fbpx

Month: November 2022

Orban’s food price controls are more about control than about inflation

When Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban announced that yet more products would be price capped in grocery stores by government decree, it was clear from the start that this was more about power and control than about combatting inflation.

Following a nationalistic playbook, it looks like Orban is using price caps to make business untenable for foreign-owned grocery chains, hoping they will decamp the country and leave his connected friends with their own monopolies. This has been a decade-long plan, chasing every corporate chain not owned by a Hungarian outside their borders.

That he would pursue this specific policy, which will lead to severe shortages for grocery customers and fuel the over 20% inflation rate, making consumers worse off, reveals how much he’s willing to sacrifice the livelihood of Hungarian households for his delusions.

Cronyism

The Orban playbook has now been played out for quite a while. It begins, as always, with a boastful policy to “help” his countrymen. But it always ends with a friend, colleague, or crony of Orban gaining a monopoly to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.

It all began over a decade ago when Hungary introduced a moratorium on opening supermarkets larger than 400 square meters. This was widely seen as helping the domestic chains. Any other chain could only open by following a tedious administrative process in which the government would approve (but usually deny) larger grocery stores.

Amid the pandemic, further burdens were put on larger retailers to mount the pressure. For example, businesses with over 1 million EUR net revenue were obliged to pay higher taxes progressively, in addition to paying corporate taxes. As most Hungarian-owned stores are organized as franchises, only a few were affected by this extra tax burden. The foreign chains, however, were the prime target.

Read the full text here

UBER FILES : POURQUOI UN SCANDALE ?

Les révélations sur l’entreprise de VTC sont-elles vraiment si graves ? Pour Bill Wirtz, elles rappellent surtout des problèmes dans le modèle des taxis qu’Uber et les autres applications de VTC essayent de remplacer.

Cet été, un consortium de journaux internationaux a publié les « Uber Files », une collection de documents ayant fait l’objet de fuites qui prétendent montrer les activités illégales et le lobbying douteux auxquels s’est livrée l’entreprise.

Il y a quelques semaines, le Parlement européen a organisé une audition parlementaire spéciale avec le lanceur d’alerte qui est devenu célèbre pour avoir rendu ces documents publics. Mais les « Uber Files » sont-ils vraiment le révélateur d’un scandale, et qu’est-ce que cela signifie pour l’entreprise ?

Uber contre les taxis

Voici déjà le résumé de l’ampleur de la fuite, décrite par le Guardian britannique en juillet dernier :

« La fuite sans précédent de plus de 124 000 documents – connus sous le nom de « Uber Files » – met à nu les pratiques éthiquement douteuses qui ont alimenté la transformation de l’entreprise en l’une des exportations les plus célèbres de la Silicon Valley. […]

La masse de fichiers, qui s’étend de 2013 à 2017, comprend plus de 83 000 courriels, iMessages et messages WhatsApp, y compris des communications souvent franches et sans fard entre Kalanick [le cofondateur d’Uber] et son équipe de cadres supérieurs. »

Il y a beaucoup de documents à lire dans cette fuite, de sorte que chaque lecteur peut se faire une opinion sur la question. Ce qui est clair pour moi, c’est que toutes les accusations ne sont que vaguement liées, et s’effondrent lorsqu’on les analyse de plus près.

L’article du Guardian suggère que la société se livre à des activités illégales, en s’appuyant souvent sur des procès intentés aux Etats-Unis par des passagers qui auraient été blessés par des chauffeurs Uber. Je ne peux pas parler de ces cas individuels, mais je trouve étrange de déclarer une entreprise criminelle sur la base du comportement de chauffeurs qui utilisent simplement la plateforme pour trouver du travail.

En comparaison, les chauffeurs de taxi ont un lien beaucoup plus linéaire avec la compagnie de taxi pour laquelle ils travaillent, et pourtant nous ne qualifions pas les compagnies de taxi de criminelles lorsque leurs chauffeurs commettent des actes illégaux.

