UK's Crypto Market Will Have to Adapt in 2020

gepubliceerd op by Cointele | gepubliceerd op

Vermeld in dit artikel
After a decade of compliance under a laissez-faire approach to AML legislation, U.K.-based crypto firms now face a significantly more stringent set of rules.

With the FCA thrashing U.K. crypto regulation into shape, the consequences upon start-ups, user privacy and adoption will likely be wide-reaching.

A report from analytics firm Chainalysis confirmed that $2.8 billion of illicit Bitcoin had been laundered via crypto exchanges in 2019.

Looking to solve them the dilemma - but refusing to abide by inherent transparency alone - the Financial Action Task Force introduced the Travel Rule - a requirement forcing member nation crypto firms to disclose customer information on transfers over $1,000.

The directive upped the ante on the already unforgiving Know Your Customer and AML compliance - forcing multiple crypto firms into liquidation.

The FCA is tasked with ensuring that all U.K. crypto firms adhere to the AML/CTF policy.

As we've observed so far, the inability to provide financial privacy has already backfired for several crypto firms - and will likely impede exchanges and wallet providers more than most.

Universal consequencesCal Evans, a managing associate at Gresham International and a U.K. lawyer, aided the FCA in forging their crypto guidance.

"As we saw with the earlier EU draft of the law, the whole purpose of these measures is to stop the abuse of anonymity being used within the crypto space. These new measures will 100% impact on the privacy of crypto users. They are trying to stamp out the privacy associated with the use of many cryptocurrencies."

"The U.K. has long been a 'safe heaven' for companies looking to operate in the crypto market. The ease of incorporation and flexible approach to crypto that the crypto task force had taken to date, often meant that crypto companies could operate within the U.K. with relative ease. The biggest impact we are likely to see is startups avoiding the U.K. altogether and more regulated 'established' firms moving there."

x