Thread by @finhstamsterdam, In the Netherlands we really have a nice hotspot in crypto. At [...]

In the Netherlands we really have a nice hotspot in crypto. At least three excellent podcasts ( @CryptocastNL @debitcoinshow @RadioSatoshi) and a whole range of token based and blockchain initiatives. We should cherish that. 1/

Actually, our government just published their very suportive position on startups in fintech sector and such.

Dutch government favours cleancut proper regulations and low administrative costs for SMEs when EU rules are transposed.

https://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/document?id=3b50fe08-7d21-42d9-b476-bc23f00a8fbd&title=Fiche%3A%20Mededeling%20over%20de%20Europese%20mkb-strategie.doc

Well done ! /2

They welcome the EU initiatives in this area and in particular the focus on deep tech, blockchain, fintech and innovation.

Again, well done @markrutte and @WBHoekstra !

But do you really welcome innovation/fintech/blockchain in the Netherlands. The proof of the pudding... /3

.. is in the eating of course and that's where it becomes disappointing. Dutch SMEs active in the crypto space face an overly strict regulatory 'registration' regime that costs way more than that for credit-companies, trust offices and doesn't even get you an official license. /4

The reason is that Ministry of Finance has added, after consultation, extra supervisory rules into the KYC law.

The Dutch crypto industry objected to this and provided a legal analysis for further open discussion.

Don't trust. Verify.
Read it.
https://bitcoin.nl/img/posts/408/Advies%20't%20Hart%20advocaten%20-%2004112019-%20implementatiewet%20witwassen%20-%20niet%20beleidsarm.pdf

/5

The opinion states that the legal regime is a de facto license regime, but uses the word registration. It demonstrates that supervisory rules are added to what in its inception was a straightforward AMLD5 implementation.

This is not allowed given the wording of the AMLD5.
/6

Actually, this is also what the Dutch Council of State @RaadvanState said to the Ministry of Finance. No matter how much criminality you think there is, this does not legitimize the addition of supervisory rules like a license.

Don't trust. Verify. Read.
https://www.raadvanstate.nl/adviezen/@114801/w06-19-0080-iii/#highlight=gewijzigde%20vierde%20richtlijn

So if the law is clear and the EU rules don't allow addition of supervisor add-ons, how could this have entered the law?

Ministry of Finance by accident published the smoking gun: a formal request by the supervisor to do so.

Internet remembers. /8

https://www.simonl.org/wp-content/uploads/reactie-DNB-op-concept-wetsvoorstel-AMLD5.pdf

Still, the Ministry of Finance wishes to keep up appearances towards our 2nd and 1st chamer of parliament. They claim nothing was added and they only implement the EU rules.

But comparing the legal texts shows the difference.

Don't trust. Verify.
https://draftable.com/compare/IvTNlOXdhEPb

/9

A considerable audience in the Dutch @HollandFinTech and tokanisation / blockchain community is now looking amazed at the extremly high supervisory costs for what is only a 'registration' of crypto-companies.

But this crypto-affair is not a single incident.
It's a pattern. /10

There is long dissatisfaction in the payment industry given that the supervisor DNB, has also 'advised' the Ministry of Finance to turn the registration requirement of PSD2 service 8 into a license regime.

PSPs learnt that very high supervisory costs can't be debated.
/11

So, the crypto community has open sourced all arguments and Ministry of Finance does not open up for any discussion of legal arguments at all. Not in parliament and not with industry.

Meanwhile the economic situation has shifted, with Corona now coming up.

So what's next ? /12

The NL crypto industry thus sent a letter to the Ministry outlining it is make or break time. With a bill of 34Kper year there is little room for SMEs to be innovative, fintechy or blockchain minded.

And didn't the Minister said 'whatever it takes' to keep employment up ?
/13

The simple request of crypto to @WBHoekstra and @KlaasKnot and @EersteKamer is: don't let unnecessary supervisory rules/cost hit us as it is not based on AMLD5.

Revert to the original legal article in the consultation and we can move on with business.
https://bitcoin.nl/nieuws/vbnl-minister-schrap-het-onevenredig-toezicht-457
/14

VBNL: Minister, schrap het onevenredig toezicht!

Op dinsdag 7 april vergadert de Eerste Kamer opnieuw over de wetsvoorstellen met betrekking tot de gewijzigde vierde anti-witwas richtlijn AMLD5. Omdat de kosten voor het toezicht de pan uit rijzen,...

https://bitcoin.nl/nieuws/vbnl-minister-schrap-het-onevenredig-toezicht-457

If the @MinPres and @constantijn14 really support the idea that SMEs in the fintech and blockchain domain can be the future innovative industry for the Netherlands, then the government should put it's money where the mouth is.

No need for 90 billion.
Just repair the law.

/15

On april 21, our First Chamber will discuss the implementation law at hand.

They can choose: will they trust the documents of an open source community that published all its arguments?

Or will they fork the law into an ill-designed protocol that was never open for change?

/16

Latest Threads Unrolled: