The UK aspires to lead the world in digital asset innovation. However, current regulatory approaches from the government and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) may inadvertently stifle the very industry they aim to foster. While the ambition is clear, the practical implementation appears inconsistent.
The proposed Statutory Instrument (SI) concerning crypto assets marks a significant step. It signals a shift away from a reactive, enforcement-focused approach, which has been criticized in the U.S. The UK aims to proactively establish a structured, rules-based framework. This is commendable, but good intentions need to be paired with effective design and a streamlined rollout.
A key concern is retail investor access. The FCA recently approved crypto exchange-traded notes (ETNs) for UK investors, a cautiously optimistic move towards mainstream adoption. However, it continues to block crypto exchange-traded funds (ETFs), even though the U.S., Canada, and parts of Europe have widely accepted them. This distinction is difficult to justify. If ETNs are deemed acceptable for retail investors, then why not ETFs, which generally offer similar exposure with enhanced transparency and liquidity? This inconsistency suggests institutional hesitancy rather than a risk-based regulatory stance, creating uncertainty about the UK’s true priorities.
Decentralized finance (DeFi) is also a crucial area. DeFi has evolved beyond a niche experiment, becoming a rapidly growing part of the crypto economy, managing billions without centralized control. The UK, however, has not clearly defined the boundary between DeFi and traditional, regulated centralized finance (CeFi). This lack of clarity leaves businesses unsure whether they are subject to FCA oversight, which discourages investment and hiring. Startups hesitate to develop, investors are wary of allocating capital, and talent moves to jurisdictions with more defined, even if strict, regulations.
The compliance burden further complicates matters. For example, the proposed automated tax reporting to HMRC, while intended to combat evasion, clashes with crypto’s emphasis on privacy and user control. Demanding detailed, near-real-time reporting from exchanges could drive privacy-conscious users to less transparent platforms, ironically increasing systemic risk. Moreover, the costs will disproportionately affect smaller players. Large, established companies can afford the necessary teams and systems, while London-based DeFi projects or early-stage wallet providers may find the overhead prohibitive. Regulations should level the playing field, not solidify the dominance of major corporations.
To its credit, the FCA is consulting widely and aiming to avoid overly restrictive measures. The emphasis on operational resilience and anti-financial-crime controls is sensible. Crypto markets remain vulnerable to security breaches, scams, and manipulation. Applying basic safeguards from traditional finance can help professionalize an industry often characterized as a “Wild West.”
However, professionalism should not equate to stifling innovation. A critical element missing from the current approach is proportionality. Not all firms pose the same level of risk. A non-custodial wallet developer should not be subject to the same capital and control requirements as a centralized exchange managing billions of dollars in customer funds. The proposed SI appears to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach, potentially pushing developers underground or abroad.
UK ecosystem founders are cautiously optimistic, but their optimism is conditional. They desire clear, predictable rules tailored to the specific nature of open-source software, smart contracts, and programmable finance. Their main concern is a regulatory system that appears progressive in speeches and documents but, in practice, acts as a bureaucratic barrier, protecting traditional finance while merely pretending to embrace disruption.
The global competition is already underway. The U.S., after initial stumbles, has regained ground by approving spot Bitcoin ETFs. The EU’s MiCA, despite its complexity, offers a comprehensive rulebook that businesses can use for planning. Singapore and Switzerland, traditionally conservative, have created clear pathways for digital asset businesses. If the UK continues to move cautiously, opening some doors while simultaneously closing others, it risks becoming a mere observer rather than a leader.
The focus needs to shift from procedural formalities to decisive action. The SI should be finalized with practical definitions for DeFi. The treatment of listed crypto products should be rationalized, eliminating the arbitrary split between ETFs and ETNs. Risk-based obligations should be tiered so that small, non-custodial developers are not treated like systemically important custodians. The FCA’s Roadmap should be used to quickly publish guidance in ambiguous areas, rather than waiting for ideal legislation to catch up with an imperfect reality.
Regulations that disregard the realities of the crypto industry are destined to fail, regardless of how well-intentioned they may be.
The UK possesses advantages that other nations envy: deep financial expertise, trustworthy legal systems, and a tech-savvy population ready to engage in the digital economy. However, these advantages should not be taken for granted. If the government and the FCA truly aspire to create a crypto hub, they must transition from viewing regulations as barriers to seeing them as infrastructure – carefully constructed, collaboratively developed, and focused on the future of finance, not its past. Otherwise, the next wave of financial innovation will occur elsewhere.
If you’re interested in writing for International Policy Digest – please send us an email via submissions@intpolicydigest.org