment officer of Valkyrie Investments, about the state of Bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and the way forward.

Regulators in the United States have mounted stiff opposition against listing Bitcoin spot ETFs even though Canadian and European regulators have given the green light. McClurg points out that even for the Canadian and European markets, these approvals also took a long time. According to McClurg, the two biggest issues U.S. regulators have with Bitcoin spot ETFs are custody and market manipulation.

The chief investment officer believes that the custody issue would have largely been dealt with if not for the FTX fiasco, which caused regulators to take a step back to scrutinize whether custodians are safe before approving more Bitcoin investment products. On the second issue of market manipulation, McClurg believes that similar products in Canada have made a case for why such concerns are invalid.

Locally, companies like Valkyrie Investments are actively working with regulators to answer major questions surrounding the safety of Bitcoin Spot ETFs. McClurg says Valkyrie has been educating regulators on how custody works and sharing notes on due diligence done by the company on various custodians, which picked up red flags in some of the companies that went bust last year.

“We performed due diligence on Celsius, Voyager, BlockFi, and FTX, and we never onboarded with them. We decided that they were not safe platforms to be involved with.“

According to McClurg, despite the lack of United States-based Bitcoin spot ETFs, people in the country can have exposure to spot ETFs from Canada through brokerages.

Related: Bitcoin’s 2023 price action driven by the desire to regain losses, according to professional trader

He also points out that some lawmakers, especially in the House of Representatives, have been receptive to making laws that make it easier to launch Bitcoin spot ETFs. Nevertheless, McClurg maintains a pessimistic outlook on how soon consumers can access spot ETFs from the United States.

“We do believe that either in a future administration after the next elections or through legislative action, we will be able to push this forward.“

Other topics discussed include:

  • Bitcoin futures ETF vs. Bitcoin Spot ETF
  • Bitcoin mining ETFs
  • General regulatory environment for crypto in the U.S.
  • Criticisms of Bitcoin ETFs

Listen to the full discussion about Bitcoin ETFs on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts or TuneIn. You can also check out Cointelegraph’s complete catalog of informative podcasts on the Cointelegraph Podcasts page.

State caps or federal regulation: What’s next for political crypto donations

The industry isn’t having the best of its moments now, but the topic of campaign donations in crypto remains a relatively safe space for innovation.

On Jan. 25, the Committee on Elections introduced a bill to the Kansas House of Representatives aimed at capping political donations via crypto at $100. Regardless of the success of this legislative initiative, the state of Kanzas won’t be the first jurisdiction to target anonymous donations. From authoritarian nations like Russia or China to electoral democracies like Ireland or Canada, one can find recent attempts to ban crypto donations to politicians all around the globe. 

The opponents of crypto may have a strong point — it’s hard to imagine a healthy democracy where large sums of untraceable money are flowing between candidates. But the problem of “dark money” and tools to dispense it around the political system existed way before pseudonymous crypto assets arrived. The industry isn’t having the best of its moments now, but the topic of campaign donations in crypto remains a relatively safe space for innovation. Could it change by the next electoral cycle?

The 2014 rule and a $6,600 cap

The first time the United States Federal Election Commission (FEC), the independent authority responsible for enforcing election law, approached the topic of crypto donations was in 2014. Back then, digital assets weren’t nearly as big of an issue, and the price of one Bitcoin (BTC) lay around the $300 mark. Perhaps that is why the FEC took the new problem light-heartedly. It acknowledged the option to donate in Bitcoin (and Bitcoin only) but qualified it under the category of “in-kind contributions” along with such non-monetary campaign activities as giving a free consultation or a concert performance.

Despite the apparent inclusion, Bitcoin donations have been deemed to remain non-anonymous and capped at the same mark as direct cash donations. There is a basic limit of such donations that grows along with the inflation from one electoral cycle to another — by 2024, it will stand at $3,300 for the primary and the same amount for the general election. The status of “in-kind contribution” also prevented campaigners from spending received Bitcoin directly — they have to “liquidate” it and then deposit the money into their accounts.

But there is a caveat within the American political system. While the amount of personal donations may be limited, one can always support Political Action Committees (PACs) by donating up to $41,300 yearly. There are also Super PACs, which have no limit whatsoever. Technically, Super PACS cannot make any direct contributions, but they can spend unlimited amounts of funds in marketing support of their candidates independent of their campaigns.

Recent: Ethereum layer-2 solutions may focus less on token incentives in the future

There is at least one successful instance — BitPAC — specifically dedicated to promoting cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. It has accepted donations of Bitcoin, Ether (ETH) and Litecoin (LTC) and used those donations to support U.S. presidential candidates, congressional candidates, Super PACs and grassroots organizations.

The FEC has not issued any major statements on crypto donations since 2014, although Bitcoin’s total capitalization has sky-rocketed since then, not to mention the issuance and adoption of hundreds of other digital currencies.

An example of an itemization schedule for donating cryptocurrency. Source: FEC

There is also a major exception for nonfungible tokens (NFTs). In 2022, the FEC deemed it “permissible” to send NFTs to political campaign contributors without violating rules on corporate contributions. Earlier in 2019, the FEC approved an ERC-20 token issued by Omar Reyes to use in an incentives program for his congressional campaign. The agency decided the tokens to be souvenirs with no monetary value.

Kansas or California?

Over the last decade, the separate states have largely agreed with the FEC’s vague recommendations on crypto donations. It was only South Carolina, North Carolina and Kansas where lawmakers decided firmly against any donations in crypto. Early on, crypto donations started to spread slowly with the help of enthusiastic politicians like Rand Paul, Austin Petersen or Jared Polis.

However, in the 2020s, when every fifth American has dealt with crypto to some degree, and the industry itself became a sort of a problem for global regulators, the mood swung in another direction. In April 2022, Ireland became the first European country to officially prohibit political donations in crypto. As Darragh O’Brien, the Irish minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, explained to journalists back then, the law aimed to protect Ireland’s democratic system, “given the escalating threat of cyber warfare targeting free countries.”

This year, Kansas started to discuss political donations in the state legislature. The local House bill no. 2167 sets a cap of $100 for any political candidate in the state’s primary or general election. Moreover, even for donations under $100, the receiver would need to “immediately convert” the crypto into U.S. dollars, not use the crypto for expenditures, and not hold on to the funds.

There is, however, a case for optimism. After four years of a ban, candidates for state and local offices in California are once again allowed to accept donations in cryptocurrency. The ban was lifted by the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) last year after it considered three major strategies regarding crypto donations.

The option with a $100 cap, like in Kansas, was also on the table, but the FPPC decided to go with the original FEC prescription and treat donations in crypto as in-kind contributions. The Golden State joined 12 other states where political donations of digital assets are explicitly allowed.

Crypto donations in 2024

Why, in all those years, when the landscape of the crypto industry has been constantly changing, has the FEC not come up with any significant updates? First of all, 2014’s ruling was finalized only in 2019, so, with all reservations, it is not that ancient, as Martin Dobelle, co-founder and CEO of Engage Labs, told Cointelegraph. He said it “has been a good rule and has allowed crypto political donations to be made successfully.”

Anthony Georgiades, co-founder of Pastel Network, considers the FEC’s pace to be completely in agreement with general crypto regulation in the United States. With crypto still being a very new industry compared to traditional finance, the FEC is most likely unsure of how to monitor crypto donations, making it difficult to enforce any regulations. He further stated that the time for some updates on crypto donations has come, telling Cointelegraph:

“With all the recent turbulence in crypto, regulators now want to ensure there’s more clarity and transparency within the industry, and we’ll be seeing more regulation introduced by the time the next electoral cycle begins.”

Terrence Yang, managing director of Swan Bitcoin, isn’t so optimistic about the chances of getting the updates from the FEC by the next electoral cycle. Speaking to Cointelegraph, he points out the polarized nature of the current political configuration.

“Because of the split Congress, it may be harder than you think to get legislation passed. It’s unlikely any crypto election laws get added to a bill to pass both houses of Congress and get signed by the president,” he said.

