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 ri s k-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….

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….

In Defense of Regulatory Diversity

Guest post by Lawrence J. White, Robert Kavesh Professor in Economics, NYU Stern School of Business

The U.S. regulatory landscape--especially with regard to financial regulation—is maddeningly complex. It is easy to make a case for a drastic simplification, and the authors of this blog have done so here. But there is value in diversity—including regulatory diversity. Consequently, with regard to the regulatory framework, as is true of most other areas of political economy, we need to consider the costs as well as the benefits of any proposed changes.

Let’s start with the undeniable complexity of U.S. financial regulation: Consider the following array of agencies and jurisdictions (an alphabet-soup glossary appears at the end)...

The Regulatory Counterintelligence Agency

Some days the tone of the financial news matches that of the sports page. Adversaries appear to be locked in an epic battle, with the official sector setting regulations in an attempt to keep the system safe on one side, and financiers pushing for rules that ensure profitability on the other. The skirmish over the level of large bank capital requirements and the clash over whether municipal bonds can be used to meet liquidity requirements are just two recent examples. (See our earlier posts here and here.)

Following the day-to-day struggle can make it hard to see who is winning. But if history is any guide, the financiers will prevail—to the benefit of their owners and managers—at the expense of systemic fragility.

Can we change this? Can we create a system with greater balance between the authorities and the institutions?

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets