Technology is advancing at the speed of light today more than ever. We have surpassed Moore’s law — computational power is doubling every six months rather than every two years — while regulations are, and have been, playing catchup.
The EU Artificial Intelligence Act just came into force in August 2024 and is already falling behind. It did not consider AI agents and is still wrestling with generative AI (GenAI) and foundation models. Article 28b was added to the act in June 2023 after the launch of ChatGPT at the end of 2022 and the flourishing of chatbot deployments. It was not on their radar when lawmakers initially drafted the act in April 2021.
As we move more into robotics and the use of virtual reality devices, a “new paradigm of AI architectures” will be developed, addressing the limitations of GenAI to create robots and virtual devices that can reason the world, unlike GenAI models. Maybe spending time drafting a new article on GenAI was not time well spent.
Furthermore, technology regulations are quite dichotomized. There are regulations on AI, like the EU AI Act; Web3, like Markets in Crypto-Assets; and the security of digital information, like the EU Cybersecurity Act and The Digital Operational Resilience Act.
This dichotomy is cumbersome for users and businesses to follow. Moreover, it does not align with how solutions and products are developed. Every solution integrates many technologies, while each technology component has separate regulations.
It might be time to reconsider the way we regulate technology.
A comprehensive approach
Tech companies have been pushing the boundaries with cutting-edge technologies, including Web3, AI, quantum computing and others yet to emerge. Other industries are following suit in the experimentation and implementation of these technologies.
Everything is digital, and every product integrates several technologies. Think of the Apple Vision Pro or Meta Quest. They have hardware, goggles, AI, biometric technology, cloud computing, cryptography, digital wallets and more, and they will soon be integrated with Web3 technology.
A comprehensive approach to regulation would be the most suitable approach for the following principal reasons.
A full-system solution
Most, if not all, solutions require the integration of several emerging technologies. If we have separate guidelines and regulations for each technology, how could we ensure the product/service is compliant? Where does one rule start and the other end?
Separate guidelines would probably introduce more complexity, errors and misinterpretations, which eventually might result in more harm than good. If the implementation of technologies is all-encompassing and comprehensive, the approach to regulating it should also be.
Different technologies support each other’s weaknesses
All technologies have strengths and weaknesses, and often, the strengths of one technology can support the shortcomings of the other.
For example, AI can support Web3 by enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of smart contract execution and blockchain security and monitoring. In contrast, blockchain technology can assist in manifesting “responsible AI,” as blockchain is everything that AI is not — transparent, traceable, trustworthy and tamper-free.
When AI supports Web3 and vice versa, we implement a comprehensive, safe, secure and trustworthy solution. Would these solutions be AI-compliant or Web3-compliant? With this solution, it would be challenging to dichotomize compliance. The solution should be compliant and adhere to all guidelines/policies. It would be best if these guidelines/policies encompass all technologies, including their integration.
A proactive approach
We need proactive regulation. Many of the regulation proposals, across all regions, seem to be reactions to changes we know about today and don’t go far enough in thinking about how to provide frameworks for what might come five or 10 years down the line.
If, for example, we already know that there will be a “new paradigm of AI architectures,” probably in the next five years, then why not start thinking today, not in 5 years, how to regulate it? Or better yet, find a regulatory framework that would apply no matter how technology evolves.
Think about responsible innovation. Responsible innovation, simplistically, means making new technologies work for society without causing more problems than they solve. In other words: “Do good, do no harm.”
Responsible innovation
Responsible innovation principles are designed to span all technologies, not just AI. These principles recognize that all technologies can have unintended consequences on users, bystanders and society, and that it is the responsibility of the companies and developers creating those technologies to identify and mitigate those risks.
Responsible innovation principles are overarching and international and apply to any technology that exists today and will evolve in the future. This could be the basis for technology regulation. Still, companies, regardless of regulation, should understand that innovating responsibly instills trust in users, which will translate to mainstream adoption.
Truth in Technology Act
The Securities Act of 1933, also known as the “truth in securities” law, was created to protect investors from fraud and misrepresentation and restore public confidence in the stock market as a response to the stock market crash of 1929.
At the core of the act lie honesty and transparency, the essential ingredients to instill public trust in the stock market, or in anything for that matter.
This act has withstood the test of time — an “evergreen” law. Securities trading and the financial industry have become more digital and more technological, but the core principles of this act still apply and will continue to.
Based on the principles of responsible innovation, we could design a “Truth in Technology Act,” which would instill public trust in technology, internationally, now and in the future. Fundamentally, we seek these products and services to be safe, secure, ethical, privacy-preserving, accurate, easy to understand, auditable, transparent and accountable. These values are international across regions, industries and technologies, and since technology knows no boundaries, neither should regulations.
Innovation may create value, but it may also extract or destroy it. Regulation helps limit the latter two types of innovation, while well-designed regulation may enable the first kind to survive and flourish. A global collaboration may find ways to incentivize innovation that creates value for the good of the global economy and society.
It might be time for a Truth in Technology Act — an international, comprehensive, evergreen regulation for the good of the citizens of the world.
Opinion by: Merav Ozair, PhD.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Blockchain infrastructure provider Figment has been selected as the staking provider for 3iQ’s newly approved Solana exchange-traded fund (ETF), underscoring Canada’s continued efforts toward adoption of digital asset financial products.
Figment will enable institutional staking for the 3iQ Solana (SOL) Staking ETF, which launches on the Toronto Stock Exchange on April 16 under the ticker SOLQ, the companies said in a statement. In addition to 3iQ, Figment provides staking infrastructure solutions to more than 700 clients.
The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC), a provincial regulator, green-lighted 3iQ’s SOL fund on April 14. The approval was also extended to other fund managers seeking to offer SOL ETFs, including Purpose, Evolve and CI.
It would take nearly three more years before spot Bitcoin ETFs were approved in the United States. Like their Canadian counterparts, the US ETFs saw overwhelming success in their first year, generating more than $38 billion in net inflows.
In October 2023, 3iQ launched an ETF tied to Ether (ETH), giving investors direct access to the smart contract platform. Unlike the Ether ETFs that US regulators approved the following year, 3iQ’s fund offers staking rewards.
As Cointelegraph recently reported, US regulators may be on the cusp of approving staking rewards after they authorized exchanges to list options contracts tied to ETH.
Synthetic stablecoin developer Ethena Labs is winding down its German operations less than a month after regulators identified “deficiencies” in its dollar-pegged USDe (USDE) stablecoin, signaling heightened scrutiny around crypto assets in Europe’s largest economy.
Ethena Labs reached an agreement with Germany’s Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, also known as BaFin, to cease all operations of its local subsidiary, Ethena GmbH, according to an April 15 announcement.
As such, Ethena Labs “will no longer be pursuing MiCAR authorization in Germany,” the company said, referring to the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation.
The company reiterated that Ethena’s German subsidiary has not conducted any mint or redeem activity for USDe since March 21, the day BaFin halted the stablecoin’s activities. As Cointelegraph reported at the time, the German regulator identified compliance failures and potential securities law violations tied to USDe.
“All whitelisted mint and redeem users previously interacting with Ethena GmbH have at their request been onboarded with Ethena (BVI) Limited instead and have no ongoing relationship with Ethena GmbH whatsoever,” the company said.
Unlike popular stablecoins USDt (USDT) and USDC (USDC), Ethena’s USDe maintains its dollar peg through an automated delta-hedging strategy that includes a combination of spot holdings, onchain custody and liquidity buffers.
USDe is the fourth-largest stablecoin with a total circulating value of $4.9 billion, according to CoinMarketCap.
The $233-billion stablecoin market is dominated by USDT and USDC. Source: CoinMarketCap
To meet the new requirements, stablecoin issuers must have adequate reserves backing their tokens, ensure reserve assets are segregated from users’ assets and fulfill regular reporting obligations.
Patrick Hansen, Circle’s senior director of EU strategy and policy, told Cointelegraph that a total of 10 euro-pegged stablecoins and five US dollar-pegged stablecoins have been approved so far.
However, notably absent from the list is USDt issuer Tether, which has decided not to pursue MiCA registration at this time.
The crypto industry’s inability to access banking services still concerns many industry observers despite recent policy victories.
In past years, financial services firms and banks concerned about fiduciary risk, reporting liabilities and reputational risk often would refuse to offer service to crypto firms — i.e., “debanking” them.
Legislative efforts in the United States and Australia are attempting to remove these barriers for the crypto industry. In the former, legislators repealed guidelines that made it difficult for banks to custody crypto assets, as well as those stating that crypto carried “reputational risk” for banks. In the latter, the Labor Party has introduced a bill to create a legal framework for crypto, giving banks the clarity they need to interact with the crypto industry.
Despite these tangible efforts, some crypto industry observers say that the crypto’s debanking problem is far from over.
US crypto execs say debanking is still an issue
The crypto industry has long decried “Operation Chokepoint 2.0,” its nickname for a suite of policies that they claim constrained the crypto industry from growing under the administration of former President Joe Biden. Among these were measures making it more difficult for crypto firms to access banking services.
The early days of the second administration of President Donald Trump have seen many of these repealed or changed. One of the first was the repeal of Staff Accounting Bulletin 121, which required banks offering custody for customers’ cryptocurrencies to list them as liabilities on their balance sheets — this made it very difficult for banks to justify offering such services.
The administration also appointed a new head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Rodney Hood. Dennis Porter, CEO of the Bitcoin-focused policy organization Satoshi Action, told Cointelegraph that under Hood’s tenure, the OCC has already said banks can offer crypto-related services like custody, stablecoin reserves and blockchain participation.
