Category Archives: Fintech Opinions

Why Canada must be open to open banking

The Globe and Mail | and | Jan 2, 2020

digitral open bankingAdam Felesky is CEO of Portag3 Ventures. Andrew Moor is president and CEO of EQ Bank.

Canada is often said to be facing an infrastructure deficit, having failed to adequately invest in transit, roads and water systems. But the country is also encountering a financial services infrastructure deficit. That is to say we lack the infrastructure and related government policies needed to safely, efficiently and effectively enable financial data to be moved and shared by consumers.

Much like the physical systems required for transportation, financial services infrastructure improves national well-being and has the potential to bring benefits to all citizens. For those of us in the banking, payments and financial services sectors and in regulatory, policy making and consumer advocacy roles, the time has come to erase this deficit, which manifests itself in unnecessary costs for customers and their financial services providers, limited transparency for those providing financial advice and roadblocks to innovation.

See:  Open Banking Era Starts in Australia (Feb 2020)

Open banking provides the clearest opportunity to set Canada’s financial infrastructure on the right course and is already achieving success around the world. With 40 countries developing their own open banking plans, Canada needs to take bold action.

Where does Canada stand? The government first declared its interest in open banking in the 2018 federal budget. This interest was repeated in the 2019 budget. In 2019, the Senate produced a well-researched report urging decisive government action. In parallel, the Minister of Finance commissioned a report from an expert advisory panel. We hope this report will be released early in 2020.

Beyond this process, open banking has generated considerable interest from consumer advocates, the banking industry and emerging fintech players who have explored the benefits and risks. Among those who have thought seriously about the issues, our sense is that there is overwhelming support: open banking will keep financial information safer and provide more choice at a lower cost for Canadians.

There is general agreement with the Senate report that “consumers and small businesses would also benefit from increased competition and innovation in the financial sector.

Small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) stand to gain significantly.

As a recent C.D. Howe report highlighted, Canada lags international peers in allocating capital to SMEs. Part of this deficiency is attributable to challenges that banks have in getting the information required to assess credit for SMEs – a problem that can be alleviated by open banking.

Given the widely held view that open banking is a good idea, why is Canada holding back? One reason appears to be a lack of political desire. Recent discussions with elected officials have suggested that their perception is there are no votes in open banking and this may hold back progress on this important issue. As more Canadians understand the benefits, we believe there will be votes for politicians who engage with the open banking agenda. Open banking is clearly an issue whose time has come. We urge one of the soon-to-be-announced parliamentary committees to truly understand the benefits.

See:  Monopoly-Friendly Canada ‘Does Not Treat Competition Policy Seriously’

That said, we are encouraged by Canada’s Digital Charter. Principle 4 of this charter espouses the core idea behind open banking: that consumers have rights to their data and can share it or transfer it. We would like to see the Department of Finance work more closely with the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to bring these principles to life.

In banking circles, there is a debate about the relative prioritization of open banking and improving data security standards. Working on these two issues together is the only path to success. By their actions, customers are showing a strong desire to access their data in convenient forms. Absent open banking, consumers share passwords and access to their accounts with various providers, leaving them vulnerable to data breaches. It’s a compromise they should not have to make. Developing a secure financial services infrastructure, that is available to all credible participants and that keeps the entire system safe, is the only practical route forward.

Continue to the full article --> here

 


The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org

NCFA Financial Innovation MapNCFA Innovation Opportunity BriefsNCFA Fintech Insights
NCFA Fintech WhispererNCFA Fintech Fridays PodcastNCFA Weekly Newsletter

 

Monopoly-Friendly Canada ‘Does Not Treat Competition Policy Seriously’

The Tyee |  Bryan Carney | Jan 6, 2020

john pecman former competition bureau commissionerJohn Pecman on why it’s time to beef up the Competition Bureau he led.

