The Blockchain, the Association has on 19. November a for the financial industry imaginary circular design of the BaFin answered and clearer definitions when dealing with crypto-currencies required.
the Writing of The in June as the club, founded in the interest of the German Association of the Blockchain-Community represents a response to the BaFin offered opportunity for constructive opinion. BaFin had for a period of up to 19. November given.
In his reply, currencies welcomed the Blockchain Association in General, the open exploration of the BaFin with the topics of the Blockchain and Crypto. A practical feasibility of the BaFin to ensure the items, but a concretization of the BaFin-used terms is necessary.
a precise Definition of the by the BaFin in your newsletter design is lacking as a “money laundering is legally Obliged to”. For the Blockchain, the Association of this term is too General, because the Letter was not clear to whom the BaFin applies exactly. The circular is addressed not only banks but also payment, E-money and other financial services institutions, making it difficult a precise Interpretation of the wording of the BaFin.
Also problematic is the Blockchain-the Federal Association of the BaFin Definition of virtual currencies. After this it was
1. a digital representation of a value that has been issued by any Central Bank or public body, or guaranteed, and …
2. … not necessarily to a statutory currency is pegged and does not have the legal Status of a currency, or of money, …
3. … but by natural or legal persons as a medium of exchange will be accepted and …
4. … electronically transferred, and traded.
The Association considers that this Definition is not practical. He argues that almost all of the existing tokens would meet the points 1, 2 and 4, and at the same time point 3 leave too much room for interpretation. In the result of so-called Utility would be valued tokens as a means of payment, which are not provided for at all purpose.
“Given the broad scope of the Definition in the Rest position is such clear, however, is mandatory. Otherwise, the so-called Utility would be captured Token, if you have a voucher function and, therefore, as a means of payment anyway, but as a medium of exchange on a platform to be accepted. Since the 5. Anti-money laundering Directive, and is also based around design write-but just not ‘Token’ in General, but on virtual currencies, it is our understanding that, for example, Utility-Token are to be excluded from the scope.”
other of the BaFin-used terms are the Association of to be inaccurate, such as the description of the BaFin of “payments, which are recognizable by an exchange of virtual currencies underlying” or the so-called “commercial trade or exchange of crypto-currencies”. In relation to the above-mentioned points of the Blockchain, the Association asks, therefore, to clarify the BaFin.
Whether this is capable of, may be doubted because of their relatively narrow mandate as a regulatory authority. A more accurate definition of the word, as the Association calls it, is actually just by the legislature to be affordable.
It is also a judgment of the chamber court of Berlin suggests that the competence of the BaFin, was in such matters, clearly out of the question. The since then is even more ambiguous regulatory situation has now led even to the establishment of the first German Bitcoin ATM without a BaFin license. BaFin chief Hufeld demands of the policy, therefore, a clear regulation of crypto-currencies.
