Connect with us

Blockchain

Ten Key Takeaways from the NDAA’s AML Reforms

On January 1, 2021, the United States enacted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA) after the US House of Representatives and US Senate voted to override a presidential veto of the law. Included within the NDAA are a significant number of provisions related to anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing… Continue Reading

Avatar

Published

on

On January 1, 2021, the United States enacted the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA) after the US House of Representatives and US Senate voted to override a presidential veto of the law. Included within the NDAA are a significant number of provisions related to anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT), including provisions reforming the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), a collection of statutes underpinning most of the current AML regulatory framework. These amendments, many of which have been under consideration for years, represent the most substantial AML-related reforms enacted since at least the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. Below, we outline ten of the most significant AML provisions contained in the NDAA. Given the breadth of the reforms, it is particularly important for US “financial institutions” – including money services businesses (MSBs) and other non-traditional financial institutions subject to the BSA – to carefully review the Act to understand how their compliance obligations may have changed or may change in the future as the Act is implemented via regulation.

  1. Amendments to BSA to Explicitly Cover Digital Assets

The NDAA includes several changes to make clear that cryptocurrency and other digital assets are within the scope of the regulatory requirements of the BSA. For example, the NDAA amends the BSA in several provisions to clarify that the BSA also may apply to “value that substitutes for currency.” For example, Section 6201(d) of the NDAA amends 31 USC § 5312 to include “value that substitutes for currency” in the definitions of a financial agency, currency exchanger, and licensed sender of money, types of US financial institutions subject to the BSA’s AML obligations. It also amends the definition of “monetary instrument” to include “value that substitutes for any monetary instrument.” Section 6102(a)(3) of the NDAA, expressing the sense of Congress, explains that “although the use and trading of virtual currencies are legal practices, some terrorists and criminals, including transnational criminal organizations, seek to exploit vulnerabilities in the global financial system and increasingly rely on substitutes for currency, including emerging payment methods (such as virtual currencies), to move illicit funds.”

Some of this reflects useful codification of existing guidance from the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). For example, FinCEN has long taken the position that “administrators” and “exchangers” of so-called “convertible virtual currency” are subject to FinCEN’s BSA regulations, and, in 2011, the agency amended the regulatory definition of “money transmission” to include the transmission of “other value that substitutes for currency.” 31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(5)(i)(A). (Money transmitters are a type of MSB subject to FinCEN regulation). While FinCEN has held this position for several years, industry has raised questions regarding the scope of FinCEN’s statutory authority with respect to digital assets. The amendments contained in the NDAA appear intended, at least in part, to resolve any doubts regarding Congress’s delegation of authority to regulate this space under the BSA.

  1. Significant Expansion of Whistleblower Provisions

Section 6314 of the NDAA updates and expands whistleblower rewards and protections contained in the BSA. Specifically, under the amended provisions, whistleblowers can receive up to 30% of an assessed monetary penalty where the penalty totals more than $1 million. The precise amount of the award is dependent on a variety of factors outlined in Section 6314, including, among others, the significance and helpfulness of the provided information. The NDAA also enshrines a number of protections against retaliation for whistleblowers.

While whistleblowers could receive monetary awards under the prior version of the BSA, such awards were generally capped at $150,000 and were discretionary in nature. The increased monetary incentive could lead to an uptick in whistleblower activity regarding US financial institutions AML compliance programs, similar to the activity seen under regimes such as the Securities and Exchange Commission’s whistleblower program, created in 2010. That development led to a significant increase in tips to the SEC and generated a number of substantial monetary rewards for whistleblowers. See, e.g., U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Press Release, SEC Whistleblower Program Ends Record-Setting Fiscal Year With Four Additional Awards (Sep. 30, 2020).

  1. Requirement for Compliance Personnel to be Located in the United States

Section 6101 of the NDAA amends the BSA (31 USC 5318) to require persons responsible for establishing, maintaining, and implementing a US financial institution’s AML compliance program to be “persons in the United States who are accessible to, and subject to oversight and supervision by, the Secretary of the Treasury and the appropriate Federal functional regulator.” It is unclear if this means that every person providing compliance-related services to a regulated entity must be located in the United States or only those with more senior positions, such as the required compliance officer. It is also unclear if this refers only to employees of a regulated US financial institution or extends to AML compliance contractors, vendors, and other service providers as well.

This provision is likely to be particularly significant for foreign-located MSBs and US branches or agencies of foreign-organized banks, who can be subject to FinCEN regulation even if their business occurs only in part within the United States. These entities may have additional regulatory compliance obligations in other jurisdictions, making it difficult to relocate significant portions of their compliance teams to the United States. Consequently, this section may warrant further rulemaking and guidance from FinCEN about the scope of this requirement.

  1. Requirement to Disclose Beneficial Ownership Information

The NDAA also includes the Corporate Transparency Act of 2020, which seeks to address one of the longtime AML vulnerabilities in the US legal system – the use of US domiciled shell companies, and similar entities, to conceal the ownership or source of property and monetary instruments. The Corporate Transparency Act of 2020 requires: (1) certain companies known as “reporting companies” to report to FinCEN information regarding their beneficial owners (BOs); and (2) newly formed companies to provide such information to FinCEN at the time of formation and to update FinCEN if there is a subsequent change in the reported BO information. This provision is not immediately effective, but FinCEN is required to publish rules in one year regarding the format for reporting companies to provide required BO information for newly formed and currently existing entities. Reporting companies will have two years to comply with the new requirements.

The information will be maintained by FinCEN in a non-public database. The decision to use a non-public database differs from the approach taken in other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom where certain beneficial ownership information is publicly available through the Companies House database. While the database is nonpublic in nature, FinCEN may, with a reporting company’s consent, disclose beneficial ownership information to a financial institution for purposes of compliance with that institution’s Customer Due Diligence requirements. Because unauthorized disclosure of such information is penalized under the Act, financial institutions that receive such information will need to implement safeguards with respect to the handling and use of such information.

The Corporate Transparency Act defines a beneficial owner to include an individual who owns, directly or indirectly, a 25% or greater equity interest in the company or who exercises “substantial control” over the company. The term “substantial control” is not defined in the Act. A number of companies and other entities are exempt from the reporting requirements, including publicly traded companies; private companies meeting certain requirements with respect to number of employees, revenue, and physical presence in the United States; and certain trusts. Many types of financial institutions already subject to FinCEN regulation are also exempt from the requirements.

  1. Enhanced Penalties for BSA Violations

The NDAA contains a number of provisions enhancing the applicable penalties for BSA violations. Section 6309 of the NDAA imposes penalties on repeat violators of “3 times the profit gained or loss avoided” by the repeat violator “if practicable to calculate” or, if not practicable, “2 times the maximum penalty with the respect to the violation.” Section 6310 prohibits persons found to have engaged in an “egregious violation” from serving on the board of a US financial institution for a period of 10 years. Section 6312 authorizes the return of profits and bonuses (i.e., disgorgement) for any person convicted of violating the BSA.

Section 6313 also adds new prohibitions, and corresponding penalties, for concealing the ownership or control of assets in certain monetary transactions involving “a senior foreign political figure, or any immediate family member or close associate of a senior foreign political figure” and concealing the source of funds in certain monetary transactions involving parties found to be a “primary money laundering concern” under an existing BSA provision, 31 USC 5318A.

  1. Authorization to Obtain Foreign Bank Records from Banks with US Correspondent Accounts

Section 6308 of the NDAA significantly expands the authority of the US Departments of Justice and Treasury to obtain AML-related information from foreign banks by authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury or Attorney General to issue a subpoena to any foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account in the United States and request “any records relating to the correspondent account or any account at the foreign bank, including records maintained outside of the United States” (emphasis added). Under the prior version of the BSA, such requests had to be limited to “records related to such correspondent account.”

