1. Home
  2. USA

USA

Law Decoded: Crypto in times of war, Feb. 28–Mar. 7

The catastrophe unfolding in Ukraine will have long-lasting consequences for the crypto space, too.

A war rages on Europe’s eastern rim, having already left thousands of people dead and injured and millions more displaced. Digital assets have become so woven into the global financial system that a major political and economic crisis like the one unfolding right now has crypto inevitably involved on all levels: individual, institutional and national. From Russian nationals turning their burning passports into nonfungible tokens (NFTs) to refugees using crypto as a last financial resort, millions of dollars worth of crypto donations flowing to Ukraine, and both digital asset platforms and the United States government weighing crypto sanctions against Russia, cryptocurrencies play a significant role in the events surrounding the ongoing calamity. It is also evident at this point that the crisis, in turn, will massively affect crypto itself, accelerating its adoption and regulation globally.

No way around sanctions

One of the most conspicuous narratives picking up steam in the wake of the conflict’s escalation has been the notion that Russia could move fast toward embracing crypto as a potential tool for circumventing the unprecedented economic and financial sanctions it is now facing. This prospect has regulators in both the United States and European Union so uneasy that both Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde have called for lawmakers in their respective jurisdictions to ramp up work on regulatory frameworks for digital assets. Many industry experts, however, are skeptical of the idea that crypto offers a viable workaround for the increasingly isolated Russian state. The points most frequently invoked in support of this argument are distributed ledgers’ transparency and the notion that the bandwidth of the crypto payment rails is insufficient to supply an economy the size of Russia’s.

SEC goes nonfungible

It looks as if the explosion in the prices of certain nonfungible token collections and the popularity of so-called fractional NFTs are leading the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to take a closer look at NFT marketplaces. The regulator reportedly suspects that certain tokens could be used to raise money, much like traditional securities but without being regulated as such. SEC attorneys have been subpoenaing some participants of the NFT market to gather information about how the issuance and sales of certain tokens are structured. Chances are that the nonfungible token space will become the next target of the agency’s scrutiny following the recent clampdown on the crypto lending sector.

Separately, the agency’s enforcement director has reportedly stated that the SEC will not turn a blind eye to securities law violations by companies that preemptively turn themselves in. The move is unlikely to inspire firms that have doubts about the status of their offerings to seek advice directly from the SEC.

De facto legal tender

A partnership between the city of Lugano, Switzerland and the company behind Tether (USDT) will allow residents to use USDT, Bitcoin (BTC) and the Swiss stablecoin LVGA for a range of payments — including taxes, public services and tuition fees, in addition to goods and services from local businesses — essentially amounting to adopting crypto as legal tender within the municipal boundaries. Tether also pledged to create a fund of up to 100 million Swiss francs ($108 million) to support turning the city of 63,000 people into a European blockchain hub.

SEC postpones ruling on Fidelity Ether ETF options

Crypto industry seeks to educate, influence US lawmakers as it faces increasing regulation

Much like other activity in the digital asset space, crypto lobbying has been picking up during the past year.

Interaction between the cryptocurrency industry and Capitol Hill is becoming ever more intensive as efforts to regulate crypto grow in tandem with its popularity. The surge in crypto industry lobbying last year was given some concrete parameters in February by crypto analytics startup Crypto Head. It released a report showing that the crypto companies that spent the most money on lobbying in 2021 were Robinhood, Ripple Labs, Coinbase and the Blockchain Association. These organizations were the lobbying leaders during the past five years as well, although with different rankings.

Here is what the United States crypto-lobbying landscape looks like today.

Metrics of influence

Robinhood spent $1.35 million on lobbying in 2021 and was the only crypto-related organization to spend more than $1 million. Ripple Labs, in second place, spent $900,000. The Economist estimated a total of $5 million was spent by crypto firms on lobbying in the first three quarters of 2021.

To put this in perspective, the highest-spending lobbying group in the U.S. in 2020, the National Association of Realtors, spent $84.11 million according to the nonprofit Open Secrets, which provided the data for the Crypto Head report.

Blockchain Association executive director Kristin Smith said in an email to Cointelegraph that “Spending is only one metric of influence, and these roundups do not often provide context on the effectiveness of dollars spent.” Smith noted the Crypto Head report “mixes companies with different focuses, multi-member trade associations and other entities, making a one-to-one comparison difficult.”

Smith said education is the top priority of her organization. She told Fox News last year, “Our number-one priority is helping [Treasury Secretary Janet] Yellen understand crypto goes beyond the financing of criminal enterprises.”

The crypto industry was not alone in lobbying for cryptocurrency. The National Football League spent $600,000 lobbying Congress, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other government agencies in 2021 with the goal of determining “whether crypto can be an integral part of the League’s business,” according to CNBC sources. In February, former presidential candidate Andrew Yang launched Lobby3, a decentralized autonomous organization that will lobby for Web3 and the eradication of poverty.

Revolvers at work

Crypto Head noted the presence of “revolvers” in the ranks of cryptocurrency industry lobbyists, defining revolvers as “government regulators, congressional staff or members of Congress who take jobs in lobbying firms, making the most of their insider knowledge.” The narrative became richer in February with the release of the Tech Transparency Project (TTP) report “Crypto Industry Amasses Washington Insiders as Lobbying Blitz Intensifies.”

The TTP report documents the presence of “two former chairs of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), two former chairs of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and one former chairman of the Senate Finance Committee,” other former legislators and staffers of various sorts for a total of “nearly 240 examples of officials with key positions in the White House, Congress, federal regulatory agencies, and national political campaigns moving to and from the industry.”

While the employment of revolvers is common practice in many industries, and not only for lobbying, TTP saw a potential conflict of interest in movement from the industry into government. Specifically, five “former top executives at Circle Internet Financial,” operator of the stablecoin USD Coin (USDC), have joined the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston “even as the firm is seeking a bank charter from the Fed.” The Boston Fed is also taking part in the Project Hamilton research on a digital dollar.

Crypto PACs

Political action committees (PACs) give the crypto industry another opportunity to influence the political process, and there has been a flurry of organizations on that front as well. The American Blockchain PAC was founded in November with the goal of raising $300 million for pro-crypto candidates. However, it was reported in mid-February to have raised less than $8,000 so far.

In January, the $10-million Democratic Protect Our Future PAC was created, and donors include FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried. The Gonna Make It (GMI) PAC launched the same month with backing from former Donald Trump communications director Anthony Scaramucci, with a tweet declaring, “When we organize, when we mobilize, we are unstoppable. We are GMI PAC, a super PAC that will elect pro-crypto candidates in federal races across the country.” It intends to raise $20 million.

Coinbase launched its second attempt at a PAC in February. It was a founding member of the Crypto Council for Innovation last April.

Crypto politics in the U.S. promises to be interesting this year.

SEC postpones ruling on Fidelity Ether ETF options

OpenSea updates banned countries list sparking decentralization debate

The world’s largest NFT marketplace has confirmed that it blocks users based on the U.S. sanctions list.

U.S.-based NFT marketplace OpenSea has reportedly begun barring Iranian users from its platform, sparking outrage from NFT collectors and raising fresh debate about decentralization in the crypto space. 

On Thursday morning, Iranian OpenSea users started posting on Twitter that their accounts were being deactivated or deleted with no prior warning. Iranian NFT artist “Bornosor” vented frustrations to their 4,700 followers, in a tweet that quickly gained traction, garnering 342 retweets and over a thousand likes within a few hours.

Bornosor stated, “NOT A gm AT ALL. Woke up to my @opensea trading account being deactivated/deleted without notice or any explanation.”

An OpenSea spokesperson said to Cointelegraph that it reserves the right to block users based on sanctions.

Our Terms of Service explicitly prohibit sanctioned users or users in sanctioned territories from using our services. We have a zero-tolerance policy for the use of our services by sanctioned individuals or entities and people located in sanctioned countries. If we find individuals to be in violation of our sanctions policy, we take swift action to ban the associated accounts.”

The current U.S. sanctions outline that American companies are not allowed to provide goods or services to any user based in countries on the sanctions list, including Iran, North Korea, Syria, and now Russia. OpenSea is a U.S. company with its headquarters in New York.

These actions from OpenSea have sparked fresh debate about whether large blockchain-based firms and services are adequately decentralized, with MetaMask joining in on enforcing sanction-based crackdowns.

According to MetaMask’s Twitter account, Venezualan users were accidentally banned from accessing their MetaMask wallets, after blockchain development company Infura accidentally broadened the scope of its sanctions-related crackdowns.

Cryptocurrencies and digital assets like NFTs continue to come under increasing regulatory scrutiny from the U.S. government, as it increases the severity of economic sanctions against Russia.

OpenSea remains the world’s largest NFT marketplace, hosting over $22 billion in sales since its inception.

Related: New York state ramps up blockchain monitoring to enforce sanctions

This isn’t the first time the cryptocurrency industry has been involved in turmoil surrounding the intricacies of international sanctions – with multiple crypto exchanges embroiled in the debate around freezing Russian crypto assets. The world’s largest exchange, Binance, refused to block accounts for “innocent” Russian customers.

SEC postpones ruling on Fidelity Ether ETF options

From lunch to Solana: Here’s the story of the NFT ATM in New York

NFTs would enable artists to create new ways to build relationships with and monetize their audience, says Jordan Birnholtz.

In a new twist for nonfungible tokens (NFTs), Solana-based NFT marketplace Neon deployed an NFT ATM in the financial district of New York, giving people a very familiar way to acquire NFTs.

