The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) has provided guidance to exchanges and cryptocurrency issuers on its interim approach to what it calls value-referenced crypto assets, with a particular focus on stablecoins.
On Oct. 5, the umbrella organization of Canada’s provincial and territorial securities regulators published a clarification saying it may allow trading of certain cryptocurrencies that reference the value of a single fiat currency, subject to terms and conditions.
In February, the CSA reaffirmed its view that stablecoins “may constitute securities and/or derivatives,” which Canadian crypto exchanges are prohibited from trading.
However, if issuers maintain an appropriate reserve of assets with a qualified custodian and crypto exchanges offering stablecoins make “certain information related to governance, operations, and reserve of assets publicly available,” then the CSA could allow those assets to be traded.
CSA Chair and Chair and CEO of the Alberta Securities Commission, Stan Magidson, said in a statement:
“This interim framework, which we will build upon in the future, sets certain standards to help ensure that investors receive the information they need about the assets they are purchasing, including the risks associated with them.”
The CSA cautioned that fiat-backed crypto assets satisfying the terms are still risky and should not be viewed as endorsed or risk-free.
In August, Cointelegraph reported that regulatory clarity in Canada had generated greater interest in crypto from institutions.
In July, the CSA issued guidance on staking, stating that it was allowed, but lending opportunities are limited, and the proportion of “illiquid” assets is restricted.
Stablecoin market capitalization has been in decline over the past 18 months or so and is currently at $123 billion, representing around 11% of the total crypto market cap.
And tens of billions of pounds of borrowing depends on the answer – which still feels intriguingly opaque.
You might think you know what the fiscal rules are. And you might think you know they’re not negotiable.
For instance, the main fiscal rule says that from 2029-30, the government’s day-to-day spending needs to be in surplus – i.e. rely on taxation alone, not borrowing.
And Rachel Reeves has been clear – that’s not going to change, and there’s no disputing this.
But when the government announced its fiscal rules in October, it actually published a 19-page document – a “charter” – alongside this.
And this contains all sorts of notes and caveats. And it’s slightly unclear which are subject to the “iron clad” promise – and which aren’t.
There’s one part of that document coming into focus – with sources telling me that it could get changed.
And it’s this – a little-known buffer built into the rules.
This says that from spring 2027, if the OBR forecasts that she still actually has a deficit of up to 0.5% of GDP in three years, she will still be judged to be within the rules.
In other words, if in spring 2027 she’s judged to have missed her fiscal rules by perhaps as much as £15bn, that’s fine.
Image: A change could save the chancellor some headaches. Pic: PA
Now there’s a caveat – this exemption only applies, providing at the following budget the chancellor reduces that deficit back to zero.
But still, it’s potentially helpful wiggle room.
This help – this buffer – for Reeves doesn’t apply today, or for the next couple of years – it only kicks in from the spring of 2027.
But I’m being told by a source that some of this might change and the ability to use this wiggle room could be brought forward to this year. Could she give herself a get out of jail card?
The chancellor could gamble that few people would notice this technical change, and it might avoid politically catastrophic tax hikes – but only if the markets accept it will mean higher borrowing than planned.
But the question is – has Rachel Reeves ruled this out by saying her fiscal rules are iron clad or not?
Or to put it another way… is the whole of the 19-page Charter for Budget Responsibility “iron clad” and untouchable, or just the rules themselves?
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:17
Is Labour plotting a ‘wealth tax’?
And what counts as “rules” and are therefore untouchable, and what could fall outside and could still be changed?
I’ve been pressing the Treasury for a statement.
And this morning, they issued one.
A spokesman said: “The fiscal rules as set out in the Charter for Budget Responsibility are iron clad, and non-negotiable, as are the definition of the rules set out in the document itself.”
So that sounds clear – but what is a definition of the rule? Does it include this 0.5% of GDP buffer zone?
The Treasury does concede that not everything in the charter is untouchable – including the role and remit of the OBR, and the requirements for it to publish a specific list of fiscal metrics.
But does that include that key bit? Which bits can Reeves still tinker with?
The Justice Department says two LA Sheriff deputies admitted to helping extort victims, including for a local crypto mogul, while working their private security side hustles.