Tag Archives: stablecoin

The Diverging Paths of Stablecoin Regulation: A Tale of Two Continents

The Diverging Paths of Stablecoin Regulation: A Tale of Two Continents

The regulatory landscape for stablecoins is undergoing a profound transformation, with the United States and Europe adopting markedly different approaches. On one hand, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has provided much-needed clarity for fully collateralized stablecoins like USDT (Tether) and USDC (USD Coin). On the other hand, Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation imposes stringent restrictions that could stifle liquidity and innovation in the region. This divergence raises critical questions about the future of stablecoins and their role in the global financial system.

The U.S. Approach

The SEC’s recent announcement that fully collateralized stablecoins are not securities represents a pivotal moment for the crypto industry. By defining “covered stablecoins” as those backed 1:1 by fiat reserves or low-risk, highly liquid assets, the SEC has removed significant regulatory uncertainty. Issuers of these stablecoins are not required to register their minting or redemption activities, provided they adhere to strict transparency and reserve requirements.

This decision aligns with broader U.S. policy objectives, including maintaining the dollar’s dominance as the global reserve currency. Stablecoins like USDT and USDC, which collectively account for over $200 billion in market supply, are increasingly seen as critical infrastructure for the digital economy. Their stability and liquidity make them indispensable tools for institutional trading, decentralized finance (DeFi), and cross-border payments.

The SEC’s stance is complemented by legislative efforts such as the STABLE Act and the GENIUS Act, which aim to establish a comprehensive federal framework for stablecoins. These bills emphasize consumer protection, reserve transparency, and the segregation of assets, while also encouraging innovation. The U.S. Treasury has even highlighted stablecoins as a strategic asset to extend dollar dominance, underscoring their geopolitical significance.

Europe’s Approach

In stark contrast, Europe’s MiCA regulation imposes a series of restrictions that could cripple the stablecoin market. Key provisions include a ban on offering interest on stablecoins, a daily issuance cap of €200 million, and a requirement that 60% of reserves be held in EU-based banks. Additionally, issuers must obtain full licensing, undergo regular audits, and establish local legal entities within the EU.

These measures are ostensibly designed to protect consumers and ensure financial stability. However, they fail to account for the realities of the stablecoin market, where over 90% of usage comes from professional trading firms rather than retail payments. These firms require 24/7 liquidity, seamless issuance and redemption, and yield opportunities—needs that MiCA’s framework fundamentally disrupts.

The requirement to hold a majority of reserves in EU banks is particularly problematic. European banks generally offer lower yields compared to U.S. Treasuries, which are the preferred reserve asset for issuers like Tether. Tether, for instance, holds only 0.06% of its reserves in bank deposits, with the bulk invested in U.S. Treasuries, generating over $6 billion annually in passive income. Complying with MiCA would force Tether to abandon this profitable model, making it unlikely to seek compliance.

The Implications for Liquidity and Innovation

The contrasting regulatory approaches have profound implications for liquidity and innovation in the stablecoin market. In the U.S., the SEC’s clarity is expected to boost market confidence and attract institutional adoption. Major financial institutions like Bank of America and Visa are already exploring stablecoin integration, signalling a potential surge in demand.

In Europe, however, MiCA’s restrictions could drive issuers and traders to more favourable jurisdictions. The daily issuance cap alone could create bottlenecks, while the ban on interest eliminates a key incentive for holding stablecoins. These limitations are likely to deter professional trading firms, which are the primary drivers of stablecoin liquidity. As a result, Europe risks falling behind in the global race to lead the digital asset economy.

Why Tether Won’t Comply

In my opinion, Tether’s decision not to comply with MiCA is both strategic and pragmatic. The company’s business model relies on maximizing returns from its reserve assets, primarily U.S. Treasuries. Complying with MiCA would not only reduce these returns but also impose additional operational and regulatory burdens. Given its dominant market position and the global nature of its user base, Tether has little incentive to conform to a framework that undermines its profitability.

Moreover, Tether’s non-compliance is unlikely to significantly impact its market share. The U.S. and other crypto-friendly jurisdictions offer ample opportunities for growth, and the global demand for stablecoins shows no signs of waning. By focusing on markets with favorable regulations, Tether can continue to thrive without the constraints of MiCA.

