Features of the regulation of cryptocurrency, ICO and mining in Russia. Interview with Igor Matiukhin

The existing options for regulating ICO in Russia are senseless and merciless. Regulation of mining should take into account the interests of the miners themselves, and Belarus could become a new European fintech hub. Why this is so, we were told by Igor Matyukhin, a member of the expert council on legislative support for the development of fintech in the Russian Federation under the State Duma Committee on the Financial Market. Igor also heads the company Esonics, which produces equipment for mining.

Interviewer: Sergey Karpov
Respondent: Igor Matyukhin

Before the end of 2017, the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation developed amendments for laws on the legalization of ICO. But the government of the Russian Federation, in turn, prepared a plan according to which the Russian departments should, by April 2018, create bills regulating the sphere of cryptoactive assets. Tell me why the creation of laws on cryptocurrency and tokens in Russia is so delayed?

Firstly, in Russia, as in any other country, there are certain groups of people in power who pursue their own interests. These groups, to put it mildly, compete for authority. As soon as some topic becomes profitable and interesting, these groups begin to fight for control over it. As long as cryptocurrency and ICO were invisible, these people fought for authority in other matters. Now these areas are marked from the very top and in fact are strategic. So they turned into a zone of strong interest. Therefore, the regulation gets stuck in the struggle of power structures for control.

Secondly, in these power structures there is no complete understanding of cryptocurrency and ICO, which have become a phenomenon. But there is an understanding that this phenomenon can destroy some of the levers of control of certain areas of interest. This is not so much a frank fear of the unknown, as the inability to assess the consequences of their decisions. When people in power do not have an understanding of the consequences, they take an “ostrich position”. You know, there is a famous rock opera “Juno and Avos” about Count Rezanov. So, the character of Count Rumyantsev had these words: "Tea does not become wet in the rain - wait ... wait ... wait ...". Here and in Russia the position of "wait" is often engaged. There is no action program that would suit everyone, there is no prevailing point of view about the consequences of decisions, there are no coordinated actions subordinate to the solution of the strategic task. Time is running out, and the deadlines for making important decisions are consistently postponed.

But I think that all the same until the middle of the year in Russia there will be a variant of legislative regulation of ICO and cryptocurrency. Perhaps even in the spring. What it will be, is another question.

Regarding the “wait” position: what do you think, what can the authorities expect? Any successful international example?

Exactly. You can wait for running laws in another country, so as not to strain yourself in writing legislation. After all, it is always easier to take someone else's experience. See what will be successful, and modify it for themselves. It is always easier to copy than to invent. Moreover, “close by” Russia has very interesting things in Belarus and Kazakhstan. But to capture the leadership of this approach is not effective.

In the appendix , where the government of the Russian Federation published plans with specific deadlines for the preparation of bills on cryptocurrencies and tokens, it is directly stated that the status of digital assets should be developed on the basis of the obligatory ruble as the only legal tender in the Russian Federation. What is the status in this case can get cryptocurrency?

To leave the ruble the only legal tender is, of course, a clear intention. But the market and the effectiveness of certain means of payment, despite attempts to tighten the screws, always wins. In other words, you can fight this as much as you like, but if something looks like an effective means of payment, works as an effective means of payment and everyone perceives it as an effective means of payment, then this is an effective means of payment.

Of course, the state (especially the Central Bank) is very tense due to the emergence of some assets that like parts of the population more than government money. This is true not only for Russia, but also for any other country. Therefore, it is natural that the state seeks to protect its monopoly on printing money.

Most likely, cryptocurrencies will be called some kind of digital asset. We and our Russian lawyers - without the participation of regulators - discussed this issue. They also do not fully understand what seasoning to eat. But everything moves in the area of ​​a special type of asset that can be traded on the stock exchange. This is more or less sane option.

So you think that a new type of asset will be defined by law for cryptocurrency and tokens?

Maybe. But you know, lawyers, in order not to change the law, use the definition of “other property”. And further to this abstract other property, you can write bylaws that will regulate the procedure for taxation of profits. At best, this property will have some special status, at worst - they will make all assets one size fits.

Other property is a broad interpretation. But the devil may be hiding in the details. If you prescribe them well, then everything will be fine; if bad, then bad. This is a case in point, when the state leaves a lot of room for maneuver, and a zone of uncertainty is created for market participants.

You are a member of the expert council on legislative support for the development of financial technologies in the Russian Federation under the State Duma Committee on the Financial Market. What role will the council play in drafting laws according to the above plan?

The Council serves as a platform for dialogue between legislators, regulators and industry representatives. The dialogue is built in the form of regular meetings at which various regulatory options are discussed: regulatory acts, some actions by the executive and legislative authorities. Participants of the process evaluate the proposals. Slowly but surely some decisions are being made.

This dialogue began two years ago. It so happened that the area of ​​legislative regulation went under control to the State Duma Committee on the Financial Market, headed by Anatoly Aksakov. The committee employs experienced people. And Aksakov, Shakkum [Martin Shakkum] are well versed in the subject. They are responsible for ensuring that legislation passes through the State Duma and is adopted. This is a top down task. And the expert council was formed as a tool for building a dialogue between representatives of various regulators, representatives of the legislative body and industry representatives. The proportion there is quite unequal. There are much more representatives of regulators and financial structures. Therefore, the dialogue is specific: the powers of these people are greater, and their number is greater. The dialogue is not easy.

Now in Russia there are two proposals for amendments to the legislation for the legalization of ICO: from the Ministry of Finance and from RAKIB. The Ministry of Finance proposes to limit the amount of investments by unqualified investors in ICO to 50 thousand rubles. And in the offer of RACIB this amount was increased to 20 million rubles. Which option is closer to you and is it possible to come up with some other solution than a simple restriction?

I feel bad both to one and to other options. They are both senseless and merciless. RAKIB is played in the representative of the interests of the industry. The large amount proposed by the association is due to the position “we are for you, we are your representative, we are playing on your side”. In fact, with the same success it was possible to offer 10 million, 15 million, 50 million. This does not solve the task that the Ministry of Finance is trying to solve: so that a person does not sell his apartment, does not deposit these funds into some kind of left ICO, for which specially trained people have motivated him, and would not remain without means of livelihood.

Talking about any specific figures limiting participation in the ICO is pointless and ridiculous. From the side of the Ministry of Finance, this is also a rather strange story. What is 50 thousand rubles? In this way, we are trying to protect people by forbidding them to invest, because there is scary?

My point is very simple. First, it is necessary to develop an investment culture among people - to conduct training and popularization of this topic. In this need to invest. Secondly, it is necessary to put smart barriers that do not interfere with the healthy part of the industry to prevent fraudulent projects. Because the farther, the more of them. There are projects that simply could not develop, but there are also those that were not originally intended to develop. Fraudsters need to be preemptively identified and prevented from reaching the ICO.

How can it look like? How is the license from the Ministry of Finance for ICO projects?

At best, it is industry self-regulation. But we usually have some kind of new structure out of self-regulation, which benefits from this. I am not optimistic about how this can be organized in Russia and what will come of it. With us, regulation is always a way of enrichment. A positive example can be seen in the self-regulatory organizations (SRO) of Switzerland, which recently created a code for the ICO. But Russian SROs are very different from their Swiss counterparts.

At Blockchain & Bitcoin Conference Moscow in November last year, Elina Sidorenko reported that mining would probably be taxed. Then she said that, perhaps, it would be some kind of lightweight option, but taxation will definitely be. What do you think, how will this generally affect mining in Russia?

Of course, everyone who does or intends to do mining would like clarity: what kind of a “lite version” will it be. I consider myself to be among such people. We are planning to launch a major mining project in Siberia in partnership with BitFury and General Electric. It is called Exillon Eagle Nest. We would like to understand what taxes will be and whether the authorities will decide at one moment to transfer them from the category of “lightweight” to “full-weight”.

You know that we have a simplified tax system for small businesses. Big players have a harder time. A large project is easier to identify and tax. This is a whole tax base. For such projects, a general taxation system can be applied, and this is not sugar. This is a very serious load. I am a supporter of the thesis that mining brings convertible money into the country. Therefore, it is necessary to do the most loyal taxation so that the money is materialized, converted, spent, including reinvested.

Otherwise, many different countries border on Russia. If you make a half-measure in the form of a small tax, and in a neighboring country, for example, in Belarus or Kazakhstan, there will be no tax, then what will give you this small tax? The owner of one ASIC will not go to another country. And multi-million dollar projects can go abroad. And this money will work outside the country.

Taxation always oppresses any industry. No one talks about the complete abolition of all taxes. But if the industry is strategically important, as stated in the highest circles of power, then you need to make sure that people in this industry live as well as possible. This is true not only for mining, but also for the entire blockchain industry as a whole.

Your opinion: in the Russian realities, the experience of which countries in regulating digital assets would be most useful to us?

If you take the big players, then this is definitely Switzerland and Singapore. Switzerland to a greater extent, Singapore - to a lesser extent. Singapore is still stricter regulation. Historically, it turned out that there is a fairly tough policy in the country, but focused on the right tasks that go to the good of the country. This has made Singapore a country that has become the leader of the FINTECH industry in Asia. In Switzerland, the regulation is softer, loyal. But there, and there is an equal dialogue between the regulator and the industry.

About Russia this can not be said. There is a kind of flirting, withdrawal of expertise from the industry. Interaction on the principle: "Guys, tell us what is happening with you, and then we will somehow adjust you later." The experience of Belarus will be very interesting. I think that all crypto experts were slightly taken aback by reading the text of the document signed by the president. If all that is written in this decree, will be implemented - it will become a bomb.

Will Belarus become a European fintech hub?

Quite possible. But familiar lawyers said that on the decree everything is painted too well to be true. You know, like in the joke about the new Russian and the devil:

The devil offers the new Russian to sign a contract in blood in exchange for a bunch of all blessings. He reads and asks:
- What, I have to only sign it in blood - and everything?
“Yes,” says the devil.
- I do not understand, but somewhere you are throwing me.

Doubts are about the same. Very radical changes are coming in Belarus. If they are implemented honestly, then this, of course, will attract a large number of players.

If we have such legislative regulation, how will this affect the attractiveness of Russia for cryptoinvestors and blockchain startups? Will they reach us too?

In order to reach out to Russia, you first need to overcome a certain stereotype in relation to state power on the part of business. Because, nevertheless, in our country, this is often unequal interaction. You can call a number of countries where you pay taxes, and then a month later - in the same Switzerland or the UK - they come to you and say: “You know, you were wrong, here you’re back your million dollars. Be more attentive. ” In Russia, this situation is difficult to imagine.

Therefore, of course, if there is a wonderful regulation, if it is executed correctly, then a favorable environment will be formed for fintech startups. But this story is on the verge of fiction.

There is a fashionable concept, which is implemented in a number of European countries - the creation of so-called sandboxes. This is when an internal technological offshore is created, and in it the state allows startups to “frolic” on the most favorable terms. It would be nice to introduce this in Russia. But this should be honestly implemented for those who come and will work there, and not for those who will stand on it. Everything must be honest and transparent. Then everything will flourish in any country.

February 13, Igor Matyukhin will speak as a speaker at the Blockchain Conference St. Petersburg. Read more about the event .