Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of European Monetary, Economic and Financial Integration
- The Cambridge Handbook of European Monetary, Economic and Financial Integration
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I The Economic and Monetary Union
- Part II The Monetary Dimension
- Part III The Economic and Fiscal Dimensions
- Part IV Financial Integration
- 23 Banking Regulation in Europe
- 24 The Politics behind the Creation of the Banking Union
- 25 Failing Banks within the Banking Union at the Crossroads
- 26 The Banking Union
- 27 The Re-emergence of Market-Based Finance?
- 28 The European Strategy on Digital Finance and Its Interplay with Capital Markets Integration in the EU
- 29 Regulating Crypto and Cyberware in the EU
- Index
- References
29 - Regulating Crypto and Cyberware in the EU
from Part IV - Financial Integration
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 September 2023
By
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of European Monetary, Economic and Financial Integration
- The Cambridge Handbook of European Monetary, Economic and Financial Integration
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I The Economic and Monetary Union
- Part II The Monetary Dimension
- Part III The Economic and Fiscal Dimensions
- Part IV Financial Integration
- 23 Banking Regulation in Europe
- 24 The Politics behind the Creation of the Banking Union
- 25 Failing Banks within the Banking Union at the Crossroads
- 26 The Banking Union
- 27 The Re-emergence of Market-Based Finance?
- 28 The European Strategy on Digital Finance and Its Interplay with Capital Markets Integration in the EU
- 29 Regulating Crypto and Cyberware in the EU
- Index
- References
Summary
As the EU is finalizing measures for the regulation of cryptocurrencies and the digital resilience of financial institutions, this chapter describes the pros and cons of the new approach for regulating crypto, and assesses the framework for ICT oversight. Both regulations, Markets in Crypto-Assets (MICA) and Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), introduce a host of new provisions, and fundamentally change the regulatory framework for digital operations in finance in the EU. Crypto providers will be subject to a new set of rules in MICA, outside the existing rules for investment providers that are governed by the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID). But the digital governance of all financial firms will be more strictly regulated under DORA, including the third-party ICT providers.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Amstad, M. (2019). Regulating FinTech: Objectives, principles, and practices. Working Paper, No. 1016, October, Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
Atzori, M. (2021). Blockchain technology and decentralised governance: Is the state still necessary? Journal of Governance and Regulation 6(1), 45–62.Google Scholar
Biais, B., Bisière, C., Bouvard, M., and Casamatta, C. (2021). The blockchain folk theorem. Review of Financial Studies 32(5), 1662–1715.Google Scholar
BIS (2021a). Distrust or speculation? The socioeconomic drivers of US cryptocurrency investments by Raphael Auer and David Tercero-Lucas.Google Scholar
BIS (2021b). Central bank digital currencies for cross-border payments. Report to the G-20, July. www.bis.org/publ/othp38.pdfGoogle Scholar
BIS-SIX-SNB (2020). Project Helvetia: Settling tokenised assets in central bank money. Bank for International Settlements, SIX Group AG, and Swiss National Bank, December.Google Scholar
Bofinger, P., and Haas, T. (2021). Central bank digital currencies: Can central banks succeed in the marketplace for digital monies? ECMI Working Paper, December.Google Scholar
Bouyon, S., and Krause, S. (2018). Cybersecurity in finance: Getting the policy mix right. Report of a CEPS-ECRI Task Force, June, Centre for European Policy Studies and European Credit Research Institute.Google Scholar
Casey, M., Crane, J., Gensler, G., Johnson, S., and Narula, N. (2018). The impact of blockchain technology on finance: A catalyst for change. Geneva Reports on the World Economy No. 21.Google Scholar
Cong, L., and He, Z. (2019). Blockchain disruption and smart contracts. Review of Financial Studies 32(5), 1754–1797.Google Scholar
Deloitte (2022). The EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act has been agreed: implications for the financial services sector for an assessment of the agreement and the implications for firms. July. www2.deloitte.com/lu/en/pages/risk/articles/eu-dora-agreed-implications-financial-services-sector.html?icid=wn_eu-dora-agreed-implications-financial-services-sectorGoogle Scholar
Dolmans, M., Gilbert, P., Messent, J., Siragusa, M., and Subiotto, R. (2019). Payment services in the EU: Price regulation to protect a duopoly. Competition Law Journal 18(4), 175–189.Google Scholar
European Commission (2020a). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Markets in Crypto-Assets, and Amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937, (MiCA), COM(2020) 593 final, 24 September.Google Scholar