“This opens the door for broader adoption of digital asset technology and custodial services by traditional financial institutions, signaling a major shift in how banks engage with crypto,” he said.
Despite these victories, Caitlin Long, founder and CEO of Custodia Bank, said on March 21 that debanking is likely to remain a problem for crypto firms into 2026.
Long said the non-partisan board of governors of the Federal Reserve is “still controlled by Democrats,” alluding to Democrats’ more skeptical stance on crypto. Long claimed that “there are two crypto-friendly banks under examination by the Fed right now, and an army of examiners was sent into these banks, including the examiners from Washington, a literal army just smothering the banks.”
Long noted that Trump won’t be able to appoint a new Fed governor until January, meaning that, while other agencies may be more crypto-friendly, there are still roadblocks.
Australia’s Labor Party to create crypto framework
Stand With Crypto, the “grassroots” crypto advocacy organization started by Coinbase that has spread to the US, UK, Canada and Australia, said that “in Australia, debanking is quietly shutting out innovators and entrepreneurs — particularly in the crypto and blockchain space.”
In a post on X, the organization claimed that debanking results in “reputational damage, loss of revenue, increased operational costs, and inability to launch or sustain services.” It also claimed that it forces some companies to move offshore.
In response to these concerns, the ruling center-left Labor Party in Australia has proposed a new set of laws for the cryptocurrency industry. The changes to current financial services law seek to tackle the issue of debanking in the country’s cryptocurrency industry.
Edward Carroll, head of global markets and corporate finance at MHC Digital Group — an Australian crypto platform — told Cointelegraph that in Australia, debanking decisions were “not the result of regulatory directives.”
“Rather, they appear to stem from a more general sense of risk aversion due to the current lack of a clear regulatory framework.”
Carroll was optimistic about the Labor Party’s proactive stance. The major political parties were “showing a shift in sentiment and a shared commitment to establishing formal crypto regulation.”
“We are hopeful that this will give banks the confidence to reengage with crypto businesses that meet compliance standards,” he said.
Canada unlikely to relieve crypto firms
In Canada, “debanking remains a serious and ongoing challenge for the Canadian crypto industry,” according to Morva Rohani, executive director of the Canadian Web3 Council.
“While some firms have successfully established relationships with banking partners, many continue to face account closures or denials with little explanation or recourse,” she told Cointelegraph.
While debanking actions aren’t explicit, financial institutions’ interpretation of Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer regulations “creates a risk-averse environment where banks weigh compliance and reputational concerns against the relatively low revenue potential of crypto clients.”
The end result, per Rohani, is a systemic debanking problem for the digital assets industry.
But unlike in the US and Australia, the Canadian crypto industry may not find relief anytime soon. Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose more crypto-skeptic Liberal Party is surging in the polls ahead of the April 28 snap elections, is himself a crypto-skeptic.
Polls show Carney firmly in the lead. Source: Ipsos
Carney has stated that the future of money lies more in a “central bank stablecoin,” otherwise referred to as a central bank digital currency.
Rohani said that “no comprehensive legislative solution has been implemented” with regard to debanking. “A more structured approach, including mandated disclosure of reasons for account termination and regulatory oversight, is needed,” she said.
Critics claim crypto is “hijacking” the debanking issue
There is another side to the debanking debate, which claims that crypto’s debanking “problem” is a non-issue or a vehicle for crypto firms to get what they want in terms of regulation.
Molly White, the author of Web3 Is Going Just Great and the “Citation Needed” newsletter, has noted that, in the US at least, crypto firms have claimed to be victims of debanking while lauding Trump’s efforts to end protections for debanking at the same time.
In a Feb. 14 post, White stated that the crypto industry had “hijacked” the discussion around debanking, which contains legitimate concerns regarding access to financial services — particularly regarding discrimination due to race, religious identity or industry affiliation.
She claims the crypto industry has used debanking as a means to deflect legitimate regulatory inquiries into crypto companies’ compliance efforts.
Further of note is the fact that Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong has applauded the efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with Elon Musk at the helm, to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
One of the CFPB’s responsibilities is to investigate claims of debanking. But when DOGE instructed the agency to halt all work, Armstrong said it was “100% the right call,” in addition to making dubious claims about the agency’s constitutionality.
In the meantime
Whether the industry’s debanking concerns stem from legitimate discrimination or an attempt at regulatory capture, crypto firms are developing solutions in the interim.
Porter said that, as an alternative to banking services, “many crypto companies have leaned on stablecoins as a primary tool for managing finances,” while others have worked with “smaller regional banks or specialized trust companies open to digital assets.”
Rohani said that this kind of “patchwork of relationships” can increase operational costs and risks and are “not sustainable long-term solutions for growth or to build a competitive, regulated industry.”
Porter concluded that the banking workarounds could actually strengthen the industry’s position, stating that they may “continue evolving into fully integrated relationships with traditional financial institutions, further cementing crypto’s place in mainstream finance.”