Such a demand can be issued in furtherance of (1) any investigation of a violation of a criminal law of the United States; (2) any investigation of a violation of the BSA; (3) a civil forfeiture action; or (4) an investigation pursuant to Section 5318A (“Special measures for jurisdictions, financial institutions, international transactions, or types of accounts of primary money laundering concern”).

While a foreign bank may petition a federal district court to modify or quash the subpoena, the provision makes clear that “an assertion that compliance with a subpoena would conflict with a provision of foreign secrecy or confidentiality cannot be the sole basis for quashing or modifying the subpoena.” Section 6308 also requires covered financial institutions to terminate any correspondent relationship with a foreign bank within 10 business days upon notice that the Secretary of the Treasury or Attorney General has determined a foreign bank has failed to comply with a subpoena. Covered financial institutions closing correspondent accounts pursuant to Section 6308 are protected from liability related to the termination in any court or arbitral proceeding. Failure to comply can lead to civil and criminal penalties against US and foreign financial institutions, including asset forfeiture.

  1. Safe Harbor for Compliance with Keep Open Directives

Section 6306 of the NDAA provides safe harbor for a financial institution that complies with a written request from federal law enforcement to keep open a “customer account” or “customer transaction.” Such requests are typically sent by law enforcement who worry that account closure will tip off an illicit actor that their activity is under investigation. However, such requests can place industry in a difficult position by asking a financial institution to keep open an account when the institution has knowledge or suspects that an account may be used for illicit purposes. The safe harbor will help ameliorate these concerns provided the account or transaction is kept open consistent with the “parameters and timing of the request,” as required under the Act.

  1. Extension of BSA to Dealers in Antiquities

Section 6110 of the NDAA amends the BSA’s definition of “financial institution” to include “a person engaged in the trade of antiquities, including an advisor, consultant, or any other person who engages as a business in the solicitation or the sale of antiquities, subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary.”

The provision directs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue proposed rules outlining the AML requirements of antiquities dealers under the BSA within a year from enactment. Section 6110 also directs the Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with other federal agencies, to study the “facilitation of money laundering and terror finance through the trade in works of art” and issue a report to Congress within one year, including recommendations for regulation of the industry.

  1. Potential Creation of FinCEN No Action Process

Section 6305 of the NDAA directs FinCEN to assess “whether to establish a process for the issuance of no action letters … in response to inquiries from persons concerning the application of” the BSA or other AML/CFT laws and regulations. The Act further directs the Secretary of the Treasury to propose rulemakings implementing the findings and determinations in the no action assessment “if appropriate” within 180 days of enactment.

FinCEN currently issues “administrative rulings” to persons requesting an opinion regarding a specific issue within FinCEN’s authority. Such rulings can be issued privately or publicly (generally in a deidentified manner). However, there is currently no formal process by which FinCEN reviews such letters nor is there a specific timetable in which FinCEN is required to respond, meaning it can often take many months or longer to receive a reply.

Depending on the details of any final rule implementing a no action request process, it may provide greater certainty to entities considering approaching FinCEN. This is particularly true for FinTech and blockchain companies that are often engaged in novel business models that may not neatly fit within FinCEN’s existing regulations and guidance.

  1. Pilot Program on Sharing SARs with Foreign Affiliates

Section 6212 of the NDAA creates a pilot program for sharing suspicious activity reports (SARs) and certain related information with foreign branches, subsidiaries, and affiliates of certain regulated financial institutions. The Act directs the Secretary of the Treasury to issue rules for such a pilot program within one year of enactment.

The pilot program will specifically exclude certain jurisdictions, including China, Russia, and other jurisdictions determined to be state sponsors of terrorism, subject to US sanctions, or that the Secretary believes “cannot reasonably protect the security and confidentiality” of shared information.

At present, FinCEN has issued guidance permitting certain financial institutions to share SARs and SAR information with a foreign “head office” or “controlling company.” The pilot program will seemingly be more permissive than that existing guidance, which may help international financial institutions have a more streamlined and integrated global AML compliance function.