Canadians like to believe they live in one of the most sophisticated free-market economies in the world. Don’t tell that to John Pecman. Until May of last year, Pecman was commissioner of the Competition Bureau, the agency responsible for enforcing laws against anti-competitive practices in the Canadian marketplace.


You may also like:

[Report] A New North Star: Canadian Competitiveness in an Intangibles Economy

The Enterprise Automation Imperative—Why Modern Societies Will Need All the Productivity They Can Get

Navigating the Great Reset: Fintech in Canada in 2020

Advancing Competition in a Changing Marketplace

Regulating financial innovation – going behind the scenes

Agents of Change: Making innovation agencies as innovative as those they support

 


The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org

NCFA Financial Innovation MapNCFA Innovation Opportunity BriefsNCFA Fintech Insights
NCFA Fintech WhispererNCFA Fintech Fridays PodcastNCFA Weekly Newsletter

 

The Winners And Losers In Fintech In 2019

Forbes | Ron Shevlin | Dec 16, 2019

AI powerAs we approach the end of the 2019, it’s a good time to look back and see who won and lost—or more appropriately, who’s winning and losing—in the fintech world.

 

Winner:  Goldman Sachs

The Vampire Squid took a few lumps this year with reports of $1.3 billion in loan losses (over a roughly three-year period) in its Marcus unit and accusations of bias in setting credit limits on the new Apple Card, but those were minor speed bumps on Goldman Sachs’ path to fintech success in 2019.

While many mid-size banks struggle to gather (and retain) deposits, Marcus ended 2018 with roughly $35 billion in deposits and by October had grown that to about $50 billion.

How do you follow that success? By partnering with Apple to launch the Apple Card. By the end of Q3, Goldman Sachs had extended about $10 billion in credit lines to Apple customers and new credit card customers had $736 million in loan balances.

See:  Are the fintech bridges working?

Outlook: Marcus will continue its march towards becoming a consumer finance powerhouse. Goldman spent $80 million advertising Marcus in 2017 and double that in 2018. In 2019, it will spend $270 million on its retail businesses. That’s about as much as BBVA, Santander, and USAA will spend on marketing in the US—combined.

Winner:  Zelle

Take a floundering consortium of large banks, re-form it within an established enterprise, give it a new name, re-count all the existing transaction volume as the volume of the new fintech....and voila!....you have Zelle.

In short order (or years depending on when you think the service started), Zelle has become the leader in P2P payments in the US according to a study from Cornerstone Advisors.

An analysis by S&P Global of the 27 largest banks in the US found that 21 of them offer Zelle as their P2P service, with two more soon the launch the service. Among mid-size institutions, Zelle is offered by banks like Umpqua, First Bank, and First Horizon.

In Q3 2019, $49 billion was sent through the Zelle on 196 million transactions, representing a 58% increase in dollar value and 73% increase in transaction volume over Q3 2018.

Outlook: Zelle has plenty of runway left to continue its torrid growth pace. But it’s not a winner-take-all battle in the P2P world, so don’t count Venmo, Square, and Apple out.

Winner:  Chime

Chime’s account growth is nothing short of astronomical account growth. A December 5 CNBC article put the current total at 6.5 million, up from 5 million at the beginning of September, and up from 4 million in June 2019. The startup’s valuation is astronomical as well, with a recent $500 million raise valuing the fintech at nearly $6 billion (on expected 2019 revenue of $300 million).

See:  The Enterprise Automation Imperative—Why Modern Societies Will Need All the Productivity They Can Get

Outlook: Chime has had strong tailwinds, but there are storm clouds ahead. As I wrote in The Warning Signs Ahead For Chime, the startup’s customer base is heavily skewed towards low- to middle-income consumers. Nothing wrong with in and of itself, but it doesn’t bode well for an entry into lending. And a revenue strategy based on interchange fees is risky with the political and market forces putting downward pressure on interchange rates.