In an interview with Cointelegraph, the Co-founder and CMO of Neon, Jordan Birnholtz shared the story of how the NFT ATM came to life. According to Birnholtz, the idea came as their team members were having lunch.

Birnholtz himself is a growth marketer, and his business partner Kyle Zappitell is a former Xbox Mobile gaming engineer "who is passionate about using software to create fun and accessible experiences," he explained. But the idea of an NFT ATM was pitched over lunch with the team's intern Drew Levine last fall.

The NFT ATM works very similarly to traditional ATMs machines. You can purchase NFTs through the machine with your credit or debit card. It will dispense boxes that contain unique codes that you can redeem through Neon’s platform. Much like Easter Egg capsules, buyers will not know what NFT they’re getting until they redeem it.

User Drifter1117 shared his experience and some photos of the NFT ATM on Twitter: 

The Neon CMO explained that they picked the Solana blockchain for their marketplace because it was inexpensive. “We think Solana is the best chain to build on because it is inexpensive to use, opening up huge opportunities for more creators, and carbon neutral.”

He also noted that they are planning to bring more artists to their platform and open more NFT ATMs in different cities. “NFTs are going to let a variety of visual, multimedia, and performing artists create new ways to build relationships with and monetize their audience,” says Birnholtz.

“I think this is part of a broader trend that is merging crypto techniques with the focus on supporting creators more directly we see at Substack and Patreon. We're excited for the explosion in NFT opportunities in the coming years.”

Related: Nifty News: Snoop Dogg and Gary V have $95M in NFTs, Dolly Parton’s Dollyverse and more…

Meanwhile, despite the recent crypto market dips, NFT sales continue to grow. According to recent reports, NFT trading generated $11.9 billion in the last quarter of 2021. The growth corresponds with recent reports of China taking an interest in NFTs and separating it from crypto.

SEC postpones ruling on Fidelity Ether ETF options

What the launch of the FBI crypto task force means for the digital asset space

Consolidation of law enforcement activity sends a clear message to the industry: It is time to comply.

On Feb. 17, United States Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced at the Munich Cyber Security Conference the formation of the new task force “dedicated to cryptocurrency” within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Coming four months after the launch of the Justice Department’s National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team (NCET), this marks another major step in the U.S. government’s crusade against criminal abuse of cryptocurrencies. 

What the task force will look like

The name of the new task force that Monaco revealed is the Virtual Asset Exploitation Unit (VAXU). It will bring together the personnel from the various units of the FBI with crypto expertise to conduct investigations that use blockchain analysis and can result in virtual assets’ seizure. There are still not a lot of details available on the details of the VAXU’s operation but in her speech, Monaco clearly emphasized the fight against cyber ransomware as the main priority:

“Ransomware and digital extortion, like many other crimes fueled by cryptocurrency, only work if the bad guys get paid, which means we have to bust their business model [...] The currency might be virtual, but the message to companies is concrete: if you report to us, we can follow the money and not only help you but hopefully prevent the next victim.”

The VAXU also plans to work jointly with foreign task forces to track down multinational criminal networks operating in crypto.

Relation to the NCET

Despite its primary affiliation with the FBI, VAXU will in fact be part of the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team (NCET), launched in Oct. 2021, to target money launderers and cyber criminals. As per the official release, the NCET’s mission is to "tackle complex investigations and prosecutions of criminal misuses of cryptocurrency, particularly crimes committed by virtual currency exchanges, mixing and tumbling services, and money laundering infrastructure actors.”

The NCET’s mission includes investigation and prosecution of cryptocurrency cases, identifying areas for increased investigative and prosecutorial focus, building relationships with crypto-adjacent units and officers across the law enforcement system and collaborating with the industry players.

Essentially, the NCET has a mandate to participate in almost any relevant case, no matter who is investigating it. The addition of the FBI-backed VAXU will further extend the unit’s capacities and entrench its status as one of the most important forces in the crypto law enforcement game.

NCET’s new look

On Feb. 17, Eun Young Choi, ex-senior counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, was appointed to lead the NCET. Choi spent over nine years as the cybercrime coordinator at the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York where she dealt with cryptocurrency while investigating money laundering schemes and online fraud.

To name one, Choi served as lead prosecutor in the case of illegal crypto exchange Coin.mx, an unlicensed virtual currency exchange whose operator, Anthony Murgio, was sentenced to 66 months in prison. She also successfully argued the appeal in the case against Ross Ulbricht, the founder of the Silk Road, who’s been serving his back-to-back life sentences since 2015.

Speaking to Cointelegraph, Sujit Raman, partner in the privacy and cybersecurity practice at Sidley Austin law firm, underlined the consistency of the current U.S. law enforcement approach. As early as 2018, the Department of Justice publicly declared that “cybercriminals increasingly use virtual currencies to advance their activities and to conceal their assets,” and announced its intention to “continue evaluating the emerging threats posed by rapidly developing cryptocurrencies that malicious actors often use.”

