Britain needs to embrace crypto with its own Genius Act
While Reeves is contemplating cashing in her Bitcoin, the US is going in a very different direction. This month Congress established the GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stable coins), which will regulate and encourage the use of 'stable coins' – cryptocurrencies backed by liquid assets such as dollars or short-dated Treasuries. The act will address many concerns about criminals' use of cryptocurrencies by incorporating strong consumer and anti-money laundering provisions. It will mandate the reporting of any suspicious activity involving cryptocurrencies, and ensure that they are backed by low-risk investments such as the dollar, or government bonds. There is an expectation, too, that President Trump will sign an executive order to allow the pension plans of millions of Americans to hold cryptocurrencies.
The US approach towards cryptocurrencies is both liberating and reassuring for consumers. The Genius Act is a recognition of the massively-expanding crypto market – worth $5.7 billion globally last year – and an effort rightfully to bring it inside the regulatory tent for the first time, rather than to leave it at the mercy of private operators. It introduces safeguards which might prevent a future scandal along the lines of the discredited scheme operated by the now-jailed Sam Bankman-Fried. It introduces supervision to ensure that those trading stable coins retain adequate liquidity, and introduces a proper framework for dealing the currencies.
Many people remain deeply suspicious about cryptocurrencies and will balk at the idea of governments having anything to do with them. Yet they are not going to go away. There is a generational divide in attitudes towards cryptocurrencies. While many older people continue to see them as a scam, many younger people have a similar attitude towards fiat currencies – paper money issued by governments and central banks which is not backed by gold or any other valuable commodity. It is time to recognise that fiat currencies are not the only ones that can be used in commercial transactions, and there is a good reason to explore alternatives. Blockchain, the technology behind cryptocurrencies, is increasing the speed at which transactions can take place. As for the argument that Bitcoin is not a proper currency because of the volatility in price, this needs to be absorbed as a warning to investors. It should not be used as a reason to prevent holding it, say, in a pension fund.
Many corporations, too, once had reservations about cryptocurrencies yet have since been converted. Those who decline to be involved face losing out. Look at analytics company MicroStrategy, whose shares have increased fourfold over the past year as it has become the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin.
The choice for our own government lies between taking action to incorporate cryptocurrencies into mainstream finance – or to watch as the US and others take the initiative. We need to be part of cryptocurrency regulation just as we were part of the post World War II Bretton Woods agreement, which established a regime for creating exchange rate stability, and which also established the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the dollar peg. Stable coins, in fact, are becoming a new dollar peg. One of the consequences of the GENIUS Act, if it is not followed by a similar move here, will be to boost the value of the dollar.
In her Mansion House speech, Rachel Reeves rightfully blamed excessive regulation for stifling growth. Yet as well as restricting and encumbering, well-designed regulations can free up markets and encourage growth. Reeves should be looking into a UK equivalent of the GENIUS Act. But in the meantime she should signal her intentions towards cryptocurrencies by retaining the government's £5.4 billion of Bitcoin and have it managed by a City firm. If Reeves will not do this, it is very fertile ground for the Conservatives. Kemi Badenoch will be watching the GENIUS Act with great interest.