Honorable mentions: Stripe, TransferWise, Brex

 

Loser:  Robinhood

With 10 million accounts (200,000 of whom signed up for fractional share trading on the first day it was announced) and a $7.6 billion valuation, Robinhood must be on the winners list, right? Wrong.

The company had a couple of missteps this year:

  1. A botched attempt at launching a checking account (which, granted was actually late 2018). After announcing a checking account with market-leading interest rates and no fees, it turned out that the account wasn't insured by the SIPC. After being mocked by the fintecherati for being nothing more than a money market account, plans for the checking account were shelved.
  2. The”infinite money” glitch. A glitch in its system allowed users to trade stocks with excess borrowed funds, giving them access to what amounted to free money.

Paradoxically however, another reason why Robinhood is the big loser this year is due to its success.

See:  Corporate venture capital deals hit new record as banks invest in fintech competitors

In 2019, Robinhood successfully disrupted the economics of the industry with free trades—what Efi Pylarinou calls the “Robinhood Effect.” This effect now puts the startup at a potential disadvantage relative to the brokerage behemoths with their deep pockets.

Outlook: With a strong fan base among its customer base, Robinhood isn’t going away, but, ironically, may now struggle to find a profitable business model.

Loser:  Facebook

Nobody contributes to Big Tech’s bad reputation as much as Facebook does, with its tin ear towards data privacy issues and controversial ad policies. The company makes this list, however, because of its plan to launch its own cryptocurrency, Libra. Within weeks of Libra’s announcement, high profile partners like MasterCard, Visa, PayPal, eBay, and Stripe all pulled out of consortium.

Continue to the full article --> here

 


The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org

NCFA Financial Innovation MapNCFA Innovation Opportunity BriefsNCFA Fintech Insights
NCFA Fintech WhispererNCFA Fintech Fridays PodcastNCFA Weekly Newsletter

 

Are the fintech bridges working?

Raconteur | Christine Horton | Dec 15, 2019

fintech bridgesFollowing the launch of the UK’s first international partnerships aimed at kickstarting fintech growth, industry leaders question whether they have lived up to expectations

When the UK government announced a series of so-called fintech bridge agreements, it hoped to help firms do business in other international financial technology hubs. Three years later and fintech bridges have been established with Australia, China, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea.

The bilateral agreements, drafted by the Department for International Trade (DIT) and HM Treasury, focus on overcoming some of the barriers to entry faced by UK firms expanding into new markets and supporting international expansion in a post-brexit world.

They are not delivering value to British fintech firms and they aren’t encouraging sufficient levels of collaboration

According to the DIT’s State of the Nation report, published in April: “Each bridge enables firms licensed by the Financial Conduct Authority to be referred directly to regulators in bridge markets, easing the process of obtaining a licence and smoothing access to priority international markets.”

See:  Singapore Fintech Week: Data, technology and policy coordination – BIS Speech

Charlotte Crosswell, chief executive of Innovate Finance, an independent membership association which represents the UK’s global fintech community, says:

“Fintech is by nature an international sector, with companies that have global aspirations. Shining a spotlight on our ecosystems will allow respective investors to understand the opportunities and put these companies on their radar at an earlier stage of growth.”

But following the initial agreements, how successful have these partnerships been in the development of the UK fintech scene? There is a feeling among fintech players that while the bridges could be a great asset to UK companies, currently the potential isn’t being fully realised.

According to Australian senator Jane Hume, the country’s present agreement with the UK is probably underutilised, particularly in exporting Australian fintech to the UK.

Russ Shaw, founder of UK-based grassroots tech community Global Tech Advocates, agrees. “They are not delivering value to British fintech firms and they aren’t encouraging sufficient levels of collaboration and investment,” he says, adding the Singapore Fintech Bridge, which has brought several fintech entrepreneurs to London.

“But even that is only working in one direction. I suspect London’s fintech community isn’t even aware the other fintech bridges exist.”

Are there mutual benefits?

