The underlying problem is a combination of risky lending, poor risk management and opaque finances. So when crypto prices crashed, likely as a result of fears of rising inflation and the possibility of a recession, some crypto companies didn’t have the capital to cushion the blow. The result has been the disappearance of billions of dollars in value, often with ordinary investors paying the price.
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin are supposed to be independent of any government. But we have now reached the point where stronger government regulation of the crypto industry is both necessary and inevitable. At the same time, the industry can’t just wait for the government to act. Crypto companies must also try to better police themselves.
With stronger regulation, the Celsius situation might have played out differently. Its model was essentially to take user deposits and use them for risky and illiquid investments, and users enjoyed high interest rates in return. Celsius was essentially acting as a bank, without the regulatory protections or FDIC insurance.
“Prudential regulation, such as those applying to banks, would almost certainly have prevented many of the problems in our sector,” Caitlin Long, CEO of depository institution Custodia Bank, said in an interview. “Prudential capital requirements, investment restrictions, background checks on all executives, annual supervisory exams — all those things don’t apply to the crypto industry. They do apply to banks though.”
This kind of regulatory overhaul isn’t likely to come anytime soon, however. That’s why venture capitalists and ordinary investors alike should push companies for greater transparency and accountability, demanding audits and disclosures about lending practices and capital reserves. When crypto prices were sky-high, few took a hard look at these companies’ business practices.
A clearer and more consistent regulatory framework around what companies can and can’t do, as well as which federal agency regulates which digital assets, could bring greater protections for ordinary investors.
Hester Peirce, a commissioner at the SEC, has long argued for more regulatory clarity. “If we decided that crypto lending is an area that we can implicate the securities laws, we could have sat down a long time ago and hammered out some rules around that that made sense,” she said in an interview, speaking in her personal capacity.
Instead, what you often get is regulation by enforcement, where companies are punished after the fact. One of the problems with these one-off enforcement actions is that they don’t necessarily cover the whole crypto landscape.
“Not only is that not particularly fair, because sometimes enforcement actions come late, and sometimes it’s a question of ‘why did you go after this project instead of this project,’ but also because it allows people who are really doing bad things to get lost in the shuffle,” Peirce said.
These proposals are all steps in the right direction for starting a serious conversation about crypto regulation. But given other priorities in Washington, it’s unclear when new regulations would take effect or what they will look like in their final form.
Smart regulation is necessary, but it won’t be enough. Crypto innovation moves faster than any government’s attempt to rein it in. Political negotiations can also delay the passage of bills. Furthermore, with every new crisis, cryptocurrency loses more credibility. This could lead regulators to crack down harder than they would have otherwise, stifling innovation in a still-evolving field. An industry that prides itself on decentralization shouldn’t rely on the government to save it from itself.
Read More: Opinion: Crypto can’t rely on the government to save it from itself