FTX collapse shows crypto is ‘too dangerous’ not to regulate, Bank of England deputy governor says
Cryptocurrency trading is “too dangerous” to remain outside mainstream financial regulation and could pose “a systemic problem” without action, the deputy governor of the Bank of England has warned.
Speaking for the first time since the founder of the crypto trading platform FTX was arrested and charged with massive fraud, Sir Jon Cunliffe told Sky News the Bank is considering regulation to protect retail investors in the “casino” of crypto trading, as well as the wider financial system from potential crypto shocks.
Sam Bankman-Fried was extradited on Wednesday from the Bahamas to the US where he will appear in a New York court charged with eight counts of fraud, money laundering and breaking campaign finance.
The collapse of FTX left more than one million customers unable to withdraw assets worth an estimated $8bn.
Prosecutors allege he used FTX’s customers’ money to cover losses in his private crypto hedge fund Alameda Capital in what the company’s new chief executive told Congress was “old-fashioned embezzlement”.
An estimated 80,000 of FTX’s customers are based in the UK, with individual liabilities as high as £5m in life savings according to a lawyer acting for dozens of victims.
Louise Abbott, a crypto-fraud specialist, told Sky News: “These individual investors have invested anything from a couple of thousand pounds up to about £5m, so massive amounts of money, all completely frozen, I’m going to use the word frozen rather than lost, because hopefully there is going to be something given back to them at some point. But this is huge money, huge money lost or stuck, or frozen in time.”
Crypto credibility
The episode is a huge blow to the credibility of cryptocurrencies, digital assets that draw their value not from state backing, but from relative scarcity and the willingness of other investors to trade in them.
Mr Bankman-Fried had cultivated links in Washington and on Wall Street, making millions of dollars in political donations and attracting high-profile investors to his platform.
His fall has emphasised the volatility of crypto investment and the lack of regulation in an industry that, despite widespread scepticism, is attracting growing attention from the financial mainstream.
Efforts to regulate
In the UK, regulators have tried and failed to impose their writ on crypto exchanges domiciled offshore, while the government has a goal, set out in April by Rishi Sunak when he was chancellor, to make the UK a “global crypto assets hub”, an ambition that depends in large part on effective regulation.
Sir Jon, deputy governor with responsibility for financial stability, told Sky News the Bank’s regulation efforts were aimed at protecting individuals and maintaining financial stability.
Deputy Governor of the Bank of England Jon Cunliffe
“There’s a lot of activity that’s developed over the last 10 years on the trading and sale of crypto assets, assets without any intrinsic value, so they’re incredibly volatile. And all of that has grown up outside of regulation,” he said.
“What we saw in FTX… is a number of activities which in the regulated financial sector, would have had certain protections. We saw things like clients’ money appears to have gone missing, conflicts of interest between different operations, transparency, audit and accounting. All of the perhaps boring things that happened in the normal financial sector, didn’t really happen in that set of activities. And as a result, I think a lot of people have lost a lot of money.”
Comparing crypto trading to a casino, Sir Jon said investors who wanted to speculate should be able to do so without the risk of losing access to their funds.
“It is in effect, in my view, a gamble, but we allow people to bet, so if you then want to get involved in that you should have the ability to in a place that is regulated in the same way that if you gamble in a casino it’s regulated. You should have the full information on the tin as to what you’re doing.”
The Bank also has to address the risk to financial stability that could flow from digital assets as institutional investors and banks explore exposure to an estimated $1trn in crypto assets.
“This trading of crypto assets was not big enough to destabilise the financial system, but it was starting to develop links with the financial system,” Sir Jon said. “I don’t know how that will develop. But we had banks and investment funds and others who wanted to invest in it. I think we should think about regulation before it becomes integrated with the financial system and before we could have a potential systemic problem.
“So I don’t think it will be possible to say this can be just kept outside of the financial system. It’s too dangerous. I think it is difficult but possible to say, let’s bring it in, where and when we think we can manage the risk to the standards we’re used to.”
Potential for blockchain
While cryptocurrencies have proved consistently volatile since the inception of Bitcoin 14 years ago, the underlying technology, blockchain, is considered to have significant potential across industries to manage data, and speed up and simplify transactions.
Blockchain provides proof of transactions on a public record known as a distributed digital ledger.
Each new exchange of cryptocurrency is recorded on a “block” which is added to the “chain” containing details of the new transaction and the previous transaction, meaning it can only be falsified by altering all previous links.
The system is maintained and overseen by every computer linked to the network rather than a central monitoring entity.