Eyal Nachum, executive at global business banking platform Brüc + Bond, which is opening offices in Singapore, agrees the pacts currently don’t go far enough and lack practical steps to ease market entry.

“Imagine if the UK-Singapore agreement involved a stimulus package for every business that invests, with tax benefits for companies purchasing local services, beneficial terms for direct investment, deeper regulatory alignment, licence passporting and maybe even some regulatory lenience. Measures like this could really drive bi-directional investment,” he says.

Some question whether the agreements offer reciprocal benefits or if international partners have more to gain as they look to reap the benefits of the UK's global position as a fintech leader.

See:  Fintech: UK Financial Conduct Authority Initiates Consultation on Global Financial Innovation, Partners with 12 International Regulators

Mr Nachum believes the benefits from these agreements are mutual, but they’re not symmetrical. “The UK is Europe’s fintech powerhouse. It’s hard to compete with this kind of force,” he says.

“Britain has a numerical advantage here, but Singapore has a speed advantage. The UK could overwhelm the local market in Singapore with direct investment but, playing catch-up, Singapore is much nimbler. Britain has many such opportunities and for Singapore this is the big one. Singapore has a lot to benefit both from British fintech and entry to the UK market; they have a lot of room to grow there.”

How countries benefit from the fintech bridges

So what effect, if any, have the agreements on international competition and, ultimately, the consumer?

While it’s still early days for the burgeoning fintech scene in Australia, 50 per cent of the 526 fintech firms operating there intend to expand their operations in overseas markets in the coming year, with the UK identified as the most popular market.

Similarly, South Korea is slowly easing its financial regulations and the bridge agreement plays into this. “The benefits to the UK lie largely in the way it will allow us to shape international regulatory standards to benefit UK commercial interests. The benefit to South Korea, which is much less advanced in this area, lies in how it allows the country to learn from UK best practices,” says Jonathan Cleave, managing director of Intralink’s South Korean operation, a UK-based business development consultancy that helps Western companies expand into East Asia.

See:  Executive Perspectives on Top Risks 2020

David Peacock, one of Intralink’s China fintech specialists, agrees that the market potential is huge.

“China is the world’s fastest-growing fintech market and the UK is Europe’s largest, so collaboration between the two makes sense,” he says.

Continue to the full article --> here

 


The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org

NCFA Financial Innovation MapNCFA Innovation Opportunity BriefsNCFA Fintech Insights
NCFA Fintech WhispererNCFA Fintech Fridays PodcastNCFA Weekly Newsletter

 

Navigating the Great Reset: Fintech in Canada in 2020

Remillard Consulting Group | Richard Remillard | Dec 11, 2019

2020 outlook financial services

At this time of year, predictions for 2020 are starting to rain down with as much frequency as occurs in Vancouver in the winter months. At the risk of waterlogging readers and, hopefully, with slightly more accuracy than weather forecasters in the era of climate change here are some fearless predictions for what might stay the same and what might change next year – and what to do about it.

The Big Picture: The Great Reset

We are decidedly in the midst of several upheavals in the relations between nations, between corporations and between individuals. Relations between the US and China, between the European Union and Great Britain, between Russia and Ukraine are shifting tectonically, with uncertain outcomes on all fronts.

Nevertheless, it looks like President Trump will survive impeachment by the Democrats and get re-elected. The US economy remains very strong, there have been no new messy foreign entanglements, stock markets are up, and there’s bipartisan consensus on getting tough with China. And, he can chalk up a USMCA in the win column.

Similarly in Canada, the governing Liberal party will still be in power in twelve months’ time, buttressed by the NDP and the BQ while the Conservative party will remain internally divided, whether Mr. Scheer survives or not.