Fail to embrace cryptocurrency now, and Britain will once again have missed out on the chance to take a lead in an emerging industry. It is critical that the City of London should not lag behind major structural changes in the world or finance. Creating a proper platform in London for trading cryptocurrencies could be the beginning of the City's revival.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Reeves must break her manifesto pledge to save Britain from ruin
UK business leaders are perennially a gloomy lot, but it takes a special kind of disenchantment to make them quite as gloomy as they are now. According to the latest survey by the Institute of Directors, they are gloomier than they were even after the Brexit referendum, the onset of the pandemic, and the debacle of Liz Truss's mini-Budget. The main cause of that gloom is easily diagnosed; above all it is the near certainty of further tax rises in the autumn Budget three months from now. This hangs like a sword of Damocles over all gainful activity, with consumers already tightening their belts and firms delaying investment decisions until they know just what's coming down the road at them. Granted, you wouldn't think this on reading the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) latest assessment of the UK economy, published a week ago. This said that economic recovery was already well under way, with growth projected at 1.2pc for 2025 before gaining further momentum next year. Moreover, said the IMF, the Government's 'fiscal plans strike a good balance between supporting growth and safeguarding fiscal sustainability'. This they most certainly do not, as anyone with half an eye on what's really going on in the UK economy would know. The IMF has a habit of being overly generous to key member states, and this would appear to be a case in point. Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, might have written the report herself. The reality is a great deal different. The Chancellor's tears in the House of Commons just days after the Prime Minister pulled the rug from under her by abandoning £5bn of welfare cuts told their own story of the pressure she's under, whatever the ultimate cause. Sadly, the Labour leadership has no one to blame but itself. There have been two key errors in policy. First was the manifesto commitment not to raise any of the main sources of taxation, including value added tax, income tax and National Insurance. Second was a set of fiscal rules which though they initially allowed a considerable loosening in borrowing constraints now act like a pro-cyclical straitjacket which is forcing the Government into growth destructive measures. The Chancellor calls herself an economist, but it is clear that she doesn't properly understand the often pernicious way in which public policy interacts with commercial and consumer behaviour – or if she does, she seems to have decided to deliberately ignore it. The root of the problem is the rule that obliges the Government to balance the books on day-to-day spending in five years' time. Nobody knows what the situation might look like five years from now; your guess is as good as mine. But the rules nevertheless require the Office for Budget Responsibility to project five years into the future and adjudicate on whether the rule is met or not. The last time the OBR passed judgment, Reeves was given the thumbs-up, but only by the narrowest of margins. Things have deteriorated a lot since then, making it highly likely that the rule will be broken when the OBR next adjudicates. The obvious solution is for the Government to grit its teeth and make meaningful cuts in public spending. Sadly, this does not seem to be an option with the present lot. Despite a huge majority, Downing Street repeatedly caves at the first sign of rebellion. Large scale cuts in spending might in any case further entrench today's economic stagnation. With the big sources of taxation ruled out, Reeves is instead left casting around in the foothills of the tax system for revenue that might fill the gap. Her problem is that virtually all such options tend to evoke strong behavioural responses and therefore end up raising far less money than static costing suggests. Many of them also tend to be growth destructive, witness the exodus of non-doms and millionaires since the last tax-raising Budget. Reeves says she is strongly focused on growth in all she does, yet she has locked herself into a set of fiscal rules which oblige her to do the exact opposite. I imagine that she will continue trying to paper over the cracks in the autumn Budget with lots of itsy-bitsy revenue-raising measures which further discourage wealth creation. Her rules are non-negotiable, she insists, making it hard to see how she can credibly wriggle out of them. Presumably it would be a resigning issue. One of the unfortunate consequences of the Truss debacle is that it has made her successors almost completely beholden to the bond markets. Their terror is in some respects justified; lack of progress towards meeting the balanced budget rule is already causing distress in the gilts in the market, where yields have risen sharply and are now the highest in the G7 – higher even than the US, where fiscal profligacy has run riot, and higher than both France and Italy, both of which have larger debt burdens than the UK. Credit risk is becoming a real issue for investors in UK gilts, adding further to the Government's already crushing debt servicing costs. These are forecast to be more than 8pc of all public spending this financial year, making them bigger than the Government's entire capital spending budget. The Bank of England might mitigate the consequent waste of public money by discontinuing its ruinous programme of quantitative tightening. To be still selling off the stockpile of gilts accumulated during the era of quantitative easing looks hard to justify in current circumstances. But it wouldn't be enough to make any more than a marginal difference. When it comes to fiscal consolidation, the Government has shown itself incapable of sticking to its guns on at least three occasions now – once with the winter fuel allowance and then twice with welfare cuts. This has undermined confidence in Downing Street's commitment to almost any form of fiscal correction, with announced initiatives quickly reversed in the face of backbench pressure. The sensible thing for Reeves to do would be to abandon the current mishmash of fiscal rules, and replace them with a single, easily understood commitment to limiting the rise in overall spending to less than the rate of economic growth, subject to the operation of automatic stabilisers at times of economic contraction. She should also break the manifesto commitment not to raise any of the main sources of taxation. Cuts to National Insurance by the last government were always unaffordable given the already perilous state of the books. This could still be used as political cover for reversing them or raising one of the other big sources of tax. These two measures combined would give the markets greater confidence in fiscal sustainability, and thereby take the pressure off bond yields. This would in turn reduce debt-servicing costs, and once wealth creators were certain they are no longer a target, potentially create a virtuous circle of growth and improvement in the public finances. Will the Chancellor take my advice? Don't hold your breath.