Given the turmoil in markets brought about by the crypto winter of 2022, there is always a chance that new crypto donation regulations would not be friendly to the market. But, on the other hand, the area of campaign donations still remains totally free of any public scandals involving crypto.

Of course, there was the case of Sam Bankman-Fried and the $40 million he donated to both political parties in the U.S. and tried to return later. But, as with the lobbying efforts of the crypto industry in general, that technically has nothing to do with the topic of campaign donations in crypto. “In fact, there’s a very compelling case that political finance offers a genuine use case for blockchain technology, which can be leveraged to significantly enhance transparency and traceability,” Dobelle stated.

Recent: Next stop Shanghai — Ethereum’s latest milestone approaches

“There’s plenty of reason to be optimistic about the future regulation of crypto donations,” Georgiades believes. It takes time for knowledge to develop and spread to regulators; the example of internet regulation, practically absent in the 1990s, is still fresh.

It’s hard to imagine a flawless implementation of regulations, but over time, the understanding of the technology will grow; regulators will become more adept and recognize where crypto has the potential to impact campaign fundraising and where the risks need to be mitigated.

“It’s just going to take patience and a lot of education to get there,” Georgiades concluded.

Silicon Valley Bank shut down by California regulator

The FDIC stated that as the receiver, it had immediately transferred all insured deposits of Silicon Valley Bank to the newly created Deposit Insurance National Bank of Santa Clara (DINB).

Silicon Valley Bank, a major financial institution for venture-backed companies, was shut down by California’s financial watchdog on March 10 — marking the first Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation-insured bank to fail in 2023. 

The California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation confirmed that Silicon Valley Bank was ordered to close but did not specify the reason for the shutdown. The California regulator appointed the FDIC as the receiver to protect insured deposits. 

Depositors “will have full access to their insured deposits no later than Monday morning, March 13, 2023,” read the official statement. The regulator explained that uninsured depositors would be given a “receivership certificate for the remaining amount of their uninsured funds” and entitled to future dividend payments once the FDIC sells all Silicon Valley Bank assets.

Silicon Valley Bank, which is also known as SVB, operated 17 branches across California and Massachusetts. All branches and the main office will be open on March 13 to facilitate depositor access.

SVB is one of the United States’ 20 largest banks by total assets. The bank provided financial services to several crypto-focused venture firms, including Andreessen Horowitz and Sequoia.

Related: Bitcoin battles $20K as trader calls bank chaos ‘2008 all over again’

The bank’s downfall was swift, coming less than 48 hours after management disclosed that they needed to raise $2.25 billion in stock to shore up operations. The announcement was part of SVB’s mid-quarter financial update, where it disclosed the sale of $21 billion in securities at a $1.8 billion loss.

SIVB stock was trading north of $280 at the start of the week. Before trading was halted, the stock was worth $106.08. Source: Yahoo Finance

Trading in SVB stock (SIVB) was halted on March 9 due to extreme volatility. The stock’s 60% drop was the biggest single-day wipeout in history, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The failure of Silicon Valley Bank prompted a flurry of commentary from businesses and policymakers. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, said, “I am alarmed by the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, which marks the second largest bank failure in U.S. history.” She added:

“I am closely monitoring and convening Committee members with regulators so myself and members can understand the latest around the closure of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) appointed as receiver.”

CoinTracker integrates with H&R Block to offer crypto tax preparation

The new integration allows crypto users to automatically fill out the crypto portion of Form 8949, which is used to report capital gains and losses from investments for tax filings.

Crypto tax software provider CoinTracker is integrating its software with H&R Block, a company that helps millions of customers prepare their income taxes across Canada, the United States and Australia. 

In an announcement seen by Cointelegraph, CoinTracker noted the partnership will allow American H&R Block customers to use CoinTracker and automatically fill in their Form 8949 regarding crypto trades. This form is submitted during tax season to report one’s capital gains and losses from investments.

Previously, users had to cut and paste crypto trade data into each form field on the H&R Block app, which could lead to mistakes. Under the new integration, H&R users can import their crypto transactions from “most” exchanges into their H&R Block tax returns. 

