Two Holy Grails For Cross-border Payments: Access and Interoperability

A new international banking report admits to continuing problems in making payments from one country to another, but points to improvements. The report is based on a detailed analysis of the market, a survey of about 100 service providers and workshops with stakeholders from the supply side and the demand side (end users). Efforts to widen access to online payment accounts and prepare the way for the interoperability of payment systems/networks, closed-loop systems and crypto-currencies would seem the most fertile ground for achieving quicker, cheaper and more transparent cross-border retail payments.

Findings include:

• Cross-border retail payments are generally slower, less transparent and more expensive than payments within the same country. 

• Even large corporate users making high-value and/or frequent payments experience a lack of transparency and uncertainty over settlement timing and exchange rates. 

• Smaller businesses and individuals who typically make smaller, less frequent payments are more concerned about access to services and high costs.

• Users' priorities depend on their particular circumstances and requirements, so choice of different options and features is critical.

• Most users have choice as to who provides their payment services but individuals without access to transaction accounts lack access to many initiatives that have improved convenience and speed for other users. So, progress towards providing universal access to (online) transaction accounts is likely to provide more options to those who currently rely on cash.

• Back-end service providers themselves have problems with messaging, clearing and settlement of cross-border retail payments. There is little choice among back-end clearing and settlement methods, with the only feasible option often being correspondent banking rather than, say, ensuring the linking or interoperability of payment systems/networks, closed-loop systems and peer-to-peer distributed ledger technologies (e.g. crypto-currencies). So, progress towards harmonised messaging standards and simultaneous trading and settlement of different currencies will help solve problems here and could result in quicker, cheaper and more transparent cross-border retail payments. 

Isle of Man Goes Crypto-Crazy

I'm indebted to my colleagues in the Isle of Man for pointing me to the IoM's recent Designated Businesses (Registration and Oversight Act 2015, which imposes various registration and anti-money laundering requirements on distributed ledger technology. Do we have a poster-child for how regulation of new technology can go way too far?

The IoM compliance obligations are aimed at: 

"the business of issuing, transmitting, transferring, providing safe custody or storage of, administering, managing, lending, buying, selling, exchanging or otherwise trading or intermediating convertible virtual currencies, including crypto-currencies or similar concepts where the concept is accepted by persons as a means of payment for goods or services, a unit of account, a store of value or a commodity;"

This seems likely to be counter-productive, to say the least, given that the 'currency' aspect of distributed ledgers is often merely there to reward the 'miner' or processor of transactions or events that occur on the ledger, regardless of whether those events are themselves financial in nature - financial services being merely one of many different potential applications.

So, should every business on the IoM that uses, or might wish to use, distributed ledgers register with the authorities and introduce AML controls on everyone it deals with, just in case? Maybe so...

Two specific points to make:

1. ‘convertible virtual currencies’ are defined more broadly than one would expect:

“including crypto-currencies or similar concepts [neither term being defined, except by what follows…] where the concept is accepted by persons as a means of payment for goods or services, a unit of account, a store of value or a commodity”, 

Most definitions of a ‘currency’ require all these criteria to be met, not just any one of them. Imagine what would happen to the US Dollar, for example, if suddenly it was not accepted as meeting just one of the above criteria...  Indeed, for this reason many people disagree that Bitcoin - the most widely used form of 'crypto-currency' - is still nothing more than a commodity.

In addition, none of the typical exemptions under payment services regulations seem to be imported here. To take but one relevant example: consumer loyalty/rewards programmes are typically exempt on the basis that the rewards are only accepted as a means of payment within a 'limited network'. Do the local authorities really want every business participating in a loyalty scheme on the Isle of Man to register and apply AML controls just because the scheme involves distributed ledger technology? Maybe so...

2.  Similarly, the list of activities that trigger the relevant compliance obligations would seem to cover a vast array of potential services and their providers/users - recognising that these are distributed ledgers to which all computers running the protocol have the same access. Again, just think of consumer loyalty programmes as you go through the list:

the business of issuing, transmitting, transferring, providing safe custody or storage of, administering, managing, lending, buying, selling, exchanging or otherwise trading or intermediating...

Even payment services regulation, for instance, exempts technology services that support transactions without the service provider handling funds. And the whole point of the ledger is that no intermediary is actually handling funds - its all happening peer-to-peer amongst machines - indeed perhaps everyone's device is handling the funds. Furthermore, there will be instances where access to a distributed ledger is just one element of a wider system - as in the car-rental example, or tracking shipping containers - and it may not be clear to everyone that a distributed ledger is involved if it's just to share the location or state of a vehicle or container.

Still, the Isle of Man's approach might at least be useful in demonstrating how regulation in this area can go too far...