fbpx

Month: October 2022

Europe’s comprehensive crypto legislation is being adopted. Here’s what you need to know.

The European Union’s Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCA), a legislation that aims to “harmonize the European framework for the issuance and trading of various types of crypto tokens as part of Europe’s Digital Finance Strategy,” which has been in the works for years, is finally ready. It has caused plenty of discussions, some controversy and has been feared — but also welcomed — by the crypto industry. Let us look into the process that led us here, what is still to come, and why this piece of legislation might be one of the most significant and comprehensive that we have seen in crypto yet.

MiCA, which will be applicable across all the member states in the European Union as well as with all businesses operating in the EU, has been in the works since early 2018. It first came into discussion following the bull market of 2017, a heady time where Bitcoin was making its new highs, a thousand tokens started flourishing amid Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) out of which more than half failed less than 4 months after the offering. 

The European Commission published its Fintech Action Plan in March 2018 and gave the mandate to the European Banking Authority (EBA) and European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) to review if the existing EU financial services regulatory framework applied to crypto assets. After deciding that most crypto assets are outside of the scope of current financial regulations, regulators began working on a new framework under the Digital Finance Package which eventually became MiCA. Since its initial inception, the crypto market went through a bear market, reaching its bottom in the early days of the pandemic followed by another bull market before taking a downward trend again in late 2021. New regulatory fears were ignited in the first two quarters of 2022 followed by events such as the Terra Luna stablecoin collapse and Three Arrows Capital and Celsisus bankruptcies. 

In such a fast-paced environment, it is not difficult to understand that MiCA’s scope had to evolve from its original conception. NFTs barely existed when the legislation was first being conceived, DeFi summer was nowhere in sight and Meta was still called Facebook and working on its much scorned Libra project (remember that one?). Creating a legal framework that would provide legal certainty for both investors and issuers in that sort of fast pace environment was not easy, and the regulators have been back to the drawing board a few times. What we have in front of us now will be the largest piece of legislation around crypto thus far. 

One of the major rules that will affect the industry is the requirements set for Crypto Asset Service Providers (CASPs) and investment firms and anyone providing custodial services. They will be liable for any loss of customer funds unless they are able to prove it was a result of events beyond their control. A number of measures deal with preventing insider trading and market manipulation. 

In the process of formulating MiCA, a number of heated discussions were held on proof-of-work, so called ‘mining’, and potential environmental effects of this practice. Even with significant pressure coming from certain groups, the legislators rightfully steered away from any potential bans on proof-of-work. However, actors in the crypto market will be required to declare information on their climate footprint. 

When it comes to decentralized financial protocols, they are not in the scope of MiCA and the European Commission will be publishing a separate report on them in 2023.

A large concern and a great deal of debate during the process of writing MiCA was focused on stablecoins. Following concerns expressed by the Council, additional restrictions on the issuance and use of stablecoins have been added to the legislation. Notably, MiCA has expressed the view that stablecoins could pose a threat to monetary sovereignty and opined that “central banks should be able to request the competent authority to withdraw the authorisation to issue asset-referenced tokens in the case of serious threats”. 

Asset referenced tokens (ARTs) as noted in the legislation should be redeemable at purchased price at all times, which more or less makes any non-fiat denominated stablecoins not viable to launch, making it almost impossible for innovation in that field to take place and stripping away European consumers from participating in such potential investments. Together with issuance caps and limits on large scale payments for non-euro denominated stablecoins, this creates a confusing and not consumer-friendly environment when it comes to these tokens.

Even with all the updates and desire to keep up with the developments in the crypto industry, MiCA does not cover some very important parts of the crypto economy today. NFTs are mostly outside of the scope of this legislation. However, EU parliament members argued that many NFTs are actually used as financial instruments and could be subject to different standards. Fractionalized NFTs on the other hand, as well as “non-fungible tokens in a large series

or collection should be considered as an indicator of their fungibility” and will be treated not as unique crypto assets similar to digital art or collectibles. 

