Consumer protection

TradFi and DeFI: Same Problems, Different Solutions

In our recent primer on Crypto-assets and Decentralized Finance (DeFi), we explained that, so long as crypto-assets remain confined to their own world, they pose little if any threat to the traditional finance (TradFi) system. Yet, some crypto-assets are being used to facilitate transactions, as collateral for loans, as the denomination for mortgages, as a basis for risk-sharing, and as assets in retirement plans. Moreover, many financial and nonfinancial businesses are seeking ways to expand the uses of these new instruments. So, it is easy to imagine how the crypto/DeFi world could infect the traditional financial system, diminishing its ability to support real economic activity.

In this post, we highlight how the key problems facing TradFi (ranging from fraud and abuse to runs, panics, and operational failure) also plague the crypto/DeFi world. We also examine the different ways in which TradFi and crypto/DeFi address these common challenges.

To summarize our conclusions, while the solutions employed in TradFi are often inadequate and incomplete, features such as counterparty identification and centralized verification make them both more complete and more effective than those currently in place in the world of crypto/DeFi. Ironically, addressing the severe deficiencies in the current crypto/DeFi infrastructure may prove difficult without making highly unpopular changes that make it look more like TradFi—like requiring participants to verify their identity (see, for example, Makarov and Schoar and Crenshaw).

This is the second in our series of posts on crypto-assets and DeFi. In the next one, we will examine regulatory approaches to limit the risks posed by crypto/DeFi while supporting the benefits of financial innovation….

Read More

Same Function, Same Risks, Same Regulation

Technological progress always brings new challenges for financial regulators. While some innovations today seem revolutionary, in many cases they are not. What is new is the pace and breadth of innovation associated with fintech. Taking advantage of recent advances in information technology and communication, entrepreneurs and incumbent financial firms are creating a wide array of new intermediaries.

At a conceptual level, regulators’ approach to the risks created by these new entrants would seem to be straightforward: any provider of the same financial service, creating the same risks, should face the same regulation. Encourage innovation, but guard against any harm that it poses to the financial system.

How might we do this? Again, the answer is clear: focus on the financial activities, functions and services themselves (even though rule enforcement will almost surely proceed through the firms, entities or institutions that provide the services). Such activity-focused regulation requires an enormous shift of our approach. With our regulatory objectives in mind, we need to enumerate the financial activities and then create a framework that matches these two lists. In this post, we outline how regulators can begin to approach this task….

Read More

Conflicts of Interest in Finance

Angered by a foreign downing of a U.S. airliner, and frustrated by the ineffectiveness of customary retaliation, fictional West Wing President Bartlet challenged his military advisors to devise a “disproportional response” that would go beyond “the cost of doing business” to deter future attacks and make Americans safe.

Financial corruption does not put our lives directly at stake. Yet, it is easy to imagine how widespread and recurring corruption could lead a future U.S. President – frustrated by the failure of markets, regulators, and the courts to change financial intermediaries for the better – to ask her financial and legal advisors for a similar disproportional response to make Americans safe...

Read More

Truth or consequences: Ponzi schemes and other frauds

In the financial world, the real scandal is often what’s legal, but you still have to watch out for fraudsters. If you don’t pay the costs of screening and monitoring your financial counterparties, you may lose your house.

The never-ending need for financial vigilance came to mind recently when we noticed that the 1920 home of Charles Ponzi was for sale in Lexington Massachusetts. It’s a very large house – 7 bedrooms, 6 bathrooms, 7000 square feet of space (650 square meters) on nearly an acre of land (0.4 hectares).(You can see a picture here.) ...
Read More