2024年数字资产监管：来自司法管辖方法的见解报告（英文版）-世界经济论坛

DigitalAssetsRegulation:

InsightsfromJurisdictionalApproaches

INSIGHTREPORTOCTOBER2024

Images:GettyImages

Contents

Preface3

Executivesummary4

Introduction5

1

Regulatoryapproaches,outcomesandunintendedconsequences7

1.1EuropeanUnion9

1.2Gibraltar11

1.3HongKongSAR,China12

1.4Japan14

1.5Singapore16

1.6Switzerland18

1.7UnitedArabEmirates20

1.8UnitedKingdom22

1.9UnitedStatesofAmerica23

2

Recommendations26

2.1Anti-moneylaundering(AML)andknowyourcustomer27

(KYC)recommendations

2.2Regulatoryandtechnicalsandboxrecommendations28

2.3Decentralizedfinance(DeFi)recommendations29

2.4Privacyandsecuritypolicyrecommendations30

Conclusion31

Contributors32

Endnotes35

Disclaimer

Thisdocumentispublishedbythe

WorldEconomicForumasacontributiontoaproject,insightareaorinteraction.

Thefindings,interpretationsand

conclusionsexpressedhereinarearesultofacollaborativeprocessfacilitatedand

endorsedbytheWorldEconomicForumbutwhoseresultsdonotnecessarily

representtheviewsoftheWorldEconomicForum,northeentiretyofitsMembers,

Partnersorotherstakeholders.

©2024WorldEconomicForum.Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,includingphotocopyingandrecording,orbyanyinformation

storageandretrievalsystem.

DigitalAssetsRegulation:InsightsfromJurisdictionalApproaches2

October2024

DigitalAssetsRegulation:

InsightsfromJurisdictionalApproaches

Preface

Astheadoptionofdigitalassetscontinues,2024

marksapivotalmomentforthegloballandscapeofdigitalassetregulation.AsofearlySeptember2024,thetotalmarketcapitalizationofcryptocurrencies,onetypeofdigitalasset,wasvaluedat$2.01trillionandstablecoinscomprised8.5%ofthismarket,

amountingto$171billion.1Whenitcomestothe

statusofregulationglobally,accordingtoarecentBankforInternationalSettlements(BIS)survey,two-thirdsofthe86jurisdictionssurveyedwereorwill

soonberegulatingdigitalassets.2Themaingoalsofimplementingregulationaretoprotectinvestorsandconsumersandmaintainfinancialstability.

Asregulatorydevelopmentscontinue,countries

suchasAustralia,theUnitedKingdom,Brazil

andSouthKoreahavethisyearcommittedto

unveilingnewregulatoryframeworks.Inaddition,

thefullrolloutoftheEuropeanUnion’sMarketsin

Crypto-Assets(MiCA)regulationispoisedtosetaprecedentforcomprehensivedigitalassetoversight.

Althoughtherehasbeenrecentprogressindigital

assetregulation,countriesaretakingdivergent

approachesandhaveestablisheddifferenttimelinesforcreationandimplementation.Eachjurisdictionisdevelopingregulationsbasedonuniquegoalsand

objectives,whichrisksalackofcoordinationglobally.

Withthesevaryingapproaches,itisimperative

thatstakeholderscollaboratetoforgeasecureandequitableregulatoryenvironment.Thisnecessitatesthesharingoflearningsfromglobalregulatory

experiments,identifyingbothsuccessfulpolicies

andshortcomings.Theanalysiscontainedinthisreportaimstohighlightthesecriticalregulatory

insights,enablingpolicy-makersandregulators

tocrafteffectiveandharmonizedframeworks

thatpromoteinnovationwhilesafeguarding

stakeholders.Astheglobaleconomynavigatesthe

complexitiesofdigitalassets,thereportendeavourstocontributeaclearandimpartialperspectiveon

theevolvingregulatorylandscape.

DigitalAssetsRegulation:InsightsfromJurisdictionalApproaches3

Executivesummary

Thisreportanalysesdigitalassetregulationinseveraljurisdictionstoidentifyunique

approachesandprovideinsightstopolicy-makersandprivate-sectorparticipants.

Thereisaneedforclearguidelinesinthefast-

evolvingdigitalassetsindustry.Thisreportprovidesacloseanalysisoftheregulatoryframeworksin

ninejurisdictionsandtheiruniqueapproaches

topolicycreationandimplementation.Theworkbuildsonpreviousresearchundertakenbythe

WorldEconomicForumondigitalassetregulation,whichestablishedafoundationtofurtherexplorethejurisdiction-specificapproachesdetailedin

thisnewreport.

