Group items tagged

While suptech is still in its infancy, it is gaining traction, with a significant number of suptech use cases found in the areas of misconduct analysis, reporting and data management. But most of these use cases are still experimental in nature. This helps to explain why only a limited number of external parties have so far been involved in the development of suptech tools. This underscores the need for further international coordination and collaboration to help open up the field of suptech.

This European Central Bank (ECB) paper summarises the outcome of an analysis of stablecoins undertaken by the ECB Crypto-Assets Task Force. At the time of writing, the stablecoin debate lacks a common taxonomy and unambiguous terminology. This paper applies a definition that distinguishes stablecoins from existing forms of currencies - regardless of the technology used - and characterises stablecoin arrangements based on the functions they fulfil. This approach emphasises the role of technology-neutral regulation in preventing arbitrage, as well as comprehensive Eurosystem oversight, irrespective of stablecoins' regulatory status. Against this background, this paper assesses stablecoins' implications for the euro area based on three scenarios for the uptake of stablecoins.

The Wirecard debacle begs fundamental questions about regulation, audit and more. How can BaFin say the bank is fine and not check the balance sheet of the holding company? How would EY sign off accounts for years, without any checks and balances? And how come no one listened to the FT and, instead, took them to court? Another big issue is that the ecosystem model of Banking-as-a-Service could implode because of Wirecard. When you have a company within a company within a company dealing with financial service, and no one can point at which company actually has the money: that's a problem.

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) published its global regulatory framework for crypto-asset activities and markets, and "global stablecoin" arrangements, to promote the comprehensiveness and international consistency of regulatory and supervisory approaches. They build on the principles - 'same activity, same risk, same regulation'; high-level and flexible; and technology neutral. The recommendations focus on addressing risks to financial stability and do not comprehensively cover all specific risk categories related to crypto-asset activities.

The IMF published a paper that compares ways supervisory authorities monitor fintech activity;  (i) passive monitoring aiming to capture new business models in existing regulatory frameworks, (ii) developing bespoke regulation, or (iii) adopting test and learn policies through arrangements like innovation hubs and sandboxes. While the "test and learn approach can help authorities monitor and respond to the challenges of fintech in some scenarios, in others it could lead to risks to consumers and markets, particularly when designed poorly or with an unclear use case.

The IMF published a high-level primer on key aspects of popular blockchain consensus mechanisms, aimed at financial supervisors at central banks, regulatory authorities, and government departments. It focuses specifically on how such mechanisms may impact the mandates of supervisors and policymakers when deployed in financial services markets. It could also help inform IMF staff on policy development and technical assistance related to crypto assets, stablecoins, and blockchains.