Un autre aspect de la criminalité supposée d’Uber est la révélation qu’Uber avait « exploité » les manifestations de taxis dans le passé, au cours desquelles des chauffeurs de taxi avaient violemment agressé des chauffeurs Uber. Un cadre d’Uber aurait déclaré que ces actions des chauffeurs de taxi feraient le jeu d’Uber d’un point de vue réglementaire.

Même si je suis sûr que certaines des blagues et déclarations des messages privés étaient de mauvais goût, on ne peut s’empêcher de remarquer que les journaux qui critiquent Uber pour cela, ont très peu à dire sur les chauffeurs de taxi qui ont agressé des passagers et des chauffeurs Uber. L’article du Guardian montre même une photo de chauffeurs de taxi mettant le feu à des pneus à Paris. Comment quelqu’un peut conclure qu’Uber est l’acteur criminel dans cette affaire me dépasse.

Une question de relations

Ensuite, il y a la question du lobbying – avec cette désormais célèbre citation tirée des fuites : lorsqu’en 2015, un fonctionnaire de police français a semblé interdire l’un des services d’Uber à Marseille, Mark MacGann, alors lobbyiste en chef d’Uber en Europe, au Moyen-Orient et en Afrique (et aujourd’hui lanceur d’alerte derrière les révélations), s’est tourné vers l’allié d’Uber au sein du conseil des ministres français. « Je vais examiner cette question personnellement », a répondu Emmanuel Macron, alors ministre de l’Economie, par texto. « À ce stade, restons calmes. »

Il apparaît que les lobbyistes d’Uber avaient de très bonnes relations avec des personnes occupant des postes politiques élevés. Des relations qui ont permis à l’entreprise d’avoir des régimes réglementaires favorables dans certains pays européens. On peut arguer qu’étant donné les réglementations très strictes auxquelles l’entreprise a été confrontée, ses tentatives de lobbying n’ont pas été particulièrement fructueuses, mais en lobbying comme en marketing, les effets sont difficiles à mesurer.

Ce qui me frappe, c’est de savoir dans quelle mesure le lobbying d’Uber est offensant pour les gens. Toute personne ayant fréquenté les halls des parlements des Etats membres de l’UE, ou du Parlement européen, sait que des poignées de main sont échangées pratiquement chaque minute entre l’industrie et les représentants élus. Certaines de ces réunions sont enregistrées, mais d’autres se déroulent de manière informelle lors de fêtes ou d’autres rassemblements, ce qui est normal pour les centres de pouvoirs réglementaires.

En ce sens, Uber n’agit pas de manière particulièrement différente des autres industries, y compris les entreprises de taxi existantes, qui bénéficient depuis des décennies de protections spéciales en matière de licences de la part de nombreux gouvernements. Dans beaucoup de pays européens, dont la France, Uber a démocratisé le transport en taxi et l’a ouvert aux personnes à faibles revenus ou aux étudiants, qui n’avaient auparavant pas les moyens de payer une course.

Le système de prise en charge d’Uber a également rendu beaucoup plus difficile pour les chauffeurs la discrimination fondée sur l’origine ethnique – un facteur qui jouait souvent un rôle lorsqu’on appelle un taxi.

Les « Uber Files » sont-ils un scandale ? A mon avis, pas vraiment. Il y a des accusations de corruption, et celles-ci doivent faire l’objet d’une enquête. Cependant, la tentative de regrouper un grand nombre de SMS en une grande conspiration relève d’un journalisme paresseux. Cela ne tient pas la route face aux pratiques existantes dans les affaires publiques, et ne justifie pas une commission parlementaire.

Puisque le Parlement européen tient à enquêter, où est l’enquête sur la façon dont il a été possible de laisser pendant des décennies le monopole du transport par taxi à certaines personnes et sociétés ?

Originally published here

Georgia could generate millions through sports betting

Georgia is one of the largest markets without legalized sports betting, and the state could rival others that have already legalized such wagering.

While the state does not have sports wagering, it does have a lottery. Last week, the Georgia Lottery Corp. reported its most profitable first quarter since its start in 1993.

The analysis found that Georgia, one of 15 states without legalized sports betting, could generate $600 million of revenue annually. The Empire State of the South could rival states like Michigan or Virginia if it legalized sports betting.