The Broader Geopolitical Context

The regulatory divergence between the U.S. and Europe reflects broader geopolitical dynamics. The U.S. is leveraging stablecoins to reinforce the dollar’s dominance, while Europe’s approach appears more cautious, if not outright protectionist. This caution could be attributed to concerns about financial stability, but it also risks ceding ground to the U.S. in the rapidly evolving digital asset space.

China’s push for a digital yuan adds another layer of complexity. As global powers vie for influence in the digital economy, stablecoins backed by the dollar could serve as a counterweight to state-controlled digital currencies. By fostering a favourable regulatory environment, the U.S. is positioning itself as a leader in this new frontier, while Europe’s restrictive policies could leave it sidelined.

A Tale of Two Futures

The SEC’s decision to exempt fully collateralized stablecoins from securities classification marks a pivotal moment for the crypto industry. By providing clarity and reducing regulatory barriers, the U.S. is setting the stage for stablecoins to become a cornerstone of the digital economy. In contrast, Europe’s MiCA regulation risks stifling innovation and liquidity, potentially relegating the region to a secondary role in the global stablecoin market.

As the world moves toward a digital financial system, the stakes could not be higher. Stablecoins are not just a tool for traders; they are a strategic asset with implications for monetary policy, financial inclusion, and global economic power.

The U.S. has recognized this and is acting accordingly. Europe, however, must reconsider its approach if it hopes to remain competitive in the digital age. The choice is clear: embrace innovation or risk being left behind.

 

Source: https://intpolicydigest.org/the-diverging-paths-of-stablecoin-regulation-a-tale-of-two-continents/

 

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author- “NFT: From Zero to Hero” and “Blockchain Revolution 2030”.

Currently, he is appointed as the Chief Digital Advisor at Mongolia Productivity Organization, championing national digitization. Prior to his current appointments, he was the Chairman of BigONE Exchange, a global top 30 ranked crypto spot exchange and was also the Advisory Board Member for Hyundai DAC, the blockchain arm of South Korea’s largest car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Group. Lian played a pivotal role as the Blockchain Advisor for Asian Productivity Organisation (APO), an intergovernmental organization committed to improving productivity in the Asia-Pacific region.

An avid supporter of incubating start-ups, Anndy has also been a private investor for the past eight years. With a growth investment mindset, Anndy strategically demonstrates this in the companies he chooses to be involved with. He believes that what he is doing through blockchain technology currently will revolutionise and redefine traditional businesses. He also believes that the blockchain industry has to be “redecentralised”.

www.anndy.com
j j j

MiCA’s Stablecoin Gamble: How Europe’s Bank Mandate Could Backfire

MiCA’s Stablecoin Gamble: How Europe’s Bank Mandate Could Backfire

The European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation marks a pivotal moment in the global regulation of digital assets, particularly concerning stablecoins. This comprehensive framework aims to bring clarity and stability to the burgeoning crypto market within the EU. However, a closer examination of its specific provisions, especially those pertaining to stablecoin reserves, reveals a potentially problematic approach.

As a financial journalist with a keen interest in the intersection of finance and technology and having observed the evolution of digital assets and their regulatory landscapes, I contend that the MiCA stipulation requiring 60% of stablecoin reserves to be held within EU banks could inadvertently introduce instability and hinder the very innovation it seeks to foster. While seemingly aimed at enhancing security, this mandate may instead create new vulnerabilities and fragment the global stablecoin market.

The Stablecoin Landscape

Before dissecting the intricacies of MiCA’s impact, it’s essential to grasp the current dynamics of the stablecoin market. As of early 2024, this sector boasts a market capitalization exceeding $130 billion, a testament to the growing demand for digital assets that offer price stability. Tether remains the dominant player, commanding approximately 70% of this market share. This dominance isn’t accidental; it largely reflects market confidence in Tether’s reserve composition and its consistent ability to maintain its peg to the U.S. dollar.

The success of Tether can be directly attributed to its reserve strategy, which predominantly involves holding U.S. Treasuries and other highly liquid dollar-denominated assets. Tether’s transparency, albeit sometimes scrutinized, through its regular attestation reports provides insights into this strategy.

