Aside from my favorite Liechtenstein [1], [2] there is a number of other jurisdictions [3]-[7] etc., vigorously self-advertizing their dedication onto becoming the global crypto hub.
The logic behind is clear: the crypto shows unprecedented parameters of wealth accumulation and growth! Orders of magnitude stronger than anything classicaly fiat. [8]-[16]
Practically all these jurisdictions are well established for decades if not centuries no-joke financial centers . Entire societies making thus a living [17].
And all of them apparently consider the following two approaches as the sufficient means to an end [18]:
A. legislation changes
&
B. regulators effort bias
Are A & B enough? No. Why? That's why, in the four points which follow:
1. Scaling
The power of crypto - in the most general point of view - stems from its essence of an economy optimization mechanism [19]:
''Depending on the parameters used in the optimization mechanism, the algorithm can build three types of networks: a star network, a random network, and a scale-free network.''
The only form of sustainability we've ever known and do know is growth.
Just have a look on the global GDP [20] vs global wealth [21], and labor/capital factor ratio [22] - to see the reproduction/replacement rate necessary and the actual durability of value per averaged product.
Only a scale-free system can grow without to hit inherent bottlenecks.
Crypro is strong in growth, therefore a successful crypto regulation must be its match in growth mode.
Only a regulatory algorithm which builds scale-free compliance mechanism can be a match to harness the full potential of the subject of regulation.
2. Law
To compose legal texts like to: enact statutory law amendments or entire novel codical bodies of legal text, excercise administrative and court precising practices, etc ... are tasks finite and easy to grasp. Even on the individual human level.
This is the nice picture on the front end. What happens on the back end, though?:
The consequences of the specialized crypto legislation application and enforcement, however, in recombination with all the rest of the 'jungle of norms', is a matematically intractable task. Inevitably lead to necessity of sharp policy turns, which shake the confidence into the long term stability of the jurisdiction. And for businesses regulatory predictability is synonymous with attractiveness.
Compliance is at the end of the day the real-world work to satisfy all the requirements from all directions in a way which is within the regulators sensitivity specs. Literally.
Compliance has astronomically higher complexity than legislation.
Thus it is immensely easier to write laws than it is to utilize them.
We see dozens of countries with such a splendid legislation package and so lousy job and meagre record of actual application of their own laws and utter lack of success in attracting valuable businesses.
Cuz enforcement is function of the actual implementation infrastructure in place. And because of scaling issues even if we can afford it it is not the best possible solution to just ''put together as much as needed'' without to seek for more efficient ways of processing. Mere extensive/quantitiative growth always hits limits of diminishing returns. It is satiable in contrast with the intensive/qualitiative one.
3. Administrative emphasis
That means to posit 'cryptos first' as a regulators policy commandment. Ok, it works well for initial herding of as much as possible firms out of the not so numerous crypto businesses in the now so close to the dawn of the crypto age, but is it able to handle future growth?
Possible solution of the problem of handling scaling business with unscaling regulation is the ''that's enough'' way - where the jurisdiction intakes only as much as it actual regulatory capacity allows - but a ''closed club'' approach not only limits its overall turnover way way bellow the potential, but also makes the jurisdiction prone to entrap itself into dependency from the let in firm's policies and more importantly - kills off its own capacity for developmental agility. Similar to the 'oil trap' [23] but in the financial services sector.
We do not even mention here the resources displacement factor - where 'priority treatment' of one sector is in negative tradeoff relation with the diminishing capacity of the regulator to do their 'regular job'. The risks of 'sparrow in hand vs eagle in the sky' situation.
4. Capital costs
Compliance is extremely huge and extremely financial and human capital-intensive [24] activity. Leading fintech [25] businesses indicate over 20% of their workforce dedicated to compliance [26], and this is the most expensive workforce.
Financial capital is abundant and easy to redirect from other sectors of economy, although it is not unlimited we are very far from situation in which its demand could hit a supply brick wall.
Anyway, increase in the intake of even the easy to reproduce non-human capital bears the high opportunity cost [27] of displacement of resources from production into control. In general. If it is too expensive to control ... we are on the curve of economy suphocating trend similar to the ill effects of high public spending [28], high public debt [29] and/or high taxation [30]!
The immediate trouble, however, is the compliance human capital [31] cost. Typically the compliance staff in firms and the stuff in the regulators consists of human beings of good upbringing, IQ above average, two digit number of years of very special education and very formal qualifications, clean record, brilliant CVs, heavy professional organizations regime (compliance of the compliancers!), tough clearance regime ...
It is not the high salaries which bottleneck the expansion of the compliance system capacity so much, as is the fact that it takes literally decades to produce a competent to occupy a compliance position person.
Compliance is inevitable.