The Peach State’s “population rivals Ohio’s, and officials in Georgia have shown some recent interest in legalization, too,” PlayUSA said in a report. “The strength and positioning of the state lottery could complicate the proposed implementation, but we’ll choose to be optimistic for now.”

PlayUSA, a content and resource center for the legal gambling industry that focuses on the United States, predicted that at least two states will legalize sports betting next year. Georgia lawmakers have considered legalizing sports betting and casino gambling in the past.

Read the full text here

Orban’s Populism Is Limiting Access for Consumers

From the beginning of this week, the Hungarian Oil Company (MOL) has been unable to provide around 500 independent petrol stations with price-capped fuel. Entire municipalities will be without fuel due to this decision. Another worrying sign is that Shell has already announced a limit on petrol at the stations, where a complete fuel shortage has already become standard. Commenting on the latest developments of Hungarian price caps, Consumer Choice Center’s Government Affairs Manager, Zoltán Kész:

“Consumer Choice Center has already given out warnings regarding the possible effects of the price caps introduced by the Hungarian government. We are now experiencing these effects when we go to fill up our car and find that either there is a limit or, in the worst scenario, we find that you can’t even buy the fuel you want.”

“Not only is it disadvantageous for consumers, but it also has a backlash on distributors forced to take action to limit their losses. Some are closing down, some limit the amount consumers can buy, and some run out of fuel, and you realize it at the pump,” says Kész.

“A year ago, when this measure was introduced, it was clear that the motive behind it was purely political, as the country was about to elect the next government. However, Hungary has seen record-high inflation and rising prices in the past months. For the same political reasons, the government is not changing its price-cap policies, even if the results are clearly seen now. As we predicted at the Consumer Choice Center, shortages and the lack of available services are already happening,” concludes Kész.

Why is Ottawa still rationing foreign landings at our airports?

Opening Canada’s skies would help cross-border trade, tourism, investment and knowledge flows

Canada’s national men’s soccer team qualifying for the upcoming World Cup in Qatar was a huge achievement, given that we haven’t qualified for a World Cup since 1986. Although this is a great time in Canada’s sporting history, it won’t actually be easy for fans to go to Qatar to support their team in person, primarily because of outdated regulations that close our skies to international airline competition.

Isn’t it strange in the 21st century that the number of flights arriving in Canada from most foreign countries is still entirely determined by the federal government. That number, which appears to be picked arbitrarily depending on the country in question, isn’t based on consumer demand. In fact, airlines and airports play a role in allocating how many flights can arrive from a particular country only if Canada has an “open skies” agreement with the country. At the moment, Qatar is only permitted to land four flights in Canada per week. That’s obviously not ideal given the (albeit temporary) increase in demand for flights to and from Qatar.

This same arbitrary flight allocation applies to many other countries, among them many popular destinations for tourism and commerce. For example, Dubai in the United Arab Emirates is also hard to get to and from. The UAE is only allowed seven arrivals per week in Canada for both Emirates and Etihad Airlines.

If Canada were to open our skies and accept all the incoming flights the Canadian market could support, Air Canada wouldn’t be Canadian travelers’ only flight option and the resulting increase in competition very likely would bring ticket prices down.

Opening Canada’s skies would also help diversify where foreign flights land. The UAE has its national carriers primarily fly into Toronto, because with only seven Canadian landings permitted per week, it makes sense to prioritize Pearson over the alternatives. But if that arbitrary limit were removed, flights could both arrive and depart from other Canadian cities where market demand is strong enough, though not as strong as in Toronto.

These limitations are in large part why Canada does not rank very well on economy-adjusted air-connectivity. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), we ranked 32nd globally, based on pre-pandemic 2019 figures. In fact, despite having world class cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, we have no cities in the air-connectivity top 20.