Source: https://www.steptoeblockchainblog.com/2021/01/ten-key-takeaways-from-the-ndaas-aml-reforms/

Blockchain

Tech firm unveils Australian first initiative to help charities access blockchain funding

Avatar

Published

on

In an Australian first, social enterprise Little Phil is partnering with a cryptocurrency provider to provide local charities access to alternative and sustainable fundraising streams.

To deliver this groundbreaking initiative it is working with Netherlands-headquartered firm Legends of Crypto (LOC) – a non-fungible token trading card game – to implement a trial that will see 10% of all sales go towards directly funding selected causes on the Little Phil platform.

Non-fungible tokens, or NFTs, are a special class of digital assets that cannot be exchanged with one another for equal value, or broken down into smaller bits, that often operate as a type of collectors’ item and cannot be duplicated. These represent the next phase in the application of cryptocurrency technology with LOC itself receiving significant support from leading industry heavyweights such as the CEO of bitcoin.com.

This initiative is designed to provide not-for-profits access to alternative streams of fundraising outside of traditional avenues and aid them in diversifying their revenue raising activities.

According to Little Phil Co-founder and CEO, Josh Murchie this trial is designed to test the efficacy of alternative funding streams as it seeks to empower charities to diversify how they raise revenue for their causes.

“This is a really exciting trial for Little Phil and Legends of Crypto as we seek to test this groundbreaking fundraising trial,” said Mr Murchie.

“Although awareness among the public about crypto currency is generally around Bitcoin and maybe Ethereum, the reality is that this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the technology explosion in this space. What we are seeking to do here is to trial the efficacy of utilising NFT’s to create a recurring revenue stream for charities and see if we can free them up from continually asking for donors to donate.”

Founded in 2017, Little Phil is a total giving ecosystem that connects donors, businesses, and brands more directly with charities and beneficiaries through its Blockchain inspired Fintech technology platform that allows users to select a cause that they care about and directly give to that specific initiative – allowing them to track their impact in real-time.

Its technology provides donors full transparency around where their donations go, while providing charities the ability to showcase the difference every dollar makes as it provides not-for-profits the ability to give updates on the impact each gift has – ensuring transparent giving.

Some of its clients and partners include Greenpeace, mental health charity LIVIN, and the Currumbin Wildlife Sanctuary located on the Gold Coast.

That is why it is trialing the partnership within LOC’s marketplace that sees users buy and sell uniquely designed NFTs only available via its marketplace – as it adheres to this philosophy of directly allowing donors to connect via the causes they care about.

In this instance the 10 per cent of the funds raised will go directly towards cancer survivors requiring funding for their treatment.

For Josh Murchie, this initiative is all about ensuring that Little Phil is providing the charity sector access to funding and technology that might otherwise not be available to them.

“Last year we ran a national survey – the State of COVID report into Australia’s not-for-profit sector – that unearthed some of the biggest issues facing the industry as a result not just of the pandemic but broader micro and macro trends,” Mr Murchie said.

“One of the critical elements we unearthed from the data is that the sector is beset by two key issues, the giving behavior of Gen Z’s and millennials, along with digital transformation and technology usage. This trial, allows us to test the ability of charities to raise funds using the latest digital currency technology to hopefully better engage these demographic cohorts by creating greater connectivity with causes they care about using these new financial assets.”

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://australianfintech.com.au/tech-firm-unveils-australian-first-initiative-to-help-charities-access-blockchain-funding/

Continue Reading

Blockchain

COPA verklagt Craig Wright wegen Bitcoin-Copyright

Avatar

Published

on

Die gemeinnützige COPA-Organisation hat eine Klage gegen Craig Wright eingereicht und fordert von dem Gericht eine einstweilige Verfügung sowie eine Bestätigung, dass er keine Copyright-Ansprüche auf das Bitcoin-Whitepaper hat.

Die gemeinnützige Krypto-Organisation Cryptocurrency COPA (Cryptocurrency Open Patent Alliance) hat eine Klage gegen Craig Wright wegen seines Copyright-Anspruchs bzgl. des Bitcoin-Whitepapers eingereicht.

