create crypto add

 Please use the crypto sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.

Following the spectacular failure of crypto exchange FTX International, crypto there have been renewed calls for crypto legislation (including from the industry itself). But many of the proposals so far would be worse than the status quo — at least for the general public. Crypto firms such as FTX were involved in drafting many of the mooted US bills. The exchange’s implosion should not become a pretext for rushing these into law. It is unfortunately true that many of FTX’s users have suffered mightily. The good news, though, is that the broader economy hasn’t suffered as a result of its failure (the economic fallout from crypto flops such as Terra/Luna and Celsius this year was similarly limited). Since crypto isn’t integrated with the traditional financial system, the pain has not spread to those who chose not to invest in crypto in the first place. US banking regulators in particular have stood firm against the merging of crypto with traditional finance. Legislation that legitimises crypto could very well break this down, in which case future crypto failures will be more likely to disrupt broader economic growth. Government officials may even feel compelled to step in with bailouts when the next crypto firm implodes. Policymakers should beware legislation that positions crypto as yet another financial market that is “too big to fail”. There is also a danger that crypto legislation may be misinterpreted as a government “seal of approval”, encouraging sceptics to invest their money. This is particularly a risk of the proposed stablecoin legislation. Right now, the primary use case for stablecoins is speculating in decentralised finance, not — as is often claimed by industry proponents — for making payments. Stablecoins are not a great way to make payments for a number of reasons, but the proposed bills would all extend some form of government safety net to them. If that encourages people to start using them for payments, then it potentially puts governments and central banks on the hook in the event of future stablecoin runs. Legitimisation is not the only Trojan horse embedded in these crypto bills. Any legislation that creates a bespoke crypto regulatory framework will create opportunities for traditional financial assets to migrate into the new regime and so sidestep existing financial regulation. This problem is unavoidable because it’s impossible to define “crypto asset” (or “digital asset” or “digital commodity”) in a way that excludes traditional financial assets.