The assets or rights represented by the NFT should also be unique and non-fungible for the asset to be considered as such. The fact that national enforcers could take inconsistent views on whether an asset can be considered non-fungible or not, if it requires a whitepaper or how exactly will it be regulated is something that should be of concern as it could potentially create many inconsistencies and concerns both for issuers and consumers. The EU is expected to publish another report on NFTs bringing more clarity to this area.

After the linguists are done with the final version of the text, the expectations are that MiCA will appear in the official journal sometime around April 2023, which would mean that stablecoin rules will start applying in April 2024 and CASP rules will be applied starting from October 2024. Considering the European Union is the third largest world economy, the effects of this legislation will have a broad impact on the industry, on retail consumers and investors, and definitely have some swway on other regulators around the world.

Having the European Union on the forefront of regulation of tech innovation is something that we have not seen much in the past. With MiCA being adopted, it will be up to the industry and consumers to make sure that the measures introduce certainty and allow for more innovation to flourish. Also, if those priorities stick, that these measures are copied and applied elsewhere. Either way, a long and exciting journey is ahead for everyone — regulators, investors and the broader crypto community.

Roma Termini è tra le migliori stazioni europee

Un risultato importante decretato sulla base di molti fattori

Roma Termini premiata come una delle stazioni migliori di Europa. A decretarlo il Consumer Choice Center, un’organizzazione indipendente che lavora a stretto contatto con migliaia di consumatori e partner negli Stati Uniti, nell’Unione Europea e in numerosi altri Paesi prendendo in esame le 50 più grandi d’Europa per volume di passeggeri. Sono tanti i fattori tenuti in considerazione per la valutazione in merito e vanno dall’affollamento delle banchine ferroviarie, alla disponibilità di negozi e punti ristoro o di servizi chiave come la connessione Wi-Fi e all’accessibilità e al numero delle destinazioni.

Roma Termini nella top 5 delle stazioni europee

Lo scalo ferroviario più grande d’Italia con i suoi 25.000 mq di superficie e circa 150 milioni di passeggeri all’anno è stato inserito, infatti, nella top 5 delle stazioni ferroviarie in Europa, che vede al primo posto la svizzera Zürich HB, seguita da Milano Centrale a pari merito con le stazioni di Amsterdam, Francoforte, Monaco e Berlino, e al terzo posto dalla parigina Gare de Lyon. Roma Termini, insieme alla stazione di Hannover Hbf, occupa il quarto posto: un grande risultato che rispecchia il lavoro svolto e l’impegno in termini di accoglienza turistica.

Read the full text here

Greens/EFA Report goes after plant researchers and EU organizations. It fails

A very dry summer alongside a low supply of fertilizer and energy spikes have created the perfect storm for the European agricultural sector, with staple crops like sunflower and grain maize plummeting by 12 and 16 per cent respectively (1).

No wonder there are increasing pressures (2) by member states such as the Czech Republic, Romania, Lithuania, Sweden and Italy to reconsider the EU rules leading to  the 2018 European Court of Justice decision on genetic plant breeding techniques. The Court’s ruling amends the original 2001 European Commission directive on plant modification by treating CRISPR-based plants and traditional genetic manipulation as one and the same. Critics rightfully point to how the judgment hampers innovation at a time of crisis when ingenuity is needed more than ever.

The response of the Greens European Free Alliance group to these pressures can best be characterized as stormy. The EFA has come out swinging in the arena of public discourse with a report (4) that includes a few pages of claims and many more pages of personal accusation.

No matter the emotional thunder, neither the report’s assertions nor its accusations hold water.

Its claims about the effects of genetic engineering are that it produces uncontrollable, unintended  and unsafe mutations in cells, well beyond the ones found naturally or in standard mutagenic breeding (as in, induced via radiation or chemical reaction). It would be better to stick to organic farming with organic plants instead.

Yet these claims do not measure up to the overwhelming evidence (5) (weighing thousands of studies over a 21 year-period) that gene edited plants  reduce (rather than increase) the need for pesticides (6), are less prone to disease (7) and are more reliable than older plant breeding methods (8). Even more critical analyses of studies (9) found no evidence of them being unsafe for humans.