See:  The 5 Debates That Will Shape Fintech In The 2020s

Financial Services: Turmoil

Canada’s largest financial institutions will have a difficult year ahead. They are shedding staff who could be scooped up by challenger institutions(fintechs), are facing higher regulator-imposed capital buffers and an increasing number and diversity of attacks on their business model – witness Schwab’s move to zero commission trading accounts and its impact on TD Ameritrade. Their capital markets revenues will continue to be under pressure, particularly as public listings (via IPOs) continue to be few and far between.

The outlook for public markets remains cloudy and so more and more capital will continue to flow into private capital markets which will continue to be ‘frothy’, thereby setting the stage for the ‘overheated’ phase of the business cycle – which could occur as early as  2021- 2022.

Specialty funds will continue to be assembled, be they in financial services or clean tech or in the social impact areas. In fact, fintechs that can reach out to disadvantaged groups in our society so that they are included in the financial world more than at present are likely to find traction from a variety of places, including the $755 mm Social Impact Fund that was announced at the end of last year by the federal Minister of Finance.

See:  ESG ratings are confounding. For CSOs, that’s good news

And, can anyone step up to replace the payday lenders?  For financial services, insurtech will likely begin to catch up to other fintech areas such as payments, remittances and wealth management. Canada has several fintechs that are approaching unicorn status and 2020 will see at least one of them reach that lofty valuation realm.

The giant tech firms – Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Alibaba,Tencent,etc. are likely to shy away from assaulting the Canadian financial services market directly in 2020 as it is too small for their ambitions and capital and the larger Canadian financial institutions remain too well-entrenched. This could change were Open Banking to occur in Canada in 2020 - but, this is very unlikely with a minority government, even one backed to all intents and purposes by left-leaning parties.

In addition, the Great Re-set continues with the various experiments into blockchain and crypto-currency. This interim period will likely last until 2022- 2023 by which time the weaker players in what has been a Wild West will evaporate as these new technologies enter their own consolidation phase – much as had happened in the automobile industry in 1914 versus 1944.

On the regulatory front, ‘plus ça change’, but there are rays of hope.

Canada’s financial services industry continues to be overregulated at all levels, even extending to the self-regulatory associations representing financial planners. On a positive note, securities regulators have announced their intention to proceed with the harmonization of crowdfunding exemptions in the Spring of 2020 – and there are even initial signs of Ontario moving forward in advance of that time-frame.

On the other hand, the Canadian Cooperative Markets Regulator has disappeared down the rabbit hole of bureaucracy never to be heard from again. All in all, growth opportunities for regtech firms will remain strongly positive.

See:  Three Big Things: The Most Important Forces Shaping the World

 

RCG 2020 outlook NCFA

 

What to do?

Capital raising for fintechs in Canada will continue to improve across all stages of company development in 2020 as dedicated funds and corporate strategics pile into this space. This may not still be the case in 2021, if the music stops. Better to grab the cash sooner, rather than later. As well, and despite the looming threats of trade barriers, the worldwide competition to disrupt traditional financial services business models means that there is great receptivity to Canadian fintechs abroad, particularly in Asia, given the strength of the Canada and Canadian financial services brands globally.

Retail investors, with a domestic market and yield focus, will continue to be receptive to financial products that can deliver CPI plus 4 – 6 percent returns and will look for ways to access private capital markets. These pressures may push regulators to revisit the definition of accredited investors, extend the concept of flow-through shares to broader swathes of the economy and permit pooled investment vehicles to increase their portfolio allocation to private equity and credit.

 

 

 


The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org

NCFA Financial Innovation MapNCFA Innovation Opportunity BriefsNCFA Fintech Insights
NCFA Fintech WhispererNCFA Fintech Fridays PodcastNCFA Weekly Newsletter

 

The UK Provides Legal Certainty For Smart Contracts And Cryptoassets In Its Landmark Legal Statement

Clyde & Co | Karen Boto | Nov 26, 2019

legal statement crypto and smart contractsEarlier this week the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT), part of the LawTech Delivery Panel of senior solicitors and barristers headed by Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Geoffrey Vos, published a landmark "Legal Statement" providing long awaited clarity as to how cryptocurrencies, distributed ledger technology (DLT) and smart contracts might be treated under English law.

