Let’s Stop Treating Crypto Trading as If It Were Finance
Todd H. Baker
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4287185
2022-01-01
SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract:Congressional legislators and financial regulators from the Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury, SEC, CFTC, CFPB, following the trail of breadcrumbs laid out by the crypto trading industry and its enablers and lobbyists as well as responding to “law and order” appeals, appear set on bringing the crypto trading ecosystem (traded coins and associated marketplaces, exchanges, brokerages, lending, staking, derivatives, intermediaries, and enablers) within the financial services regulatory perimeter and to regulate it as a component and equivalent part of that system. Policy discourse on this topic has centered around “which” financial regulator should be in charge of crypto trading, and not “whether” financial regulators should be involved. There appears to be almost complete consensus in policy circles that the solution to the systemic threat posed by crypto is to manage it as just another type of financial services.Supporters of “crypto inclusion” envision crypto trading becoming fully integrated with traditional finance under the imprimatur of financial regulators regulators empowered to police markets for improper activities. Individuals and institutions would feel entitled to invest confidently in crypto coins in a familiar regulated environment, knowing that appropriate limitations on actions by participants and enablers gave them protection. SIPC-type protections would apply (as well as FDIC-like protections where banks are involved), so investors would not be at risk of losing their coins or cash if their provider failed. The core assumption behind all efforts to bring crypto trading within the regulatory perimeter is that crypto coins are financial assets, like shares of stock, bonds or a commodity contracts, albeit inherently complicated and intricate financial assets with hard to understand and evaluate features associated with execution on the blockchain. This leads to the view that crypto trading should be regulated like other types of finance, applying the concept of “same activity, same risk, same regulation” and analogies to the workings of existing financial markets and instruments. There’s a fundamental misunderstanding at play, however, that risks luring policymakers into a potentially catastrophic category error. Despite the dress up clothes it wears, crypto trading isn’t “economically similar” to any part of the traditional financial services system and serves none of the productive purposes that define finance. That’s because crypto trading isn’t finance or financial services at all. Crypto trading is as a game emulating finance. Or, perhaps more accurately, a gambling game emulating finance. It is important not to let crypto trading’s pose as “financial services” cloud our view of the critical categorical distinction we need to maintain. To avoid making a serious error which risks financial contagion and increases the risks that crypto trading poses to the traditional financial system, the best course of action to control the is twofold. The gambling game that is crypto trading should be separated as completely as possible from traditional financial services behind a "cordon sanitaire" or a “thick black line.” Crypto trading should also be placed outside the financial services regulatory perimeter and an effective non-financial regulatory regime should be established to protect consumers under existing and new state and federal law from the much smaller but still meaningful risks that it will pose once separated from our financial services system. #crypto #finance #regulation #gambling