Detailed internal evaluation and analysis within DOJ led to the publication of a comprehensive crypto enforcement strategy by the Trump Administration in October 2020. Raman noted:

“The launching of the NCET and of the FBI’s Virtual Asset Exploitation Unit are, therefore, significant and important expansions upon lines of thinking that senior officials have been pursuing for some time, across administrations.”

Executive synergies

Michael Bahar, chair of global law firm Eversheds Sutherland’s Cybersecurity practice said to Cointelegraph that there will be a synergetic effect to the prospective cooperation between the DOJ and other regulatory bodies. Bahar commented:

“The growing experience and expertise within the Department of Justice will also spread to regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission and financial regulators. Indeed, we should now expect the Department of Justice to further enhance its engagement with state and local law enforcement and regulatory bodies in the United States and globally.”

As Raman explains, these relationships between the DOJ and bodies such as the SEC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) already exist and, while there are limits on how much criminal enforcers can collaborate with civil regulators, “those partnerships will only continue to deepen.” But, in Raman’s opinion, the DOJ and its task forces will not drive the actual rulemaking around digital assets:

“DOJ is a law enforcement agency. It is not likely to play a very significant role in crafting a legislative framework to govern the crypto industry writ large.”

Both experts agree that these developments don’t pose any threat to the legitimate crypto industry. On the contrary, capable law enforcement can help move it forward toward becoming a more transparent and safe zone for investments.

The signal the DOJ activity sends is quite clear: It’s time to comply. “If you engage with cryptocurrency, you will need to demonstrate that you can do so in a compliant manner, calibrating your compliance programs to the unique risks that cryptocurrencies and the underlying blockchain technology present,” Bahar explained.

The continuing centralization and coordination of federal law enforcement’s investigative and prosecutorial efforts in the virtual currency space makes it clear: While the fast-growing crypto industry is here to stay, law enforcement is adjusting its strategies in response.

SEC postpones ruling on Fidelity Ether ETF options

Seizure of Bitfinex funds is a reminder that crypto is no good for money launderers

Law enforcement’s robust capacity to follow the money on the blockchain is good news for the crypto industry.

As public understanding of how digital assets work becomes more nuanced along with the mainstreaming of crypto, the language of Bitcoin’s (BTC) “anonymity” gradually becomes a thing of the past. High-profile law enforcement operations such as the one that recently led to the U.S. government seizing some $3.6 billion worth of crypto are particularly instrumental in driving home the idea that assets whose transaction history is recorded on an open, distributed ledger are better described as “pseudonymous,” and that such a design is not particularly favorable for those wishing to get away with stolen funds.

No matter how hard criminals try to obscure the movement of ill-gotten digital money, at some point in the transaction chain they are likely to invoke addresses to which personal details have been tied. Here is how it went down in the Bitfinex case, according to the documents made public by the U.S. government.

Too comfortable too early

A fascinating statement by a special agent assigned to the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) details a process whereby the U.S. federal government’s operatives got a whiff of the couple suspected of laundering the money stolen in the 2016 Bitfinex hack.

The document describes a large-scale operation to conceal the traces of stolen Bitcoin that involved thousands of transactions passing through multiple transit hubs such as darknet marketplaces, self-hosted wallets and centralized cryptocurrency exchanges.

In the first step, the suspects ran the crypto earmarked as being looted in the Bitfinex heist through darknet market AlphaBay. From there, a portion of funds traveled to six accounts on various crypto exchanges that were, as investigators later found, all registered using email accounts hosted by the same provider in India. The emails shared similar naming styles, while the accounts exhibited similar patterns of trading behavior.

Related: Making sense of the Bitfinex Bitcoin billions

The chain wore on, and the BTC that law enforcement followed was further funneled to a slew of self-hosted wallets and other exchange accounts, a few of them registered in the real name of one of the suspects. Following along the investigators’ narrative, a reader eventually gets an impression that, at one point, Ilya Lichtenstein and Heather Morgan felt that they had done enough to cover up their tracks and that they could spend some of the money on themselves.

That was it: Gold bars and a Walmart gift card, purchased using the funds traceable back to the Bitfinex hack and delivered to Lichtenstein and Morgan’s home address. Everything was right there on the ledger. The resulting report reads as a compelling description of a crime that has been reverse-engineered using an immutable record of transactions.

Following the money

The scale of the investigation was perhaps even more formidable than that of the laundering operation. Despite the suspects’ years-long efforts to obscure the movement of the funds, government agents were able to gradually unravel the paths by which the majority of stolen BTC traveled, and ultimately seize it. This goes to show that the U.S. government’s capacity to follow the money on the blockchain is at least on par with the tactics that the people behind some of the major crypto heists are using to escape the law.