The statement follows several rounds of public and private consultation, conducted to address the perceived legal uncertainties of these innovative technologies.

For the first time, the Panel has recognised that cryptoassets, including but not limited to, digital currencies, can be treated as property in principle, and that smart contracts are capable of satisfying the requirements of contracts in English law, making them enforceable by the Courts.

Highlights Below - What is a cryptoasset?

In summary, the Panel explains that a cryptoasset is defined by reference to the rules of the system within which it exists. It is typically represented by a pair of data parameters: one public (disclosed to all participants in the system) and one private. The public parameter contains encoded information about the asset, such as its ownership, value and transaction history. The private parameter (the private key) permits transfers or other dealings in the cryptoasset to be cryptographically authenticated by a digital signature. The private key should be kept secret to the holder.

See:  IIROC Announces Crypto-Asset Working Group Members

Dealings in cryptoassets are broadcast to the entire network and, once they are validated, they are added to the digital ledger. Most commonly the ledger is decentralised meaning no one person or entity has control over it. It is also immutable and cannot be changed. The most common type of ledger being used today is blockchain, although other models do exist. The rules governing the system are established by the informal consensus of the participants.

The novel features of cryptoassets are therefore broadly summarised as follows:

  • intangibility;
  • cryptographic authentication;
  • use of a distributed transaction ledger;
  • decentralisation; and
  • rule by consensus.

Can cryptoassets be characterised as property?

The Panel has considered what property is, as a matter of English law. As no general or comprehensive definition of property exists in statute or case law, the Legal Statement focusses upon the necessary characteristics of property as identified in a number of authorities. The Legal Statement provides that before a right or interest can be admitted into the category of property: "it must be definable, identifiable by third parties, capable in its nature of assumption by third parties, and have some degree of permanence or stability. Certainty, exclusivity, control and assignability have also been identified in case law as characteristic of property rights."

See:  Coinshares Reveals Top 10 Crypto Trends in 2019

Although whether English law would treat a particular cryptoasset as property will be fact sensitive and require a consideration of the nature of the asset concerned, and the rules of the system in which it exists, in general, the Panel concluded that "cryptoassets have all of the indicia of property."

The Panel also concluded that the "novel or distinctive features possessed by some crypto-assets" set out above, did not "disqualify them from being property.....nor are cryptoassets disqualified from being property as pure information, or because they might not be classifiable either as things in possession or as things in action."

Why does it really matter if a cryptoasset is property?

It is important to determine whether a cryptoasset is capable of being property because it means that it can be owned, which gives rise to important proprietary rights that can be recognised against the whole world. The owner of a thing is entitled to control and enjoy it to the exclusion of anyone else.  Proprietary rights are of particular importance when it comes to issues relating to succession on death, the vesting of property in personal bankruptcy, and the rights of liquidators in corporate insolvency, as well as in cases of fraud, theft or breach of trust.

So, what is the asset and who owns it and how is it transferred?

The Legal Statement confirms that whilst cryptoassets can be transferred either via an "on chain" transfer (with the ledger being updated in the usual way) or by way of an "off chain transfer" (another type of transfer outside the ledger which is vulnerable to a superseding on-chain transfer i.e. double spending by the transferee)) these will not constitute transfers in the legal sense. This is because of the way the distributed ledger technology operates: unlike a tangible asset, the same cryptoasset does not pass, unchanged, from one person to another. Instead, the transferor typically creates a new cryptoasset, with a new pair of data parameters: a new or modified public parameter and a new private key. The data representing the "old" cryptoasset persists in the network, but it ceases to have any value or function because the cryptoasset is treated by the consensus as spent or cancelled so that any further dealings in it would be rejected.

See:  Singapore Poised to Allow Crypto Derivatives on Approved Venues

What consequences does this classification have?

