insurance

Sam Altman-linked Meanwhile Advisors creates BTC private credit fund

The closed fund will offer investors a 5% yield in Bitcoin and lend funds in BTC to institutions.

Bitcoin life insurance innovator Meanwhile Group has come out with a private credit fund denominated in Bitcoin (BTC). The closed fund will offer investors a “conservative” yield in Bitcoin and lend funds in BTC to institutional counterparties at the managers’ discretion.

Meanwhile Advisors is targeting a 5% yield on the Meanwhile BTC Private Credit Fund term. By vetting loan recipients, the fund “effectively mitigates” the risk associated with retail platforms that provide loans predominantly to individuals, the company said in a statement.

Related: Coinbase launches crypto lending platform for US institutions

Read more

FDIC plans to return $4B in Signature crypto deposits ‘by early next week’ — Martin Gruenberg

The Treasury Department’s undersecretary for domestic finance, Nellie Liang, said at the same hearing she didn’t believe crypto “played a direct role” in the failure of the banks.

Martin Gruenberg, chair of the United States Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, has said the agency plans to return roughly $4 billion in deposits connected to Signature Bank’s digital asset banking business by early April.

In a March 29 hearing of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee exploring federal regulators’ responses to recent bank failures, Gruenberg said the deposits that were not included in the bid from a New York Community Bancorp subsidiary for Signature would be returned “by early next week.” There are $4 billion in deposits tied to digital assets, and reports had indicated that the FDIC would close all crypto-related accounts not part of the NYCB deal by April 5 if depositors didn’t move their funds.

FDIC chair Martin Gruenberg speaking at a March 29 hearing of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee

According to Gruenberg, Signature’s payments platform Signet — which, along with the digital asset deposits, was not included in the NYCB bid — was “in the process now of being marketed” to potential buyers. The FDIC, along with New York financial regulators, closed the crypto-friendly bank on March 12, citing risks to the U.S. economy after Silicon Valley Bank and Silvergate Bank had failed.

Nellie Liang, undersecretary for domestic finance at the U.S. Treasury Department, said she didn’t believe crypto “played a direct role” in the failure of either Signature or Silicon Valley Bank:

“I know that Signature had activities involved in digital assets, but I don’t believe that is the main [cause].”

The March 29 hearing marked the second time that Liang, Gruenberg, and Fed Vice Chairman for Supervision Michael Barr addressed lawmakers following the collapse of three major banks in the United States. The Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on March 28, in which Gruenberg said Silvergate Bank had not adequately managed risks that led to its failure.

Related: US exploring ways to guarantee the country’s 18T of bank deposits: Report

Though some lawmakers and regulators have seemingly pointed to the banks’ ties to digital asset companies, many have criticized the association as being without merit. Former House of Representatives member and Signature board member Barney Frank has said that officials wanted to send a “very strong anti-crypto message,” claiming that the bank had no issues with solvency at the time of its closure.

Magazine: Unstablecoins: Depegging, bank runs and other risks loom

FDIC warns CEX.IO and its reviewers to remove potentially false claims about insurance

The U.S. federal agency found a claim about deposit insurance in the fine print on the exchange’s website and on websites that reviewed it.

The United States Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has sent a letter to executives of cryptocurrency exchange CEX.IO warning them that they are potentially in violation of federal law due to false and misleading statements about the exchange’s insurance status. The agency has given the exchange 15 days to make corrections.

The statement in question is found in the small print details of the exchange’s state money transmitter license information. The information for Rhode Island reads, “U.S. dollars held in your CEX.IO fiat currency wallet are FDIC-insured up to $250,000 per account.”

The FDIC letter also noted that if the exchange has an FDIC-insured account, the insured depository institution holding the funds must be named. The letter, signed by FDIC assistant general counsel Seth Rosebrock, cites the Federal Deposit Insurance Act throughout. The letter clarifies:

“CEX is not FDIC-insured, and FDIC insurance does not protect cryptocurrency or any assets other than U.S. dollar deposits held at IDIs [insured depository institutions].”

The FDIC demanded that CEX.IO remove statements that imply it has FDIC insurance, cease and desist from making any statements to that effect, and clarify any statements relating to “pass-through insurance arising from the placement of funds in accounts at IDIs.”

Related: New York financial regulator investigates Gemini over FDIC claims: Report

The agency, which is an independent agency created by the U.S. Congress and financed by insurance dues, said that enforcement actions it might take include the issuance of cease-and-desist orders and the assessment of civil monetary penalties.

The FDIC also found two websites with reviews of CEX.IO that claimed the exchange had FDIC insurance. It sent letters demanding analogous changes to those statements as well. One of the websites, Bankless Times, is based in the United Kingdom.

The FDIC’s insistence that crypto should not be insured has garnered praise from crypto skeptic Senator Elizabeth Warren. The agency was also one of the three signatories of a recent statement warning banks of the dangers of crypto.

GK8 increases insurance cap on digital assets to $1B

Institutional customers storing Bitcoin and other digital assets in GK8’s cold vault will receive up to $1 billion in insurance coverage.

Digital asset custody platform GK8 has partnered with USI Insurance Services to expand its insurance policy for institutional customers — a move the company said would incentivize banks and other financial institutions to start investing in cryptocurrency. 

The insurance policy offers up to $1 billion of coverage per client for digital assets stored with GK8’s offline “cold vault” and up to $125 million for assets stored via its multiparty-computation-based institutional wallet. GK8 said the insurance caps, announced on Nov. 28, are significantly higher than any other digital asset policies on the market today.

Lior Lamesh, GK8’s co-founder and CEO, said the new insurance coverage would “incentivize new institutional players to confidently step into the crypto space” and let existing customers increase their holdings of digital assets.

Lamesh told Cointelegraph that GK8’s clients “need access to a higher cap of insurance in order to increase the peace of mind and protect all the [assets under management] of their clients fully.”

USI Insurance Services, GK8’s underwriting partner, is an insurance brokerage headquartered in Valhalla, New York. The company generated nearly $2 billion in revenue in 2021.

Institutional investors have shown a keen interest in adopting digital assets, but concerns around regulation and security have limited uptake so far. The collapse of crypto exchange FTX may have exacerbated these concerns, with Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao opining that investor sentiment could take years to recover. Meanwhile, former United States presidential candidate Andrew Yang told the Texas Blockchain Summit on Nov. 18 that FTX’s collapse could create an appetite for harsher regulation.

Related: Crypto insurance a ‘sleeping giant’ with only 1% of investments covered

Calls to curtail crypto adoption have grown louder in Washington, with Senators Elizabeth Warren, Tina Smith and Richard Durbin urging Fidelity Investments to reconsider offering retirement planners access to a Bitcoin (BTC) investment product.

FDIC acting chair says no crypto firms or tokens are backed by agency

Martin Gruenberg answered affirmatively to Senator Bob Menendez that there were “no cryptocurrency firms backed by the FDIC” and its coverage did not include crypto “of any kind.”

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation acting chair Martin Gruenberg said that the agency does not back any crypto firms in the United States, nor does its insurance cover losses from tokens.

In a Nov. 15 hearing of the Senate Banking Committee on the oversight of financial regulators, New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez said lawmakers need to “take a serious look at crypto exchanges and lending platforms” over risky behavior. Gruenberg responded to Menendez’s questions confirming there were “no cryptocurrency firms backed by the FDIC” and “FDIC insurance does not cover cryptocurrency of any kind.”

FDIC acting chair Martin Gruenberg addressing the Senate Banking Committee on Nov. 15

FDIC insurance normally protects deposits at financial institutions in the United States in the event of bank failure or under other special circumstances. Menendez cited the FDIC issuing cease-and-desist letters in August to companies for allegedly making false representations about deposit insurance related to cryptocurrencies and questioned how the agency, under Gruenberg, would address risks from crypto companies.

“This has been a key priority for us,” said Gruenberg. “When we identify some companies in the crypto space and others engaging in misrepresentation, we acted very forcefully, sending letters demanding that they cease and desist and indicating that if they did not comply, we have enforcement authorities available to us under the law that we can bring to bear.”

Related: Crypto adoption: How FDIC insurance could bring Bitcoin to the masses

Gruenberg has been serving as FDIC acting chair since February following the resignation of former chair Jelena McWilliams. On Nov. 14, U.S. President Joe Biden announced he would be nominating Gruenberg for a five-year term as the next FDIC chair. The acting chair will also testify before the House Financial Services Committee on Nov. 16.

Crypto adoption: How FDIC insurance could bring Bitcoin to the masses

FDIC insurance is highly sought-after by crypto exchanges, lenders, and other service providers. Is it the key to mass adoption?

Over the years, several cryptocurrency companies have claimed that deposits with them were insured by the United States Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as if they were regular savings accounts. While so far, no crypto firm has been able to offer depositors this type of insurance, some speculate it could be the key to mass adoption.

The most notable case is that of bankrupt lender Voyager Digital, which saw regulators instruct it to remove “false and misleading statements” regarding FDIC insurance. Crypto exchange FTX has been a beacon of hope looking to backstop contagion in the cryptocurrency industry, but it received a cease-and-desist letter from the FDIC to stop suggesting user funds on the platform were insured.

As it stands, even major players in the cryptocurrency space aren’t FDIC-insured. Coinbase, for example, details on its pages that it carries insurance against losses from theft but is not an FDIC-insured bank and that cryptocurrency is “not insured or guaranteed by or subject to the protections” of the FDIC or Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC).

The exchange, however, points out that “to the extent U.S. customer funds are held as cash, they are maintained in pooled custodial accounts at one or more banks insured by the FDIC.” Speaking to Cointelegraph on the subject, a Coinbase spokesperson only said she can confirm “that Coinbase is aligned with the latest FDIC guidance.”

So what is FDIC insurance, why is it so sought-after in the cryptocurrency industry and why does it remain so elusive?

What is FDIC insurance?

The FDIC itself was created amid the Great Depression in 1933 to boost the financial system’s stability following a wave of bank failures during the 1920s and has managed to protect depositors ever since.

FDIC insurance refers to the insurance provided by this agency that safeguards customer deposits in the event of bank failures. Cal Evans, managing associate at blockchain legal services firm Gresham International, told Cointelegraph:

“FDIC insurance is basically a layer of protection that covers one individual for up to $250,000 and its a backing that’s given by the United States government. It says ‘look, if this company goes bankrupt, we will guarantee your account to the value of $250,000 per person, per company.’”

So, if an FDIC-insured financial institution fails to meet its obligations to customers, the FDIC pays these amounts to depositors up to the assured amount while assuming the bank and selling its assets to pay off owed debt. It is worth noting that FDIC insurance does not cover investments like mutual funds.

Other countries have similar schemes, with deposits in the European Union being guaranteed up to $98,000 (100,000 euros) to protect against bank failures, for example. These schemes improve confidence in the financial system.

Speaking to Cointelegraph, Noah Buxton, a partner and practice leader for blockchain and digital assets at consulting firm Armanino, said, “No customer’s crypto holdings are FDIC-insured today,” but added that crypto platforms often hold customers’ dollar balances in financial institutions that are FDIC-insured.

There is a distinct difference between users having their funds insured, and the impact of a cryptocurrency firm having FDIC insurance — even for only United States dollar deposits — is hard to estimate.

The potential impact on crypto

If the FDIC were to insure deposits at a cryptocurrency platform, it would likely gain an advantage over other U.S.-based cryptocurrency platforms, as the perceived security of that platform would gain a huge boost, especially as it would be seen as a green flag from regulators as well.

Recent: Tech’s good intentions and why Satoshi’s new ‘social order’ foundered

Evans said that the FDIC would give the retail market “a lot more confidence because if FDIC insurance does happen and does apply to these companies, that means it’s going to massively, massively encourage people who are in the United States to put their money in crypto because it’s as secure as putting dollars at a bank,” adding:

“It’s going to massively help adoption, because it’s going to encourage the retail market to see companies like this at a parallel, in term of safety, with banks that people know.”

Mila Wild, marketing manager at cryptocurrency exchange ChangeHero, told Cointelegraph that one of the biggest problems the cryptocurrency sector faces is a lack of regulation and supervision, especially after the collapse of the Terra ecosystem “undermined the confidence of many investors.”

Per Wild, the FDIC doesn’t just insure customer deposits, as it also “conducts constant monitoring of financial institutions for security and compliance with consumer protection requirements.”

Dion Guillaume, global head of PR and communication at crypto exchange Gate.io, told Cointelegraph that a “friendly crypto regulatory environment would be critical for adoption,” as “blind regulatory sanctions” do not help. Guillaume added that insuring digital assets can be very different and several factors need to be carefully considered.

How hard is it to get FDIC insured?

As the FDIC could significantly boost confidence in the industry and several large exchanges have shown interest in getting it, it’s important to look at how hard it is for a cryptocurrency-native firm to actually become FDIC-insured.

Evans told Cointelegraph that it’s “actually relatively straightforward to get” as long as specific criteria are met by the organization looking to get it. The organization needs to make necessary applications and prove requisite liquidity and could potentially have to detail its management structure.

To Evans, FDIC insurance would “massively give companies operating in the United States a huge, huge benefit over foreign firms,” as U.S. residents who open accounts with insured firms would have a major incentive not to use decentralized exchanges or other peer-to-peer platforms.

Wild had a more negative stance, saying it’s “not possible to get FDIC insurance,” as it only covers “deposits held in insured banks and savings associations and protects against losses caused by the bankruptcy of these insured deposit institutions.” Wild added:

“Even if we imagine that crypto projects will be able to have FDIC insurance someday, it means sacrificing decentralization as one of the core crypto values.”

She further claimed that the FDIC’s statements on dealings with crypto firms are “trying to infringe on crypto companies and emphasize their perceived negative impact on society.” Wild concluded that the FDIC telling crypto projects not to suggest they’re insured “could further lower” trust in cryptocurrencies.

To Wild, cryptocurrencies will remain a riskier asset for the time being, as users won’t have any type of government protection. As a result, crypto users should “stay vigilant about their assets.” This does not mean fiat savings are safer, she said, as increasing inflation is eating those away.

Noah Buxton, a partner at consulting firm Armanino, went into more detail on the process, telling Cointelegraph that platforms attaining FDIC insurance would “require a modified underwriting regime, the creation of which has many significant hurdles.”

He said the FDIC would need to figure out how to take possession of crypto assets, how to value them and how to distribute them to the customers of failed crypto platforms, adding:

“While this is possible and may happen, we are more likely to see private insurance and reinsurance vehicles fill the void for the foreseeable future. This is a necessary component of any market and the broader coverage availability and competitive set of insurance options will benefit crypto holders.”

Is the insurance worth chasing?

If users are, in the future, able to get insurance through other sources — such as private company solutions or decentralized protocols — it’s worth questioning whether FDIC insurance is worth it in the long run. Insurance from the FDIC could be a significant centralizing factor, as most would likely move to a platform that has its backing.

Evans said he believes FDIC insurance “is not necessarily wanted or needed,” as wherever there’s more protection, “there happens to be more oversight and regulation,” which would mean insured companies would be “very secure and very regulated.”

These regulations could further restrict those who are able to create accounts with these companies, which would add to the question of centralization that the crypto insurance industry already faces.

Bitcoin Foundation chairman Brock Pierce told Cointelegraph that the crypto industry will nevertheless “see more companies try to get it” after the recent wave of crypto lenders going under, which will make it “even harder for them now.”

Pierce did not expect FDIC insurance to “be a big deal or matter much with regards to overall crypto adoption.” Whether it impacts cryptocurrency adoption at all may only be clear once/if the FDIC does insure cryptocurrency deposits.