According to their latest reports, a significant portion, around 85% of their reserves, are held in cash and cash equivalents, with U.S Treasuries forming the lion’s share. This preference for U.S. Treasuries is not arbitrary. These instruments are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government and offer unparalleled liquidity. The daily trading volumes in the secondary market for U.S. Treasuries routinely average over $910 billion, making them exceptionally easy to buy and sell without significantly impacting their price. This deep liquidity is a crucial factor in maintaining the stability of a stablecoin.

Other significant stablecoins, such as USD Coin, prioritize holding reserves in highly liquid and low-risk assets, including U.S. Treasuries and cash held in regulated financial institutions. This industry-wide preference for U.S. Treasuries underscores their perceived safety and liquidity within the global financial system. The ability to quickly convert reserves into fiat currency during periods of high redemption pressure is paramount for a stablecoin to maintain its peg.

Protectionism Masquerading as Security?

MiCA’s requirement that 60% of stablecoin reserves be held in EU banks appears to be more of a protectionist measure aimed at bolstering the European financial sector than a genuine enhancement of stablecoin security. This assertion becomes particularly compelling when comparing the liquidity of the European bond market to that of U.S. Treasuries. While the EUR government bond market is substantial, it pales compared to the U.S. Treasury market in terms of trading volume and depth. The lower liquidity and often wider bid-ask spreads in European government bonds raise concerns about the ease and cost of liquidating these assets during periods of market stress.

Tradeweb reported in September 2024 that the average daily volume for European government bonds was $49.5 billion. As I do not have the exact average daily trading data from the European Central Bank, I put fair estimated daily trading volumes of around €100 billion for this comparison. This figure is less than one-ninth of the daily trading volume observed in U.S. Treasuries, which is over $910 billion.

This significant liquidity disparity is not merely an academic point; it has real-world implications for stablecoin issuers who need to access their reserves quickly to meet redemption requests. During market turbulence, the ability to quickly and efficiently convert reserve assets into fiat currency is critical for maintaining the stablecoin’s peg. Lower liquidity in the European bond market could translate to higher transaction costs and potential delays in accessing funds, potentially undermining the stability MiCA aims to achieve.

Furthermore, the concentration of reserves within EU banks raises questions about the potential for systemic risk within the European financial system. While diversification is generally considered a prudent risk management strategy, forcing stablecoin issuers to concentrate a significant portion of their reserves within a specific regional banking system could amplify the impact of any localized financial instability.

The Silicon Valley Bank Lesson

The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) in March 2023 is a stark and relevant case study highlighting the inherent risks associated with relying solely on the traditional banking system for stablecoin reserves. When SVB experienced a rapid bank run, Circle’s USD Coin, despite being considered a highly reputable stablecoin, temporarily lost its peg, plummeting to around $0.87. This dramatic event occurred even though only approximately 10% of USD Coin’s reserves were directly affected by the SVB failure. This incident underscored two critical vulnerabilities: firstly, bank deposits, even within seemingly well-regulated institutions, are not entirely risk-free, and secondly, the operational limitations of the traditional banking system, such as weekend closures and processing delays, are fundamentally incompatible with the 24/7 nature of cryptocurrency markets.

Imagine the amplified impact if, under MiCA’s regulations, 60% of a stablecoin’s reserves were caught in a similar situation. The inability to access a significant portion of their reserves during a critical period could have catastrophic consequences, potentially triggering a systemic crisis within the European crypto ecosystem and eroding trust in stablecoins more broadly. The SVB episode demonstrated the speed at which confidence can evaporate in the financial system and the potential for contagion to spread rapidly. MiCA’s banking-centric approach, while intended to provide security, could inadvertently create a single point of failure, making the system more vulnerable to such shocks.

The Liquidity Premium of U.S. Treasuries

U.S. Treasuries have earned their reputation as the world’s premier safe-haven asset for compelling reasons, primarily their unparalleled market depth and liquidity. This deep liquidity ensures minimal price slippage even during periods of large-scale liquidations. During the height of the COVID-19 market panic in March 2020, the U.S. Treasury market remained remarkably robust despite unprecedented volatility across global markets. While bid-ask spreads widened temporarily, the market continued functioning efficiently, allowing investors to buy and sell Treasuries relatively quickly. This resilience during extreme stress underscores the inherent strength and liquidity of the U.S. Treasury market.

