Why UK can leapfrog EU and US on crypto, according to Coinbase exec
More than two years after then-chancellor, and later UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak pledged to make the UK a "global crypto hub," the digital asset landscape has evolved rapidly. In an industry where two years can feel like a decade, has the UK managed to keep pace with global developments, or is it slipping behind?
On the latest episode of Yahoo Finance Future Focus, Coinbase (COIN) UK's senior country director Keith Grose weighed in on the UK's crypto trajectory, and what the shift to a new Labour government could mean for the sector's future.
'Two years might be a long time in crypto,' Grose said, 'but that's not a long time in regulation world.'
Despite the crypto industry's blistering pace, Grose said the UK is making meaningful progress. Just last week, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) released long-awaited draft rules on stablecoins, cryptoasset custody, and exchange operations, steps Grose sees as significant milestones toward making the UK crypto-friendly.
'The whole crypto regime is being put into force this year,' he explained. 'The FCA is really moving quickly to make this a friendly place for crypto. They're very growth-focused.'
Read more: Crypto live prices
This comes at a time when other major markets, particularly the US, are dramatically stepping up their crypto efforts. The US Congress is debating multiple bipartisan bills, including the Stablecoin Act and the FIT21 crypto framework, while president Donald Trump has floated the idea of a national digital asset reserve.
Still, Grose believes the UK has a unique advantage. With the EU's MiCA regulation taking effect and the US experimenting with various policy directions, Britain has a "third-mover advantage."
'We get to look at what's happening in Europe and the US,' he said. 'If the FCA is smart about how they're regulating, we can leapfrog some of the challenges others are facing.'
One of the most exciting developments, Grose said, is the UK's move to regulate stablecoins, which are increasingly seen as a foundational piece of future payment infrastructure.
'We haven't seen a pound-backed stablecoin at scale yet in the UK, but it's coming,' Grose said. 'And when it does, it's going to be very exciting.'
According to Grose, both the FCA and the Bank of England are working on a regulatory framework to support stablecoins as legitimate payment rails, signalling a broader shift toward crypto being embedded into the mainstream financial system.
This could also be a strategic response to developments across the Atlantic, where US states are beginning to adopt strategic reserves of bitcoin, and where the idea of a federal crypto strategy is now on the table.
'You have Trump releasing executive orders, Congress working on regulation, and both the SEC and CFTC taking action. That's the full force of government,' Grose said. 'I'd love to see something like that here in the UK.'
With the Labour government now in power, there's hope that regulatory momentum will continue, or even accelerate. While Labour hasn't yet laid out a comprehensive crypto strategy, Grose is optimistic that the UK's institutional machinery is aligned for progress.
The key, he suggested, will be ensuring that crypto is not siloed within just one regulatory body, but instead becomes a whole-of-government priority, as is increasingly the case in the US.
'I think there's a lot happening behind the scenes, at the policy level, industry level, to make Rishi's original vision a reality. We're not there yet, but we're well on the way.'
Read more: 6 crypto developments in 2025 that will keep fuelling bitcoin's rally
Grose revealed that Coinbase has ramped up its operations, receiving its VASP (Virtual Asset Service Provider) registration, a license that makes Coinbase the largest authorised crypto firm in the UK. 'We've brought all of our UK users back in-house,' Grose said. 'We're now servicing them directly from our UK entity and can run our own financial promotions.'
And that means more visibility for Coinbase in the UK market. While Grose didn't give away all the details, he hinted that something big is coming in early July, and that Londoners should keep an eye out for Coinbase's next move. 'You'll see the Coinbase brand more,' he said. 'And you'll see a lot of new products coming out of the UK.'