Recent: ‘The social benefits are huge’: Web3 gaming to shift digital ownership

It’s worth noting that FDIC insurance may bring in a false sense of security. While no bank depositor has lost their funds since the FDIC was launched, its reserve fund isn’t fully funded. The FDIC, according to Investopedia, is “normally short of its total insurance exposure by more than 99%.”

The FDIC has, at times, borrowed money from the U.S. Treasury in the form of short-term loans. Self-custody may, for the experienced cryptocurrency investor, continue being a viable option, even if a crypto firm is one day FDIC insured.

Smart contract-enabled insurance holds promise, but can it be scaled?

Blockchains can help to insure the world’s uninsured, but daunting challenges remain: How does one explain crop insurance to indigent farmers?

A new insurance world is coming where smart contracts replace insurance documents, blockchain “oracles” supplant claim adjusters, and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) take over traditional insurance carriers. Millions of poor farmers in Africa and Asia will be eligible for coverages like crop insurance too, whereas before, they were too poor and too dispersed to justify the cost of underwriting.

That is the vision, anyway, on display in the recent Smartcon 2022, a two-day conference that sought to provide “exclusive insights into the next generation of Web3 innovation.”

Subsistence farms, where families basically live off what they grow and almost nothing is left over, account for as much as two-thirds of the developing world’s three billion rural people, according to the United Nations. They almost never qualify for insurance coverage and most probably wouldn’t know what to do if it were offered.

“In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, where I grew up in Kenya, insurance is basically unavailable. 3% have access to it, but nobody buys it, basically,” Lemonade Foundation’s Roy Confino explained at the two-day New York City event.

The Lemonade Foundation, a nonprofit founded by United States insurer Lemonade, is behind the recent formation of the Lemonade Crypto Climate Coalition, a group that believes “blockchain has the potential to pool that risk together” and “basically solve the core problem that has inhibited the scale of insurance in the developing world for profit services and that is cost,” said Confino at Smartcon 2022. Founding members also include Hanover Re, Avalanche, Chainlink, DAOstack, Etherisc, Pula and Tomorrow.io.

Insurance is problematic in poor nations for many reasons. It can’t be easily distributed because there are hardly any local insurance agents or brokers, and historically insurance is “sold,” not “bought.” Also, insurance claims can’t be validated without great expense because, typically, there aren’t any claims adjusters on the scene to make damage assessments. This renders underwriting un-economic.

But, it need not necessarily remain that way. Parametric insurance models can potentially cut producer costs by automating many traditional insurance processes, making it profitable to underwrite those previously deemed uninsurable. Sometimes called “index insurance,” these models insure a policyholder against a specific event by paying a set amount based on an event’s magnitude rather than the losses incurred.

For example, if rain hasn’t fallen in a certain predetermined region in Kenya for three weeks, a blockchain “oracle” — it could be a local weather station — automatically sends a message to a smart contract that remotely triggers a payout to the policyholding farmer’s smartphone. It bypasses the claims adjustment process entirely. It doesn’t matter whether an individual farmer’s field is damaged. All policyholders in the area are paid. 

Crop insurance is a good use case for parametric models because many of the forces that can damage crops can be objectively measured, such as rainfall, wind speeds, temperatures and others.

Self-executing smart contracts also ensure that payouts for weather disasters and the like are almost immediate, noted Sid Jha, founder and CEO at Arbol — a parametric insurance provider — and this is especially important in the developing world where many farmers live hand to mouth. “You don’t have customers waiting weeks, months who in many cases can go bankrupt waiting for an insurance check,” he said, speaking at a separate Smartcon 2022 session.

Recent: NFTs and crypto provide fundraising options for breast cancer awareness

Parametric insurance isn’t entirely new; it has been around for several decades. But, blockchain-enabled parametric insurance has just emerged in the last few years. Most, if not all, its use cases are still in the pilot stage. The Coalition, for instance, isn’t expecting to scale up its programs until next year.

