wchughes.eth 🦊 Profile picture
Apr 3 8 tweets 2 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
Let's briefly talk about #MiCA and the transfer of funds rule (TFR) in the #EU.

Short 🧵
They may be formally ratified by April 19th, and about 4-8 weeks thereafter they will be published in the "Official Journal of the EU" (which I'm sure you subscriber to) and thus go into effect.

That starts an 18 month clock.
The European Banking Authority (EBA) is tasked in that 18 month period to draft a number of guidelines on a number of clarifying topics, including the enhanced due diligence measures CASPs would need to implement when transacting with self-hosted wallets.
The EBA will also need to contribute to the EU Commission’s report on assessment of risks posed by transfers from or to self-hosted addresses.
This report shall include the following elements:
1) an analysis of the trends in the use of self-hosted addresses to perform transfers without the involvement of a third party, together with an assessment of the related ML/TF risks and an evaluation of the need; and
2) effectiveness and enforceability of additional mitigation measures, including specific obligations on PROVIDERS of hardware and software wallets and limitations, control or prohibition of transfers involving self-hosted addresses.
EBA must in 18 months also issue guidance regarding the means for identification and verification of the identity of, the originator or beneficiary of a transfer made from or to a self-hosted address
Punchline - The EBA is going to be very important going forward as it relates to regulation of unhosted wallet usage in and involving the EU.

Thorny issues that require mature engagement with a likely skeptical audience. We got work cut out for us.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with wchughes.eth 🦊

wchughes.eth 🦊 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BillHughesDC

Mar 15
Judge: you're being vague
SEC: we'll tell you privately
Judge: say it publicly
SEC: Fine. the Staff thinks Voyager token is a security and Binance.US is a 1934 Act exchange but Commission hasn't said anything formal, so reject the plan.
Judge: Ya, nope Image
Judge: also, AYFKM that me and the debtors are supposed to figure why this or that is a security or an exchange? Let alone PROVE they aren't. Image
Judge: also, this case has been around a while and if there was an issue as to the securities law status of anything relevant, you'd think the SEC would've been able to do something by now. The world can't stop and wait for you guys to get your act together. Image
Read 6 tweets
Aug 22, 2022
Main argument: a wire fraud insider trading theory still requires the traded asset to be a security or commodity, and NFTs are neither.

Second, there was no property interest in knowing what was going to be featured on OS because that has no determinable econ value.

🤨
Third - because his trans were onchain, there was no effort to conceal proceeds because they were all public. He just moved money in an obvious and perceptible manner. Moreover, moving tokens from one wallet to another is not a "financial transaction" for ML purposes.

🤐
Read 4 tweets
Aug 18, 2022
A quick thread on Judge Kaplan's opinion in the federal class action securities suit against #BlockOne. First, it recognizes that which on-chain transactions are domestic to the US and which are not is a novel and difficult question.
This matters because US securities laws and regs only apply to transactions in securities listed on US exchanges and transactions in the US concerning non-listed securities.
Class plaintiffs argued that, because some EOS network nodes were located in the US, any transaction in EOS tokens (presumed securities) on the network would be domestic, and thus US securities law would apply.
Read 7 tweets
Apr 18, 2022
We (@ConsenSys) have submitted a comment in response to @SECGov 's proposal to expand the definition of a securities “exchange” to cover “communication protocol systems”. We encourage you to read it here: consensys.net/blog/news/cons….
1/21
🧵👇
We respectfully request @SECGov clarify in any final rule that it does not cover blockchain-based networks. Short of that, the proposal would run afoul of the law in a number of respects. 2/21
It strikes us as highly unlikely that @SECGov actually wants this rule to cover blockchain systems, because they are entirely unlike the centralized securities exchanges the Exchange Act was enacted to address. 3/21
Read 21 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(