The Blockchain Federal Association in Berlin has now commented in detail on the bill for the introduction of electronic securities.
The Blockchain Bundesverband (Bundesblock) gave its opinion on September 14thon the draft law published by the federal government in August. The draft bill is intended to contribute to the regulation of digital securities, with which Germany has positioned itself at the forefront in the field of juridification. In a first comment, the federal bloc congratulated the federal government on this step.
With regard to the draft law, the Blockchain Federal Association comes up with seven points that, in its opinion, need to be improved or revised to a greater or lesser extent.
Regulation must not curtail blockchain innovation
The federal bloc considers the regulatory initiative to be too restrictive in parts. Start-ups – which, in the opinion of the association, develop, shape and drive the crypto market – would find it too difficult to issue crypto bonds. The financial requirements would have to be reduced for this. Overall, a solution based on the investment law model should therefore be the goal of the matter: The draft law would then not curtail the innovative strength of start-ups and, as a result, that of the market. At the same time, one should work with transition periods. The digital association Bitkom argues similarly in its reply on the legislative proposal.
Earn a passive income with the ArbiSmart interest-bearing wallet and the fully automated Crypto Arbitrage trading system. Benefit from an EU-licensed and regulated platform that offers investments with a return between 10.8% and 45% per year.
The federal bloc also proposes the formation of consortia for registry administrators. Several companies could tie up skills and financial resources if the government were to include this idea in the bill. For start-ups in particular, this would be an effective method of greatly reducing costs and thus overcoming hurdles.
In addition, the draft law does not fully exploit the potential of blockchain technology. The two German associations also share this argument. According to the federal bloc, for example, know-your-customer data should be used throughout the country as soon as the investor has saved it. But he would always retain sovereignty over his data. The know-your-customer process (KYC) is used by companies to check the identity of a customer before a possible business relationship.
The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) must also expand its technical competence and develop minimum standards for the use of technology. The Federal Blockchain Association does not deny the authority its expertise – however, improvements in these areas would ensure sustainable market stability and trust among investors and providers.
The expansion of security measures, regular updates and repairs to the crypto securities registers are important. The Blockchain Federal Association is assuming some bankruptcy registrations; the management of the registers is particularly important at such moments. BaFin would then either have to liquidate the start-up registers, merge them with others or transfer them to another. A corresponding regulation in the draft law would therefore be helpful.
A civil law turning point in Germany
Since the draft law only affects civil law, the EU has no regulatory competence . Nevertheless, it is important not to contradict EU competencies in other areas or unnecessarily tighten laws (e.g. in trade). The result would be an over-regulated market that would slow down Germany.
Like Bitkom, the association also called for shares and investment fund shares to be included in the draft law. Competitiveness has to be restored: A hint to the slow development in the dispute with blockchain technology in the Federal Republic.
Finally, this association also called the definition of non-physical values as a turning point in German civil law. Digital values and thus crypto-securities now also fall under this term, which is „to be welcomed without reservation“. However, this is now followed by dogmatic questions that the draft law must answer. Otherwise, the following civil proceedings would not be able to be resolved efficiently.
Comments are disabled