Conversely, European government bonds, particularly those issued by smaller EU nations, have experienced significant liquidity challenges during various crises. During the Eurozone crisis of 2011-2012, some sovereign bonds became practically untradeable, highlighting the potential for liquidity to dry up during times of stress. For a stablecoin issuer needing to process large redemption requests quickly, such a scenario could prove disastrous, making it difficult, if not impossible, to access the necessary funds to maintain the peg. The historical data demonstrates U.S. Treasuries’ superior liquidity and stability compared to their European counterparts, making them a more reliable asset for backing stablecoins.

The Banking System’s Inherent Vulnerabilities

MiCA’s reliance on the traditional banking system introduces additional layers of risk beyond just liquidity concerns. The banking turmoil of 2023, which witnessed the failures of both SVB and Signature Bank and First Republic Bank in the United States, serves as a potent reminder that even seemingly well-regulated banks can collapse under stress. European banks are not immune to such vulnerabilities. The forced merger of Credit Suisse with UBS in 2023, orchestrated to prevent a broader financial crisis, stands as a recent and prominent example.

Furthermore, unlike U.S. Treasuries held directly, bank deposits are subject to counterparty risk. If the bank holding the stablecoin reserves faces financial difficulties or even fails, accessing those reserves could become problematic.

Additionally, under EU banking regulations, bank deposits are potentially subject to bail-in provisions. In a crisis, depositors (including stablecoin issuers) could see their funds used to recapitalize the failing bank. This introduces a level of risk that stablecoin issuers cannot directly control, which is not present when holding highly liquid government securities. Banks also typically reinvest deposits in various assets, creating additional layers of risk and complexity that are opaque to the stablecoin issuer.

Market Fragmentation and Innovation Barriers

MiCA’s stringent requirements could lead to fragmentation in the global stablecoin market. Major issuers like Tether, who have established their reserve management strategies based on global liquidity and the reliability of U.S. Treasuries, might find the cost and complexity of complying with MiCA’s requirements prohibitive. They might opt to limit their operations within the EU rather than fundamentally restructure their reserve management strategies. This could create a bifurcated market: globally accessible stablecoins operating largely outside the EU and smaller, potentially less liquid stablecoins operating within the regulatory framework of MiCA.

This fragmentation could hinder the seamless flow of capital and innovation within the European digital asset space. New stablecoin projects seeking to launch in the EU would face significant barriers to entry, needing to establish relationships with EU banks and navigate complex reserve requirements before even launching their product. This could concentrate power in the hands of established financial institutions, potentially stifling the decentralized ethos that underpins much of the cryptocurrency movement. The increased regulatory burden and operational complexity could also make it less attractive for innovative stablecoin projects to establish themselves within the EU, potentially pushing innovation to other jurisdictions with more accommodating regulatory environments.

Alternative Approaches to Foster Stability

Rather than imposing potentially risky banking arrangements, regulators could explore alternative approaches focusing on transparency, risk-based assessments, and a broader acceptance of high-quality collateral. One such approach would be enhancing transparency and mandating stablecoin reserves’ auditing regardless of geographical location. Independent audits conducted by reputable firms could provide greater assurance to users.

Another avenue would be to develop clear and objective standards for assessing the quality of reserve assets, focusing on criteria such as liquidity, credit risk, and market depth. This would allow for a more nuanced approach to reserve management, recognizing assets like U.S. Treasuries’ proven stability and liquidity. Regulators could establish a framework that allows for a more diverse range of high-quality collateral, including U.S. Treasuries and other highly liquid government securities from reputable jurisdictions, provided they meet stringent risk criteria. This approach would acknowledge the stablecoin market’s global nature and certain assets’ established role in maintaining stability.

The data and historical precedent are clear: U.S. Treasuries have consistently demonstrated their value as stable and liquid collateral through multiple periods of financial stress. MiCA’s attempt to artificially promote European alternatives through regulatory mandate does not alter this fundamental market reality. A more pragmatic approach would be to acknowledge the global nature of stablecoins and focus on establishing robust standards for reserve quality and transparency rather than imposing geographically restrictive requirements.

Balancing Innovation and Stability

While MiCA’s underlying intentions to protect consumers and ensure the stability of the stablecoin market are undoubtedly laudable, its current implementation risks achieving the opposite of its intended effect. By compelling issuers to hold a significant portion of their reserves in potentially less liquid and potentially riskier assets within the European banking system, the regulation may inadvertently increase, rather than decrease, systemic risk within the European crypto ecosystem.