Die Organisation twitterte am 12. April 2021, dass sie ein Gerichtsverfahren bei dem britischen High Court of Justice einreichen wird, um „festzustellen, dass Mr. Craig Wright nicht das Bitcoin White Paper-Copyright besitzt“.

„Heute hat die COPA eine Klage eingeleitet, bei der der UK High Court aufgefordert wird, zu erklären, dass Mr. Craig Wright nicht das Urheberrecht am Bitcoin Whitepaper besitzt. Wir stehen auf der Seite der Bitcoin-Entwickler-Community und den vielen anderen, die bedroht wurden, weil sie das Whitepaper veröffentlicht haben.“

Die COPA fordert unter anderem, dass Wright nicht als Autor des Bitcoin White Papers anerkannt wird. Außerdem bittet sie um eine einstweilige Verfügung, die Wright davon abhält, zu behaupten, er sei der Autor des Whitepapers.

Wer ist die COPA?

Die COPA ist eine Non-Profit-Organisation, die laut eigene Angaben „versucht, Patente und Rechtsstreitigkeiten, die ein Hindernis für das Wachstum der Kryptowährungen sind, zu beseitigen“. Sie wurde von dem Unternehmen Square, das von Jack Dorsey gegründet wurde, ins Leben gerufen.

Die Organisation möchte den unethischen Missbrauch von Rechtswegen, mit dem teilweise Konkurrenten aus dem Weg geräumt werden sollen oder bei dem ausschließlich eigennützige Interessen vertreten werden, verhindern. In der Kryptobranche war dies leider schon öfters der Fall.

Wrights Anwälte behaupteten im Januar 2021, dass er einfach nur sein Copyright durchsetzen wolle. Außerdem schickten sie angeblich eine Nachricht an Square, in der sie erklärten, dass sie klagen würden, wenn Square das Whitepaper nicht von ihrer Seite entfernen würde. Wrights Anwälte bedrohten auch Bitcoin.org und Bitcoincore.org mit ähnlichen Nachrichten.

Ist Craig Wright Satoshi Nakamoto?

Wright ist derzeit in mehrere Rechtsstreitigkeiten verwickelt. Die meisten davon startete er selbst. Als Grundlage benutzte er seine Behauptung, dass er der Schöpfer von Bitcoin ist. In dem aufsehenerregendsten dieser Fälle wurde er aufgefordert, die Eigentumsrechte an den privaten Schlüsseln zu Satoshis Einlagen zu beweisen.

Viele Mitglieder der Krypto-Community zweifeln Wrights Behauptungen an. Die Klage der COPA Klage könnten dem Ganzen ein Ende bereiten.

Wird Wright irgendwann aufhören?

Wright behauptet schon seit langem, dass er der Schöpfer von Bitcoin ist. Er sagte sogar, dass er die private Keys zu Satoshis geheimen Bitcoin Wallets besitzt. Diese Behauptung handelte ihm allerdings einige Probleme ein.

Kurz nachdem er diese Behauptung als Grundlage für einen Rechtsstreit benutzt hat, wurde eine Text-Nachricht veröffentlicht, in der Wright als Betrüger bezeichnet wurde. Die Text-Nachricht wurde mit einer der Bitcoin Adressen signiert, die mit dem Rechtsstreit zu tun hatten.

Wright hat auch mehrere andere Ansprüche erhoben bzw. Rechtsverfahren eingeleitet und sogar eine Klage gegen Bitcoin-Entwickler eingereicht. Die Imageschäden, die Wraight wegen seiner dubiosen Rechtsstreitigkeiten erlitten hat, stärken nicht gerade seine Position vor den Gerichten. Trotzdem hält Wright an seiner Behauptung fest

Faketoshi: Doktorarbeit von Craig Wright ein Plagiat?

Übersetzt von Maximilian M.

Haftungsausschluss

Alle auf unserer Website enthaltenen Informationen werden nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen recherchiert. Die journalistischen Beiträge dienen nur allgemeinen Informationszwecken. Jede Handlung, die der Leser aufgrund der auf unserer Website gefundenen Informationen vornimmt, geschieht ausschließlich auf eigenes Risiko.