H&R Block is an American tax preparation company founded in 1955. In 2020, H&R Block had around 20 million tax customers.

The two companies also made some additional upgrades for the 2023 tax season as a result of the integration, including the offer of free CoinTracker accounts to all H&R users who have fewer than 25 crypto trades, as well as certain discounts for other H&R users. 

In a statement, CoinTracker COO Vera Tzoneva said that the new integration should cut down on the hassle of paying crypto taxes, stating:

“The process of crypto tax filing is far too complex. We remain fixated on delivering peace of mind and the requisite tools for all crypto users. Partnering with H&R Block is a major step toward realizing this vision.”

Related: Bitcoin-friendly Cash App integrates TaxBit amid tax-filing season

Tax season is seen by some as a confusing and complex time for some crypto traders. While legally defined “crypto brokers” are required to issue a Form 1099-B to each customer, the Internal Revenue Service has yet to clearly explain what firms fall under the definition of “brokers.”

Most centralized exchanges produced the required forms for their users but not decentralized finance protocols. This has left some taxpayers relying on blockchain explorers to determine their gains and losses.

Even if a taxpayer only uses centralized exchanges, tracking gains and losses can still become complex if the user transfers crypto between exchanges, as this can cause transactions to show up on multiple forms.

CoinTracker’s crypto tax software is one of many.

Over the past few years, several crypto tax software solutions have been offered, including CoinTracker, Koinly, Taxbit, CoinLedger, TokenTax and others. These products allow the user to enter their exchange and wallet accounts into a single interface that tracks all of their transactions.

However, not all solutions are integrated with tax preparation platforms like H&R Block, TurboTax, FreeTaxUSA, etc.

Investor concerns persist as crypto investment products see 4th week of outflows

According to CoinShares, outflows from crypto investment funds amounted to $17 million last week, marking the fourth consecutive week of outflows.

On March 6, European cryptocurrency investment firm CoinShares published its “Digital Asset Fund Flows Report,” which reveals that investors have continued to show negative sentiment toward crypto investment products, with outflows totaling $17 million. 

The negative sentiment was primarily focused on Bitcoin (BTC), with outflows for the cryptocurrency totaling $20 million. In contrast, short-Bitcoin products saw inflows for a third week that totaled $1.8 million, according to the report.

CoinShares’ data shows that “overall volumes across investment products were low at US$844m for the week,” with Bitcoin market volumes 15% lower than usual, averaging $57 billion.Additionally, there seems to have been a shift in sentiment regionally, with the U.S. experiencing inflows of $7.6 million while Europe saw outflows of $23 million.

Minor inflows were also observed in other crypto assets, with Ether (ETH) and Solana’s SOL (SOL) seeing drawdowns of $700,000 and $340,000, respectively. In contrast, blockchain equity investors remained bullish, with inflows of $1.6 million last week. CoinShares suggested that investors are still keen on the underlying technology of digital assets but are wary of the regulatory environment surrounding cryptocurrencies.

According to CoinShares, there was a meager increase in the total assets under management (AUM) of short-Bitcoin products for the week. However, despite recent inflows, short-BTC products have seen a mere 4.2% year-to-date growth in AUM compared with the 36% increase in long-Bitcoin AUM. The data suggests that short-Bitcoin positions have failed to deliver expected returns this year. 

Related: BTC price ‘in the chop zone’ — 5 things to know in Bitcoin this week

Overall, the negative sentiment toward crypto investment products will likely continue until there is more clarity on the regulatory front. As governments worldwide continue to grapple with how to regulate this new asset class, investors are being cautious and waiting on the sidelines until they have more information.

Is the IMF shutting the door prematurely on Bitcoin as legal tender?

Should the International Monetary Fund leave the door open for developing countries struggling with inflation? “Bitcoin was made for the Global South.”

There’s been little sunlight this crypto winter, so it may seem odd to present the “Bitcoin as legal tender” argument again. That is, will or should any country — other than El Salvador and the Central African Republic (CAR), which have already done so — declare Bitcoin (BTC) an official national currency?