The assertions ignore the fact that 100% organic farming is often more energy and use intensive (and thus more polluting) (10) and does not scale up (11) to the task of feeding billions of people worldwide.

These angry statements are often illogical. One line of argument says having a patent is proof that the new genetic procedure cannot produce the same result as a natural process. This must be true, it says, because it would not have been patented otherwise! That said, a patent can be awarded for other reasons than achieving a different result – such as finding a new and easier means to the same result. By ‘coincidence’,  this is closer to the real argument in favor of genetics-based  plant breeding.

Not to mention how the report overreaches by trying to discredit mutagenic rearing in the same breath as new techniques. At this point, the reason for rejecting mutagenic breeding (now almost a century old practice) is that it harms plants, despite it not harming people or animals. One could easily reject eating plants, or natural selection, on the same grounds.

Most of the report is less about science than it is about the politics in science. It accuses innovation-friendly academics and groups like EPSO, ALLEA or EU-SAGE of not being researchers at all. Rather, they are activists sneakily posing as neutral experts to do the sinister bidding of companies and revolving-door politicians. It then names and shames several individuals working in the field before concluding that more transparency is needed at the EU-level.

Let’s set aside for a moment that the accusations are false – many of these same researchers have never hidden their CVs from public scrutiny and have been very outspoken about their views (12).

Forget for a moment how unusual it is to say that well-established researchers should not pursue ‘career developments’ in the field they specialize in, must limit contacts in the industry whose performance they are asked to comment on and cannot access any of the public-private funds that are standard academic fare.

Let’s instead focus on what the report ends up doing. In trying to poison the debate with talk of dark interests, it undermines faith in the EU’s scientific institutions, since consumers have no reason to trust organizations that are as corrupt and selfish as the EFA makes them out to be. It sets out a viewpoint that paints all criticism as a ‘lobby claim’ and its side as ‘reality’. The report does all this while misunderstanding the science and practice of genetic modification.

Best then to take a deep breath and calm down.

Originally published here

Democrats must not be allowed to replicate Europe’s energy disaster

In the Alpine nation of Austria , where I currently live, residents are receiving the euro equivalent of $490 as a ” climate and anti-inflation ” bonus.

This will be a godsend for those struggling with rocketing European energy prices and sustained inflation . Other European nations are doing the same, as well as more than a dozen U.S. states. But doling out millions of dollars without increased economic production will likely do more to ratchet up inflation than minimize it. The Federal Reserve admitted as much in July. It certainly won’t expedite the end of the energy crisis.

WHO BLEW UP THE NORD STREAM PIPELINES, AND HOW WILL WE FIND OUT?

What “anti-inflation” payouts represent, then, are failed energy policies. European coal plants are being fired up after years offline. LNG terminal projects in Finland and Italy are being greenlit to speed up imports. Germany’s last three nuclear power plants, set to be decommissioned this year, are receiving a second life as politicians concede the errors of the zero-carbon narrative. In the last decade, German leaders heralded the shutdown of nuclear, subsidies for solar and wind, and imports of wood pellets from southern U.S. forests as “renewable” energy. They fired up dormant coal facilities to fill the gap while Russian natural gas became the primary means of energy.

It was a sweet deal upended only by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which was followed by international condemnation and energy sanctions. With Nord Stream pipelines out of the picture ( sabotaged by whom, we may never know ), German politicians are left championing coal and absconding their distaste for nuclear energy.

German energy policy, known as Energiewende, was already acknowledged as a failure. Swapping domestic nuclear power for Vladimir Putin’s gas meant Germans could boast about the 35% renewable energy mix to global praise. But that Faustian bargain has left German leaders scrambling for energy alternatives from Western liberal democracies and Arab dictatorships to fill Russia’s void. Such a glaring failure should give pause to the green ambitions of America’s political class. Instead, the Democratic Party has chosen the same trodden path.