Many believe that legacy insurance systems could stand some substantial improvement. “Traditional indemnity insurance has many disadvantages: it is slow, bureaucratic, constrained to home damages, and comes with significant uncertainty,” wrote Wharton School associate professor Susanna Berkouwer recently. She described a parametric hurricane insurance product that employs blockchain technology in the Commonwealth of Dominica. NASA-generated hurricane alerts touch off automated international bank transfers to policyholders’ bank accounts. Projects like these are worthy of further study in Berkouwer’s view.

Hindrances remain: Will farmers sign up?

Supplying the world’s subsistence farmers with affordable crop insurance and possibly other protections via chain-based parametric insurance faces some daunting obstacles, however. One is educating farmers in the complexities of insurance. There is really no way at present that this can be done easily by technology or automation alone. 

Tinka Koster and her colleagues at the Netherlands’ Wageningen University, for example, recently completed a review of the World Bank Group’s Global Index Insurance Facility’s (GIIF) engagement in Kenya. To increase index insurance take-up rates among African subsistence farmers, GIIF and others would need to boost “awareness, knowledge and understanding by the farmers about the insurance,” said Koster.

“The last-mile outreach is a key challenge for many services to smallholder farmers, including index insurance,” Koster told Cointelegraph in emailed responses coordinated with team colleagues Marcel van Asseldonk, Cor Wattel and Haki Pamuk. “Technology can help bridge part of this gap, but technology alone is insufficient.”

“Sales and product understanding are huge costs in often remote and difficult to reach places,” Leigh Johnson, assistant professor in the department of geography at the University of Oregon, told Cointelegraph. “Renewal rates are notoriously bad.”

“Many farmers need to see that insurance is a tool for managing risk and not for gambling on a certain outcome,” said Jha, who agreed that educating farmers on the need for risk management tools like insurance is critical. As Jha told Cointelegraph:

“When farmers are able to get access to some type of subsidized insurance provided by the government or an NGO, they become much more familiar and comfortable with the concept, and that education process becomes easier in terms of providing specialized coverage products that meet the unique needs of farmers.”

In GIIF’s Bima Pima product for Kenyan farmers, the World Bank Group program used village-based advisors (VBAs) to help distribute the insurance product — essentially taking the place of traditional insurance agents. The VBAs were paid monthly for their efforts. According to the Wageningen report, these advisers were “happy with the SMS messages and the direct premium payment. But they find it hard to convince farmers and are uncertain about the insurance pay-out because the product is so new.”

Does parametric insurance even need DLT technology?

If parametric insurance is going to succeed in emerging markets, does it even need blockchain technology? The World Bank Group’s GIIF parametric insurance projects in Africa, for instance, did not use blockchain technology. What exactly does index insurance lose if it doesn’t employ a decentralized digital ledger? 

“Blockchain is simply a tool,” Jha told Cointelegraph, and one can use many tools to get the same outcome. Still, the digital ledger’s immutability and auditability can build credibility for the program:

“What DLT’s do provide is trust in areas that generally tend to lack trust, and allow for possibly a more efficient micro payment system than what currently exists in some of these countries in terms of disbursing and collecting funds.” 

Johnson, on the other hand, comes down “squarely on the ‘no smart contracts’ camp, precisely because parametric contracts go wrong so often, and there is an important case for correcting these retroactively” in the interests of fairness and equity. 

In a 2021 article, Johnson noted that environmental estimates made by parametric market devices used to commodify risk “are frequently wrong, sometimes grossly so.” In the first season of R4’s Ethiopian program, “one of the most globally renowned programs insuring smallholder farmers against weather risk using parametric indices,” wrote Johnson, R4 made an ex gratia “voluntary donation” to teff farmers “following rain shortfalls that did not trigger the contract.” Such transfers later became “fairly routine.”

“I’m not sure how much information farmers would require re smart contracts/blockchain at the time of enrollment,” Johnson told Cointelegraph, “but one can imagine them being extremely skeptical of unknown monetary technologies and firms.”