Mercedes is exploring the potential of blockchain to manage the data that will enable autonomous driving, while Vodafone is exploring its utility in managing the billions of micro-transactions that will be facilitated by the next generation of internet technology.
‘Smart money’ could also simplify global supply chains, with the prospect of micro transactions using stable tokens being linked to individual parts in production processes.
“There are technologies here which could, and I stress could, be of real use in the normal financial system, more efficient ways of doing things, potentially more resilient ways of doing things,” said Sir Jon.
“That hasn’t been proven in the crypto world. But if we could provide a regulatory space where people can see if they can develop products using this, we might be able to get the benefit of some of those technologies.”
The Bank of England’s own digital coin
As part of this process the Bank of England is consulting on plans to develop its own central bank digital coin, an electronic version of sterling that would carry the same security as a pound coin, but with the digital flexibility that could one day replace cash.
“Physical cash will always be made available by the bank as long as people want it and many people depend on it. But it’s not fully usable in the way we live now. So the question for the Bank of England is that as the way we as society changes, as we live our lives more digitally, should we continue to provide money to the public which is usable across a range of transactions?
“This would be a digital equivalent of the’ I promise to pay the bearer’ promise, which in the end underpins confidence in money in the UK. Whenever you want, you can turn that money you hold in the bank into basically Bank of England money backed by the state with that promise to pay the bearer.
“We want to ensure that as physical cash becomes less usable in many parts of the economy, perhaps we need to offer something digitally to provide that underpinning.”
As Chancellor Rachel Reeves meets her counterpart, US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent to discuss an “economic agreement” between the two countries, the latest trade figures confirm three realities that ought to shape negotiations.
The first is that the US remains a vital customer for UK businesses, the largest single-nation export market for British goods and the third-largest import partner, critical to the UK automotive industry, already landed with a 25% tariff, and pharmaceuticals, which might yet be.
In 2024 the US was the UK’s largest export market for cars, worth £9bn to companies including Jaguar Land Rover, Bentley and Aston Martin, and accounting for more than 27% of UK automotive exports.
Little wonder the domestic industry fears a heavy and immediate impact on sales and jobs should tariffs remain.
Money latest: ’14 million Britons on course for parking fine this year’
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Chancellor’s trade deal red lines explained
American car exports to the UK by contrast are worth just £1bn, which may explain why the chancellor may be willing to lower the current tariff of 10% to 2.5%.
For UK medicines and pharmaceutical producers meanwhile, the US was a more than £6bn market in 2024. Currently exempt from tariffs, while Mr Trump and his advisors think about how to treat an industry he has long-criticised for high prices, it remains vulnerable.
The second point is that the US is even more important for the services industry. British exports of consultancy, PR, financial and other professional services to America were worth £131bn last year.
That’s more than double the total value of the goods traded in the same direction, but mercifully services are much harder to hammer with the blunt tool of tariffs, though not immune from regulation and other “non-tariff barriers”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
How US ports are coping with tariffs
The third point is that, had Donald Trump stuck to his initial rationale for tariffs, UK exporters should not be facing a penny of extra cost for doing business with the US.
The president says he slapped blanket tariffs on every nation bar Russia to “rebalance” the US economy and reverse goods trade ‘deficits’ – in which the US imports more than it exports to a given country.
Read more: Could Trump tariffs tip the world into recession?
That heavily contested argument might apply to Mexico, Canada, China and many other manufacturing nations, but it does not meaningfully apply to Britain.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show the US ran a small goods trade deficit with the UK in 2024 of £2.2bn, importing £59.3bn of goods against exports of £57.1bn.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
IMF downgrades UK growth forecast
Add in services trade, in which the UK exports more than double what it imports from the US, and the UK’s surplus – and thus the US ‘deficit’ – swells to nearly £78bn.
That might be a problem were it not for the US’ own accounts of the goods and services trade with Britain, which it says actually show a $15bn (£11.8bn) surplus with the UK.
You might think that they cannot both be right, but the ONS disagrees. The disparity is caused by the way the US Bureau of Economic Analysis accounts for services, as well as a range of statistical assumptions.
Read more from Sky News:
Water regulation slammed by spending watchdog
Rate cut speculation lights up as economic outlook darkens
“The presence of trade asymmetries does not indicate that either country is inaccurate in their estimation,” the ONS said.
That might be encouraging had Mr Trump not ignored his own arguments and landed the UK, like everyone else in the world, with a blanket 10% tariff on all goods.
Trade agreements are notoriously complex, protracted affairs, which helps explain why after nine years of trying the UK still has not got one with the US, and the Brexit deal it did with the EU against a self-imposed deadline has been proved highly disadvantageous.