Times
6 hours ago
- Times
Rachel Reeves says Heathrow expansion ‘essential' for growth plan
Rachel Reeves has vowed to face down the threat of legal challenges by Sir Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, over plans for a third runway at Heathrow. The chancellor said on Friday that the expansion of Britain's largest airport was 'essential' to her plans for growth and would boost exports for businesses in Scotland and across the country. She signalled her strong support for the planning proposal and stressed the decision was up to ministers rather than City Hall. The question of a third runway at Heathrow has blighted successive governments since the idea was first mooted in 2003, with years of wrangling over costs and the complexity of designs. However, Sir Keir Starmer is keen to push ahead and Heathrow bosses this week submitted plans to allow 276,000 more flights each year. Proposals for a 3,500m 'northwestern' runway were submitted to ministers as part of a wider £49 billion expansion programme, intended to facilitate 66 million more passengers annually. The plans also include the construction of a new terminal, T5X, the expansion of Terminal 2, and the rerouting of the M25. Heathrow said its runway and airfield plan would be privately funded at a cost of £21 billion, attributing the increase from its estimate of £14 billion in 2018 to 'construction inflation'. Despite an escalating row within Labour between the Treasury and City Hall, Reeves brushed off the threat of legal action by Khan. 'It is essential that we increase airport capacity in the UK,' she said, during a trip to Scotland. Pressed on Khan's opposition, Reeves said: 'These are decisions the national government makes and this Labour government backs Heathrow expansion. 'It will create new jobs, not just around Heathrow, but all around the UK, as it gives new export opportunities to businesses right across Britain.' Residents in villages around Heathrow have raised objections to the expansion ADRIAN DENNIS/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES Government sources also said Khan would not get 'any deferential treatment' just because he is a Labour mayor. They played down the prospect of a major legal hold-up again by pointing to ministers' plans to introduce legislation that will curb the ability of campaigners to use judicial reviews to block infrastructure projects. However, they stressed any decisions would be for the courts. Khan stood by the threat of a legal challenge, warning about a possible breach of the UK's climate targets. Khan said: 'I remain unconvinced that you can have a new runway, delivering hundreds of thousands of additional flights every year, without a hugely detrimental impact on our environment. 'City Hall will carefully scrutinise the new Heathrow expansion proposals — including the impact these would have on people living in the area and the huge knock-on effects for our transport infrastructure, which would require a comprehensive and costed plan to manage. I'll be keeping all options on the table in how we respond.' A survey by YouGov for the Times revealed that 30 per cent of people backed a third runway, while 18 per cent opposed it. The remainder said they did not fit into either category, or that they did not know. The survey suggested an increase in public support for upgrading the country's air infrastructure. YouGov polling in February found that participants generally favoured investing in other forms of transport infrastructure.
The Herald Scotland
8 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Fed governor Kugler to resign, offering Trump early vacancy to fill
Kugler's resignation gives Trump an opportunity to at least partially shape the Fed's makeup to his liking ahead of her original departure date. Kugler, a Biden-appointed governor, joined the seven-member board in 2023 and was set to serve through January 2026. Kugler didn't offer a reason for her Aug. 8 departure. A statement from the Fed said she would return to Georgetown University as a professor this fall. In a letter to President Donald Trump, Kugler said it has been the "honor of a lifetime" to serve on the Fed's board of governors. "I am especially honored to have served during a critical time in achieving our dual mandate of bringing down prices and keeping a strong and resilient labor market," Kugler said. "The Federal Reserve does important work to help foster a healthy economy and it has been a privilege to work towards that goal on behalf of all Americans for nearly two years." In a July 30 note, Bill Adams, chief economist for Comerica Bank, noted that Trump may use Kugler's opening to appoint his pick for Fed Chair Jerome Powell's replacement. Powell, who was appointed by Trump in 2017, will have his term as Fed chair end in May 2026. The president, who has recently backed away from threats to fire Powell, has made clear that he's unhappy with the Fed's decision to hold off on rate cuts. In June, Trump said he's hunting for a new Fed chair and has narrowed his search to "three or four people." Adams said Trump's next pick for chair could be a current Federal Open Market Committee member or an external hire. "Perhaps the next Chair will have a different approach to monetary policy than Powell, but it's hard to say--recall that Powell himself is a Trump appointee," Adams wrote on July 30, before Kugler announced her resignation. "In any case, the Fed seems likely to cut interest rates between now and when Powell's term ends, which would make the transition feel less fraught."
