the first Meeting of G-20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank governors this year, was expected by the crypto-community, hot after the big players have taken a number of different statements and actions to regulations. However, no uniform framework has been created to plan. With the cautious statements of the Financial Stability Board, they cooled the enthusiasm of individual members to discuss questions about crypto-currencies. Everything that emerged from the summit, there were only a few small steps in the expected direction. Now, the Community is to interpret encouraged to do what they have always done: Subtle hints and contradictory signals emanating from the decision of the individual Nations carriers.
France, one of the vociferous supporters of the crypto-currency regulations at the G-20 summit, was a hotbed of conflicting signals. During a u-turn by the French Supervisory authorities unveiled a series of new rules for Initial Coin Offerings (ICO), which failed both entrepreneurs and for investors extremely lightly. The development proved to be completely unexpected, in view of the fact that just a few days before the announcement, the same Supervisory authority has 15 crypto-related Websites due to unlawful marketing of investment services.
Germany is another European powerhouse, which proposes the beginning of this year, a unified approach to the crypto-regulation. Similar to its neighbour Germany seems to change his views, however, on a less dramatic way. After the German authorities had issued last November, a series of warnings about the speculative nature of the cryptocurrency trade, and the ICO-investment, clarified some of their positions, and gave promising indications.
As the dominant powers in the European Union, this Duo is probably going to clear the way for the development of potential Block-wide Standards for the regulation of the Blockchain and the richness of its applications. In spite of the strong differences in the way in which their legal systems and regulatory systems in France and Germany shown in the last few decades, a number of common patterns in coping with new regulatory challenges posed by the rise of various Internet industries.
Of the restriction of Online freedom of expression over the protection of user data, to the collection of taxes on technology giants have shown both countries have an enormous appetite for the enforcement of their sovereignty over the Online sector. Under the assumption that the spirit of a wider Internet-the government will most probably transfer on the regulation of the Blockchain, is a closer look at the already established pattern helpful to imagine how the upcoming crypto-currency might look related strategies.
infrastructure and ISPS
is One thing you should note, in continental Europe, that the role of the country and the centralised bureaucracy was historically greater than that of the Anglo-Saxon systems, which are based on the common law. The Tradition of statutory law, and the corporatist political culture describes not only full coverage, but also the expectation of an active regulatory engagement for the country in the most important domestic policy areas. Both countries have fulfilled this expectation certainly.
The French government managed the communications networks since the early stages of their mass expansion directly. The first network, a large number of French Association with each other, it was not the Internet, but the local and highly centralized Minitel. As soon as the functional Superiority of the global network for the government was obvious, they took steps to increase the Internet acceptance – again, a government program. The requirements for the Block of content are embedded in the legislation, and the Internet service providers (ISPs), which will be made for advances liable. ISPs have a certain level of self-regulation, but typically, a state’s response is preceded by all the self-imposed restrictions. Blockages are frequently used to copyright and to prevent illegal activities, such as Playing without a license or redistribution of the content, the child abuse.
In the German System, in which the idea of “regulated self-regulation”, there are a whole of other national regulations. At least in part, an unintended consequence of German federalism was the result of a: While the debate about whether the control of web content should be a prerogative of national or Federal state authorities, was deported over the years, this allowed the IPS to take advantage of this time to a functioning System of industry associations. A part of the system is a self-regulatory authority that works directly with search engines. Therefore, there is no direct blocking, since the content Filtering is done at the stage of indexing. ISPs are not liable for illegal content to run on their line. Communication industries have a strong network of organized interests that censorship denies.
freedom of expression on the Internet
Both France and Germany have Statements of a similar aggressive stance in controlling some forms of Online. The French law criminalizes racist and anti-Semitic Statements, both offline and online; each new government presents a routine, a new comprehensive government program to combat hate in Public. The confidence of the officials in the Power of direct content regulation seems to be infallible: For example, President Emmanual Macron, has said in January until the end of 2018, an Anti-Fake-News-law to introduce.
The German legislature against hatred culminated in 2017 in the “Facebook law talk,” high penalties to Social Media platforms is not imposed, if you remove illegal content from the Public. Facebook and Twitter recorded at the beginning of 2018, a record-breaking rise in German-speaking moderators. The impact of these companies are not yet foreseeable. Meanwhile, the German law enforcement surprised occasionally, especially by malicious people with raids.
Personal data
there is also A Similarity between the two countries in the protection of the personal data of Internet users as well as their willingness, this protection against Facebook and Google to enforce. Germany’s competition authority is looking into Zuckerberg & Co and cited an alleged abuse of its dominant position on the market for personal data. France fought back against the obviously shady practices of Facebook, the data of WhatsApp users without the consent collect.
another fight for privacy that is now against Google to the EU law, which grants users the “right to be Forgotten” – a prerequisite for search engines to remove URLs with irrelevant or outdated personal data at the request of individuals. A court in Munich has issued an injunction, it is required that the URL-disabling procedure of Google is changed so that the adjusted Links show up as easily. In the negotiated between the time we, the French lawsuit against the Search giant, which wants to extend the right to be Forgotten in systems of Law outside of the EU, before the European court of justice after three years of litigation.
tax policy
GAFA is an abbreviation, which is used by EU politicians, often, to refer to the global (Mainly American) technology giants with a solid European presence. Although it is originally intended for Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, referred to the expression of each platform to be of comparable stature, which is mainly used in terms of the need to hold them accountable. Taxation is a GAFA theme played by European politicians during the greater part of the year 2017 and early 2018. It is no secret that big technology companies minimize refined their tax obligations for their European profits for years, but for the EU the measure seems to be full.
Germany and France have addressed the issue already at home: Both countries have introduced a tax on Video distributors such as Youtube and Netflix. The revenue flow in the production of local content. The French government now wants to drive the Eu-wide rules in advance, after which digital companies are taxed on revenues rather than on profits. A step of, presumably, the practice of registration of profit in EU tax havens, rather than in the countries in which the profit was acquired. A government coalition in the German Bundestag, proposes a slightly different solution: a consolidated tax system, which distributes the European profits of the company in proportion to the geographical location of your customers. Regardless of which approach ultimately prevails, there is little doubt that the days of the European GAFA-tax havens are numbered.
conclusions
may look Like the peculiar and novel crypto-currency regulation, they are not produced in a vacuum. Like any other area of governance, he carries the spirit and the coloring of the system of legal control, within which he operates. The history of Switzerland is in this sense exemplary: It is hardly surprising that a country with traditionally low state presence and a huge balance sheet of accumulation and Managing of foreign assets to a booming crypto-developed centre.
How to Marc P. Bernegger, Swiss crypto-Entrepreneur and Board member of the Crypto Finance Group in the train, said in an Interview with Cointelegraph:
“Switzerland has in General a very liberal approach, and far less rules and regulations than other countries. With our direct democratic System, the entire government is decentralised already, what seems to be one of the reasons for her crypto-friendly behavior.(…) Nowadays, there are literal every week several new Blockchain-companies that switch to crypto nation of Switzerland.”
A principle that appears in the case of Switzerland, so intuitive, however, less frequently France and Germany. Since the public files are both in the line of “progressive” liberal Nations, expect many in the crypto-Community with a certain Speilraum, these governments offer. The way in which the French and German authorities with the technology industries dealt with, suggests, however, that our expectations should be modest.
Both countries have a clear preference for regulations. Regardless of whether it is a direct legislative control in the French style, or a “distributed” system of regulation, similar to the German, which is used for domestic use, to protect areas of the European nation-States on the outer edge, equally, your Highness. In view of the fact that global forces areas of their sovereignty undermined, both Germany and France, to act aggressively, whether in the protection of the personal data of the citizens or in the collection of taxes on digital platforms. Safety concerns regarding the financing of hate and terrorist groups could also lead to restrictive results. All in all, even if the signals coming from the European power plants, are positive, should not be happy Blockchain entrepreneurs early: It could still be put shackles on.
On the positive side, the participation of the state in the Definition of the game rules is not necessarily a bad thing. Since this is not a zero-sum situation, can be carriers of a meaningful dialogue between the political decision-making and lead to the interests of the organized industrial agreements that make sense for everyone. At least in Germany, such a dialogue seems to be taking place. According to information from the Blockchain of the Federal Association representing the interests of the German crypto Community, the government has started to engage seriously with the Blockchain-regulation. Dr. Nina settlers who headed the working group Token / finances of the organization, to sound optimistic:
“The community wants a fair and uniform rules for all. Most of the problems are covered by the existing laws, but the Problem is that some of the rules are very specific. The presence of the government in this process is not Intrusive, you don’t want to over-regulate. You want to give this emerging economy, clearly has a Chance.”
Dr. settler also suggested that some of the “grey zones” could be addressed in the regulation of the Blockchain through the use of coordinated self-regulation. You mentioned currently a Europe-wide Initiative to formulate a code of conduct for Blockchain-companies developed a series of best practices that demonstrate the basic principles of self-management of the industry. This development is a cause for hope for the future of the European crypto-regulation. As is the case of the German ISPs shows, the set-Up of organised interests in an early stage of exploring untapped areas of policy has the potential to bring the entire industry into a on the whole line advantageous Position.