Speaking of the investigation, Marina Khaustova, chief executive officer at Crystal Blockchain Analytics, noted that the Bitfinex case is an especially hard one to crack due to the sheer amount of stolen funds and the perpetrators’ extensive efforts to conceal their operations. She commented to Cointelegraph:

“Any case of this size, which has been running for years, it will no doubt take a long time for financial investigators to examine and understand the data they have before using it as evidence.”

The U.S. government agents were well-resourced and had access to state-of-the-art blockchain analytics software as they tackled the case. It is no secret that some of the leading players of the blockchain intelligence industry supply law enforcement in multiple countries, the United States included, with software solutions for digital asset tracing.

One possible explanation of why Lichtenstein and Morgan ultimately got busted is the seeming nonchalance with which they abandoned caution and began spending the allegedly laundered funds in their own name. Were they simply not smart enough, or is it because law enforcement has gone unprecedentedly deep into the transaction chain, deeper than the suspects could reasonably expect?

Khaustova thinks that there was “a bit of carelessness to the methods employed” as the suspects let investigators obtain one of the key documents – which allowed them to link email addresses to exchanges, KYC records and personal accounts – from cloud storage.

Yet, it is also true that there is a point where any crypto launderer has to step out of the shadows and turn the stolen funds into goods and services they can use, at which point, they become vulnerable to deanonymization. The Bitfinex investigation showed that, if law enforcement is bent on tracing the suspects to that point of “cashing out,” there is little that criminals can do to avoid getting caught.

A case to be made

The big-picture takeaway here is that governments — the U.S. government in particular, but many others are not too far behind when it comes to bolstering their blockchain-tracing capacities — are already up to speed with the tactics and techniques that crypto launderers are using. The blockchain’s perfect traceability could have been a theoretical argument some years ago, but now it is an empirically proven reality, as evidenced by enforcement practice.

There are two big reasons why this notion is good for the crypto industry. One is that there could be some degree of recourse for the victims of major crypto heists. Granted, not every instance of crypto theft will attract the scarce attention of federal investigators, but the most high-profile and egregious ones certainly will.

Another powerful consequence of law enforcement’s newfound prowess with blockchain tracing is that it renders some regulators’ tired argument of “crypto as a perfect tool for money laundering” obsolete. As real-life cases demonstrate, digital assets are, in fact, opposite to that. Hammering this point into policymakers’ minds will eventually moot one of the fundamental anti-crypto narratives.

SEC postpones ruling on Fidelity Ether ETF options

Senator Ted Cruz invokes Canadian unrest to advocate for Bitcoin again

Cruz has joined the growing list of American politicians who have been advocating for Bitcoin adoption in the United States.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz during his Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) speech on Friday advocated for Bitcoin (BTC) again while lauding its decentralization.

Cruz said he is very bullish on Bitcoin because it is highly decentralized and cannot be controlled by any government or entity. He went on to cite the example of an ongoing issue in Canada, where the government enforced emergency laws as a retaliation to the Freedom Convoy trucker’s protest against COVID-19 mandates.

The Canadian government asked financial institutions and banks to freeze accounts of protesters followed by an order to crypto exchanges and crypto wallet service providers to do the same. A non-custodial wallet service provider Nunchuck received a similar order, and their response to the government went viral which eventually found its way to CPAC via Cruz.

Cruz read the response of the Bitcoin wallet service provider which asked the Canadian government to read up on self custody wallets and private keys. The response also notified that they don’t have access to any of their user’s financial information beyond their email address, which is by design.

The Republican senator called Nunchuck’s response “spectacular” and went on to cite the example of the Chinese crypto ban to suggest Bitcoin cannot be controlled by governments.

Related: US senator submits resolution to allow crypto payments in Capitol Complex

Senator Cruz has joined the growing list of American politicians rallying behind Bitcoin, who has advocated for use of waste natural gas for Bitcoin mining in Texas and recently bought the Bitcoin dip. However, his propagation about the left being anti-Bitcoin citing Justin Trudeau as an example wasn’t received well among crypto Twitter. One user wrote, Bitcoin is apolitical and politicizing it as “Left vs Right” is a wrong move.

Another user noted that Cruz being a politician is using Bitcoin knowledge to his advantage and suggested the opponents become more pro-Bitcoin to counter him.

It is important to note that while there are policymakers who are making efforts at the judicial level to bring changes to the law for Bitcoin adoption, such as Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lumis and a few others, however, a majority of them seems to be focused on using it as a tool for their political campaigns.

SEC postpones ruling on Fidelity Ether ETF options

Survey: US consumers’ dissatisfied with Web2, limited knowledge of Web3

While Web3 narratives haven’t yet permeated public consciousness, there seems to be a strong foundation for future acceptance of the idea.

Findings from an online survey of 1,500 United States-based consumers reveal people’s deep concerns over privacy and tech platforms’ outsize power while suggesting that Web3 is yet to become a household term.