It is the equivalent of consiousness in business.
We live in an exponentially interconnected world.
Various transnational levels of rules and standards emerge and develop [32], [33] etc.
Heavy compliance is here to stay and grow further!
Simplification of compliance is unthinkable.
From both: purely practical unfeasibility and from the fact that nobody can afford to lower its compliance criteria under threat to be instantly disconnected, black-listed [34], isolated.
Quite the opposite - nowadays namely the countries with highest and strongest regulatory and compliance regimes and standards are considered the safest and most attractive.
What's the way forward?
In the last few years we hear frequantly and louder the word RegTech.
*Map Source: CBINSIGHTS [35].
''At risk of sounding too simple, RegTech is pretty much what it says on the tin: the use of new technology to facilitate the delivery of regulatory requirements. Or, in slightly more words, RegTech is technology that seeks to provide “nimble, configurable, easy to integrate, reliable, secure and cost-effective” regulatory solutions (Deloitte).'' [36]
The connotation emphasis on compliance is clear.
What's important is the direction - RegTech is contemplated nowadays as an array of auxiliary separate businesses who to provide compliance data services to companies and regulators. Intermediaries between firms and regulators who to assist the former to cope with the growing amount and complexity of requirements by the later. The workflow geometry is not changed at all. It goes from the firms (via RegTech companies) to the regulators.
What if the RegTech is the other way round - the inner workings of the Regulator itself?
Regulators = automata? Platforms for compliance services themselves?
Regulation-Compliance a single automated process?
A smart law. Written and run in decidable language [37].
In my recent ''Tauchain Exegesis .: Nomic'' [38] essay I outlined some thoughts of mine on the subject:
''In order law to become law it must become handsfree .
Not humans to read laws, but laws to read laws.
The technology to enable that looks on an arm's length.'' [39]
CONCLUSIONS:
(1) - RegTech, becoming synonymous with fully and truly automated regulation and compliance, does not make obsolete, but optimizes the performance of the classical governmental aparatus of legislation and regulators. Applicable, internalized into the legal process RegTech is still matter of legislative enactment and regulatory control per se.
(2) - RegTech machinery and its consumables are subject of Moore's [40], Coomey's [41] and other entropic forces laws. Computational physics provides for infinitely more scalability room than the human biology and sociology. I.e. regulation growth matching the regulables growth.
(3) - Given a sufficiently capacious automated compliance processing system the limits of demographic base of the implementing nation won't be an issue. It won't be necessary it to suffer the illths of neither undesired immigration, nor the security risks inherent to transnational subprocesses outsourcing.
(4) - Strategical advantage 'escape velocity' [42] means that the jurisdiction which manages to master it first will take and rule it all, and will be best positioned to grab the even newer opportunities to come.
Resources:
[1] - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/de-lege-ferenda-intro
[2] - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/de-lege-ferenda-koine
[3] - https://caymannewsservice.com/2018/04/cryptocurrencies-cayman-framework/
[5] - https://oracletimes.com/gibraltar-is-the-first-regulated-cryptocurrency-country/
[6] - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/29/technology/cryptocurrency-bermuda-malta-gibraltar.html
[7] - https://www.albawaba.com/business/uae-set-become-global-leader-blockchain-cryptocurrencies-1119042
[8] - https://steemit.com/blockchain/@karov/geodesic-by-tau
[9] - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-the-hanson-engine
[10] - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/masa-effect-with-tauchain
[11] - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/scaling-is-layering
[12] - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-transcaling
[13] - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-trumps-procrustics
[14] - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-as-szabo-booster
[15] - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-and-the-cost-of-trust
[16] - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/clusivity-by-tauchain
[18] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_to_an_end
[19] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimization_mechanism
[20] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product
[22] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobb%E2%80%93Douglas_production_function
[23] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse
[24] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_intensity
[25] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_technology
[27] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
[28] - https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/the-impact-government-spending-economic-growth
[29] - https://mises.org/library/whats-wrong-government-debt
[30] - https://mises.org/library/corporate-taxes-suffocate-growth
[31] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital
[32] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basel_II
[33] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solvency_II_Directive_2009
[34] - http://crwwgroup.net/en/eu-offshore-blacklist/
[35] - https://www.cbinsights.com/research/regtech-regulation-compliance-market-map/
[36] - https://complyadvantage.com/blog/what-is-regtech/
[37] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)
[38] - https://steemit.com/tauchain/@karov/tauchain-exegesis-nomic
[39] - http://www.idni.org/blog/
[40] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law
[41] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koomey%27s_law
18qSKUUTAGw1uL53simrSiZ6pJpfxKACvj for research support. Thanks.
Copyright © 2018 Georgi Karov. All rights reserved.