The stablecoin market undeniably requires thoughtful and effective regulation. However, such regulation should be grounded in market realities, informed by historical data, and designed to foster innovation while mitigating genuine risks.

As the digital asset industry evolves rapidly, regulatory frameworks must strike a delicate balance between promoting stability and encouraging innovation without erecting artificial barriers that could ultimately harm the very users they are designed to protect. A more globally collaborative and less geographically prescriptive approach to stablecoin regulation would likely be more effective in fostering a stable and innovative digital asset ecosystem.

 

Source: https://intpolicydigest.org/mica-s-stablecoin-gamble-how-europe-s-bank-mandate-could-backfire/

 

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author- “NFT: From Zero to Hero” and “Blockchain Revolution 2030”.

Currently, he is appointed as the Chief Digital Advisor at Mongolia Productivity Organization, championing national digitization. Prior to his current appointments, he was the Chairman of BigONE Exchange, a global top 30 ranked crypto spot exchange and was also the Advisory Board Member for Hyundai DAC, the blockchain arm of South Korea’s largest car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Group. Lian played a pivotal role as the Blockchain Advisor for Asian Productivity Organisation (APO), an intergovernmental organization committed to improving productivity in the Asia-Pacific region.

An avid supporter of incubating start-ups, Anndy has also been a private investor for the past eight years. With a growth investment mindset, Anndy strategically demonstrates this in the companies he chooses to be involved with. He believes that what he is doing through blockchain technology currently will revolutionise and redefine traditional businesses. He also believes that the blockchain industry has to be “redecentralised”.

www.anndy.com
j j j

TUSD Stablecoin Reserve ‘Misuse’ Exposes Proof-Of-Reserve Flaw

TUSD Stablecoin Reserve ‘Misuse’ Exposes Proof-Of-Reserve Flaw

The U.S. Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) has charged stablecoin issuers TrueCoin LLC and TrustToken with defrauding cryptocurrency investors and making misleading statements regarding the TrueUSD (TUSD) stablecoin reserves.

SEC’s investigation alleged that, by September 2024, 99% of the reserves backing TUSD were invested in an “illiquid” commodity investment fund.

TrueCoin and TrustToken neither admitted nor denied the allegations and agreed to settle the charges.

The revelation served as a stark reminder about the lack of transparency about stablecoin reserves and questioned the effectiveness of stablecoin collateral verification methods such as proof-of-reserve.

Proof-of-Reserve Reports “Falsely Assured” TUSD users, says SEC

On its official website, TUSD claims to be a “trustworthy” stablecoin that makes daily audit reports available to anyone to monitor its reserves using Chainlink‘s proof-of-reserve technology.

However, according to the SEC, since 2020, TUSD reserves have been invested in an offshore commodity fund with exposure to trade finance, structured trade, export and import finance, supply chain financing, and project financing.

“Potential purchasers were falsely assured by these reports that the TUSD reserves exceeded the TUSD outstanding.

“It was undisclosed in the holdings reports that a significant portion of the TUSD reserves were invested in the risky Commodity Fund, which the attestation reports were valuing at cost without considering any adjustments,” said the SEC in the court filing.

Proof-of-Reserve Technology for Stablecoin Reserves

Techopedia asked Anndy Lian, an intergovernmental blockchain expert and author of Blockchain Revolution 2030, for his views on the matter, to which he said:

“This situation underscores the potential for misrepresentation and the limitations of existing proof of reserve mechanisms.”

The biggest weakness of stablecoin proof-of-reserves seems to lie in the quality of the off-chain data provided by the third party to oracles like Chainlink.

Stablecoin reserves are typically held in cash, and short-term U.S. treasuries cannot be tracked on-chain. Chainlink’s proof-of-reserve technology is completely dependent on the quality of data provided by third parties.

Lian added:

“While on-chain attestations can verify the presence of reserves at a given moment, they may not account for off-chain activities or the quality and liquidity of the assets backing the stablecoin. The TUSD case illustrates how reserves can be mismanaged or misrepresented, even with real-time attestations in place,”

In the case of TUSD, a Hong Kong-based accounting firm named Moore Hong Kong is responsible for providing blockchain oracles with daily attestation services and stablecoin reserve balance data.

Disclaimers on Moore Hong Kong-owned VeriNumus’ website do not alleviate doubts on whether proof-of-reserves technology can be trusted to verify stablecoin reserves.

“The Balance Data is sourced entirely from third parties, and neither Moore Hong Kong nor any Chainlink service provider has knowledge of its accuracy,” stated the disclaimer.

Techopedia reached out to Chainlink Labs for a comment. At the time of writing, there had been no response.

Do All Stablecoins Use Chainlink’s Proof-of-Reserve Technology?

Not all stablecoins use Chainlink’s proof-of-reserve technology to showcase their reserve balances.

Tether (USDT), the largest stablecoin by market cap, publishes quarterly reserve reports audited by BDO Italia, a third-party accounting firm.

USDT has courted its fair share of controversy and legal action over the years. In October 2021, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) fined Tether $41 million for misleading customers that it had sufficient U.S. dollar reserves to back every circulating USDT stablecoin.

Rival USDC – which brands itself as a regulatory-first and compliant stablecoin – provides monthly stablecoin reserve reports. USDC reserve reports are audited by Deloitte & Touche LLP.

At the time of writing, over 87% of USDC reserves were held in an SEC-registered government money market fund called the Circle Reserve Fund, managed by BlackRock. The rest was held in cash in banks.

Rating agency S&P Global rated USDC’s ability to maintain its peg to the U.S. dollar as “strong.” The agency rated USDT as “constrained” and TUSD as “weak.”

“We have no information on the nature of the assets in the reserve or the creditworthiness of institutions holding these assets,” said S&P Global on TUSD.

Techopedia’s View: Proof-of-Reserve is Not Foolproof

The lack of trustlessness when sourcing off-chain data is the Achilles heel of proof-of-reserve technology.

Oracles have to rely on the trustworthiness of the third parties providing off-chain data and auditing reserve reports. This need for trust requires the end consumer to review the quality of the data feed.

Proof-of-reserve technology works well when tracking the on-chain reserve balances of centralized crypto exchanges, but depending on it to track off-chain stablecoin reserves seems like a leap of faith.

In the future, stablecoin issuers could include tokenized cash, U.S. treasury bills, and notes issued by regulated issuers in their reserves. Such on-chain assets can be accurately tracked by proof-of-reserve solutions.

The Bottom Line: Stablecoin Regulation is Inevitable

On September 24, 2024, the SEC took the chance to advocate for crypto regulations following the charge on TUSD issuer TrueCoin LLC.

“This case is a prime example of why registration matters, as investors in these products continue to be deprived of the key information needed to make fully informed decisions,” said Jorge G. Tenreiro, acting chief of SEC’s Crypto Assets & Cyber Unit.

In June 2023, the European Union passed a comprehensive crypto regulatory framework called the Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCA).

The U.S. looks to follow suit, having introduced crypto bills such as the Lummis-Gillibrand Payment Stablecoin Act and Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21) in 2024.

 

Source: https://www.techopedia.com/news/tusd-stablecoin-reserve-misuse-exposes-proof-of-reserve-flaw

Anndy Lian is an early blockchain adopter and experienced serial entrepreneur who is known for his work in the government sector. He is a best selling book author- “NFT: From Zero to Hero” and “Blockchain Revolution 2030”.

Currently, he is appointed as the Chief Digital Advisor at Mongolia Productivity Organization, championing national digitization. Prior to his current appointments, he was the Chairman of BigONE Exchange, a global top 30 ranked crypto spot exchange and was also the Advisory Board Member for Hyundai DAC, the blockchain arm of South Korea’s largest car manufacturer Hyundai Motor Group. Lian played a pivotal role as the Blockchain Advisor for Asian Productivity Organisation (APO), an intergovernmental organization committed to improving productivity in the Asia-Pacific region.

An avid supporter of incubating start-ups, Anndy has also been a private investor for the past eight years. With a growth investment mindset, Anndy strategically demonstrates this in the companies he chooses to be involved with. He believes that what he is doing through blockchain technology currently will revolutionise and redefine traditional businesses. He also believes that the blockchain industry has to be “redecentralised”.

www.anndy.com
j j j