Share Article

Rahul Nambiampurath is an India-based Digital Marketer who got attracted to Bitcoin and the blockchain in 2014. Ever since, he’s been an active member of the community. He has a Masters degree in Finance. <a href=”mailto:editorinchief@beincrypto.com”>Email me!</a>

MEHR ÜBER DEN AUTOR

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://de.beincrypto.com/copa-klagt-craig-wright-bitcoin-copyright/

Continue Reading

Blockchain

Guide to Gambling with Ethereum Now and in the Future

Avatar

Published

on

In recent years, online gambling with the use of cryptocurrency has been increasing in popularity. One of the widely recognized cryptocurrencies in online gambling is Ethereum. However, despite its abrupt rise in popularity, many interested people still have little or no knowledge at all regarding how to gamble online using this crypto.

 Ethereum Defined

 Ethereum is a decentralized and blockchain-based technology. Several machines amounting to millions support this platform which is used to form a blockchain of several transactions that are all secured since they are all stored in every machine at once.

 Similar to Bitcoin, which is another popular cryptocurrency, the blockchain of Ethereum is a ledger that is viewed publicly and contains every transaction of the currency it supports. The currency for Ethereum is called Ether. 

 Ethereum was launched in the year 2015. During the years since its launch, Ethereum has significantly grown in value and size. Just like other cryptocurrencies today, it is used for payments online and has a peer-to-peer format presentation.

 Ether and other cryptocurrencies have many similarities. For one, a lot of cryptocurrencies can be used in several online casinos. To date, there are already several sites that accept Ether, and we can expect this to grow in number in the following years. 

 Despite the many similarities of Ether and other cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ether has one major advantage which is the speed at which it processes its transactions. When you do a transaction using Bitcoin, the whole process usually takes 10 minutes more or less. Meanwhile, doing a transaction in Ethereum can be as fast as a mere 15 seconds.

 Gambling with Ethereum

 Now that we have a background on what Ethereum is, here’s how you can go and buy Ethereum so that you can use it for gambling in online casinos. 

  1. Register for a digital wallet

 A digital wallet or a cryptocurrency wallet is the one that holds all your cryptocurrencies. To buy Ether, you must first register or acquire a crypto wallet. There are many different types of digital wallets available today. Some of the most reliable and trusted are Coinbase, Bittrex, Gemini, Kraken, CoinMama, and many others. 

 A simple search for their official sites should do the trick. Visit their official sites and open an account. You may need to fill out a few personal information for this step. Generally, most digital wallets have a verification process through a phone call. Once you have successfully opened your digital wallet, you can then proceed to buy Ether. 

  1. Input your financial details

 Here is how digital wallets work. First, you need to put traditional money into it which may be done through the use of a credit card or a bank account. Take note that there may be some limitations to the method that you choose. After that, you will then need to enter your FIAT information. What this does is that allows you to move your cryptocurrency to and from your normal bank account.

  1. Buy Ether

 Your wallet will then allow you to buy many different cryptocurrencies available today. All you have to do is search for Ether and purchase your desired amount. Once the transaction is over, you should be able to see your Ether balance in your digital wallet.

  1. Start gambling

 Now that you have an Ethereum balance, you can now start gambling. There are many online casinos nowadays that accept Ether. If you are looking for a reliable and trusted Ethereum casino, you can visit Bitcoinbuster for a list of several online casinos that accepts Ethereum. 

 Once you have selected your desired online casino, the next thing that you need to do is connect your digital wallet to your gambling account. Simply choose Ether as your payment option then follow the steps until your funds will enter your gambling account.

 Ethereum Gambling Now and in the Future

 There are many advantages of using Ethereum in online gambling, one of which is security. Since every action you make is on the Ethereum blockchain, everything is encrypted and the online casino has no access to your personal information. Next is the speed of the transactions since Ethereum is known to be very fast and efficient in processing transactions.

 However, despite the several advantages, there are still many things on which Ethereum can improve upon.