Read more:
Why pension funds are buying bitcoin
What we know about Elon Musk's controversial blockchain vision for US
How AI could change the internet
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
2 hours ago
Takeaways from AP's investigation of US death benefits program for public safety officers
A federal program that provides benefits to families of police officers and firefighters who die and become disabled on duty is rapidly growing while facing criticism for increasing delays in deciding claims. Congress created the Public Safety Officers' Benefits program in 1976 to guarantee that the spouses and children of officers who put their lives on the line would receive financial support. But repeated expansions in eligibility approved by Congress, including three passed in the last five years, have made the program more popular and complex to administer. Critics say the program fails some families by taking too long to grant or deny benefits and making inconsistent rulings. An Associated Press analysis found that hundreds of families are waiting years to learn whether they qualify for payments, and more are ultimately being denied. New Jersey widow Sharline Volcy learned this month that she'd been awarded the benefits, more than 3 1/2 years after her husband, Ronald Donat, died while training at the Gwinnett County Police Academy in Georgia. Volcy said she was grateful for the aid, which will provide some financial security and help pay for her two daughters to go to college. But she said the long wait was stressful, when she was told time and again the claim remained under review and ultimately saw her inquiries ignored. 'They told me they didn't know how long it would take because they don't have a deadline. That's the hardest thing to hear,' she said. 'I felt defeated.' She said lawyers didn't want to take the case, and a plea for help to her congressperson went nowhere. She said she'd given up hope and was lucky she had a job as an airport gate agent in the meantime. Volcy's experience isn't unique, and some cases take longer. As of late April, more than 120 claims by surviving relatives or disabled first responders have been awaiting initial determinations or rulings on their appeals for more than five years, according AP's findings. About a dozen have waited over a decade for an answer. The program has a goal of making determinations within one year but has not taken steps to track its progress, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report. But roughly three in 10 cases have not met that timeframe in recent years. As of late late April, 900 claims had been pending longer than one year. That includes claims from nearly every state. Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill to require the program to make determinations within 270 days. Over the last year, the denial rate has increased, with roughly one in three death and disability claims getting rejected. Applicants can appeal to a hearing officer and then the director if they choose, but that isn't common. Many say they can't afford attorneys or want to get on with their lives. Justice Department officials, who oversee the program, say they're making complicated decisions about whether cases meet legal criteria. 'Death and disability claims involving complex medical and causation issues, voluminous evidence and conflicting medical opinions, take longer to determine, as do claims in various stages of appeal,' they said in a statement. The program started as a simple $50,000 payout for the families of officers who were fatally shot on duty or died as a result of other violence or dangers. But Congress expanded the program in 1990 to cover some first responders who were disabled on duty, which made some determinations harder to reach. A 1998 law added educational benefits for the spouses and children of those deceased and disabled officers. Since 2020, Congress has passed three laws making many other types of deaths and disabilities eligible, including deaths related to COVID-19, deaths and injuries of those working rescue and cleanup operations after the September 2001 attacks, and responders who committed suicide under certain circumstances. Annual claims have more than doubled in the last five years, from 500 in 2019 to roughly 1,200 today. While many applicants have criticized the increasing delays, the leading group that represents the relatives of officers who die on duty has been silent. Critics say that's because the group, Concerns of Police Survivors, has a financial incentive not to criticize the program, which has awarded it tens of millions of dollars in grant funding in recent decades. The Missouri-based nonprofit recently received a new $6 million grant from the program to for its work with deceased officers' relatives, including counseling, hosting memorial events, educating agencies about the program and assisting with claims. The group's founder and retired executive director, Suzie Sawyer, said she was warned many years ago that fighting too hard for claimants could jeopardize its grant funding. But current spokesperson Sara Slone said advocacy isn't the group's mission and that it works 'hand in hand' with PSOB to assist applicants and provide education about benefits. Lisa Afolayan's husband died after a training exercise at the Border Patrol academy more than 16 years ago, but she's still fighting the program for benefits. An