Changing how we approach international carriers should be a no-brainer given the immense consumer benefit it would bring. And open-skies isn’t even that radical a proposal: it would mean treating all countries and their national carriers the same way we already treat 23 countries (soon to be 24 with the addition of India) and the member-states of the European Union. For those countries, which include 10 in the Caribbean, the open-skies agreement allows any number of carriers to operate both direct and indirect services between Canada and another country, with airlines choosing the routes they serve, the frequency of their service and the prices of flights, without any restrictions. Simply put, for those countries we let the market and consumer demand decide the frequency of flights, not the federal government. But if a market-based approach is good enough for 24 countries plus Europe, why isn’t it good enough for all countries? We should let the market decide where Canadians want to travel to, how often and with what carrier.

But opening our skies wouldn’t just be a win for Canadian consumers. Growing air connectivity with the world has economic benefits, too. According to IATA, the historic correlation is that a 10 per cent rise in connectivity relative to a country’s GDP is associated with a boost in labour productivity of 0.07 per cent. Not great thrust but certainly worth having.

Opening our skies would help cross-border trade, tourism, investment and knowledge flows. As we all get back to traveling in a post-pandemic world, now would be a good time for Canada to modernize its rules and open our skies for good.

Originally published here

LE PROTECTIONNISME N’AIDERA PAS LE SECTEUR AUTOMOBILE

Les guerres commerciales lancées par Trump ont montré que le protectionnisme n’entraîne aucun avantage économique palpable. Il ne sera pas plus utile pour le secteur de l’automobile européen. 

Dans un précédent article, en janvier, je vous avais parlé de la « souveraineté numérique » telle qu’expliquée par Emmanuel Macron. En lisant cet article, vous auriez pu penser que je n’avais que très peu relié son concept de souveraineté stratégique au protectionnisme (même si d’autres exemples suggèrent que Macron est effectivement protectionniste). Si vous aviez encore des doutes, le président français vient de les dissiper.

Dans ses récentes déclarations, M. Macron appelle à la « souveraineté » européenne dans le secteur automobile. Son problème : les sociétés de location de voitures en Europe n’achètent pas suffisamment (à son goût) de modèles européens. Les constructeurs automobiles américains et les fabricants chinois sont plus performants que le marché européen, ce qui chagrine le dirigeant français.

Qui est protégé ?

Il a expliqué sa position sur le plateau de France 2 :

« Il nous faut un Buy European Act comme les Américains ; il faut réserver [nos subventions] à nos industriels européens. […] Vous avez la Chine qui protège son industrie, les Etats-Unis qui protègent leur industrie et l’Europe qui est une maison ouverte. »

En 2017, Macron avait fait pression pour mettre en place ce qu’il a appelé le « Buy European Act » (loi pour acheter européen) pour les marchés publics, qui s’appliquerait aux entreprises ayant plus de la moitié de leur production au sein du bloc européen. Mais il a été contraint d’abandonner l’idée face à l’opposition de Bruxelles.

Je viens d’un pays, le Luxembourg, qui ne produit pas et n’a jamais produit de voitures ; alors peut-être suis-je incapable de comprendre l’attachement nationaliste à une marque de voiture locale. Mais, ce qui est le plus affligeant, c’est de considérer que l’Europe devrait s’engager dans une autre guerre commerciale avec le reste du monde pour des voitures.

Si des pays comme les Etats-Unis ou la Chine sont soupçonnés de favoriser injustement leurs industries, alors la France doit s’en saisir au niveau de l’OMC, et non essayer d’imiter leurs politiques au sein de l’Union européenne.

Le protectionnisme nous est souvent vendu comme un devoir de protéger nos industries, mais, en pratique, il nuit fortement aux consommateurs. Nous avons besoin de choix sur le marché pour prendre des décisions éclairées pour notre confort et notre porte-monnaie. Réduire le nombre de concurrents ne fera qu’empirer les choses. La notion de souveraineté européenne d’Emmanuel Macron devrait viser à créer un environnement commercial favorable à l’innovation, et non à servir de tremplin à une nouvelle guerre commerciale.

L’Europe a connu de nombreux problèmes ces dernières années, mais l’un des moins visibles, et pourtant important, est celui de la pénurie de puces. Lorsque les chaînes d’approvisionnement sont perturbées, l’industrie est désorganisée. Cela a été le cas en Europe et aux Etats-Unis.