The study was fielded by global insights and strategy firm National Research Group (NRG) in January 2022. 54% of respondents said they were worried about their rights and freedoms are being threatened by technology, with 44% citing online privacy concerns, 38% being unhappy about online ads, and 35% reporting feeling a lack of control over their data. Almost half believe that tech companies have accrued too much power and have to be broken up.

Still, only 13% reported knowing what Web3 means, while 54% haven’t heard the term at all. Of those who have, 83% reported believing that the new version of the internet will improve their lives. Speaking of the potential downsides of the new Web, 33% cited concerns of cybercrime and scams ramping up when the decentralized internet comes to fruition.

Notably, U.S. consumers do not think that the burden of ensuring positive social impact of the future internet rests primarily with regulators: only 32% ascribe the leading role on this matter to politicians and regulatory agencies. More than half (51%) believe that it is mainly tech companies’ responsibility, and 50% said that is developers' and engineers’ job.

On the crypto adoption note, 57% of respondents reported having bought crypto or considered doing so. 39% percent believe that cryptocurrencies are most similar to stocks and shares rather than fiat currencies (18%) and commodities like gold (15%).

Marlon Cumberbatch, senior vice president and global head of insights at NRG, commented to Cointelegraph:

“To me, the most unexpected finding from this research was just how many consumers felt a strong sense of a lack of agency in online spaces. It’s rare, in this increasingly polarized world, to find anything that unites all of us. But it seems that Americans, regardless of income, politics or race, feel strongly that they don’t have enough control over how they engage with content online and how corporations use their personal data.”

Cumberbatch added that the findings point to “a real desire among consumers for a new era of the internet,” the kind that would give them a greater sense of agency and control over their online experiences. The primary roadblock at this point seems to be the lack of information and the still-insufficient public understanding of Web3-related concepts.

Respondents were selected to participate in the study based on quotas calibrated to U.S. census data for age (within the 18 to 64 range), gender, race, region, income and education level. While this method does not yield a sample representative of the general population in the strict sense, it does allow to draw robust generalizations about how opinions are distributed.

SEC postpones ruling on Fidelity Ether ETF options

Happy to be regulated? Fallout from BlockFi settlement is a matter of speculation

The record-breaking $100-million fine could mark the dawn of a new era for crypto lending platforms.

It might seem unlikely that BlockFi founder and CEO Zac Prince would describe a prosecution that resulted in a $100-million fine for his company as “a win not only for BlockFi but for the broader cryptocurrency industry,” but that is indeed what he said. And, he might be right, although it remains to be seen for now. 

The settlement

Founded in 2017, BlockFi is a New Jersey-based crypto financial institution with a team of 850 and one million clients worldwide. Its popular BlockFi Interest Account product, with half a million users, including 407,000 in the United States, was the object of a cease and desist order from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and 32 state attorneys general on July 20, 2021. A statement at that time by the NJ Attorney General’s Office alleged that BlockFi was “selling unregistered securities in the form of interest-earning cryptocurrency accounts that have raised at least $14.7 billion worldwide.”

On Feb. 14, the SEC announced that it had charged BlockFi with “failing to register the offers and sales of its retail crypto lending product.” BlockFi was also charged with misleading investors by stating that its institutional loans were “typically” over-collateralized when, in fact, no more than 24% of the loans ever were. In the order instituting proceedings, it is noted that this is “an operational oversight” that happened after it became clear that large financial institutions were simply unwilling to overcollateralize their loans.

Finally, a settlement was reached under which BlockFi agreed to pay a $50 million penalty to the SEC and another $50 million to the 32 states without admitting wrongdoing or liability. In addition, BlockFi would “attempt to bring its business within the provisions of the Investment Company Act within 60 days.” In the meantime, U.S. clients cannot add funds to their BlockFi Interest Accounts and new accounts cannot be opened in the U.S. or by U.S. persons. The company said it would create a new SEC-compliant lending product, BlockFi Yield, and BlockFi Interest Accounts will be converted to the new product.

First past the post

There is BlockFi’s win: It will be regulated.

Troutman Pepper partner Stephen Piepgrass, whose areas of focus include state attorneys general, called the progression of events “the natural evolution of any business.”

“First they operate in a gray regulatory space, then those who can comply come into the light,” Piepgrass told Cointelegraph. By being the first to reach regulation, BlockFi can “help negotiate new conditions” to its advantage.

Piepgrass assures that there is more still going on behind the scenes with efforts by the SEC and state attorneys general to regulate crypto lending. Some activity has already been seen. Coinbase was dissuaded from opening its Coinbase Lend product by the threat of an SEC lawsuit last year. Celsius, Gemini and Voyager Digital are known to be under SEC review.