The Legal Statement concludes that it is possible to declare a trust over an ownership interest in a cryptoasset.

However, as the Panel found that a cryptoasset is not a physical thing, it cannot be subject to a possessory relationship, such as a bailment, a lien or a pledge. That said, the Panel expressly states that it could see no obstacle to the granting of other types of security such as charge or mortgage.

It is also clear that cryptoassets are not documents of title, documentary intangibles or negotiable instruments (though some form of negotiability may arise in future as a result of market custom), nor are they instruments under the Bills of Exchange Act.

Nevertheless, as the Panel was of the view that cryptoassets can be property at common law they were in no doubt that they may therefore also be property for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) which contains a very wide definition of property. Indeed, even if a cryptoasset was deemed not to be property at common law, it might still be deemed to be property under the IA 1986.

Continue to the full article --> here

Download the 64pg PDF Report:  Legal Statement on Cryptocurrencies and Smart Contracts -> Now

See more Fintech Reports and Research --> here

 


The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org

NCFA Financial Innovation MapNCFA Innovation Opportunity BriefsNCFA Fintech Insights
NCFA Fintech WhispererNCFA Fintech Fridays PodcastNCFA Weekly Newsletter

 

The 5 Debates That Will Shape Fintech In The 2020s

Forbes | Ron Shevlin | Dec 2, 2019

digital debates

OBSERVATIONS FROM THE FINTECH SNARK TANK

It’s that time of the year when banking industry pundits turn their thoughts to the top trends of the upcoming year. I’d like to take a different tact and posit the top debates the industry will wrestle with in the coming decade.

It’s that time of the year when banking industry pundits turn their thoughts to the top trends of the upcoming year. I’d like to take a different tact and posit the top debates the industry will wrestle with in the coming decade.

1) Branches: Dead or alive?

The branch debate is certainly not new. But it’s far from resolved, and will accelerate in the next few years. To date, the debate has centered on arguments from:

  1. Branchophiles who point to statistics that show that some high percentage of consumers still go to branches. For example, a CNN article reported that “banks should think twice before they shut down their next bank branch: Many customers, especially younger ones, still regularly rely on physical banks to make deposits, get paper money and even pay bills.”
  2. Branchophobes (like myself) who argue that while consumers might still want the “human touch,” that touch doesn’t necessarily have to come from someone sitting in a building called a bank branch. Why can’t banks use Facetime to facilitate interactions between people? Or why can’t they improve digital processes so consumers don’t need human intervention?

Over the next few years, this debate will focus less on consumer behaviors and preferences and more on the potentially disparate economic impact of branch closings.

Make no mistake: This debate will continue to be politically-infused with anti-bankers accusing banks of intentionally taking harmful actions against segments of the population.

See:  Google is getting into banking with the search giant set to offer checking accounts next year

The NCRC report, for example, points out that “the loss of branch banking access impedes small business lending, hampering capital availability to the primary engine of US economic growth.”

This ignores two facts: 1) The capital gap was created by banks’ increased aversion to risk, not branch closings, and 2) The gap has been closed by fintech startups—who don’t have branches.

Potential implication: Digital banks (and other types of fintech providers) will be required to have a physical presence in economically disadvantaged areas, which will impede their cost advantages.

Bottom line: This decade-old debate will continue into the 2020s, but will be the first of the big debates to be decided as technology-driven approaches to banking become even more dominant—and operationally better.

2) Data: Will privacy and security concerns curtail the use of data?

Picking up where the AI debate leaves off, the debate over the use of consumer data will rage on throughout the 2020s with no easy answers.

On one side of the debate are Dataphiles who argue that data can be used to personalize products, services, and advice that deliver benefits to consumers.