Le problème de l’électrique

L’Union européenne ayant l’intention d’interdire la vente de nouvelles voitures à essence d’ici 2030, d’énormes opportunités de marché vont se présenter pour les vendeurs du monde entier ; car l’Europe est à peine capable de répondre à la demande de ses propres marchés. Certains prétendront également que l’Europe sous-estime la valeur des véhicules à hydrogène dans cette équation.

En outre, l’infrastructure de recharge nécessaire pour faire fonctionner les voitures électriques n’existe tout simplement pas. Si des pays comme les Pays-Bas fournissent de nombreuses stations de recharge électrique, d’autres sont à la traîne, ce qui risque de rendre le marché de l’occasion pour les voitures à essence plus important dans les prochaines années qu’il ne l’a jamais été auparavant.

Schmidt Automotive Research prévoit que les ventes de véhicules électriques à batterie bondiront cette année dans l’Europe de l’Ouest, pour atteindre 1 575 000 unités, soit une part de marché de 14%, contre 11% l’an dernier. Selon ces mêmes estimations, cette proportion atteindrait 14,5% en 2023 et 15% en 2024, soit 1 950 000 véhicules.

Bernstein Research prévoit de son côté que toutes les ventes électriques en Europe représenteront 14% du marché cette année, 27% en 2025 et 50,5 % en 2030.

L’accélération actuelle des ventes de véhicules électriques à faible consommation est le fait d’adeptes précoces et aisés, convaincus de l’importance de l’énergie électrique et de tout ce qu’elle peut apporter à la planète. Ils achèteront probablement une Tesla, une Volkswagen, une Hyundai ou une Kia électrique sans trop y penser, malgré des prix élevés. Cela ne sera pas le cas lorsque des acheteurs réguliers, aux revenus moyens, voudront acheter une nouvelle voiture.

Le protectionnisme ne résoudra guère ce problème ; il ne fait que s’ajouter à la grande ironie de la situation. D’un côté, le gouvernement interdit votre véhicule à essence et, de l’autre, il rend l’achat d’une voiture électrique plus coûteux pour vous, puisqu’il a l’intention d’appliquer des tarifs douaniers.

Les politiques de Donald Trump ont montré qu’une guerre commerciale mondiale n’entraîne aucun avantage économique palpable pour l’un ou l’autre camp. En fait, elle a rendu le monde occidental plus vulnérable à l’influence des intérêts économiques chinois. Faciliter la création de l’industrie manufacturière en Europe devrait être le facteur clé pour les décideurs à Bruxelles et à Paris, mais ils sont occupés à marquer des points politiques à bas prix par une réflexion économique à court terme.

Originally published here

Sharing economy: we need to rethink work

The Consumer Choice Center has launched a new and improved version of its Sharing Economy Index, ranking 60 cities around the world by their openness to innovation in the sector.

The index is primarily a guide for consumers, pointing them toward the most (and least) innovation-friendly cities. This way, they can take advantage of the best the sharing economy has to offer.

At the same time, it teaches regulators an important lesson about the sharing economy. The sector is a 21st-century marvel, from the way the company is set up to workers’ personal schedules. By contrast, efforts to impose one-size-fits-all legislation on the industry are stuck in the past and will only leave everyone worse off.

For centuries now, the usual workplace was organized around a clear hierarchy, where some completed a set number of known chores and others watched over them to make sure the job got done.

The traditional factory, with its manual laborers and overseers, fits the same description. As tasks in the economy multiplied and the world became richer, factories often gave way to offices and worker overalls became shirts and ties. The underlying structure of the workplace, nonetheless, remained the same.

The sharing economy blows this old model out of the water. Gone is the hierarchy of the factory assembly line or office arrangement, replaced by a network designed to match independent buyers and sellers in ways that benefit both parties. Companies like Airbnb, Uber, and Fiverr are platforms for private individuals to supply goods or services to those in need, with no controlling manager or bureaucratic system getting in the way of exchanges.

Such decentralization doesn’t stop at the structure that companies take. It extends all the way to the everyday tasks of those working in the gig economy. As noted in the Consumer Choice Center’s report, around 79% of independent laborers in the US and 80% of those in the EU cited the ability to produce their own schedule as the primary reason why they chose the position in the first place.

