Inter­pel­la­ti­on Schmid (17.4024): Risks and oppor­tu­ni­ties sur­roun­ding bit­co­ins and cybercurrencies

Inter­pel­la­ti­on Schmid (17.4024): Risks and oppor­tu­ni­ties sur­roun­ding bit­co­ins and cybercurrencies

Sub­mit­ted text

The Fede­ral Coun­cil is reque­sted to ans­wer the fol­lo­wing que­sti­ons regar­ding coins and tokens (“tokens” under­s­tood as rights that can only be crea­ted and trans­fer­red by ent­ry in a block­chain or dis­tri­bu­ted ledger):

1. are the­re any plans on the part of the fede­ral govern­ment to crea­te spe­ci­fic regu­la­to­ry foun­da­ti­ons or a spe­ci­fic regu­la­to­ry legal frame­work for coins/tokens, or are the exi­sting legal foun­da­ti­ons con­side­red sufficient?

(2) Under Swiss law, rights not evi­den­ced by secu­ri­ties may in prin­ci­ple only be trans­fer­red by means of a writ­ten decla­ra­ti­on of assign­ment. This applies in par­ti­cu­lar to so-cal­led uncer­ti­fi­ca­ted secu­ri­ties, unless they have been ente­red into a cen­tral depo­si­to­ry system and struc­tu­red as inter­me­dia­ted securities.

Coins/tokens, on the other hand, are trans­fer­red exclu­si­ve­ly by means of an ent­ry in a decen­tra­li­zed data­ba­se (dis­tri­bu­ted led­ger or block­chain) and do not qua­li­fy as book-ent­ry secu­ri­ties accor­ding to com­mon opi­ni­on. Are the­re any plans on the part of the Fede­ral Govern­ment to crea­te a legal basis that will enable the legal­ly valid trans­fer of coins/tokens or, more gene­ral­ly, of rights and other assets by means of an ent­ry on a block­chain in a way other than the infor­mal trans­fer prac­ti­ced to date?

3. in what way, if at all, does the fede­ral govern­ment plan to legal­ly regu­la­te the basic tria­ge of the appli­ca­ti­on as a non-sta­te cur­ren­cy system (i.e., as long as the­re is no under­ly­ing cla­im, e.g., bit­co­in) from the appli­ca­ti­on with under­ly­ing cla­im (debt or equi­ty tokens, so-cal­led colo­red coins)?

(4) Various banks, tra­ding systems and other finan­cial inter­me­dia­ries offer their cus­to­mers the pos­si­bi­li­ty to acqui­re Coins/Tokens (in par­ti­cu­lar Bit­co­ins) and to “store” them in their secu­ri­ties accounts or to store them on ser­ver struc­tures of third-par­ty pro­vi­ders, whe­re the so-cal­led pri­va­te keys are only known to the finan­cial ser­vice pro­vi­der, but not to the cus­to­mer, and thus the power of dis­po­sal lies with the finan­cial ser­vice provider.

Whe­re the bank or the tra­ding venue acqui­res such coins/tokens for cli­ents, the que­sti­on ari­ses as to how the­se assets or the pri­va­te keys are to be trea­ted in the event of the bank­rupt­cy of a bank, a tra­ding system or a finan­cial inter­me­dia­ry? In par­ti­cu­lar, it is of inte­rest whe­ther, in the view of the Fede­ral Coun­cil, a cli­ent has a right of segre­ga­ti­on to the pri­va­te keys, which are usual­ly held in trust, and if not, whe­ther the­re are plans to anchor such a right of segre­ga­ti­on (ana­log­ous to the right of segre­ga­ti­on for secu­ri­ties) in Swiss law?

REASON

Justi­fi­ca­ti­on

Ever­yo­ne is tal­king about cyber cur­ren­ci­es and topics such as bit­co­ins. So far, the­re has been litt­le or no dis­cus­sion – apart from the oppor­tu­ni­ties that the­se new tech­no­lo­gies bring with them – of the asso­cia­ted syste­mic and indi­vi­du­al risks and how the­se new deve­lo­p­ments fit into our exi­sting legal system. At the end of Sep­tem­ber 2017, the Swiss Finan­cial Mar­ket Super­vi­so­ry Aut­ho­ri­ty sta­ted in a super­vi­so­ry noti­ce that coin or token offe­rings may fall under exi­sting finan­cial mar­ket laws, depen­ding on the design of the coins/tokens, alt­hough it would depend on the design in each indi­vi­du­al case. The pur­po­se of this inter­pel­la­ti­on is to shed light on fur­ther legal issues and risks of cybercurrencies.

State­ment of the Fede­ral Coun­cil of Janu­ary 31, 2018

Deve­lo­p­ments in block­chain tech­no­lo­gy repre­sent an important aspect of digi­ta­lizati­on, espe­ci­al­ly in the finan­cial sec­tor. Cryp­to­cur­ren­ci­es (e.g. Bit­co­in) and new finan­cing methods (so-cal­led “Initi­al Coin Offe­rings, ICOs”) have recent­ly attrac­ted public attention.

Regar­ding que­sti­ons 1) and 3):

ICOs are a new form of public capi­tal rai­sing via block­chain tech­no­lo­gy. On the one hand, finan­cial inno­va­tions are indis­pensable for the com­pe­ti­ti­ve­ness of the Swiss finan­cial cen­ter. A more effi­ci­ent allo­ca­ti­on of capi­tal by brea­king up the value chain can have posi­ti­ve effects on eco­no­mic growth. On the other hand, risks (e.g. repu­ta­tio­nal risks from dubio­us free riders) must be limi­t­ed and unju­sti­fi­ed regu­la­to­ry favo­ri­tism over tra­di­tio­nal finan­cing methods must be avoided.

The con­cre­te design of the coins/tokens dif­fers great­ly in indi­vi­du­al cases in func­tion­al and eco­no­mic terms. For exam­p­le, the­re are coins/tokens that are inten­ded to repre­sent a real value (e.g. a pre­cious metal), enable the purcha­se of a ser­vice or may con­tain the cha­rac­te­ri­stics of a cur­ren­cy. Depen­ding on the respec­ti­ve design of an ICO, the­re are dif­fe­rent points of cont­act with super­vi­so­ry law (e.g. money laun­de­ring and ter­ro­rist finan­cing, ban­king law, secu­ri­ties tra­ding, coll­ec­ti­ve invest­ment sche­me law).

Curr­ent­ly, the­re are neither inter­na­tio­nal stan­dards nor spe­ci­fic regu­la­ti­ons in Switz­er­land regar­ding ICOs. FINMA has alre­a­dy taken action in indi­vi­du­al cases with enforce­ment mea­su­res for mock cryp­to­cur­ren­ci­es and has published a super­vi­so­ry noti­ce on ICOs; it is curr­ent­ly under­ta­king fur­ther cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­ons. The FDF is ana­ly­zing the cur­rent deve­lo­p­ments in Switz­er­land. In prin­ci­ple, the Fede­ral Coun­cil is of the opi­ni­on that the regu­la­to­ry requi­re­ments should ensu­re legal cer­tain­ty and, within this frame­work, pro­vi­de clear gui­de­lines for a legal, indi­vi­du­al and risk-appro­pria­te design of an ICO.

Regar­ding que­sti­ons 2) and 4):

The Fede­ral Coun­cil shares the view that a wide ran­ge of legal que­sti­ons ari­se in con­nec­tion with Bit­co­ins and other cyber­cur­ren­ci­es. In part, the­se que­sti­ons go bey­ond finan­cial mar­ket law. In par­ti­cu­lar, they also con­cern aspects of gene­ral pri­va­te law and public law. Moreo­ver, sin­ce block­chain tran­sac­tions regu­lar­ly take place across bor­ders, inter­na­tio­nal pri­va­te law impli­ca­ti­ons must also be con­side­red. The que­sti­ons high­ligh­ted in the inter­pel­la­ti­on regar­ding the (pri­va­te) law tre­at­ment of the trans­fer of Coins/Tokens and the bank­rupt­cy law tre­at­ment of pri­va­te keys that allow access to Coins/Tokens are just two examp­les of key issues rela­ted to cryp­to­cur­ren­ci­es. The­se que­sti­ons show that the use of block­chain tech­no­lo­gy or cryp­to­cur­ren­ci­es ent­ails not only oppor­tu­ni­ties but also a varie­ty of risks. Against this back­ground, the Fede­ral Coun­cil intends, in addi­ti­on to the work alre­a­dy under­way, to ana­ly­ze in grea­ter depth the que­sti­ons rai­sed (and others) from the are­as of finan­cial mar­ket law, but also bey­ond. The­se will be addres­sed, among other things, in the con­text of the work car­ri­ed out by the Fede­ral Coun­cil in its state­ment on the Moti­on Béglé (17.3818) men­tio­ned working group under the lea­der­ship of the Fede­ral Depart­ment of Finan­ce. This working group will also invol­ve the industry.

Aut­ho­ri­ty

Area

Topics

Rela­ted articles

Sub­scri­be