The FCA bundles stablecoins into new crypto regime
1
The watchdog says that stablecoins have the potential to drive efficiency in payments and settlement using blockchain technology, with particular benefits for cross-border transactions.
It says its proposed rules aim to ensure regulated stablecoins maintain their value. They also mean that customers should be provided with clear information on how the backing assets are being managed.
David Geale, executive director for payments and digital finance at the FCA, says: 'At the FCA, we have long supported innovation that benefits consumers and markets. At present, crypto is largely unregulated in the UK. We want to strike a balance in support of a sector that enables innovation and is underpinned by market integrity and trust.'
The UK government in April published draft legislation that will bring crypto firms into the regulatory perimeter.
Geale says the FCA will work closely with the Bank of England on the upcoming regime to ensure a clear pathway in regulation for stablecoins.
Sarah Breeden, deputy governor for financial stability at the Bank of England, says: 'We welcome the proposals the FCA have published as part of building the UK's stablecoin regime. For those stablecoins that expect to operate at systemic scale, the Bank of England will publish a complementary consultation paper later this year, including responding to industry feedback around allowing some return on backing assets. We continue to work closely with the FCA to ensure the integrity of the UK's stablecoin regime, including how firms transition within the regime.'
The FCA's proposals would require firms providing crypto custody services, who have responsibility for keeping consumers' crypto safe, to ensure they are effectively secured and can be easily accessed at any time. The proposals also seek to reduce the likelihood and impact of firm failures across regulated firms undertaking the activities of stablecoin issuance and cryptoasset custody.
The blurring of the lines between stablecoins and traditional financial markets has been emphasised in a new paper from the Bank for International Settlements.
The study found inflows into stablecoins reduce three-month US Treasury yields by 2-2.5 basis points within 10 days, while outflows can have a larger impact, raising yields by 6-8 basis points. The effects are concentrated in short-term Treasury securities, with limited to no spillovers to longer-term maturities.
Given its relative size, Tether (USDT) contributes the most to estimated effects, followed by Circle (USDC).
"These results suggest that stablecoins have already established themselves as significant players in Treasury markets. Their growth blurs the lines between cryptocurrency and traditional finance and carries implications for monetary policy, transparency of stablecoin reserves and financial stability - particularly during periods of market stress," say the report's authors.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The roundtable is a test of Labor's courage and vision. Will it rise to the occasion?
Remember when governments took bold steps – deregulating the dollar, introducing the GST, freeing up trade and rolling out the NDIS? Not any more, even though the need is greater than ever. Treasury explicitly advised Jim Chalmers in its post-election advice that the budget settings are 'unsustainable', that personal and company tax are too high and that 'indirect taxes' are a solution for reform. Addressing the intergenerational inequity in our tax system requires courage and vision. At this rate, we will be passing on a lower standard of living, diminished health and education outcomes, and a degraded environment to younger Australians. The most recent federal election was defined by embarrassing small-mindedness from the major parties – promises of $7 off your weekly fuel bill or a $5 tax cut. These are not serious solutions to the structural challenges we face. When you combine these small target strategies with the increasing need to show an electoral 'mandate' before tackling any policy issue, how will we ever address the big challenges? Sign up: AU Breaking News email There are two schools of thought about how reform happens: one argues that it requires a strong majority government; the other believes it will take a minority government pushed by a principled crossbench. The fact that overall support for the major parties fell again with 33.6% of voters supporting community independent or minor party candidates demonstrates increasing frustration at the major parties' unwillingness to confront Australia's long-term challenges. The election of independents to the crossbench was driven by two decades of gridlock on economic reform, coupled with a lack of a coherent approach to climate change mitigation. During the 2022 election campaign and immediately after, I spoke of the urgent need for broad tax reform. In the last parliament, I raised this issue in the house 10 times. Allegra Spender spoke about it 21 times. The major parties avoided the topic entirely. I was heartened by the treasurer's decision to expand the agenda for the economic reform roundtable to include tax reform. Could this be the moment when the government finally confronts the structural challenges in our budget and the demographic shifts ahead? It was refreshing to hear the treasurer push back against the 'rule in, rule out' game that has stifled meaningful debate for years. But unfortunately, the prime minister is managing our expectations down to tinkering. The case for tax reform is compelling and GST provides an opportunity. Our current tax system disproportionately burdens younger Australians. Bracket creep – the stealthy tax increase on workers – is our only plan for addressing the deficit. We need to explore alternatives with productivity in mind. The economist Chris Murphy has shown that, per extra dollar of revenue raised, the GST causes the least economic harm, followed by personal income tax, and then company tax. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Yet our GST is among the narrowest and lowest in the OECD. It applies to just 7.5% of the economy, compared to an OECD average of over 11%, and its rate is half the OECD average. Broadening the base and increasing the rate could allow us to shift the tax burden from those who work to those who spend. In anticipation of the roundtable, the economist Richard Holden and I revisited our 2023 work and asked the Parliamentary Budget Office to model a 'progressive GST' – a way to relieve pressure on personal income tax while protecting low and middle-income earners. Under our model, the GST rate would increase to 15% and exemptions would be removed. To ensure equity, every Australian adult would receive a $3,300 annual payment, effectively making the first $22,000 of spending GST-free. PBO modelling shows that this could leave the bottom 60% of income earners better off, even before accounting for the personal income tax cuts enabled by the additional $24bn in revenue. This is the test. The Labor government has a 19-seat majority. If a comfortable margin is truly a prerequisite for reform, now is the time to act. If we see no action now and the major parties decide an electoral mandate is required, they are now on notice. The voters are on to you. You have three years to build community support for a bold and viable plan to fix our tax system. Any party that wants to be taken seriously as a contender for government in 2028 must come to the election with a tax plan that is fair, future-focused, and fit for the demographic changes ahead. The small target game is over. Australians are ready for courageous action to secure a prosperous future for our children. Kate Chaney is the independent member for Curtin
South Wales Guardian
4 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Racing tax: What is it and why is the sport going on strike
For the first time in the modern history of the sport in Britain, its participants will voluntarily go on strike for a day. A day of protest will be held in Westminster. What does that mean? It means there will be no racing in Britain on September 10. The meetings scheduled for Lingfield, Carlisle, Uttoxeter and Kempton that day will not take place. They have been rescheduled to other dates. And why has all this come about? The strike announcement has come as part of British racing's 'Axe the Racing Tax' campaign, which is urging the Government to axe the Treasury's proposal to bring existing online betting duties into one single rate. Why would tax rises be so bad? Economic analysis commissioned by the British Horseracing Authority has shown that aligning the current tax rate paid by bookmakers on racing with that of online games of chance could see a £330 million revenue hit to the industry in the first five years, putting 2,752 jobs at risk in the first year alone. Strike action will surely cost the sport money? It will, it is estimated it will cost around £200,000 in lost revenue on the day. So does the racing industry support the strike move? In a word, yes. Racecourses, owners and trainers are all in agreement. The National Trainers Federation said cancelling fixtures was 'a huge sacrifice' which 'should serve as a stark reminder to the Government of the impact its tax raid will have on our sport'. Is this is a one-off, or will there be more strikes? No more strikes are planned, as things stand. Can I still have a bet anywhere that day? Yes, there will actually be one meeting in Ireland, at Cork. Irish racing is run completely separately to British racing.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Reeves forced to correct parliamentary record after getting her figures wrong
Rachel Reeves has been forced to correct the parliamentary record after bungling her figures when discussing unemployment and her flagship pension reforms. The Treasury has corrected Hansard, the official record of what MPs and peers have said in Parliament, after errors by the Chancellor during several sessions. In one instance, Ms Reeves claimed that the £425bn Local Government Pension Scheme was managed by '96 different administering authorities', a figure she hoped to cut to 'eight pools' as part of her flagship reforms to the retirement savings industry. However, the Treasury subsequently admitted: 'The correct figures are that there are 86 different administering authorities, with plans to take that down to six pools.' In a separate session in front of the House of Lords economic affairs committee, Ms Reeves told peers that Britain had '20pc of people of working age who are economically inactive and we have an unemployment rate of just over 4pc'. The Treasury corrected both sets of figures, saying that the latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) release estimated the number of economically inactive people to be at 21pc, while 'the latest ONS release estimates [the unemployment] figure to be 4.7pc'. The corrections were first reported by the Mail on Sunday. Earlier this month, the Chancellor was accused by Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, of having a 'shocking grasp of detail'. Mr Griffith told the Mail on Sunday: 'When she's writing such big cheques with taxpayers' money, it's no time to be loose with your numbers.' Scrutiny of the Chancellor's grasp of data comes amid mounting speculation about the upcoming Budget. Economists have warned that Ms Reeves may have to raise as much as £50bn to fill a hole in public finances. Critics say the gap has opened up because previous measures taken by the Chancellor have damage business confidence and investment. It follows a series of other missteps by the Chancellor. In February, the Chancellor was forced to correct a statement on inflation after mistakenly implying that workers' wages had risen at a record pace since Labour came to power. She had said: 'Since the election we've seen year on year wages after inflation growing at their fastest rate.' The Treasury later issued a correction following what it termed an 'error', saying inflation was not growing at the fastest rate, but 'at their fastest rate in three years'. Late last year, Ms Reeves came under fire after exaggerating parts of her CV, including incorrectly stating she worked as an economist at Bank of Scotland. She was also accused of overstating how long she spent at the Bank of England.