autopsy found that Nate Afolayan died from heat illness after completing a 1.5-mile test run in 88 degree heat, at a high altitude in the New Mexico desert. The program had awarded benefits to families after similar training deaths, dating back to an officer who died at an academy in 1988. But its independent investigation blamed Nate's death on sickle cell trait, a genetic condition that's usually benign but has been linked to rare exertion-related deaths in police, military and sports training. The program denied Lisa's claim and her subsequent appeals, arguing the death wasn't the result of heat along and didn't qualify. The program stood by its denial in 2024, even after a federal appeals court said it may have failed to adequately consider the weather's role and violated a law barring discrimination on the basis of genetic information.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Dominic Cummings may have just blown the grooming gangs scandal wide open
All progressives solemnly honour LGBTQIA+ Pride Month. And Islamophobia Awareness Month. And Black History Month. Plus many other such events. This is because they're passionately committed to 'raising awareness' of social injustice. So why not the grooming gangs scandal? For some reason, this is one example of social injustice which has failed to grip progressives' attention. To rectify this, I suggest we introduce Grooming Gangs Awareness Month. Fly an official Grooming Gangs Scandal flag from all public buildings. Get civil servants to wear Grooming Gangs Scandal lanyards. Then perhaps these people might finally take an interest. Then again, we may be wasting our time. In all likelihood, progressives have never lacked 'awareness' of the grooming gangs. They just didn't want anyone else to be aware of them. Which brings me to the explosive allegations made on Thursday by Dominic Cummings. In an interview with GB News, he claimed that, when he was working at the Department of Education in the early 2010s, there were 'mass cover-ups of the whole thing in Whitehall'. Are Mr Cummings's allegations true? I don't know. But then, that's why we need the full national inquiry that Labour continues to deny us. A handful of mere 'local inquiries' won't do – not least because it wouldn't be within their scope to investigate Mr Cummings's claims about what went on in Whitehall. Yesterday, incidentally, seven members of yet another grooming gang were found guilty of raping two teenage girls in Rochdale. Labour may not like Mr Cummings. But this time I think it should listen to him. And, for that matter, to the increasingly furious public. Personally, I was somewhat taken aback when, on Tuesday, the new chairman of Nigel Farage's Reform UK told voters that 'immigration is the lifeblood of this country, and it always has been'. I was even more surprised when, on Wednesday, he told Richard Madeley on ITV's Good Morning Britain that he was once strangled by an evil spirit masquerading as the ghost of his late grandmother. To my mind, though, Dr David Bull's most intriguing comment of the week was this. Asked whether he supports calls to ban the burqa in this country, he replied: 'I'm very anxious about the rise in people that think it is OK to hide their faces. We had a conversation yesterday about whether that was the burqa, crash helmets, scarves or whatever.' Hang on. Crash helmets? I for one have always admired Reform's bracingly no-nonsense attitude towards health-and-safety-gone-mad. But a ban on crash helmets, I feel, might be taking it a touch too far. In any case, I'm not convinced that there's a huge public clamour for such a ban. There are plenty of people who want to ban the burqa, and they have strong arguments for doing so. But I've never heard a voter say: 'I'm sorry, but I'm sick of seeing all these women walking around the streets in crash helmets. It's not as if it's their choice, either. Their husbands force them to do it. The crash helmet is a disgusting symbol of misogyny and patriarchal oppression. 'Also, crash helmets make normal human interaction impossible. When a motorcyclist zooms past me at 70mph, I expect to be able to see his face. 'Anyway, it's just not British. If motorcyclists want to wear crash helmets, they can go and do it in their own country.' Remarks like those, I would guess, aren't heard all that often in focus groups. So why Dr Bull raised the idea, entirely unprompted, in reply to a question about banning the burqa, I don't know. Still, I'm not complaining. Far from it. When I stepped down as this newspaper's parliamentary sketch writer in 2021, after 10 years, I felt that politics was in danger of becoming dull. The previous decade had teemed with the most glorious eccentrics, on Left and Right alike. Increasingly, however, they seemed to be fading from view, to be replaced by robotic regiments of Starmers and Sunaks. How wonderful it is to see a new generation coming through. I don't know whether you ever read Left-wing news outlets. But if you do, this week you'll probably have noticed something peculiar. In such outlets, the violence in Ballymena is always described as 'rioting' – yet the violence in LA is always described as 'protests'. You may well have wondered why this is. After all, both Ballymena and LA have seen cars set on fire, missiles thrown, and police officers injured. These are all very bad things. So why don't Left-wing news outlets refer to both as 'rioting'? The answer is simple. The violence in Ballymena is being perpetrated by people who are against mass immigration. The violence in LA, in contrast, is being perpetrated by people who are in favour not only of mass immigration, but of 'irregular' (i.e., illegal) immigration. And, just as importantly, they hate Donald Trump. Therefore, their actions must be made to sound understandable and legitimate. In other words: sometimes setting people's cars on fire is nasty and frightening. And sometimes it's noble and compassionate. Please update your records accordingly. 