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) raised the issue again last week in a paper putting forth nine crypto-focused policy actions that its 190 member countries should adopt. First on its list of “don’ts” was elevating crypto to “legal tender.” Or, as the multilateral lending institution’s executive board assessment stated:

“Directors generally agreed that crypto assets should not be granted official currency or legal tender status in order to safeguard monetary sovereignty and stability.”

Maybe it’s not fair to ask the question with crypto back on its heels, but was the IMF right to warn its member banks about cryptocurrencies? And if so, what exactly is lacking in the composition of private digital money that makes it unsuitable as an official national currency? Maybe it’s Bitcoin’s well-documented volatility, but if that’s the case, couldn’t the world’s oldest cryptocurrency still grow into a new role as an auxiliary scrip — perhaps in a few years when it has more users, is more liquid, and exhibits less price variance?

The IMF must tread carefully

“The IMF’s mandate is to promote global economic stability and growth. It is therefore reasonable that the IMF has recently advised countries to refrain from granting legal tender status to crypto-assets, which are, by design, often disruptive in nature,” Gavin Brown, associate professor in financial technology at the University of Liverpool, told Cointelegraph. “Such disruption does arguably present just as many opportunities as threats, but the IMF must tread a more prudent path when faced with such open-ended uncertainty.”

“There are very good economic reasons why most countries would not want to adopt cryptocurrencies like BTC as their local scrip,” James Angel, associate professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, told Cointelegraph. “In short, they don’t want to lose the profits from printing their own money or the economic control over the economy that fiat currencies provide.”

While crypto maximalists may skewer governments for printing money non-stop to paper over deficits, “sometimes, the right thing to do is to print money,” added Angel, “like in the Great Recession or the pandemic. The trick is not to print too much, which happened in the pandemic.”

‘Bitcoin was made for the Global South’

In its policy paper, the IMF had multiple arguments for its position beyond crypto’s well-documented volatility. It could expose government revenues to foreign exchange rate risk. Domestic prices “could become highly unstable” because businesses and households would spend time deciding whether to hold fiat or BTC “as opposed to engaging in productive activities.” Governments would have to allow citizens to pay taxes in Bitcoin — and so on.

Adopting crypto as legal tender could even affect a government’s social policy objectives, the IMF paper stated, “particularly for unbacked tokens, as their high price volatility could affect poor households more.” 

But questions remain. Even if the IMF arguments are valid and hold in most circumstances, aren’t there exceptions? What about developing countries struggling with inflationary currencies, like Turkey?

“Bitcoin was made for the Global South,” Ray Youssef, co-founder and CEO of Paxful — and a founder of the Built With Bitcoin Foundation — told Cointelegraph. “In the West, a lot of attention is paid toward the suspected volatility of Bitcoin. That’s because the world runs on the dollar and the West is shielded from global inflation. Right now, Turkey has an inflation rate of over 50%, and Nigeria has an inflation rate of over 20% — in these economies, Bitcoin is a strong bet.”

But even in instances like these, it may not be so easy. “In order for cryptocurrency to be used effectively as legal tender in developing countries, governments will [still] need to heavily invest in the technological infrastructure and a suitable regulatory framework,” Syedur Rahman, a partner at law firm Rahman Ravelli, told Cointelegraph. If this can be done, it “will assist in financial inclusion.”

“Adopting a foreign/hard currency or monetary standard is a last resort to rein in hyperinflation,” commented Angel. “But even weak governments like to have the power of the printing press, as it provides a taxation mechanism to pay the troops.”

The Central African Republic made crypto legal tender in April 2022 — the second country to do so, after El Salvador. Some CAR representatives said that crypto would help reduce fees for financial transactions in and out of the country. Maybe that, too, is a valid reason to elevate crypto to official currency.

Rahman acknowledged that “there are benefits such as seeing a reduction in transaction fees for financial transactions. If there is a weak traditional banking system or lack of trust, then cryptocurrency undoubtedly can provide an alternative means of payment.”