If blockchain technology could raise farmers’ awareness and knowledge about insurance, added Koster, “then it would also help for further upscaling the index [parametric] insurance in African context.”

Still, this all might take some time. Jha was asked how long it might be before agricultural insurance can achieve widespread usage among subsistence farmers in the developing world in places like Southeast Asia or Africa — two years? Five years? Ten years?

“Probably ten years,” Jha told Cointelegraph, citing the challenges of education, cost and lack of data, i.e., “everything from a lack of weather stations, crop yield history, and lack of data on farming practices.”

Many farmers need to see that insurance is a viable tool for managing risk, and this is where self-executing smart contracts could provide a powerful example. If farmers see their neighbors being reimbursed immediately during an extreme weather event, they might consider purchasing an index policy themselves.

Government subsidies could help. “There is a lot of work that is needed in terms of making insurance more affordable so that underserved stakeholders who need these tools can access them,” said Jha, while Johnson added, “I think the best progress will come from wider state adoption of safety net programs using parametric solutions — that’s how you get coverage at scale.”

In terms of scaling, the World Bank’s GIIF has already made some progress. “The milestone of one million farmers insured has already been reached in Zambia, with the index insurance bundled with the subsidized fertilizer programme,” Koster said, while in Senegal, GIIF is currently reaching half a million farmers, with a similar number in Kenya with a government-supported program.

Recent: Meta’s Web3 hopes face challenge of decentralization and market headwinds

“This shows that it is possible to reach significant numbers of smallholder farmers,” Koster told Cointelegraph, “but not without significant government support.” 

In sum, while parametric insurance models might enable insurance underwriters to pool risks, making it profitable to insure the previously uninsurable, and blockchain-enabled smart contracts can ensure that cash-strapped farmers received payouts during disasters almost immediately, much work still needs to be done in convincing financially unsophisticated and often distrustful farmers to sign up for such programs. Technology alone won’t do the trick, and state entities may need to get involved.

FTX US among 5 companies to receive cease and desist letters from FDIC

The government agency had previously stated that deposits at non-bank entities, including crypto firms, are not covered by FDIC insurance.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has issued cease and desist letters to five companies for allegedly making false representations about deposit insurance related to cryptocurrencies.

FDIC issued a Friday press release disclosing cease and desist letters for cryptocurrency exchange FTX US and websites SmartAssets, FDICCrypto, Cryptonews and Cryptosec. In the letters, which were issued on Thursday, the government agency alleges that these organizations misled the public about certain cryptocurrency-related products being insured by FDIC.

“These representations are false or misleading,” the FDIC said in regard to “certain crypto-related products” being FDIC-insured or that “stocks held in brokerage accounts are FDIC-insured.” The regulator said these companies must “take immediate corrective action to address these false or misleading statements” on their websites and social media accounts.

Excerpts of the FDIC’s cease and desist letter to FTX US. Source: FDIC.

The FDIC has been vocal about the lack of insurance protection for non-bank entities, which includes crypto-focused firms. In July, the regulator issued a notice advising banks in the United States that they need to assess and manage risks when forming third-party relationships with crypto service providers. The FDIC reiterated that, while deposits at insured banks were protected against default for up to $250,000, no such coverage exists for crypto firms.

Related: Fed demands Voyager remove ‘false’ claims deposits are FDIC insured

It has been alleged that the FDIC has taken an overly harsh approach to digital assets, going as far as discouraging banks from dealing with crypto service providers. As Cointelegraph reported, Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey, who also serves on the Senate Banking Committee, sent a letter to FDIC director and acting chairman Martin Gruenberg informing him of allegations made by a whistleblower. In the letter, Toomey said he suspects that FDIC “may be improperly taking action to deter banks from doing business with lawful cryptocurrency-related (crypto-related) companies.”

HARTi and Mitsui Sumitomo roll out NFT insurance coverage for claims

The company said the move intends to cover all NFTs listed on the HARTi platform with no cost to the seller.