Byexaminingninejurisdictions,thereportdraws

keylessonsfromeachapproachandrevealsthe

unintendedconsequencesthatmayresultfrom

differentregulatoryframeworks.Theninejurisdictionsareleadingeconomiesfordigitalassetactivityand

regulationimplementation–theEuropeanUnion;

Gibraltar;HongKongSAR,China(HongKong);

Japan;Singapore;Switzerland;theUnitedArab

Emirates;theUnitedKingdom;andtheUnitedStates.Theanalysisenablesleaderstotakeajurisdictional

viewofboththepotentialadvantagesandthedisadvantagesofimplementingcertainpolicies.

Thisinvestigationofeachjurisdictionnotonly

enhancestheunderstandingofthedirecteffectsofregulatorymethodologiesbutalsoprovides

contextforpredictingupcomingtrendsand

preparingforpotentialchallengesintheevolvingdigitalassetslandscape.Throughsuchanalysis,policy-makersandregulatorscananticipatetheimpactsoftheirdecisions,betterenablingthemtobuildandimplementregulationsthatareinlinewiththeirintendedgoals.

Acrosstheseninejurisdictions,thereport

examinesfourkeyindustrytopics:anti-money

laundering(AML)andknowyourcustomer(KYC);regulatoryandtechnicalsandboxes;decentralizedfinance(DeFi);andprivacyandsecurity.These

subjectssurfacedasthemostpressingduringtheassessment,standingoutastheindustry’smostprominentissuesatthistime.

Drawingonthisjurisdictionalandtopic-specific

analysis,thereportoffersasetofrecommendationsforbothpublic-andprivate-sectorstakeholders,

categorizedbyissueassummarizedbelow.

–AMLandKYC:BuildingonexistingAML/KYCfoundations,focusingontheadoptionoftechnology-enhancedsolutions,globalcooperation,andtrainingandcomplianceprogrammes,tohelpcreateamoresecuredigitalassetslandscapeinthefuture.

–Regulatoryandtechnicalsandboxes:

Implementingclearsandboxobjectives

andsupportmechanismsandenablingthe

collaborativeparticipationofdiverseandbroadnetworksinsandboxenvironments.

–DeFi:Prioritizingtheneedforriskmitigationandtransparencyaswellastailoredlicensingmodelsandcleardefinitionstorefinetheseregulationsinacontrolledsettingwithout

compromisingtheuniquenatureofDeFianditstechnologicaladvancements.

–Privacyandsecurity:Underscoringtheneedforstrongdataprotectionpoliciesthatprioritizetheconsumerandincluderegularsecurity

auditsandcompliancecheckstosafeguardpersonalandfinancialinformation.

DigitalAssetsRegulation:InsightsfromJurisdictionalApproaches4

Introduction

Theglobalregulatorylandscapefordigital

assetsisevolving,withdifferencesinregulatoryapproachesbetweenjurisdictions.

Mostarebringingforwardbespokeregulation

(48%)becausetheirexistingregulatoryframeworksdonotcoverdigitalassets.Jurisdictionsthat

haveestablishedoraredevelopingatailored

regulatoryframeworkforstablecoinsincludetheUnitedKingdom,HongKongandSingapore,whiletheEuropeanUnionisdevelopingaframework

fordigitalassetsmoregenerally.Injust9%of

jurisdictions,digitalassetsaresubjecttoexistingfinancialregulation.Todate,around33%of

jurisdictionslackaregulatoryframeworkandarenotcurrentlyworkingonone.

Digitalassetscontinuetohaveastrongpresenceintheglobaleconomy,asevidencedbyasignificantmarketcapitalization.3However,thelegalstatus

ofcryptocurrenciesvariessignificantlybycountry.AccordingtoananalysisbytheAtlanticCouncil,cryptocurrenciesarelegalin33countries,partiallybannedin17andgenerallyprohibitedin10.4

Inanassessmentofthestatusofdigitalasset

regulationglobally,theBankforInternational

Settlements(BIS)notedthatmorethan60%of

respondingjurisdictionspossessorarecreatingaregulatoryframeworkfordigitalassets(Figure1).5

FIGURE1Centralbankresponsestodigitalassetregulationsurvey

Regulatoryframeworkforstablecoinsandothercryptoassets

Asapercentageofrespondents,2023

PresenceinthejurisdictionsRegulatoryobjectives

Investor/consumerprotection

Protectingfinancialstability

Counteringillicitfinance

Fair,efficientandtransparent

markets,innovationand/or

competition

Safetyandsoundness

ofregulatedinstitutions/

infrastructures

0%10%20%30%40%

Yes

Currentlyunderdevelopment

No

Uncertain

Noanswer

0%20%40%60%80%

.Bespokeregulation

Generalfinancialregulation

.Bespokeregulation

Generalfinancialregulation

No

●Noanswer

.Uncertain

Source:BankforInternationalSettlements.(2024).AnnualeconomicreportNo.147:Embracingdiversity,advancingtogether–resultsofthe2023BISsurveyoncentralbankcurrenciesandcrypto.

/publ/bppdf/bispap147.pdf

DigitalAssetsRegulation:InsightsfromJurisdictionalApproaches5

OThisreport

promotesa

nuancedapproachtoregulationratherthana‘one-size-fits-all’method,asentimentechoedinthediverse

regulatoryregimesexploredinthe

report.

Globally,digitalassetpoliciesandregulations

differtoalignwiththeneedsofeachjurisdiction,basedonvariationsingoalsandriskappetites.

Inaddition,notalldigitalassetsarecreatedequal,andtheirclassificationprofoundlyinfluences

theiruse,valuationandregulatorytreatment.

Thisreportpromotesanuancedapproachto

regulationratherthana“one-size-fits-all”method,asentimentechoedinthediverseregulatory

regimesexploredinthereport.

Astheworldgrappleswiththeopportunities

andchallengespresentedinthedigitalassets

sector,theWorldEconomicForum’sCentrefor

FinancialandMonetarySystemsseekstoprovideanimpartialunderstandingoftheregulatory

landscapethroughtheDigitalAssetsRegulatory(DAR)initiative.TheForumhasconducted

previousrelatedworkonthistopicincludingthe

DigitalCurrencyGovernanceConsortium

whitepaperseriesandmostrecentlythe

Pathways

toCrypto-AssetRegulation

paper.Thisearlier

worklaidthefoundationforfurtherexploration

ofjurisdiction-specificconsiderationsforshapingnewpoliciesandregulations.

TheDARinitiativeengagedmorethan80seniorleadersfromthepublicandprivatesectorsandacademiatoexaminethecurrentstateofdigitalassetregulationaroundtheglobe,andtoanalyseoutcomesfromregulatoryimplementationsto

dateinseveraladvancedjurisdictions.Thisreportsynthesizesthefindingsfromtheseexplorations.

Methodology

Insightshavebeengatheredfromoursteeringcommitteeandexpertworkinggroupthrough:

–Deskresearch

–Workshops

–Interviews

Audience

Thereportaudienceincludesglobalpolicy-makersandregulators,alongwithexecutivesofprivate-

sectorcompanies,whoallhaveresponsibilitiesconnectedtodigitalassets.

Taxonomy

Giventhediverseactorsandrolesthatcomprisethedigitalassetsecosystem,ageneraltaxonomyisessentialforconsistentregulationandcanassistwithclarityandorganization,aswellasconsistentbenchmarkingacrossvariousjurisdictions.The

lackofacommontaxonomyhasbeenmentionedinthedigitalassetspaceandwasreferencedin

thePathwaystoCrypto-AssetRegulationreport

asanimportantrisk.However,therearestillmanyperspectivesandalackofconsensuspersistsondefinitionsamongecosystemparticipants.Bearinginmindthesecomplexities,theterm“digitalasset”willbeusedthroughoutthisreportasanall-

encompassingcategory.Withineachjurisdictionalcontext,theterminologyisusedinlinewitheachrespectivejurisdiction’susage.

DigitalAssetsRegulation:InsightsfromJurisdictionalApproaches6

1

Regulatoryapproaches,outcomesandunintendedconsequences

Thissectionexaminesninejurisdictions’

digitalassetregulatoryapproaches,highlightingimportantindustryissues,initialpolicyoutcomesandunintendedconsequences.

DigitalAssetsRegulation:InsightsfromJurisdictionalApproaches7

Thejurisdictions

chosenfor

examinationhaveregulationsatanadvancedstageofdevelopment,allowingfortheimpactsoftheirimplementationtobeobserved.