In passing the Inflation Reduction Act without a single GOP vote, Democrats offered their energy antidote: subsidies and taxes. This includes a 30% tax rebate on efficient home upgrades and solar batteries, a $7,500 tax credit for new electric cars, and higher taxes on oil producers, costs inevitably passed on to consumers. Democratic state attorneys general are filing lawsuits against oil and gas firms for their “deceptive” roles in contributing to climate change, using shady legal footing to attempt to extract large settlements. On President Joe Biden’s first day in office, he killed off the multibillion-dollar Keystone XL pipeline, which would have transported Canadian and American oil to Texas for export.

Last week, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) prodded leading bank CEOs into committing to “stop funding new oil and gas products” to reach America’s climate goals. Each declined. The response of JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon was even more brazen: “Absolutely not, and that would be the road to hell for America.”

Our current climate policies are setting us up for more pain, depriving consumers of future stable and diverse energy supplies and leaving our allies high and dry. Making our energy more sustainable is a noble goal, one consumers care about. But considering the European dilemma, sacrificing domestic energy production a la Energiewende would, as Dimon put it, be the road to hell for America.

Our country can both be a climate leader and energy producer, but that requires boosting and diversifying energy sources rather than restricting them. It means unleashing American innovation and entrepreneurship to deliver solutions rather than platitudes. Our consumers deserve better, and so do those on the European continent.

Originally published here

Pandemievertrag: Geistiges Eigentum muss einbezogen werden

Die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) wird in Kürze Verhandlungen über einen so genannten Pandemievertrag aufnehmen, der im Rahmen der Verfassung der Weltgesundheitsorganisation die Pandemieprävention, -vorsorge und -reaktion stärken soll. Der Generaldirektor der WHO, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, sieht die Entscheidung der Weltgesundheitsversammlung historisch, von entscheidender Bedeutung für ihren Auftrag und als eine einmalige Gelegenheit, die globale Gesundheitsarchitektur zu stärken, um das Wohl aller Menschen zu schützen und zu fördern.

“Die COVID-19-Pandemie hat die vielen Schwachstellen im globalen Pandemieschutzsystem aufgezeigt: die am stärksten gefährdeten Menschen werden nicht geimpft, das Gesundheitspersonal hat nicht die nötige Ausrüstung, um seine lebensrettende Arbeit zu verrichten, und der “Ich zuerst”-Ansatz verhindert die globale Solidarität, die zur Bewältigung einer Pandemie erforderlich ist”, so Dr. Tedros.

Zu seinen Ansichten kommt, dass einige NGOs und WHO-Mitgliedsländer der Meinung sind, dass Patente in diesem Vertrag nicht berücksichtigt werden sollen. Sie sind der Auffassung, dass das Recht das geistigen Eigentums die Zugänglichkeit von Medikamenten und lebenswichtigen Impfstoffen beeinträchtigen.

Das Rennen zu einer wirksamen COVID-Impfung hat einen privaten Wettbewerb zwischen den Impfstoffherstellern in einem noch nie dagewesenen Ausmaß und mit einer bisher ungesehenen Schnelligkeit ausgeöst. Obwohl alle Impfstoffe medizinische Bezeichnungen haben, kennt der normale Patient sie eher unter dem Namen eines Pharmaunternehmens; so weit geht die Assoziierung. Die Tatsache, dass zwei deutsche Wissenschaftler, Dr. Uğur Şahin und Dr. Özlem Türeci, maßgeblich an der Entwicklung des Pfizerimpfstoffs beteiligt waren, sollte Deutschland stolz auf seine Leistungen bei medizinischen Innovationen machen. 

Bei der pharmazeutischen Forschung und der Entwicklung von Impfstoffen spielen die Leidenschaft von Wissenschaftlern und die bürgerliche Pflicht von Unternehmen eine wichtige Rolle. Tatsächlich sollten wir diesen Effekt nicht schmälern, denn die meisten Pharmaunternehmen haben jahrzehntelang lebenswichtige Medikamente zum Selbstkostenpreis an Entwicklungsländer abgegeben. Allerdings müssen wir auch verstehen, dass Investoren und Unternehmensvorstände die Chance auf eine Rendite sehen müssen, um die immensen Kosten der medizinischen Forschung zu decken. Patente erfüllen diese Erwartung, indem sie einen rechtlichen Rahmen schaffen, der es Unternehmen ermöglicht, medizinische Innovationen zu schaffen, in der Gewissheit, dass diese nicht gestohlen werden können.

