Regulatory Policy

Focuses on global regulatory developments, policy changes, and compliance requirements. It provides in-depth analysis of government regulations and their impact on the cryptocurrency and blockchain industries, helping businesses and investors proactively manage policy-related risks.

Balancing Compliance and Innovation: A Study of France's Crypto Asset Taxation and Regulatory System

This research examines France's evolving regulatory and tax framework for crypto assets, balancing compliance and innovation. As a key EU member, France has developed a system aligned with EU directives while retaining national characteristics. Key developments include the 2019 PACTE Law, which established the legal status of crypto assets, and the transition from the DASP (Digital Asset Service Provider) regime to the EU's MiCAR (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) framework by December 2024. Additionally, the implementation of DAC8 and CARF will enable automatic exchange of crypto transaction information from 2026, ending anonymity for tax purposes. France employs a categorized taxation approach: occasional investors face a flat 30% tax rate, while professional investors are subject to progressive income tax rates (0%–45%). Different rules apply to miners, DeFi participants, NFT traders, exchanges, and institutional investors based on their activities. For instance, mining rewards are taxed as non-commercial profits (BNC), and crypto-to-crypto trades are not taxable events for individuals until converted to fiat. The regulatory landscape involves the AMF (financial markets authority) and ACRP (prudential supervision), with stricter capital and operational requirements under MiCAR. The upcoming DAC8/CARF framework will mandate CASPs to collect and report user data from 2026, enhancing tax transparency. However, areas like DeFi and NFT taxation remain uncertain and lack clear guidelines. The article concludes that both individual and institutional participants must maintain detailed records, ensure accurate reporting, and prepare for increased regulatory compliance and data exchange obligations.

marsbit01/19 11:28

Balancing Compliance and Innovation: A Study of France's Crypto Asset Taxation and Regulatory System

marsbit01/19 11:28

Why Must Banks Ban Stablecoin Yields?

The article "Why Banks Are Determined to Ban Yield-Bearing Stablecoins?" explores the ongoing debate around the U.S. cryptocurrency market structure bill (CLARITY), particularly the fierce opposition from large banks against interest-bearing stablecoins. Banks argue that such stablecoins could cause deposit outflows, but the author refutes this, explaining that funds used to purchase stablecoins like USDC ultimately flow back into the banking system as reserves held by issuers like Circle. The real concern for banks is not the total volume of deposits but a shift in deposit structure. U.S. major banks (e.g., Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase) rely heavily on "low-interest banking," where transaction deposits (used for payments, transfers) pay near-zero interest, creating a significant spread between deposit rates and the Fed’s benchmark rate. This model generates massive profits—over $360 billion annually from interest differentials and transaction fees. Stablecoins directly compete with transaction deposits by offering similar utility (payments, settlements). If stablecoins can generate yield, users may shift funds from bank transaction accounts to stablecoins to earn higher returns. While the money remains in the banking system (as stablecoin reserves), it moves from low-cost transaction deposits to higher-yield instruments, squeezing bank profit margins and reducing fee income. Thus, banks oppose yield-bearing stablecoins to protect their lucrative low-cost deposit base and maintain control over profit distribution, making it a central issue in the CLARITY legislative battle.

marsbit01/19 09:43

Why Must Banks Ban Stablecoin Yields?

marsbit01/19 09:43

活动图片