 The first thing is the unpredictability of Ethereum’s value. Despite its upward trend in the world of cryptocurrency, Ethereum is still a fairly new cryptocurrency and its value fluctuates now and then. This means that you will not only be gambling on the online casino but also on the value of Ethereum itself.

 Apart from that, despite Ethereum’s growing popularity, there are still several online casinos that do not accept Ether.

 Shortly, however, it is safe to say that the value of Ethereum will stabilize or at least minimize that fluctuation rate. It could also mean that various sites will begin to adapt Ethereum and other cryptocurrencies.

Continue Reading

Blockchain

ETC Group notiert ersten Litecoin ETP an Deutscher Börse

Avatar

Published

on

Die ETC Group hat bekannt gegeben, den ersten Litecoin ETP auf XETRA, der elektronischen Handelsplattform der Deutschen Börse, zu notieren. Damit erweitert die Deutsche Börse ihr Angebot an Krypto-Produkten.

Der ETC Group Litecoin ETP (ELTC) wird am 14. April 2021 mit einer Gesamtkostenrate von 2% an der Deutschen Börse, Europas größtem Handelsplatz für EFTs, gelistet. Als erstes Litecoin-ETP, das an der deutschen Börse gelistet wird, wird ELTC den Preis von Litecoin nachverfolgen und es Anlegern ermöglichen, Kryptowährungen mit der zusätzlichen Sicherheit einer zentralen Gegenpartei (Central Counterparty) zu unterstützen.

Dieser zentralisierte Mechanismus bietet Krypto-Investoren denselben regulatorischen Schutz wie Aktienhändlern. Dabei reduziert eine regulierte Börsennotierung das Kontrahentenrisiko beim Handel.

Litecoin: Ein Bild von BeInCrypto.com
Litecoin: Ein Bild von BeInCrypto.com

Den Standort Deutschland hat die ETC Group bewusst ausgewählt, weil sie von der Regulierung hierzulande profitieren möchte. Ein offizielles Statement der ETC Group:

„Die Deutsche Börse ist eine weltweit vertrauenswürdige Marke, die in einem wohlhabenden und stabilen Land mit einem kompetenten regulatorischen Umfeld tätig ist.“

Als spezialisierter Anbieter börsengehandelter Produkte (Exchange Traded Products) auf digitale Vermögenswerte ist die ETC Group auf die Entwicklung innovativer digitaler Assets spezialisiert. Sie wird bereits von einer Reihe großer Londoner Finanzinstitute unterstützt.

Was ist so besonders am Litecoin?

Wie der Bitcoin (BTC) ist der Litecoin (LTC) auf Knappheit ausgerichtet. Die Gesamtzahl der Münzen, die jemals existieren können, ist auf 84 Millionen begrenzt. Derzeit sind ungefähr 66,7 Millionen Münzen im Umlauf. Litecoin zeichnet sich besonders durch eine schnellere Block-Generierung, eine höhere Gesamtmenge an Münzen, einen veränderten Hashing-Algorithmus und eine modifizierte Benutzeroberfläche aus.

Bradley Duke, Chef der ETC Group, erklärt die Wahl für Litecoin folgendermaßen:

„Litecoin gibt es seit 2011, und es ist eines der vertrauenswürdigsten, anerkanntesten und am weitesten verbreiteten Mittel für Zahlungen. Litecoin ist im vergangenen Jahr um rund 382% gewachsen. Es ist nach Marktkapitalisierung mit 14,6 Mrd. USD die neuntgrößte Kryptowährung und erfreut sich wachsendem Interesse von institutionellen und Privatanlegern. Es wird oft als Silber zu Bitcoins Gold bezeichnet.“

Bereits seit Juni 2020 ist bei der Deutschen Börse ein Bitcoin-gestütztes Finanzprodukt mit dem Namen Bitcoin Exchange Traded Crypto (BTCE) notiert.

Dieses Produkt wird seitdem stark gehandelt und war auf XETRA an einigen Tagen das umsatzstärkste Produkt im Handel mit passiv gemanagten, an der Börse handelbaren Produkten (ETPs).