Während der Entwicklung der Impfstoffe gegen COVID-19 haben Pharmaunternehmen wichtige patentierte Informationen mit Wettbewerbern ausgetauscht, um schnellere Ergebnisse zu erzielen – ein Informationsaustausch, der durch einen umfassenden Rechtsschutz ermöglicht und organisiert wird. Ohne diesen Schutz würden die Unternehmen zögern, mit Konkurrenten zusammenzuarbeiten. Patente ermöglichten auch die Zusammenarbeit zwischen Regulierungsbehörden, einschließlich Vereinbarungen über den Vorabkauf, die sich als entscheidend für die Pandemievorsorge erwiesen haben.

Die den Gegnern von Patenten zugrunde liegende Annahme, dass diese die Geschwindigkeit der Entwicklung und Verbreitung von Arzneimitteln verringern, ist falsch. Langsame Lieferketten und regulatorische Hürden sind ein unnötiger und tödlicher Aspekt der Impfstoffverteilung. Wir brauchen ein harmonisiertes Regulierungssystem für die Zulassung und den Vertrieb von Impfstoffen sowie einen deutlichen Abbau von Handelsschranken. Wenn sich die Unternehmen neben der komplexen Entwicklung von Impfstoffen auch noch durch den Regulierungsdschungel von 51 Notfallzulassungswegen in 24 Ländern kämpfen müssen (zu normalen Zeiten wären es 190 verschiedene Zulassungsverfahren gewesen), dann könnten viele Entwickler zu dem Schluss kommen, dass es sich einfach nicht lohnt, die Kosten für die Einhaltung der Vorschriften zu tragen, um eine medizinische Lösung zu finden. 

Spricht sich die WHO für die Notwendigkeit einer stärkeren globalen Zusammenarbeit zur Verbesserung der Pandemiebereitschaft aus? Auf jeden Fall. Bedeutet dies, dass die Länder das Konzept des geistigen Eigentums aufgeben sollten? Ganz und gar nicht. Die Schaffung einer Zukunft der medizinischen Innovation erfordert Garantien und Regeln, die gleichermaßen gelten. Die COVID-19-Pandemie hat gezeigt, dass die Forschung und Innovation vieler privater Akteure uns geholfen hat, die Krise zu überstehen. So sollte es auch bleiben.

Former Hungarian MP Zoltán Kész joins Consumer Choice Center Staff

Brussels, BE: The Consumer Choice Center (CCC), the global consumer advocacy group, has announced that Zoltán Kész has joined the organisation as a Government Affairs Manager.

Zoltán was the director of the Free Market Foundation when he entered Hungarian politics in 2015. He won a by-election as an independent, breaking the two-thirds majority of the governing Fidesz party in February, 2015. He was a member of the Hungarian Parliament and remained independent until 2018.

Commenting on his new role, Zoltán Kész said:

“I am really grateful for the opportunity to join the CCC. I have been familiar with the work of most of the individuals on the team, and I find their commitment to defending and promoting more choice and freedom for consumers all over the world very fascinating. I am looking forward to working for CCC and helping to broaden the political network in order to achieve more policy goals in the future.”

Fred Roeder, the Managing Director of the CCC said:

“We are thrilled to welcome Zoltán Kész as a Government Affairs Manager. He is an excellent addition to our growing team, and we’re confident that his immense experience and expertise will be instrumental in taking our work around Europe to the next level.”

Fun Police

ConsEUmer Podcast

Consumer Choice Center Cast

Follow us

Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Linkedin Youtube Spotify

Contact Info

712 H St NE PMB 94982
Washington, DC 20002

info@consumerchoicecenter.org

© COPYRIGHT 2024, CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER

Scroll to top
en_USEN
it_ITIT pt_BRPT fr_FRFR es_ESES de_DEDE en_USEN