As announced on Tuesday, Japanese NFT Platform HARTi and insurance group Mitsui Sumitomo (三井住友海上) will roll out nonfungible token, or NFT, insurance for all digital artworks exhibited within the HARTi app. The insurance will attach to the NFT pieces on display by sellers free of charge, with HARTi responsible for the premium payments. 

Under the scheme, Mitsui Sumitomo will compensate owners of insured NFTs if their digital assets are compromised by unauthorized third-party access (such as through phishing, theft or wallet hacks) or become bugged or glitched during transfers. In such events, the policy will payout compensation to the NFT owner based on the exhibition price of each item and up to a maximum value of 500,000 yen ($3,661). The two parties expect to expand their collaboration in mitigating the risks of NFTs and would provide policies with higher compensation limits in the future.

Regarding the development, Yuya Yoshida, founder, and CEO of HARTi, said:

“The theme of safety and security is paramount for encouraging the entry of major Japanese companies into NFTs, including department stores, commercial facilities, and major brands. Therefore, we hope this new service will play a role in the safety of the domestic NFT secondary market.”

Yoshida continued: “Considering the importance of insurance for the sound development of the domestic NFT secondary market, Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance developed the policy from scratch, making it the first case in Japan.” Other Japanese corporate giants that have ventured into the crypto and NFTs space include investment bank Nomura and video game publisher Square Enix


11% of US insurers invest — or are interested in investing — in crypto

Of the 328 CFOs and CIOs representing around half of the global insurance industry, 6% responded their firm was either already invested or considering an investment into cryptocurrencies.

United States-based insurers are the most interested in cryptocurrency investment according to a Goldman Sachs global survey of 328 chief financial and chief investment officers regarding their firm’s asset allocations and portfolios.

The investment banking giant recently released its annual global insurance investment survey, which included responses regarding cryptocurrencies for the first time, finding that 11% of U.S. insurance firms indicated either an interest in investing or a current investment in crypto.

Speaking on the company’s Exchanges at Goldman Sachs podcast on Tuesday, Goldman Sachs global head of insurance asset management Mike Siegel said he was surprised to get any result:

“We surveyed for the first time on crypto, which I thought would get no respondents, but I was surprised. A good 6% of the industry respondents indicated that they’re either invested in crypto or considering investing in crypto.”

Asia-based insurers were next in line, with 6% interested or currently invested, and European insurers came in at only 1%.

The report found cryptocurrencies were in fifth place for the asset class insurers expect to deliver the highest returns over the next 12 months, with 6% ranking it as their first choice, beating United States and European equities.

Around 2% of firms indicated a current crypto investment, and while it’s a small number of firms indicating investment or interest, Goldman Sachs analysts wrote that this level of interest “is still notable.”

On the podcast, Siegel discussed a follow-up survey conducted of crypto-interested firms to understand their motivation behind purchasing:

“We did some follow-up questions on that, and generally, the companies that are either invested or considering crypto are doing so to understand the market and to understand the infrastructure. But if this becomes a transactable currency, they want to have the ability down the road to denominate policies in crypto and also accept premium in crypto, just like they do in, say, dollars or yen or sterling or euro.”

Only 1% of the total surveyed firms said they would increase their crypto position over the next 12 months; 7% said they would maintain their current position; and 92% said they would not invest in crypto over the next year.

Related: Wealth report: As old money procrastinates, young money goes crypto

Despite the growing interest, there are still those pessimistic about crypto as 16% said it was an asset class they expected to deliver the lowest returns over the next 12 months. Overall, crypto was the third-lowest ranked asset class on this measure.

Mathew McDermott, the bank’s global head of digital assets, wrote in the report:

“As the crypto market continues to mature, coupled with growing regulatory certainty, a cross-section of institutions are becoming more confident to explore investment opportunities as well as recognizing the disruptive impact of the underlying blockchain technology. I have been positively surprised by the rising adoption by global Asset Managers, who clearly recognize the potential of this market.”