L'article « Understanding the crypto-asset phenomenon, its risks and measurement issues », publié dans le Bulletin économique de la BCE, n° 5/2019 évoque les crypto-actifs dans la perspective d'une banque centrale. Nous en soulignerons les points principaux. Il mérite d'être examiné avec le document « Crypto-Assets : Implications for financial stability, monetary policy, and payments and market infrastructures » de la BCE de mai 2019, cité Rapport mai 2019.

Les points principaux :
- la définition du crypto-actif :
« To ensure the consistency of its analysis over time and across technologies, the ECB has chosen to define crypto-assets as “a new type of asset recorded in digital form and enabled by the use of cryptography that is not and does not represent a financial claim on, or a liability of, any identifiable entity.” The focus is therefore on the regulatory, economic and business dimension of crypto-assets as a new asset class, rather than on the use of technologies that are currently needed for its existence but are not specific to it. The fact that a crypto-asset does not constitute a claim on any identifiable entity means that its value is supported only by the expectation that other users will be willing to pay for it in the future, rather than by a future cash flow on which users can form their expectations. »

- ce qui signifie que :
« Since crypto-assets have no underlying claim, such as the right to a future cash flow or to discharge any payment obligation, they lack fundamental value. »

Le crypto-actif représente une construction purement digitale. Personne n'en est le débiteur. L'argent dont le futur propriétaire du crypto-actif se dessaisit est échangé contre rien, si ce n'est l'espoir que ce crypto-actif intéresse quelqu'un d'autre à l'avenir.

Ce qui permet d'illustrer la différence entre les crypto-actifs et la monnaie électronique :

« Crypto-assets as defined in this paper would not qualify as electronic money (e-money) for the Second Electronic Money Directive (EMD2)12, to the extent that they are not and do not represent a claim on the issuer. E-money is electronically stored monetary value as represented by a claim on the e-money issuer, which is issued on receipt of funds, for the purpose of making payment transactions, and which is accepted by a natural or legal person other than the electronic money issue » (Rapport mai 2019, p. 8).

- il ne faut pas confondre crypto-actifs et technologie blockchain :

« Whereas the use of cryptography is implicit in the choice of the term “crypto”-asset, traditional assets such as money and financial instruments can also be recorded by means of the same technology – typically distributed ledger technology (DLT). Therefore, DLT is not a factor in differentiating the new phenomenon from other assets that are recorded digitally via more traditional technologies. Moreover, the issuer of any digitally recorded asset is, in principle, free to change the technology used for its recording. »

- les risques des crypto-actifs :

« Market participants might try to sell units they do not own or to sell units they own a number of times. That can be difficult when dealing with physical goods, whose counterfeiting requires specific skills and physical resources and can typically be vetted by experts, who can differentiate a duplicate from a genuine asset. When an asset is in digital form, counterfeiting is as easy and as cheap as copying and pasting. For this reason, in the case of assets in digital form, a trusted central party is usually tasked with controlling the number of units (notary function) and is responsible for keeping track of who owns what (bookkeeping function). »
« For instance, in the event of bankruptcy or hacking of a crypto-asset service provider that controls access to customers’ holdings of crypto-assets (e.g. custodian wallet providers), the holdings would neither be subject to preventive measures (e.g. safeguarding and segregation) nor benefit from schemes or other arrangements to cover any losses incurred. In view of the current state of law, there is limited scope for public authorities to regulate crypto-asset »

- l'absence de tiers de confiance qui représente une contrepartie à laquelle les intervenants peuvent s'adresser pour s'assurer de la régularité et de l'exécution des transactions :
« As the use of DLT allows crypto-assets to dispense with an accountable party, the roles and responsibilities for identifying, mitigating and managing the risks borne in the crypto-asset network cannot be (clearly) allocated. From this characteristic derive, among others, heightened money laundering and terrorist financing risks, to the extent that there is no central oversight body responsible for monitoring and identifying suspicious transaction patterns, nor can law enforcement agencies target one central location or entity (administrator) for investigative purposes or asset seizure.[8] In view of the lack of formalised governance, it may also be difficult to address operational risks, including cyber security risks, and the risk of fraud. In fact, in the broader crypto-asset ecosystem, the provision of certain services (e.g. trading) is often centralised. In such cases, the service providers can be identified and held accountable. However, this is not always possible in decentralised models, which minimise or do away with the role of intermediaries. »

A relever que le tiers de confiance, régulièrement utilisé dans les transactions bancaires et financières, est important parce qu'il s'agit d'un tiers et qu'il est de confiance.

L'article identifie des risques théoriques pour la stabilité financière découlant notamment de l'exposition d'établissements soumis à surveillance aux crypto-actifs ainsi que de l'usage de ces actifs dans les systèmes de paiement.  Avec en dernier lieu mais de façon en l'état hypothétique un risque pour la politique monétaire.

Enfin, l'article contient des informations statistiques que la BCE a essayé de recueillir pour mesurer l'ampleur du phénomène.