Am 2. März 2020 bestätigte die deutsche Finanzaufsichtsbehörde BaFin, dass sie Kryptowährungen nun offiziell als Finanzinstrumente anerkennt. Dies ist eine bedeutende Anerkennung der wichtigen Rolle, die Kryptowährungen in jüngster Zeit auf den Weltmärkten gespielt haben.

Haftungsausschluss

Alle auf unserer Website enthaltenen Informationen werden nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen recherchiert. Die journalistischen Beiträge dienen nur allgemeinen Informationszwecken. Jede Handlung, die der Leser aufgrund der auf unserer Website gefundenen Informationen vornimmt, geschieht ausschließlich auf eigenes Risiko.

Share Article

Verena hat ihren Bachelor in BWL und Sozialwissenschaften an der Uni Köln sowie einen Master in Business Management an der Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona absolviert. Als Marketing und Content Spezialistin hat sie in den letzten Jahren in Ländern auf der ganzen Welt gelebt. Sie hat eine besondere Leidenschaft für Technologie und Innovation.

MEHR ÜBER DEN AUTOR

Coinsmart. Beste Bitcoin-Börse in Europa
Source: https://de.beincrypto.com/etc-group-notiert-ersten-litecoin-etp-an-deutscher-boerse/

Continue Reading
Esports2 hours ago

Code S RO16 Preview: Trap, Armani, sOs, Zest

Esports4 hours ago

Use this Cyper tripwire trick to lure enemies into your sites

Blockchain5 hours ago

Tech firm unveils Australian first initiative to help charities access blockchain funding

Esports6 hours ago

ESL Open Week #66: Stats, Clem, Solar win

Esports6 hours ago

Call of Duty anti-cheat update by Raven Software

Fintech7 hours ago

Wisr posts 19 consecutive quarters of growth

Esports7 hours ago

Position 5 Faceless Void is making waves in North American Dota 2 pubs after patch 7.29

Fintech8 hours ago

Software-based facial recognition in payments industry to dominate by 2025

Esports9 hours ago

Code S RO16: Rogue and INno advance to the RO8

Esports9 hours ago

FunPlus Phoenix Set to Face RNG in the 2021 LPL Spring Split Finals!

Esports9 hours ago

NHL’s Montreal Canadiens join esports industry

Esports10 hours ago

Keiti parts ways with Cloud9 White one month after signing

Fintech10 hours ago

Square extends lending arm to Australian businesses with Square Loans

Fintech10 hours ago

Strong representation again from Aussie FinTechs in the Deloitte Technology Fast 500 Asia Pacific

Fintech10 hours ago

Brokers fuel 100% growth at Aussie fintech Plenti

Esports11 hours ago

Ludwig breaks Ninja’s subscription record after over 30 days of streaming

Esports11 hours ago

CoD: Warzone Nuke Event Teaser Gives Possible Date

Esports11 hours ago

CoD: Temp Replaces Fire On Paris Legion’s CDL Roster

Esports11 hours ago

Steam version of Nier Automata is finally getting an update

Esports11 hours ago

Reports: Counter Strike: Global Offensive bug allows PC hack

Esports11 hours ago

100 Thieves signs Canadian Content Creator Kyedae

Esports12 hours ago

Call of Duty League 2021: Rosters, format, schedule, and more

Esports12 hours ago

World Cricket Championship 3 introduces dedicated esports mode with its latest update

Esports12 hours ago

Ludwig breaks Ninja’s Twitch sub record

Esports12 hours ago

100 Thieves sign VALORANT content creator Kyedae

Esports13 hours ago

The best FR 5.56 loadout in Call of Duty: Warzone Season 2

Esports13 hours ago

shroud explains why bottom fragging in Valorant is no big deal

Esports13 hours ago

mason banned from Twitch yet again after homophobic slur

Esports13 hours ago

PS5’s April Update now lets you use external storage options

Esports13 hours ago

Four takeaways from day one of Blast Premier Spring Showdown

Trending