I was delighted to be able to attend (albeit virtually) the presentation of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee’s report on central bank digital currency (CBDC) at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). The findings of the report were presented by Lord King of Lothbury and the discussants Jason Shepherd of TRSS International and Frances Coppola, financial economist and a columnist for Coindesk. The discussion was chaired by Tom Keatinge, Director of RUSI’s Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies.
While the discussions ranged over many and varied aspects of the issue, I found the most interesting discussion to be bout the private/public interface. Lord King, who wrote in his book “The End of Alchemy” that “money and banking are particular historical institutions that developed before modern capitalism and owe a great deal to the technology of an earlier age” said in essence that there was no need to the Bank of England to develop its own digital currency and that an alternative might be to simply regulate private digital currency effectively. In other words, rewrite the Electronic Money Licence and the Payment Institution Licence and leave it to the market.
I have a great deal of sympathy with this view, but I’m afraid that I ultimately disagree. It is not at all clear to me that private actors would put in place digital currencies to either maximise net welfare or meet specific social goals.
Lord King also referred to the American predilection to “instinctively” act extra-territorially through SWIFT.
xxx
The definition of “electronic money” under Electronic Money Regulations 2011 (EMRs) will be extended to include fiat-linked stablecoins. As a result, holders of such stablecoins will be given a statutory right to redeem their coins on demand and at par value — as is currently the case for holders of electronic money (e.g., prepaid card or electronic wallet account holders). However, the proposals recognize that the holder of a stablecoin may not always have a relationship with the issuer. The holder’s relationship may instead be with a third party such as an exchange or wallet provider.
Accordingly, the UK government considers that holders should generally be able to make a claim against either the issuer or the customer-facing entity as appropriate. The legal requirement to allow the redemption of stablecoin on demand and at par value will remain with the issuer, but the issuer may not always be required to fulfill such requests directly. However, the Consultation Response notes that a direct obligation on the issuer may be imposed where the stablecoin carries systemic risks and direct redemption is necessary to address financial stability risks (see further below).
From UK to Regulate Fiat-Linked Stablecoins – Lexology:
xxx