FIGURE2

Toexaminelessonslearnedinthedigitalassets

regulatorylandscape,acomprehensiveviewof

currentapproachesisneeded.Thejurisdictions

chosenforexaminationhaveregulationsatan

advancedstageofdevelopment,allowingfortheimpactsoftheirimplementationtobeobserved.

Theseare:theEuropeanUnion,Gibraltar,Hong

Kong,Japan,Singapore,Switzerland,theUnitedArabEmirates,theUnitedKingdomandtheUnitedStatesofAmerica(Figure2).

Foreachjurisdiction,therearefoursubsections:

“generalapproach”,“approachbytopic”,“outcomes”and“unintendedconsequences”,eachdesignedtoexploredifferentelementsoftheregulatorylandscape.

“Generalapproach”describestheoverarching

regulatorymethodologyofagivenregion.Within“approachbytopic”,thereportanalysesfourof

theindustry’smostpressingissues:anti-money

laundering(AML)andknowyourcustomer(KYC);regulatoryandtechnicalsandboxes;decentralizedfinance(DeFi);andprivacyandsecurity.While

evaluatingtheselectedjurisdictions,thesetopicsemergedasthemostprominent,witheachregionadoptingauniqueregulatoryapproachtoaddressthem.Theadditionalrationalefortheirinclusionisdiscussedbelow:

Ninejurisdictionsassessed

–AMLandKYC:EffectiveAMLandKYC

measuresaremission-criticaltotheintegrityofthedigitalassetsecosystemastheyhelppromoteatransparentandsafeenvironment.

–Regulatoryandtechnicalsandboxes:

Sandboxesplayapivotalrolebyallowing

companiestotestproductsunderoversight,promotingresponsibleinnovationwhile

ensuringcompliancewithexistingandupcomingstandards.

–DeFi:DeFi’sgoalofalteringtheexistingparadigmofcentralizationhassignificantimplicationsforhowusersinteractwithtechnologyapplicationsandintroducesnovelregulatorychallengesinthefuture.

–Privacyandsecurity:Robustmeasuresprotectconsumers’assetsanddatafromthreatsand

buildasecuredigitalassetslandscapeandincreaseconsumertrust.

Inthe“outcomes”and“unintendedconsequences”segments,thereportanalysestheresultsofdigitalassetspoliciesthathavebeenevidenttodate,aswellasanyunexpectedresultsstemmingfromtheregulatoryframeworksinplace.

Japan

UnitedKingdom

UnitedStatesofAmerica

Switzerland

Gibraltar

EuropeanUnion

UnitedArabEmirates

HongKongSAR,China

Singapore

DigitalAssetsRegulation:InsightsfromJurisdictionalApproaches8

1.1

TheEuropean

Unionisoneofthelargestmarkets

withadvanceddigitalasset

regulation.

EuropeanUnion

Generalapproach

TheEuropeanUnionisoneofthelargestmarkets

withadvanceddigitalassetregulation.In2023,theEUfinalizedthecomprehensiveMarketsinCrypto-Assets(MiCA)regulation,animportantpieceof

theEU’sdigitalfinancestrategy,providinglegal

clarityonprivacy,securityandtransparencyfor

digitalassets,whichdoesnotincludenon-fungibletokens(NFTs)anddecentralizeddigitalassets.6

MiCArequiresallissuerstocreateawhitepaper

forassets,subjecttoapprovalandlicensing,with

non-complianceleadingtofines.7Theregulation,

effectivefrom30June2024forstablecoinsand

fullyeffectivebytheendof2024,aimstoharmonizeregulationsamongmemberstates,replacing

existingdomesticlaws,whiletheimplementationisdelegatedtorespectivejurisdictionalauthoritiesforenforcement.8MiCAfocusesoninvestorprotectionandmarketintegrity,primarilyaddressingcrypto-assetserviceproviders(CASPs)andcertaintypesoftokens.Italsoincludesrulesforstablecoins,

mandatinggovernanceandreservemanagement,andcompliancewithrelevantexistinglegislation.9

Itisimportanttodistinguishbetweencrypto-assetsthatfallunderMiCAandfinancialinstrumentsin

digitalformthatfallundertheexistingsecuritiesregulations(e.g.MarketsinFinancialInstrumentsDirective[MiFID]).TheEU’sDigitalOperational

ResilienceAct(DORA)andtheDLTPilotRegimeprovidethelegalframeworkfortradingand

settlementofotherdigitalassetsunderMiFIDII(effectivesince2018),facilitatingcross-borderexpansionandmitigatingregulatoryarbitrage.10Withtheseadvances,theEUwillbetheworld’slargestmarketwithlegalandregulatoryclarityfordigitalassets.