'Way of the World' is a twice-weekly satirical look at the headlines while aiming to mock the absurdities of the modern world. It is published at 6am every Tuesday and Saturday Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
5mph speed limits: another bonkers Labour idea to make drivers' lives hell
The war on motorists grows more bizarre every day. Wales, long ruled by Labour, remains the source of the most bonkers ideas. Earlier this year, Jane Hutt MS, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, appeared to be floating the idea of a speed limit of 5mph being appropriate 'in some circumstances'. That is roughly the speed of a horse-drawn carriage, so long as it was walking. A trotting horse would typically do double that speed, leaving Ms Hutt in the dust in her car, presumably before being promptly turned into glue for speeding, if the Senedd had its way. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. After all, this is the administration which famously withdrew support 'for all major road projects in Wales because of climate change', and pushed through the controversial 20mph blanket speed limit across all residential roads and busy pedestrian streets in 2023. Nearly two years since the imposition of the policy, Welsh drivers remain furious. And who can blame them? The speed limit is a stick with which to beat drivers into swapping their cars for bicycles and public transport. 'To suck every bit of joy out of driving and make life miserable for drivers,' as a friend once put it. He's picked up nine points, all for driving around 24 or 25 miles per hour, after struggling to rein in a life-long habit of driving at a slightly more reasonable and efficient pace. 'I spend the whole time looking at the speedometer,' another told me. 'The journey to work takes about 20 minutes longer, so I burn fuel for longer and pay more for it'. With a minimum fine of £100 and three penalty points for going over the limit and prosecutions starting at 26mph, the costs to motorists are considerable. The risk of loss of licence and even livelihoods for some is a real danger. There are also more cars on the road for longer, resulting in increased stop-and-go traffic, with frequent braking and accelerating also contributing towards greater fuel consumption and associated costs. Then there's the wider costs. The Welsh government's own research reportedly found that the 20mph policy could potentially cost the economy £4.5bn, though spread over 30 years. This analysis was signed off by the minister for climate change in January 2023 as 'a fair and reasonable view of the expected impact' of the policy, but – in line with the eco evangelism proudly adopted by her government – that she was 'satisfied that the benefits justify the likely costs'. But it's not only in Wales that drivers are being driven out of town. This side of the border motorists are being caught out by 'low traffic neighbourhoods' which not only imposed steep fines when the often imperceptible borders are innocently breached, but have been blamed for increasing pollution on major roads where poorer residents typically live. One scheme set up by Lambeth council in south London was deemed unlawful by the High Court after it ruled the authority had failed to properly listen to residents' concerns. Cash-strapped councils are raising ever-growing sums from parking permits and fines. Across Britain, local authorities have raised £360m from residential parking permits over the last five years, according to Cinch, the online car dealer. Top of the list was Wandsworth Borough Council, which collected £38m from residential permits between 2020 and 2024 alone. And that's before you add in fines from mistakes like driving in bus 'gates' and lanes as well as car parking charges. Back to Wales and its obsession with slow driving. Sense has prevailed in Wrexham at least, with some roads already returning to a 30mph limit. We must not let the age-old argument of safety hold back progress. An infamous New York Times article from 1928 raised concerns around 'horseless carriages' being driven without the added intelligence of a second creature. The answer was to improve safety, not to place restrictions that would make them less efficient than the horse-drawn carriages they were destined to replace. The same is true today, with technology gradually making cars safer. That's not to mention the improved air quality the advent of electric cars – over which I have other concerns, perhaps best discussed in another piece – will usher in at least in this country. As ever, families and businesses are left to pick up the price of government interference, through higher running costs and missed opportunities caused by delays, and in some cases, even the loss of livelihood. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