“Crypto lending platforms offering securities like BlockFi’s [Interest Accounts] should take immediate notice of today’s resolution and come into compliance with the federal securities laws,” Gurbir S. Grewal, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement and former New Jersey attorney general, said in the announcement of the settlement. “Adherence to our registration and disclosure requirements is critical to providing investors with the information and transparency they need to make well-informed investment decisions in the crypto asset space.”

Rocky path to compliance

Not everyone agrees that this is an unalloyed win for the cryptocurrency industry or for cryptocurrency users. SEC commissioner Hester Peirce, in a dissenting statement on the BlockFi settlement, pointed out potential outcomes that would be somewhat less than victorious. “Rather than forcing transparency around retail crypto lending products,” she wrote, “today’s settlement may stop them from being offered to retail customers in the United States.”

Peirce also noted the complexity of meeting the provisions of the Investment Company Act and called the proposed 60-day timeframe, even with a 30-day extension, “extremely ambitious.” She could have added that there is no guarantee that the new BlockFi Yield product will be approved.

Philip Moustakis, former SEC Division of Enforcement senior counsel and currently counsel at Seward & Kissell, called the BlockFi prosecution “a shot across the bow of crypto lending platforms.” The case is important, he said, as BlockFi is the first “sizable, significant” crypto lender to be prosecuted.

Moustakis told Cointelegraph he would have liked to see a “more explicit pathway to compliance.” Without “a broad-based enforcement action […] with concrete carrots and sticks,” he said, the SEC may be forced to investigate crypto lending platforms individually.

For the SEC, Moustakis said, the BlockFi case represents “the next level of difficulty” in its ongoing push to regulate cryptocurrency. The $100-million fine is being hailed as the largest ever paid by a cryptocurrency company.

It will take some time to see the full impact of the SEC’s prosecution of BlockFi. But, the repercussions have already started. Nexo reportedly stopped paying interest to U.S. users of its Earn Interest product on Feb. 18. The company said its Earn Interest product “in its current form will not be available for new clients, until the restructuring of the Earn Interest Product and the registration process with the relevant regulatory bodies are finalized, as per the recently received guidance.”

SEC postpones ruling on Fidelity Ether ETF options

Future of finance: US banks partner with crypto custodians

Traditional financial institutions must work hand-in-hand with crypto custodians, sub-custodians and service providers moving forward.

Grayscale Investments’ latest report “Reimagining the Future of Finance” defines the digital economy as “the intersection of technology and finance that’s increasingly defined by digital spaces, experiences, and transactions.” 

With this in mind, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that many financial institutions have begun to offer services that allow clients access to Bitcoin (BTC) and other digital assets. 

Last year, in particular, saw an influx of financial institutions incorporating support for crypto-asset custody. For example, Bank of New York Mellon, or BNY Mellon, announced in February 2021 plans to hold, transfer and issue Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies as an asset manager on behalf of its clients. Michael Demissie, head of digital assets and advanced solutions at BNY Mellon, told Cointelegraph that BNY Mellon had $46.7 trillion in assets under custody and/or administration and $2.4 trillion in assets under management as of December 31, 2021.

Following in BNY Mellon’s footsteps, Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA), stated in June 2021 that it would offer Bitcoin trading and custody services in Switzerland. Then in October of last year, U.S. Bank — the fifth-largest retail bank in the United States — announced the launch of its cryptocurrency custody service for institutional investors.

Alex Tapscott, ​​managing director of Ninepoint Digital Asset Group, told Cointelegraph that United States banks have been scrambling to launch crypto asset custody since 2020. “Crypto assets are a $2 trillion asset class and crypto-asset custody is a big business.” Tapscott added that last year was a turning point for many financial institutions, noting that on July 22, 2020, the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, wrote a letter granting permission to federally chartered banks to provide custody services for cryptocurrency. As a result, many traditional banks began to incorporate crypto custody services in 2021.

Next steps

While notable, it’s also important to point out that traditional banks have started working closely with crypto custodians and sub-custodians to introduce custody for digital assets.

Ramine Bigdeliazari, director of product management for Fidelity Digital Assets, told Cointelegraph that given the growing demand from customers, the exploration of crypto solutions through custodial relationships with digital asset service providers is a natural next step for traditional financial institutions. He said:

“While there are a handful of ways that banks could enter the digital asset market, like building an end-to-end solution or acquiring existing providers, sub-custodial relationships with existing and trusted service providers could provide a superior alternative that allows for a quick and proven path to market to meet clients’ needs.”

Bigdeliazari explained that Fidelity Digital Assets provides sub-custody services to client firms including banks who, in turn, interface with their customers. “These engagements showcase the potential for digital assets sub-custody to allow institutions to provide their customers access to digital assets through the same interface and experience they use to access other asset classes without having to build any infrastructure.”

To put this in perspective, New York Digital Investment Group (NYDIG) is a sub-custodian that has partnered with U.S. Bank to provide its “Global Fund Services” customers with a Bitcoin custody solution.