European Commission (2020b). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on digital operational resilience for the financial sector and amending Regulations (EC) No. 1060/2009, (EU) No. 648/2012, (EU) No. 600/2014 and (EU) No. 909/2014 (DORA), COM(2020) 595 final, 24 September.Google Scholar
European Commission (2021). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing the Authority for Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism and Amending Regulations (EU) No. 1093/2010, (EU) 1094/2010, (EU) 1095/2010, COM(2021) 421 final, 20 June.Google Scholar
European Union (2022), Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 on digital operational resilience for the financial sector (DORA), and amending Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009, (EU) No 648/2012, (EU) No 600/2014, (EU) No 909/2014 and (EU) 2016/1011Google Scholar
European Union (2023), Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA), and amending Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 1095/2010 and Directives 2013/36/EU and (EU) 2019/1937. Official Journal, 9 June 2023.Google Scholar
ECB (2021). Opinion of the European Central Bank of 19 February 2021 on a proposal for a regulation on Markets in Crypto-assets, and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021AB0004Google Scholar
EPRS (2021). Updating the Crypto Assets Regulation and establishing a pilot regime for distributed ledger technology, PE 612.617 – March.Google Scholar
Gallersdörfer, U., Klaaßen, L., and Stoll, C. (2020). Energy consumption of cryptocurrencies beyond bitcoin. Joule 4(9), 1843–1846.Google Scholar
Godschalk, H. (2021). Crypto-assets, fiat currency and Aa: Some notes on the MiCAR. 16 March. https://paytechlaw.com/en/crypto-assets-fiat-currency-micar/Google Scholar
Iansiti, M., and Lakhani, K. (2017). The truth about blockchain: It will take years to transform business, but the journey begins now. Harvard Business Review, January–February. https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-truth-about-blockchainGoogle Scholar
Lannoo, K. (2021). Cyberfinance challenges require a common response. CEPS Policy Insight, No. 2018/12, October. www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/cyber-finance-challenges-demand-unified-response/Google Scholar
Lannoo, K. (2022). The EU’s proposed crypto regulations are flawed. 16 May. www.ft.com/content/83ddff31-fb9a-4765-becf-82a52cc7291dGoogle Scholar
Lastra, R., and Allen, J. G. (2019). Towards a European governance framework for cryptoassets. SUERF Policy Note 110, November.Google Scholar
Lianos, I. (2019). Blockchain competition – gaining competitive advantage in the digital economy: Competition law implications. In Hacker, P., Lianos, I., Dimitropoulos, G., and Eich, S. (eds.), Regulating Blockchain: Techno-Social and Legal Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 329.Google Scholar
Martin, K., and Nauman, B. (2021). Bitcoin’s growing energy problem: ‘It’s a dirty currency’. Financial Times, 20 May. www.ft.com/content/1aecb2db-8f61-427c-a413-3b929291c8acGoogle Scholar
McKinsey (2018). Blockchain beyond the hype: What is the strategic business value? www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/blockchain-beyond-the-hype-what-is-the-strategic-business-valueGoogle Scholar
Nabilou, H. (2019). How to regulate bitcoin? Decentralized regulation for a decentralized cryptocurrency. International Journal of Law and Information Technology 27(3), 266–291.Google Scholar
Nascimento, S., and Pólvora, A. (2019). Blockchain now and tomorrow: Assessing multidimensional impacts of distributed ledger technologies. Joint Research Centre, European Commission.Google Scholar
Pike, C., and Capobianco, A. (2020). Antitrust and the trust machine. OECD Blockchain Policy Series, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 4 November.Google Scholar
Pupillo, L., Ferreira, A., and Varisco, G. (2018). Software vulnerability disclosure in Europe: Technology, policies and legal challenges. Report of a CEPS Task Force, June, Centre for European Policy Studies.Google Scholar
Reid, F., and Harrigan, M. (2011). An analysis of anonymity in the bitcoin system. IIEEE International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk, and Trust, Boston, 9–11 October.Google Scholar
Thomadakis, A. (2021). How crisis-proof are financial market infrastructures? ECMI event report. www.ecmi.eu/sites/default/files/event_report_operational_resilience.docx.pdfGoogle Scholar
Villeroy de Galhau, F. (2021). Roads towards the future for CBDC and innovative payments. SUERF Policy Notes. www.suerf.org/policynotes/29965/roads-for-the-future-central-bank-digital-currency-cbdc-and-innovative-paymentsGoogle Scholar
The White House (2022). Executive Order on Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets. Presidential actions. 9 March.Google Scholar
Zetzsche, D., Annunziata, F., Arner, D., and Buckley, R. (2021). The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) and the EU digital finance strategy. Capital Markets Law Journal 16(2), 203–225.Google Scholar