Approachbytopic

Anti-moneylaundering(AML)andknowyourcustomer(KYC)

In2021,theEUpresentedseveralproposals

forstrengtheningAMLprotections,including

establishinganewentitycalledtheAnti-Money

LaunderingandCounteringtheFinancingof

TerrorismAuthority(AMLA).11Manyofthese

proposalsarecurrentlyindevelopmentand,subjecttodiscussions,workingtowardsagreements.12,13

AsamemberoftheFinancialActionTaskForce

(FATF),theEUalignswithTravelRuleregulations.14TherevisedTransferofFundsRegulation(TFR)

mandatescapturingalltransactioninformation,regardlessofsize,withathresholdof€1,000forself-hostedwallets.

MiCArequiresCASPstocomplywithKYCandAMLrules,performingenhancedduediligenceforcustomersfromhigh-riskcountries.

ItisimportanttoclarifyherethattheseAML

protectionsarenotcrypto-specific,andthat

theTFRappliesexclusivelytoserviceproviders,andthereforeexplicitlyexcludesobligationsfor

providersofhardwareandsoftwareorprovidersofself-custodywalletsthatdonothavecontrol

overthecrypto-assets.Assuch,AMLandKYCremainkeyelementsoftheupcomingregulations.

Regulatoryandtechnicalsandboxes

MiCAisgenerallysupportiveofregulatoryandtechnicalsandboxes.In2023,theEUlaunchedtheEuropeanBlockchainRegulatorySandbox,whichwillrunforthreeyears,withcohortsof20

DigitalAssetsRegulation:InsightsfromJurisdictionalApproaches9

blockchainusecases.15Whenitcomestodigitalsecurities,thelaunchoftheDLTPilotRegimeisdedicatedtoallowingcompaniestoexperimentwithdistributedledgertechnology(DLT).16

Portugal,anEUmembercountry,alsohasauniqueTechnologicalFreeZoneregulatorysandboxfor

encouragingthedevelopmentandexperimentationofnewtechnologyapplications.17,18

Decentralizedfinance(DeFi)

MiCAexplicitlycarvesoutDeFifromtheupcomingregulation,asperrecital22:“Wherecrypto-assetservicesareprovidedinafullydecentralised

mannerwithoutanyintermediary,theyshould

notfallwithinthescopeofthisRegulation.”19

However,theregulationcallsforseveralstudiesofcomponentsoftheDeFiecosystem,decentralizedprotocolsandapplications.

TheEuropeanSecuritiesandMarketsAuthority

(ESMA)recentlypublishedareport,Decentralised

FinanceintheEU:DevelopmentsandRisks,toinformthefutureofMiCA.20Additionally,theEuropean

CommissionisexpectedtoprepareareportbyDecember2024thatexaminestheDeFimarket.

Privacyandsecurity

MiCAwillrequireidentityverificationofasset

holders,andmandatesthattradingplatforms

mustnotallowuserstotradeassetswithfull

anonymization.Additionally,theTravelRule’s

identityrequirements,towhichtheEUsubscribes,willincludesupervisionoffinancialtransactions.21

TheEUhasalsoenactedtheGeneralData

ProtectionRegulation(GDPR),whichisseenas

oneofthemostcomprehensiveprivacyand

securitylawsintheworld.AuthoritiesareevaluatinghowGDPRandMiCAwillworktogether.22

Outcomes

TheintentionoftheMiCAregulationisfor

regulationtobeharmonizedacrossEurope,as

thelawisbindinganddirectlyapplicableinallEUmemberstates.Proponentsarguethatitavoids

regulatoryfragmentation,safeguardsconsumer

protectionsandfacilitatescross-borderexpansionforCASPs,whichwillmitigateregulatoryarbitrage.

TheEuropeanBlockchainRegulatorySandbox

hasledtomixedopinions.Somestakeholdershavegivenpositivefeedbackabouttheabilitytorun

innovativeexperiments,establishbestpractices

alongsideregulatorsandcollaboratewithauthoritieseffectively.However,thesandboxhasalsobeen

criticizedbyindustryparticipantsforitsnarrow

scopeofpermittedusecases,whichhasresultedinarelativelylimitedpoolofapplicants.

Europeanauthoritieshavebeenabletoinstil

increasingconfidenceonthetopicofKYCand

AMLwiththetakedownofcryptocurrencymixerssuchasChipMixerandBitzlato,whichenabledmoneylaundering.23,24

OtheroutcomesincludethegrowthofinwardinvestmentintotheEUbyinternationaldigitalassetfirms,whichareearlysignsofincreasedmarketdevelopment.

Unintendedconsequences

Someaspectsofdigitalassetshavebeenexcludedfromregulation,whileothersarebeingseenasoverlyprescriptive.MiCAhasbeencriticizedforexcludingtechnologyapplicationssuchascentralbankdigitalcurrencies(CBDCs),utilitytokens,DeFiandNFTs,

leadingtopotentialunintendedconsequences.

OtheraspectsofMiCAcanbeseenasbeingtoostrict,suchasstablecoinreserverequirements.

Also,themandatedtransparencyconflictswith

digitalassetanonymity,raisingprivacyconcerns.IndustryplayersareurgingtheEUtoconsider

alternativecompliancemethodsthatbetterprotectprivacy.Lastly,theDataAct’sprovisionsfor

interruptingorterminatingsmartcontractshave

facedbacklashfromblockchainadvocacygroups,whoviewthesecontrolsasoverreaching.

DigitalAssetsRegulation:InsightsfromJurisdictionalApproaches10

1.2

.Gibraltar’s

taxframework

isattractivefor

companiesand

investorsfocusedonblockchain-

relatedactivities,

significantly

reducingthetax

burdenoncross-borderdigitalassettransactions.

Gibraltar

Generalapproach

Gibraltarhasestablisheditselfasaprominent

centreforblockchainanddigitalassets.In

January2018,theterritorypioneeredlegislationforDLT,thefirstjurisdictiontodosoworldwide,emphasizingregulation,reputationandquick

marketimplementation.Itiswidelyrecognized

foritseffortsinadvancingblockchaintechnologyandensuringsustainabilityandsecuritywithin

theindustry.

TooperateinGibraltar,cryptocurrencycompaniesmustobtainalicencefromtheGibraltarFinancialServicesCommission(GFSC)undertheFinancialServicesActof2019.TheGFSCreviews

applicationsandmaygrantalicenceifcertain

criteriaaremet.Gibraltarhasclearregulatory

frameworkssuchastheFinancialServices

Regulationsof2020,whichregulatefirmssuchascryptocurrencyexchangesandwalletproviders.

TaxationundertheGibraltarCompaniesActof

2014exemptsdividends,capitalgainsandincome

generatedfromdigitalassettransactionsiftheyoccuroutsideGibraltar.25Thistaxframeworkisattractive

forcompaniesandinvestorsfocusedonblockchain-relatedactivities,significantlyreducingthetaxburdenoncross-borderdigitalassettransactions.

Approachbytopic

Anti-moneylaundering(AML)andknowyourcustomer(KYC)

TheGFSCsetsKYCandAMLprinciples,requiringfirmstomaintainrecords,monitorsystemsand

reportsuspiciousactivitieswhileallowingadaptationtoevolvingchallenges.Thisregulatoryframework

aimstobalanceeffectiveoversightwiththeneedforinnovationandgrowthinthefinancialsector.26

Regulatoryandtechnicalsandboxes

Gibraltar’sregulatorysandboxesallowcompaniestotestnewproductsinacontrolledenvironment,

ensuringcomplianceandreducingrisksbefore

marketlaunch.TheGFSCoverseestheseinitiatives,ensuringthattheproductsaretestedwithinstrict

regulatoryparameterstosafeguardconsumerinterestsandmaintainmarketstability.27

Decentralizedfinance(DeFi)

Gibraltar’sproactiveDeFiregulationbythe

GFSCensuresflexibility,transparency,securityandconsumerprotectionwhileavoidingoverlyprescriptiverules.28TheGFSC’sregulatory

sandboxplaysasignificantroleinthisapproach,

allowingDeFiprojectstotesttheirproductsandservicesinacontrolledenvironment.

Furthermore,theGFSCcollaboratesclosely

withindustrystakeholderstostayupdatedontechnologicaladvancesandemergingtrendsinDeFi,ensuringthatregulationsremainrelevantandeffective.

Privacyandsecurity

TheGFSCmandatesstringentdataprotection

andcybersecuritymeasuresforblockchain

businesses,ensuringcompliancewithinternationalstandardssuchasGDPR.Additionally,the

ProceedsofCrimeActprovidesthoroughguidelines

onsecurityandprivacy,