The partnership between traditional banks and sub-custodians is an important one. For instance, Tapscott explained that while crypto asset custody is a big opportunity, it’s not without risk for banks. “Securely storing private keys can be the difference between a satisfied customer and money in the bank or a class action lawsuit and handcuffs. So, naturally, a lot of big banks prefer to partner with firms that already have that industry expertise,” he said.

This has indeed become the case. Kelly Brewster, chief marketing officer at NYDIG, told Cointelegraph that while U.S. Bank is among NYDIG’s most prominent banking partners, it’s far from the only one. “NYDIG has already partnered with more than 35 banks and credit unions to bring Bitcoin to Main Street,” she remarked.

While sub-custodians are helping traditional financial institutions participate in the digital assets ecosystem, Tapscott said that crypto custodians like Gemini and Coinbase also play an important role. For instance, Tapscott mentioned that he expects “white label” solutions to be the preferred choice for traditional banks looking to develop their own crypto custody offerings. “Banks will eventually brand custody solutions as their own, which will be powered by Gemini, Anchorage, BitGo or some other established crypto custodian,” he explained.

Moreover, digital asset infrastructure providers are also helping bridge the gap between traditional banks and the world of crypto. For example, Fireblocks has partnered with BNY Mellon to enable its digital asset custody solution. Stephen Richards, vice president and head of product strategy and business solutions at Fireblocks, told Cointelegraph that BNY Mellon is using Fireblocks’ technology stack, along with other internal components, to enable customers to hold digital assets.

Demissie elaborated that BNY Mellon is building its own digital assets custody platform enabled by technology investments the bank has made in the space. For instance, BNY Mellon made a Series C investment in Fireblocks in March 2021. 

“Our digital asset custody platform is currently under development and testing, and we plan to bring it to market this year pending regulatory approvals,” Demissie stated, adding that BNY Mellon is currently providing fund services for digital asset-linked products including those from Grayscale Investments, the world’s largest digital asset manager. “We also service 17 of 18 active cryptocurrency funds in Canada.”

Will big banks threaten crypto’s decentralization?

According to Demissie, digital assets are here to stay, as he believes they are increasingly becoming part of the mainstream. “Our clients expect BNY Mellon, as their trusted service provider, to extend our core services to this emerging asset class,” he said. Yet, while incorporating digital assets within traditional finance may be a big step for the crypto ecosystem, some may wonder if big banks will threaten the decentralized nature of crypto assets.

Although this is a relevant concern, Tapscott pointed out that many institutional and retail holders of crypto assets prefer to store assets with custodians. “Whether it’s a crypto-native custodian like Gemini or a big bank is irrelevant. Your keys will be held by someone else.” However, Tapscott remarked that this notion doesn’t prevent millions of other crypto holders from being their own bank and storing coins in hardware wallets.

Further shedding light on the matter, Anthony Woolley, head of business development at market digitalization firm Ownera, told Cointelegraph that regulation invariably requires an entity, such as a transfer agent, to be accountable for the record of ownership of any security. As such, Woolley does not believe that digital securities can ever be fully decentralized while being regulatory compliant.

However, Woolley suggested that it may be possible to conceive of a world where regulated digital securities are transacted peer-to-peer with instant payment, transfer of ownership and settlement. “We believe that this is the type of decentralization that investors and society as a whole needs.”

Bottom line: Banks must work with crypto custodians 

Concerns aside, the rising demand for digital assets from institutional investors will result in traditional financial institutions working hand-in-hand with crypto custodians and service providers.

Matt Zhang, a former trading executive at the global bank Citi and founder of Hivemind Capital Partners — a $1.5 billion multistrategy fund designed to help “institutionalize crypto investing” — told Cointelegraph that banks have a much higher regulatory bar to develop when it comes to new products and services, and crypto custody is one of the most complex of all:

“That said, the client demand is there so banks need to find ways to partner up with sub-custodians to package the service in the short term while figuring out the road map to develop it in house. Certain banks are definitely ahead of the others but, as an industry, Wall Street is playing a catch up game right now coming into crypto custody.”

To Zhang’s point, research from NYDIG’s Bitcoin + Banking survey released last year found that customers and clients would prefer to access Bitcoin via an offering through their current bank that is consistent with existing standards of quality and risk management. NYDIG’s findings also show that 71% of Bitcoin holders would switch their primary bank to one that offers Bitcoin-related products and services. “Banks that aren’t preparing to offer these products and services risk getting left behind,” said Brewster.

More specifically, Zhang added that overall he thinks that many major banks will offer access to crypto assets, making the space competitive. As such, he believes that leading financial institutions will be those who can offer a vertically integrated product offering. “Think trading, lending, prime, custody and banking, rather than just custody on a standalone basis.” 

SEC postpones ruling on Fidelity Ether ETF options