In a recent panel discussion during the AIBC Summit moderated by Cal Evans, Managing Associate at Gresham International, industry leaders shared their perspectives on the evolving landscape of cryptocurrency regulation. The panel featured Gregory Klumov, CEO of Stasis, Dr. Pavel Kulikov, Partner at PLL Legal and CBP, Anna Agu, Founder and CEO of Lex Law Office Estonia with insights from Dr. Ionnais Revolidis, Lecturer of Media at the University of Malta.
The discussion centred around the challenges and opportunities presented by regulatory frameworks globally.
Regulatory developments and regional perspectives
The panellists acknowledged the competitive and lobbying aspects of the industry, emphasizing the need for time and patience in the face of evolving regulations.
Cal Evans highlighted the proactive approach of the Central Banks of Lithuania, Switzerland and the UK in providing solutions for crypto companies and supporting payment trails. The sentiment among the panellists was one of hopefulness regarding the positive impact that regulation could bring to the crypto industry.
Estonia on the frontline
Anna Agu provided insights into Estonia’s experience, noting the substantial adoption of crypto in the country.
With regulation introduced in 2022, Estonia now boasts around 80 regulated companies. Agu expressed optimism about a smooth transition period for Estonian companies, anticipating stronger market transparency and the emergence of robust companies with a solid understanding of traditional financial regulations.
More principles-based regulation
Dr. Pavel Kulikov elaborated on the shifting role of regulators over the past five years, moving from a general approach to embracing more technical procedures. He cited examples such as Gibraltar, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Liechtenstein regulating distributed ledger technology (DLT) and highlighted the trend towards more principle-based regulation (MPBR). Kulikov emphasized the challenge for regulators to strike a healthy balance between rules and principles, adapting to new concepts and approaches in regulation.
Cal Evans posed a crucial question to the panel: “Regulators have only just got serious about things. What are the top two jurisdictions, and why?”
Dr. Ionnais Revolidis, from the University of Malta, emphasized the importance of a robust regulatory framework and suggested Singapore or Malta as top choices due to their early adoption of regulatory measures.
Gregory Klumov advised considering the comfort level of banks within a jurisdiction. He highlighted the Central Banks of Lithuania and Switzerland, with Malta potentially upgrading its central bank, as strong contenders.
Anna Agu added a practical perspective, considering client and investor locations, tax systems, and country reputations. She identified Switzerland and Estonia as top choices, citing their extensive experience with crypto regulation.
Dr. Pavel Kulikov explained the industry specificity, recommending Malta for gambling-related businesses and suggesting that stability seekers might prefer Switzerland. Ultimately, the choice between Malta and Switzerland, according to Pavel, depends on the nature of the business.
Seeking stability for long-term success
The panel discussion provided valuable insights into the current state of crypto regulation, highlighting the need for a nuanced approach to jurisdiction selection based on factors such as regulatory frameworks, client and investor locations, and the nature of the business. As the crypto industry continues to mature, understanding and navigating regulatory landscapes will be crucial for companies seeking stability, compliance, and long-term success.