Gibraltar Steps Up to Meet FATF Standards

I think most of us know about Gibraltar, that little country that's been a go-to for crypto projects and even gambling sites tied to crypto. But now, it looks like they've given in to FATF's demands and are getting in line with the guidelines. They're pushing for transparency, calling it "DLT" (Distributed Ledger Technology), which is just a fancy way of saying Blockchain Technology. So now, any projects or service providers need to follow this new set of rules based on FATF.

I think it's the right move for them, I mean, they've been in the picture already and you don't want to be on the opposite side and go against the FATF at this point. Well there could be pressure, but I guess it's better this way as you can't fight this global regulation that's been sweeping, from exchanges, to traders to a pro-crypto friendly countries like Gibraltar.

I still remember the glorious days where people can enjoy cryptocurrency in any part of the world. But yes, it really has to be regulated. I feel bad since another country is about to put a fence against the cryptocurrency. The FATF isn't that strict anyway. Cryptocurrency companies only had to comply with the regulations and they will be fine. Just like FATF AML Regulation. This could be the fact that from time to time, there are too many changes by different tied up.

Yeah, those where the days wherein we really enjoy our crypto and could earn right away specially arbitrage through different countries without having to go with this strict regulations. But it's bound to happen, but I would say that it is strict by any measures, we are no longer (pseudo) anonymous as they require everyone to have a very unyielding regulations specially about KYC's which we crypto enthusiast hates, or at least majority of us doesn't want our identification revealed to this third party services.

I find nothing particularly wrong with the principles of this regulation. The stipulations are apparently for the protection and smooth business experience of every DLT provider's customers and even the DLT providers themselves. The terms are general, though. So we still do not know the specific steps and policies that would be implemented by each DLT provider in line with them. For example, under this: I have these particular probing questions, among others: What specific "systems" are they talking about? What are these "preventive measures" that would be implemented under this specific principle?Are they going to be requiring KYC to each and every customer?What are covered under "suspicious transactions"?What steps are DLT Providers going to take upon the discovery of these "suspicious transactions"?Will there be immediate blocking of accounts and the like?

At some point, regulations would have to be followed for the betterment of the scene, else it will still prove to be a feeding ground for low-life people using cryptocurrencies as a medium to perpetrate their illegal activities. Gibraltar and Malta are favorites for crypto startups due to its inviting nature towards such companies, though it is also slowly attracting a lot of scammers and fraudulent personalities given its leniency towards regulations. Gibraltar was the first to 'give in' or rather comply with the FATF guidelines, and it shouldn't be frowned upon given that this only opens a lot more opportunity for the space to grow into something healthy with less of the illegalities.

Yeah, but it took them time to comply with FATF rule, but still I think their government weight everything first and most probably think that complying is the best and only way to continue to be a safe-haven for crypto projects. And if they didn't then there could be someone who are going to take advantage of their lax law and probably run scam projects in their country. So it will be a black eye for them as they might be blacklisted. I'm sure Malta will follow (if they haven't done so). As for us, we should accept the fact the regulation is indeed in the crypto space and will be the common theme for years to come.

Now? That's an extract from the 2017 version of the amendment , it was repealed the same year. The new regulations were also adopted long ago, in January, Gibraltar was under pressure for a long time to choose where it stands, as it found itself in the middle of the Brexit debate. I never understood why crypto projects like to blame everything on regulation when it comes to light they are hiding behind a shell company based in some shady location with a virtual office and no real company. How is Barry Silbert and many others being able to run tons of projects in the US with all that regulations and others can't....pretty obvious why.

When people on here venerate 'crypto hubs' like Gibraltar and Malta I seem to be completely unable to find anything of any note that's actually operating in unfettered paradise there. I think they seize on one vague noise the piddly government makes and then decide armies of grandmas there are running thousands of crypto street stalls while their crypto grandchildren code 'blockchain' on the beach.

Malta doesn't make it easy to research licensed entities. Supposedly as of May this year, 340 firms applied for licenses in 2019 and 26 are now actively registered, but the register on the MFSA's site is broken so I can't see which companies those are. They did recently publish a list of companies operating without a license, but I don't recognize most of the names since they didn't publish DBAs. I think a lot of companies temporarily registered there because they had a transitional phase where you could operate outside of compliance or with a rubber stamp temporary license. OkCoin did that, if memory serves correctly. That transitional period is long over now though, so I assume most of those companies moved their registrations elsewhere.

It's been going on for years in crypto and every other financial market. One small country or one that for them moment has lax or no regulation to the next. As soon as other countries take note and start to point out the error of their ways they start to implement some regulations and the crypto businesses move to the next location. It's just way it is. -Dave

Does he run any B2C companies focused on Joe Average, or is it all B2B? They complain about regulations because they increase costs of doing business, raise the barriers of entry, and keep scaring away customers (not everyone feels like supplying selfies and stool samples just to use some service). Allegedly shady locations are chosen because often they're the only sensible option.

Similar to what happened to Malta several months back Malta doing all it can to avoid FATF grey-listing, Edward Scicluna says I see a pattern now where crypto-friendly countries where crypto companies reside the most are being pressured by the FATF to do some additional legislation to avoid illicit activities from happening in their country which is really questionable to begin with as they should not target countries where there is no history of helping do illicit activities but instead focus on where the money is flowing. The pattern is pretty obvious by targeting these 2 small nations that are known to accept the crypto industry and is now in strict surveillance of the FATF.

Actually makes sense given how they're often accused of being complicit in laundering Italian mafia's money, and how much finance/gambling contributes to their economy. If they have to choose between cryptocurrencies and gambling they'll go with gambling, a more mature industry that already brings them a lot of money (given the size of their economy).

Their old guidelines were rather non specific, they are at least trying to make clear and compliant rules . Let’s see what happens. This is taken from the section - DLT Provider Guidance Notes Protection of Clients Assets and Money https://www.fsc.gi/uploads/Guidance%20Note%205%20-%20Protection%20of%20Client%20Assets%20GFSC%202020.pdf

Even if there are links against Italian mafia activities happening in Malta the question is why would they focus on these small country rather than focusing on applying the regulations by the FATF itself on Italy? Are they just picking of smaller countries just because they think they have a chance to be out of compliance with the rules and regulation? That bigger countries like Italy don't need to have some kind of stricter regulation and enforcement because they are a bigger country? If the FATF wants to improve their enforcement they should apply it to all countries not just the small ones.

Everyone goes for the path of least resistance. And it could be said that a tiny jurisdiction is much more prone to being hijacked or undermined by one element. The big black holes will always be so.