“Remittance is a great use case for Bitcoin,” said Youssef. “Money transfer companies charge high fees and funds can take days to arrive.” Bitcoin cuts down on fees, and transactions can take minutes. People who may not have a bank account can take advantage of remittances too. “This is a huge deal when you look at the amount remittances bring into some countries. In El Salvador, remittances account for over a quarter of the country’s GDP.”

Others were dismissive, however. “I think legal tender status in this context is likely a gimmick. I’m not sure how I might be more motivated to send BTC to someone living in CAR just because BTC is now viewed as legal tender in that jurisdiction,” David Andolfatto, economics department chair and professor at the University of Miami’s Miami Herbert Business School, told Cointelegraph.

Moreover, the act of granting a “foreign” currency legal tender status “seems to me to be an admission that a country’s institutions cannot be trusted to govern society effectively,” added Andolfatto, a former senior vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis where he became one of the world’s first central bankers to deliver a public talk on Bitcoin in 2014.

Bitcoin remains questionable as legal tender because it does little to quell the so-called “flight-to-safety” phenomenon, wherein the demand for money shifts violently with sudden changes in consumer or business sentiment, Andolfatto explained.

“These violent swings in the price level are unnecessary […] What is needed is a monetary policy that expands the supply of money to accommodate the demand for money in times of stress. The provision of an ‘elastic currency’ serves to stabilize the price level for the benefit of the economy as a whole.”

“Transaction fees are a friction on global economic activity,” noted Brown, and developing nations often bear the burden of these inefficiencies. Still, “In my view, a pivot to crypto assets, such as in El Salvador today, is a risk too big to take,” Brown said. Georgetown’s Angel added, “El Salvador and CAR are special cases since they did not have their own currency to start with.” 

More maturity

Bitcoin is still relatively young and volatile. But with wider adoption, including institutional investors, couldn’t it become a stable asset, more like gold? “There is some merit to this argument,” says Andolfatto. “I believe BTC price volatility will diminish as the product matures.” But even if BTC remains stable for long periods of time, “it will always be susceptible to ‘flight-to-safety’ phenomena that would generate sudden large deflations — or inflations if people are dumping BTC,” he added. “BTC will appear stable, but it will remain fragile.”

Youseff, like some others, suspects the IMF has ulterior motives in all this. The fund is interested in self-perpetuation, he suggested, adding:

“Bitcoin has proven to lower inflation, give more people access to the economy and international work, increase transparency and act as a universal translator of money. It also has the potential to lessen a country’s reliance on international centralized power — like the IMF. It’s not hard to connect the dots on why the IMF is not welcoming of Bitcoin.”

“Cryptoassets such as Bitcoin are still young in currency terms,” noted Brown, but their inherent weaknesses like price volatility and pseudo-anonymity could present “insurmountable challenges from the perspective of nation-states. Nonetheless, Bitcoin has become a backstop alternative when fiat currencies fail through macroeconomic events such as hyperinflation and controls around capital flight.”

If not the lead, still a supporting role?

For the sake of argument, let’s agree with the IMF, crypto skeptics and others that there is no future role for Bitcoin as legal tender or official currency — even in the developing world. Does that still preclude BTC and other cryptocurrencies from playing a useful social or economic role globally?

“I see a very useful role for crypto technology, which is why I have been a vocal proponent of CBDCs [central bank digital currencies] since 2014,” answered Angel. “There are very good reasons why over 100 central banks are working on these.”

But he’s skeptical about Bitcoin because “governments have a long history of pushing private money aside. I’m surprised that it has taken as long as it has for governments to react and attempt to push aside Bitcoin in order to get all the seigniorage revenue for themselves.”

Overall, crypto assets such as Bitcoin may continue “to be held in limbo by many nation states and regulators,” opined Brown, given that they are inherently anti-establishment but also “near impossible” to ban in free societies.

Bitcoin and other digital assets can still serve a positive role as “the trigger forcing the monopoly, which are central banks,” to think again about their monetary policies “and to innovate in response,” said Brown.

Coinbase launches grassroots campaign for pro-crypto policy in the U.S.

The company provided a link for voters to sign up so that they can gain information about local politicians’ crypto policies

Coinbase has launched a grassroots political campaign to promote pro-crypto policies, according to a Feb. 28 Twitter thread from the company.

The company said that the #Crypto435 campaign is intended to “grow the crypto advocacy community and share tools and resources” so that crypto users can make their voices heard in all 435 congressional districts.

Coinbase provided a link to a signup page asking users to provide a name, address, phone number and email address to receive further information. The exchange claimed that it will provide people who sign up with “information about how to contact specific politicians in their local districts, what those politicians’ records on crypto are, tips for making your voices heard in D.C., and more.”

In the thread, Coinbase argued that the crypto community has reached a “pivotal moment” in which political action will now be necessary, stating:

“The crypto community has reached an important moment. Decisions being made by legislators and regulators in DC and around the country will impact the future of how we can build, buy, sell, and use crypto.”

The announcement had mixed reactions from Twitter users. Many applauded the move with statements like “Crypto is what we can all come together and support.” and “Good stuff Coinbase. Very important!” At the same time, some XRP fans alleged that the announcement was hypocritical. They felt that if Coinbase really wanted to fight the powers that be, it would not have delisted XRP after the Securities and Exchange Commission labeled it as a security.

Aside from a small tax provision enacted in 2021, the U.S. Congress has not passed any laws defining what a cryptocurrency is or legislating how specifically crypto businesses can comply with regulation.

This is in contrast to Singapore, where the legislature passed a law that specifically spelled out the requirements for operating a crypto-related business in the country.

SEC Chair Gary Gensler has argued that existing U.S. securities law applies to crypto in some cases. But Nexo and other crypto companies have claimed that current U.S. laws are so vague the industry doesn’t know how to comply with them.

The issue of crypto regulation continues to be hotly debated both inside and outside the crypto community. Crypto companies have donated to lobbying groups in the past. But this appears to be one of the first times a crypto company has tried to organize a grassroots political campaign.

The limitations of the EU’s new cryptocurrency regulations

By the time MiCA makes it through the EU, will it be enough to effectively regulate the crypto industry on the continent?

The final vote on the European Union’s much-awaited set of crypto rules, known as the Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) regulation, was recently deferred to April 2023. It was not the first delay — previously the European lawmakers rescheduled the procedure from November 2022 to February 2023. 

The setback, however, was caused solely by technical difficulties, and thus, MiCA is still on its way to becoming the first comprehensive pan-European crypto framework. But that will happen only in 2024, whereas during the second half of last year, when the MiCA text had already been mostly written, the industry was shaken with a number of shocks, provoking new headaches for regulators. There’s little doubt that in an industry as dynamic as crypto, the whole of 2023 will bring some new hot topics as well.

Hence, the question is whether MiCA, with its already existing imperfections, could qualify as a truly “comprehensive framework” a year from now. Or, which is more important, will it for an effective set of rules to prevent future failures akin to TerraUSD or FTX?

These questions have certainly appeared in the mind of the president of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde. In November 2022, amid the FTX scandal, she claimed “there will have to be a MiCA II, which embraces broader what it aims to regulate and to supervise, and that is very much needed.”

Cointelegraph reached out to a range of industry stakeholders to know their opinions on whether the Markets in Crypto Assets regulation is still enough to enable the proper functioning of the crypto market in Europe.

EU DeFi regulations still a ways off

One main blindspot with regard to the MiCA is decentralized finance (DeFi). The current draft generally lacks any mention of one of the later organizational and technological forms in the crypto space, and it surely could become a problem when MiCA arrives. That certainly drew the attention of Jeffrey Blockinger, general counsel at Quadrata. Speaking to Cointelegraph, Blockinger imagined a scenario for a future crisis: 

“If DeFi protocols disrupt the major centralized exchanges as a result of a broad loss of confidence in their business model, new rules could be proposed to address everything from money laundering to customer protection.”