Thanks to its open-ended nature, the sharing economy is able to bounce back from serious challenges. If one part of the network is disrupted, another can take its place, with the larger web always surviving. For instance, Uber has been able to remain active in Ukraine during the Russian invasion, having to move 60 tons of supplies from Romania into Ukraine.

Regulators do not share the same positive picture of the gig industry. Instead, they want workers to enjoy the legal protection and benefits of being a regular salaried worker in a standard company. The same policymakers believe an employee must be able to demand unionization, healthcare benefits, or compensation for negligence and that platform owners should be forced to comply with these demands.

Were regulators to have their way with the sharing economy, however, decentralization would be no more. Suggested legislation marks the return to the old model of factory and office. The US Protecting the Right to Organize Act and the European Commission’s 2021 platform work proposal relegates gig workers to the status of permanent employees and standard managers based on a number of familiar criteria: work and safety, collective bargaining, and a required number of working hours per week.

The consequences would be awful all around. Far from legal certainty, some gig workers would be left jobless altogether, as they are unable to work on a 9 to 5 schedule. This hits vulnerable groups the hardest since they are most reliant on flexible work environments.

Consumers will suffer too. With more and more regulations, services become costlier and harder to acquire. Once layoffs intensify and companies go bankrupt, the goods and services that customers have grown to rely on may not be available anymore.

It’s advisable for policymakers to look toward the future rather than the past. Recognize and foster the strengths of the sharing economy by getting out of the way and letting workers, consumers, and the firms themselves decide the fate of the sharing economy.

Originally published here

What the collapse of FTX means for crypto in Europe

Just a few days ago, FTX was the second-largest crypto exchange in the world with a significant user base across the European Union. Now, after revelations of the company’s finances and opaque dealings by CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, the company faces a collapse causing contagion across the cryptocurrency economy. This will likely have a large impact on how crypto is both viewed and regulated here in Europe.

Bankman-Fried, the Bahamas-based American billionaire entrepreneur, was a primary protagonist in the folding of crypto platforms and hedge funds like Celsius Network, Voyager, and Three Arrows Capital earlier this year, offering nearly $1 billion to buy or bail out firms, prop up those facing insolvency and eye acquisitions worth hundreds of millions.

Much of this was carried out by FTX, but also its sister hedge fund Alameda Research, owned by Bankman-Fried and also headquartered in the Caribbean, whose balance sheets were likely propped up with FTX customer funds.

In September, FTX’s European office, called FTX EU and headquartered in Switzerland, won approval from EU member state Crypus to operate as an investment firm following a local acquisition.

In a press release, Bankman-Fried said the license was “an important step in achieving our goal of becoming one of the most regulated exchanges in the world,” and was the final step to offering its crypto services to all citizens of the European Economic Area.

At least in the United States, Bankman-Fried used both his money and influence to have a say in how cryptocurrency regulation. He revealed he was willing to spend up to $1 billionto fund the Democratic Party in the 2024 election. That plan has now evaporated.

Whether his influence was as powerful or significant in the EU remains to be seen, but the broader lesson hinges on what the collapse means for consumers and the future of crypto regulation in Europe, which is currently being shaped.

German MEP Stefan Berger, a leader negotiator on the Markets in Crypto-Assets framework many European officials hope will become a global standard on cryptocurrency regulation, tweeted that this scenario would effectively have been addressed by MiCA. “MiCA is the bulwark against Lehman Brothers moments such as the FTX case,” he told the crypto news site The Block.

And while that claim is a big one, it should be noted that MiCA rules, as they stand, have the strongest requirements for tokens such as stablecoins and their reserves — cryptocurrencies pegged to the Euro or US dollar — rather than exchanges. It also contains more provisions on financial surveillance and stopping “money laundering” (which appears 16 times in the document) than segregation of customer funds.

The latest available text on MiCA requires that “Crypto Asset Service Providers” (exchanges) have “sufficient capacity to ensure orderly trading” and “shall segregate holdings on behalf of their clients from their own holdings”

That remains the most pointed part of the publicly available text when it comes to exchange reserves and segregation of funds, but the events of the last week could continue to change the text before it is formally introduced next year.

For those of us with a significant interest in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies — protocols designed to be decentralized — it was always understood that the future of cryptographic digital assets relies on people learning about self-custody, holding their own cryptocurrencies in a wallet protected with private keys. That is what sets cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin apart from the traditional banking system. That, above any European legislation or good-natured incentive, is what will protect consumers.

With so much crypto value tied up on exchanges and lending platforms rather than people’s own wallets, there are hundreds of billions of euros at risk for consumers. As we now see with FTX’s collapse, it only takes one liquidity event to send shockwaves.

It would benefit us all if rules help bring regulatory clarity, keep shady actors at bay and provide financial transparency. If we want to craft the future of decentralized digital money, it will mean smarter rules that punish bad actors while promoting financial sovereignty. That’s what consumers deserve.

Originally published here

Our Well-Timed Warning on FTX, Bankman-Fried and Future Cryptocurrency Regulations

This letter was sent to Senators, Congressmen of relevant committees, and regulators in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the aftermath of the FTX collapse. The previous letter can be viewed here.

Referring to the previous letter we sent to lawmakers and regulators on October 26, 2022, warning of the influence and inherent financial risks posed by then FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried and his related companies, here we offer our thoughts on what you should consider for future regulation on digital assets, cryptocurrencies, and the platforms that use them.

As you will have read by now, the alleged criminal actions of Mr. Bankman-Fried and his affiliated companies (FTX International, FTX Europe, Alameda Research, etc.), have led to several bankruptcy filings, will likely lead to expensive lawsuits, and, without a doubt, will invite investigations and questions from your colleagues and committees in Congress. All of these are necessary and prudent.

The halting of withdrawals for billions of dollars of customer funds, the intermingling of company and customer assets, the collateralization of new crypto tokens backed by nothing, and the unsustainable leverage conspired to create one of the most calamitous events in recent financial history. It is a stain on the reputation of creative entrepreneurs and builders providing value in the cryptocurrency space. This is made all the more troubling by the influence of this company and its leaders in our nation’s capital.

The significant influence of Mr. Bankman-Fried and his companies among Congressional members and staff, donations to political campaigns, and the close relationship with regulators present a damning case of what happens when politically connected firms aim to control and shape legislation without input from consumers and citizens.

While decision-makers were eager to meet with Mr. Bankman-Fried and mirror his biased suggestions on cryptocurrency policy in legislation and enforcement actions, consumer groups like ours sounded the alarm about the conflicts of interest detrimental to sound and principled policy for the millions of Americans who use and invest in cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.

The Consumer Choice Center began writing publicly about the conflicts of interest and risky financial dealings of these companies and Mr. Bankman-Fried in September 2022, and how they would pose a considerable risk both to the legitimate cryptocurrency industry and to the savings and investments of millions of consumers. We remain steadfast in our conviction.

That said, as consumer advocates, we remain optimistic about the promises of Bitcoin, its cryptocurrency offspring, and the innovative blockchains, decentralized technologies, and crypto services that have evolved around them.

Users of decentralized technologies, however, do not need an industry approach to regulation. Regulations exist to set the rules of the game, not to chart the leaders of the game. This previous approach gave cover to FTX and its affiliated companies and has led to the disaster we see today.

The main caution we invoke, therefore, is that many proposed regulations aim to cement existing industry players and lockout innovative upstarts, while at the same time requiring the same restrictive rules that caused many people to explore cryptocurrencies in the first place.

As we have stated, if rules on crypto and its customers help solidify the financial portfolios, positions, and stock prices of only a select few companies, this will drive innovation away from our shores.

The bad actions of this particular company, while shocking and injurious to many, reflect the mistakes and alleged crimes of those involved. They do not, in any certain terms, condemn the wonderful possibilities of a crypto future nor the millions of consumers who responsibly use these technologies.

The frauds allegedly perpetrated are not too far removed from those of regulated financial firms that have deservedly reaped the consequences of misbehavior, either by the market or law enforcement. That the end product was cryptocurrencies instead of credit default swaps or mortgages makes no difference.

Fraud is fraud and remains illegal no matter what product a company is selling.

This is a stark contrast to the system of fractional-reserve banking that now underlies much of the American financial system and creates the incentives of malfeasance aided by loose monetary policy.

We should not mistake the ills of the current system for those of cryptographically secure digital assets.

With that in mind, rather than the approaches of several self-interested industry leaders, consumers deserve regulation on cryptocurrencies and digital firms that enforce existing rules on fraud (known as “rug pulls”), remain technologically neutral, offer reasonable and minimal taxation, and provide legal transparency. Punishing fraud and abuse, insider trading, and self-dealing should remain the focus.

As consumer advocates, we promote the principle of “self-custody” for crypto consumers, holding private keys to digital assets. This is a cryptographically secure method of controlling cryptocurrencies as originally intended, and one that should be an industry standard. This is the strongest method by which exchanges, brokerages, and those who regulate them can protect consumers. 

The aim of cryptographic digital assets and decentralized digital cash, since the founding of Bitcoin in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto, has centered on creating permissionless, peer-to-peer transactions offering a final settlement in a decentralized manner. That should be the guiding principle rather than temporary self-interest.

The whims of a select few industry players, however successful they may be, cannot be the guiding light for the future of decentralized digital money, as the saga of FTX has proven.

The Consumer Choice Center created a policy primer on Principles for Smart Cryptocurrency Regulations in September 2021 to highlight these concerns and we hope you will apply them.

We remain at your disposal for any further exploration of how best to craft rules, guidance, and regulation on the future of cryptocurrencies in our country, so that all society may benefit.

Sincerely yours,

Yaël Ossowski

Deputy Director

Consumer Choice Center

Aleksandar Kokotovic

Crypto Fellow

Consumer Choice Center

The Real Consequences the Proposed Vaping Flavor Ban in Columbus

Columbus is considering putting an end to the sales of menthol cigarettes and flavored vapes. Although official legislation hasn’t been formally introduced, tobacco-control advocates who are drafting the proposal are claiming a ban would help decrease smoking rates amongst Black people, other groups of color, women, and LGBTQ populations.

Sadly, over 20,000 Ohioans lose their lives to cigarette smoking-related illnesses every year. Considering that studies have shown vaping to be 95% less harmful than smoking and that adults who used flavored vaping products were 2.3 times more likely to quit smoking cigarettes, ensuring that adult consumers in Columbus have access to the vaping products they prefer will ultimately lead to fewer cigarette smoking-related deaths in Ohio. 

It’s estimated that more than 5% of Ohio’s adult population uses vaping products, accounting for over 634,000 Ohioans who have switched to a healthier alternative to combustible tobacco. Banning flavored vaping products will encourage these former smokers to switch back to smoking cigarettes, and will ultimately lead to increases in smoking-related healthcare costs, which are already costing Ohioan taxpayers $1.85 billion annually.

Advocates for the ban claim that it wouldn’t outlaw flavored vaping products or menthol cigarettes within Columbus, just the sale of said products and that consumers wouldn’t be punished for buying products elsewhere and bringing them into the city. Not only would this plan greatly harm small businesses who sell vaping products, but it would also effectively set up a dangerous illicit market within Columbus where bad actors could easily take advantage of consumers by selling them unregulated faulty products which could cause serious health concerns. 

Additionally, although the flavor ban intends to help minority groups of color, the reality of setting up an illicit market is that it will further exacerbate interactions between law enforcement and consumers of these products. One of the most infamous examples of this is the tragic death of Eric Garner, who was killed by police in New York after being approached on suspicion of selling untaxed individual cigarettes. 

Implementing a ban on flavored vaping products and menthol cigarettes within Columbus will have serious unintended consequences. Instead of a ban, more tobacco harm reduction efforts must first be explored such as increasing educational outreach to specific communities as well as encouraging vapes and smoke-free tobacco products as a tool for cessation. 

Elizabeth Hicks is the U.S. Affairs Analyst and David Clement is the North American Affairs Manager with the Consumer Choice Center. 

Scroll to top
en_USEN