The Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, short BaFin, supervised and controlled within the framework of financial supervision in all areas of financial services in Germany – so it is at least Wikipedia is written. It is so obvious that the crypto-Economy falls within the jurisdiction of the BaFin. Your reputation, at least among many Blockchain Startups and crypto-investors, but only moderately. But why? And what are the BaFin in this context, can it?
An accusation that is often levied against the BaFin, is that you tend to be negative towards crypto-currencies. Consumer warnings about crypto currencies will support this picture of a skeptical authority. Many forget that It is the duty of any regulatory authority on risks. If it does not, it comes in larger expository from the Ministry of Finance and the government. It would be completely untrustworthy, if an authority would encourage the population to invest in appropriate Assets. This is just as true for Central banks and other public institutions around the world, all of which have communicated the risks of crypto trading and the ICOs. It is so wrong for an authority to reproach, you had a negative attitude towards an Asset just because you are a risk warning – it is not that simple, unfortunately.
The BaFin is to strictly
Here, The BaFin does not make any laws, but it is there. Your room for manoeuvre is therefore limited to the interpretation of the existing Law. Nevertheless, it is not a heady statistics, if in Germany there is only a Blockchain Startup, has managed to obtain a BaFin license (Bitbond) and it has so far been no regulated ICO on German soil. So the question is: it Lacks the Blockchain Startups of competence or tries to press the BaFin’s prior decisions?
A simple answer to it here. BaFin understands the topic of the Blockchain and crypto-currencies. Also, there is no law that ICOs, respectively, the restitution of the Token prohibits. A challenge, but it is fought, is the differentiation between Utility and Security Token – a topic about which we have already frequently reported. The debate on the Token-categorisation leads present all over the world to heated discussions. Accordingly, the BaFin is not afraid to make a decision. This impression, at least, when you talk to Blockchain Startups, the need to wait a long time for answers and requests. Who nothing does, not make any mistakes, at least what decisions are concerned, seems to be this Mantra in the financial market Supervisory authority, unfortunately, is much too popular to be.
Time is of the essence
Small jurisdictions, such as Liechtenstein, or Gibraltar to benefit from the reluctance of a BaFin, or any other financial market Supervisory authorities in other, larger European countries. In countries such as Gibraltar, the mills do not grind so slowly. Short distances allow a fast implementation of crypto-friendly regulatory policies. Although this is initially negative for Germany, but you can compare Germany with a Land that is just a few football fields large-and-in the broadest sense as a tax haven may be referred to the EU or not.
The question here is: Allow the adopted regulatory guidelines, the adaptation and the Testing of a new technology, or restrict this on? In the first case, it is desirable that an authority hurries in with your decisions and courage to prove. On the other hand, the tendency to regulate something in advance so that Innovation in the Bud is nipped, then in many cases it is recommended that the subject of regulation, once set aside.
You can’t compare a country like Germany with a British overseas territory on the Spanish border. Stricter Regulatory requirements is not only of disadvantage. Regulation made in Germany could play to their advantages, especially as regards legal certainty and consumer protection, as companies on the German state and the German case law. If BaFin says something, then the weight. This reliability and the high requirements that must be met in Germany, to help companies in stable business relations to banks. In countries with lower regulatory requirements, or other crypto had to experience in Startup, the business announces relationship with the Bank, because the Bank got cold feet. Such a scenario would be in Germany, a BaFin-licensed companies less likely. Clear liability conditions, as they exist in the crypto-Economy, yet only to a limited extent, can be a prerequisite for the mass commercialization of a new technology. The majority of consumers and companies will dare to invest money in a new technology, if liability and consumer protection are to be adequately explained.
Therefore, it is easy to, regulatory authorities such as the BaFin to you would have of the Blockchain no idea, and would be, in principle, against a crypto adaptation. Even if the alleged defect is speed in decision-making in the room, do not need to be clear that the bureaucratic structures of the BaFin to allow the same flexibility and speed of Adjustment as in the case of a 15-person Startup in Berlin-Kreuzberg.