Water regulators and the government have failed to provide a trusted and resilient industry at the same time as bills rise, the state spending watchdog has said.
Public trust in the water sector has reached a record low, according to a report from the National Audit Office (NAO) on the privatised industry.
Not since monitoring began in 2011 has consumer trust been at such a level, it said.
At the same time, households face double-digit bill hikes over the next five years.
The last time bills rose at this rate was just before the global financial crash, between 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Regulation failure
All three water regulators – Ofwat, the Environment Agency and Drinking Water Inspectorate – and the government department for environment, food and rural affairs (Defra) have played a role in the failure, the NAO said, adding they do not know enough about the condition or age of water infrastructure and the level of funding needed to maintain it.
Since the utilities were privatised in 1989, the average rate of replacement for water assets is 125 years, the watchdog said. If the current pace is maintained, it will take 700 years to replace the existing water mains.
The NAO said the government and regulators have failed to drive sufficient investment into the sector. File pic: PA
Water firms have grappled with leaky pipes and record sewage outflows into UK waterways in recent years, with enforcement action under way against all wastewater companies.
Despite there being three regulators tasked with water, there is no one responsible for proactively inspecting wastewater to prevent environmental harm, the report found.
Instead, regulation is reactive, fining firms when harm has already occurred.
Financial penalties and rewards, however, have not worked as water company performance hasn’t been “consistent or significantly improved” in recent years, the report said.
‘Gaps, inconsistencies, tension’
The NAO called for this to change and for a body to be tasked with the whole process and assets. At present, the Drinking Water Inspectorate monitors water coming into a house, but there is no entity looking at water leaving a property.
Similarly no body is tasked with cybersecurity for wastewater businesses.
As well as there being gaps, “inconsistent” watchdog responsibilities cause “tension” and overlap, the report found.
The Environment Agency has no obligation to balance customer affordability with its duty to the environment when it assesses plans, the NAO said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Thames Water boss can ‘save’ company
Company and investment criticism
Regulators have also been blamed for failing to drive enough funding into the water sector.
From having spoken to investors through numerous meetings, the NAO learnt that confidence had declined, which has made it more expensive to invest in companies providing water.
Even investors found Ofwat’s five-yearly price review process “complex and difficult”, the report said.
Financial resilience of the industry has “weakened” with Ofwat having signalled concerns about the financial resilience of 10 of the 16 major water companies.
Most notably, the UK’s largest provider, Thames Water, faced an uncertain future and potential nationalisation before securing an emergency £3bn loan, adding to its already massive £16bn debt pile.
Read more from Sky News:
Hundreds of jobs at risk as The Original Factory Shop launches survival plan
Government to decide on ‘postcode pricing’ plan for electricity bills by summer
Water businesses have been overspending, with only some extra spending linked to high inflation in recent years, leading to rising bills, the NAO said.
Over the next 25 years, companies plan to spend £290bn on infrastructure and investment, while Ofwat estimates a further £52bn will be needed to deliver up to 30 water supply projects, including nine reservoirs.
The NAO said regulators do not have a good understanding of the condition of infrastructure assets
What else is going on?
From today, a new government law comes into effect which could see water bosses who cover up illegal sewage spills imprisoned for up to two years.
Such measures are necessary, Defra said, as some water companies have obstructed investigations and failed to hand over evidence on illegal sewage discharges, preventing crackdowns.
Meanwhile, the Independent Water Commission (IWC), led by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, is carrying out the largest review of the industry since privatisation.
What the regulators and government say?
In response to the report, Ofwat said: “The NAO’s report is an important contribution to the debate about the future of the water industry.
“We agree with the NAO’s recommendations for Ofwat and we continue to progress our work in these areas, and to contribute to the IWC’s wider review of the regulatory framework. We also look forward to the IWC’s recommendations and to working with government and other regulators to better deliver for customers and the environment.”
An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “We have worked closely with the National Audit Office in producing this report and welcome its substantial contribution to the debate on the future of water regulation.
“We recognise the significant challenges facing the water industry. That is why we will be working with Defra and other water regulators to implement the report’s recommendations and update our frameworks to reflect its findings.”
A Defra spokesperson said: “The government has taken urgent action to fix the water industry – but change will not happen overnight.
“We have put water companies under tough special measures through our landmark Water Act, with new powers to ban the payment of bonuses to polluting water bosses and bring tougher criminal charges against them if they break the law.”
Water UK, which represents the water firms, has been contacted for comment.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway