Failure of Multi-Function Crypto Firms a Limited Threat to 'Real Economy': FSB

CoinDeskPolicyPublicado a 2023-11-27Actualizado a 2023-11-28

Resumen

A new report by the Financial Stability Board said further assessments of possible implications are required because "significant information gaps remain."

The collapse of crypto firms that engage in multiple activities isn't a big threat to "the real economy," according to a report by the Financial Stability Board (FSB) published Tuesday.

The report by the international standard-setter also said that further assessments are required because "significant information gaps remain."

The FSB, which monitors financial systems and proposes rules to help prevent financial crises, said it was assessing the financial stability implications of multifunction crypto-asset intermediaries (MCIs) in July. MCIs are individual firms or groups of affiliated firms that combine a broad range of services, products and functions typically centered around the operation of a trading platform, according to the FSB. This could apply to numerous crypto heavyweights, like Coinbase or Binance.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The FSB warns that crypto firms combining different activities are more vulnerable to failure and that mitigating the impact of such a failure depends on how well global crypto regulation is implemented. The report also identified "information gaps" that require enhanced cross-border cooperation and information sharing.

The report found that the vulnerabilities of MCIs and firms in traditional finance are not very different. However, vulnerabilities increase when MCIs engage in proprietary trading, market-making on their own trading venues, and lending and borrowing.

The FSB said there is a need to assess whether disclosures and reporting requirements of MCIs are adequately covered or would warrant additional measures.

"Combining functions in MCIs that are typically restricted or separated for traditional finance appears prima facie inconsistent with the principle of ‘same activity, same risk, same regulation’," the report said.

Edited by Sandali Handagama.

Lecturas Relacionadas

a16z on Hiring: How to Choose Between Crypto-Native and Traditional Talent?

Hiring in Crypto: Balancing Crypto-Native and Traditional Talent As the crypto industry grows, founders face the dilemma of whether to prioritize hiring professionals with blockchain experience or those with traditional tech backgrounds who can learn. The key is recognizing that crypto companies are still tech companies at their core and should apply proven hiring best practices. Crypto-native talent offers immediate productivity and is essential for roles involving high-stakes, specialized work like smart contract development, where errors can be catastrophic. However, traditional professionals from large-scale software companies bring valuable experience in scaling products, operational flexibility, and expertise in areas like fintech, UX, and security, which are crucial as crypto products target mainstream adoption. Recruiting requires tailored approaches. Some candidates may be hesitant due to crypto's volatility or complexity, while others are excited by its innovative potential. Assess candidates' motivations, curiosity, and alignment with the company's vision early. Emphasize the opportunity to shape technology's future and address financial incentives, such as token-based compensation, which can offer liquidity compared to traditional equity. Onboarding is critical. Identify knowledge gaps during hiring and design education programs, mentorship, knowledge-sharing sessions, and resources like blogs or courses to accelerate learning. Pairing new hires with experienced crypto professionals helps bridge gaps and fosters collaboration. Ultimately, successful teams blend both crypto-native and traditional talent, leveraging their strengths to drive innovation and growth.

marsbitHace 54 min(s)

a16z on Hiring: How to Choose Between Crypto-Native and Traditional Talent?

marsbitHace 54 min(s)

DeFi Hacked Again for $292 Million, Is Even Aave No Longer Safe?

On April 19, a major DeFi security breach occurred, resulting in the loss of approximately $292 million. The attack targeted Kelp DAO’s rsETH bridge contract built on LayerZero, with 116,500 rsETH stolen. The attacker initiated the exploit using funds from Tornado Cash and manipulated the LayerZero EndpointV2 contract to transfer the assets. Kelp DAO confirmed the incident and temporarily paused rsETH contracts across multiple networks while collaborating with security experts for investigation. Initial analysis suggests the root cause was a compromised private key on the source chain, with the contract secured by only a 1/1 validator set, making it vulnerable to a single malicious transaction. The attacker used the stolen rsETH as collateral on lending platforms—including Aave, Compound, and Euler—to borrow more liquid assets like WETH, accumulating over $236 million in debt. Aave alone accounted for $196 million of this amount. In response, Aave froze its rsETH markets and stated it would explore covering potential bad debt through its Umbrella safety module, which holds around $50 million in WETH. This incident follows another large exploit earlier in April, where Drift Protocol on Solana lost $280 million. The repeated high-value attacks raise concerns about DeFi security, even affecting major protocols like Aave. Users are advised to exercise caution, diversify holdings, and limit exposure to on-chain protocols until more robust security measures are established.

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

DeFi Hacked Again for $292 Million, Is Even Aave No Longer Safe?

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片