On the other side are Dataphobes like Karen Yeung, a University of Birmingham professor who writes, in Five Fears About Mass Predictive Personalization in an Age of Surveillance Capitalism, that:

"Personalization fosters the asymmetry of power between profilers and individuals. Because preferences and interests are not explicitly stated, personalization may not be in the interests of the customer. Predictive profiling systems intentionally seek to exploit the systematic tendency of individuals to rely on cognitive heuristics or mental short-cuts in making decisions.”

Giving consumers choices over who gets to use their data and how its used will prove to be fruitless. As a Brookings Institution research study reported:

“Maybe informed consent was practical two decades ago, but it is a fantasy today. In a constant stream of online interactions, it is unrealistic to read through privacy policies. And people simply don’t.”

It’s not just privacy policies that fall short—proposed “dashboards” to give consumers control over their data can’t come anywhere close to the level of complexity involved with the use of consumer data.

See: 

Enabling consumers to sell their data isn’t a panacea. Proponents argue that “if consumers could sell their data, they would have the ability to share the data from any transaction with multiple organizations—to their own benefit and that of society as a whole.”

Unfortunately, this perspective ignores the fact that most consumers can’t foresee the way the data they sell could be used. According to the Brookings Institution, “Consumers are unlikely to strike a good deal for their data since they lack information about its value, and the data collectors will be the market makers.”

Bottom line: The debate over the use of data will become highly complex in the 2020s. Big Tech firms are already in the spotlight for their use of data—that light will spread to the companies who partner with them.

3) China or the West: Which fintech model will prevail?

SWIFT reports:

“China and the West are at different stages of fintech maturity. China’s fintech success derives not just from a technological advantage and unprecedented innovation, but also from integrating finance and real-life needs.”

The integration of “finance and real-life needs” has produced “super apps” like WeChat, which have yet to catch on in the US. The big question is: Will they?

The answer will likely be determined by how the other debates outlined in this article play out. Unknowns in this debate include:

  • Will the US continue to move towards socialistic economic approaches that help favor a super app environment?
  • Will the US develop and adopt a national AI policy to become more competitive (and, in fact, does it even need to)?
  • Will the US regulatory environment (e.g., antitrust laws) change to favor a super app approach?
  • Could a Chinese-like Social Credit System take hold in the US?

See: 

The virtue of a social credit system is a debate unto itself that could dictate the fintech implications. A study titled A Dystopian Future? The Rise of Social Credit Systems presents two sides of the argument:

  • One side argues that “a Social Credit System can’t be rightfully designated as civic virtues because: (1) a score constitutes an aim external to any ‘virtuous action’, and (2) the resulting activity tends to conformity rather than to distinction in the public sphere.”
  • The other side sees it as a “promising way to enhance distributive justice and an alternative for price mechanisms in market economies.”

The stakes of this debate transcends the success or failure of individual companies. As Richard Turrin writes:

“For the first time, fintech is being used by countries to compete with one another on a global stage. Fintech is being deployed as a tool for governments to project their power abroad, and potentially disrupt established systems.”

Bottom line: This is the mother of all debates among the five listed here. This debate goes to the heart of the American economic system and the zeitgeist of the American psyche.

Continue to the full article --> here

 

 


The National Crowdfunding & Fintech Association (NCFA Canada) is a financial innovation ecosystem that provides education, market intelligence, industry stewardship, networking and funding opportunities and services to thousands of community members and works closely with industry, government, partners and affiliates to create a vibrant and innovative fintech and funding industry in Canada. Decentralized and distributed, NCFA is engaged with global stakeholders and helps incubate projects and investment in fintech, alternative finance, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer finance, payments, digital assets and tokens, blockchain, cryptocurrency, regtech, and insurtech sectors. Join Canada's Fintech & Funding Community today FREE! Or become a contributing member and get perks. For more information, please visit: www.ncfacanada.org

NCFA Financial Innovation MapNCFA Innovation Opportunity BriefsNCFA Fintech Insights
NCFA Fintech WhispererNCFA Fintech Fridays PodcastNCFA Weekly Newsletter