This is brilliant. Its also really simple. In order to get the world’s regulators “on the same page” in drafting common regulations for cryptoassets, how about just agreeing on common terms? Just like the British call potato chips “crisps” (which is confusing to visiting ‘yanks’), just defining and accepting a common name for all things crypto would certainly ease regulatory language. In fact, researchers at the University of Cambridge have released a comprehensive study on the global regulatory landscape for “cryptos” and found that lack of standard terminology is a major impediment to drafting regulations. It’s brilliant. Get everybody to call a crook a crook, a jerk a jerk, etc etc etc. A chip a chip? Be sure to read more below……….its pretty simple.
Bill Taylor/Fintek Capital
“Researchers at Judge Business School, University of Cambridge have released an in-depth report on the global regulatory landscape for cryptoassets.
The report found that a lack of standard terminology across regulators and jurisdictions is hampering a coordinated global regulatory response.
The “Global Cryptoasset Regulatory Landscape Study” was conducted by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance with the support of Japan’s Nomura Research Institute (NRI). The report, based on an in-depth analysis of 23 jurisdictions, aims to provide a practical and analytical tool for regulators, market participants, and other stakeholders in the cryptoasset ecosystem.
“Our hope is that this global comparative analysis of cryptoasset regulation will highlight coverage gaps in regulatory frameworks and enable individual regulators to benchmark their own regulatory approach in the context of the global cryptoasset regulatory landscape,” wrote Dr Robert Wardrop, Director Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, in his introduction to the report.
The 23 jurisdictions covered in the report, selected for their prominence in the global cryptoasset sector, include: Abu Dhabi, Australia, Bermuda, Canada, China, the European Union, Estonia, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Japan, Malta, Mexico, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.
Key Findings and Highlights
• The lack of standard terminology for cryptoassets across regulators and jurisdictions hampers a coordinated global regulatory response.
• The most sophisticated regulatory frameworks are found in countries with a less rigid attitude towards financial regulation and a low level of domestic cryptoasset activity. In contrast, 47 percent of jurisdictions with a high level of domestic cryptoasset activity have adopted a “retrofitting” approach to regulation – amending existing laws and regulations in order to bring cryptoasset activities under the scope of existing laws…”