Bittrex Global CEO Oliver Linch also believes there is a global problem with DeFi regulation and that MiCA won’t make an exception. Linch said that that DeFi is inherently unregulatable and, to some degree, even a low priority for regulators, as the majority of customers engage in crypto mainly through centralized exchanges.

Recent: DeFi security: How trustless bridges can help protect users

However, Linch told Cointelegraph that just because regulators can supervise and engage with centralized exchanges most easily doesn’t mean there isn’t an important role for DeFi to play in the sector.

The lack of a distinct section dedicated to DeFi doesn’t mean it’s impossible to regulate. Speaking to Cointelegraph, Terrance Yang, managing director at Swan Bitcoin, said that DeFi is to some degree transferable to the language of traditional finance, and therefore, regulatable:

“DeFi is just a bunch of derivatives, bonds, loans and equity financing dressed up as something new and innovative.”

The yield-bearing, lending and borrowing of collateralized crypto products are things that investment and commercial banks are interested in and should be regulated similarly, Yang believes. In that way, the suitability requirements as formulated in MiCA can actually be helpful. For instance, DeFi projects may potentially be defined as providing crypto asset services in MiCA’s vocabulary.

Lending and staking

DeFi may be the most notable, but surely not the only limitation of the upcoming MiCA. The EU framework also fails to address the growing sector of crypto lending and staking.

Given the recent failures of the lending giants, such as Celsius, and the rising attention of American regulators to staking operations, EU lawmakers will need to come up with something as well.

“The market collapse in the last year was spurred by poor practices in this space like weak or non-existing risk management and reliance on worthless collateral,” Ernest Lima, partner at XReg Consulting, told Cointelegraph.

Yang noted the particular problem of disbalance in the regulation of lending and staking in the Eropean Union. Ironically, at the moment, it is the crypto market that enjoys an asymmetrical advantage in terms of loose regulation when compared to the traditional banking system in Europe. Legacy commercial or investment banks and even “traditional” fintech companies are overregulated relative to the arguably heavily under-regulated crypto exchanges, crypto lending and staking platforms:

“Either let the free market work with no regulation at all, except maybe for fraud, or make the rules the same for all who offer economically the same product to Europeans.”

Another issue to watch is the nonfungible tokens (NFTs). In August 2022, European Commission Adviser Peter Kerstens revealed that, despite the absence of the definition in MiCA, it will regulate NFTs as cryptocurrencies in general. In practice, this could mean that NFT issuers will be equated to crypto asset service providers and required to submit regular accounts of their activities to the European Securities and Markets Authority at their local governments.

Cause for optimism 

MiCA was largely met with moderate optimism by the crypto industry. Despite a few rigidities in the text, the approach seemed generally reasonable and promising in terms of market legitimization.

With all the tumult in 2022, will the next iteration of the EU crypto framework, a hypothetical “MiCA-2,” be more restrictive or crypto-skeptical? “The further delays MiCA has faced have only highlighted the idle approach taken by the EU to introduce legislation that is needed more now than ever before, particularly given recent market events,” Linch said, claiming the necessity of tighter and swifter scrutiny over the market.

Recent: SEC vs. Kraken: A one-off or opening salvo in an assault on crypto?

Lima also anticipates a closer approach with more issues covered. And it is really important for European lawmakers to pace up with the regulatory updates:

“I expect a more robust approach to be taken in some of the technical standards and guidelines that are currently being worked on and will form part of the MiCA regime. We might also see greater scrutiny by regulators in authorization, approval and supervision, but ‘crypto winter’ will have long since thawed by the time the legislation is revised.”

At the end of the day, one shouldn’t get caught up in the stereotypes about the tardiness of the European Union’s bureaucratic machine.

It is still the EU, and not the United States, where there is at least one large legal document, scheduled to become a law, and the main effect of the MiCA was always much more important symbolically, whereas the urgent issues in crypto could actually be covered by less ambitious legislative or executive acts. It is the mood of these acts, however, that remains crucial — the last time we heard from the EU it decided to oblige the banks storing 1,250% risk weight on their exposure to digital assets.