Errors and omissions in statistics can also be one reason why forecasts are based on incorrect assumptions. It is therefore also interesting to assess the central bank’s forecasts against those of other analysts. Would it have been possible to make better forecasts than those the central bank produced? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to keep a record of both the central bank’s forecasts and other analysts’ forecasts. Another important factor in an assessment is whether the monetary policy decisions are wellbalanced, given the forecasts and judgements that have been made. The way the strategy has been formulated is important in this context. However, an assessment does not need to stop here. It may of course be more comprehensive and cover not only target fulfilment, but also the monetary policy framework as a whole. Against this background, let me just say a few words about the monetary policy strategy we have chosen in Sweden and the changes we have recently made to our analysis framework. The strategy has of course developed gradually during the period we have applied inflation targeting and is primarily the result of practical experiences of inflation targeting in Sweden and in other countries. New findings in academic research in this field have also had significance. The Riksbank’s monetary policy strategy In Sweden, the Riksdag (the Swedish parliament) has delegated the responsibility for monetary policy to the Riksbank, through the Sveriges Riksbank Act, which came into force in 1999.

However, if MiCA is a regulatory milestone, it deserves to be complemented in the next few years with additional requirements. Indeed, MiCA partially covers crypto-asset service providers that combine multiple functions and activities in different jurisdictions, so-called crypto conglomerates. To improve this coverage, it is notably crucial to limit and control the concentration of activities in these conglomerates through strict governance requirements and to enhance investor protection by addressing conflicts of interests and reinforcing redemption rights and the protection of reserves. In addition, MiCA does not cover the DeFi ecosystem and its challenges in terms of regulation, given its specificities. To do so, I believe that we should not try to replicate existing financial regulations at all costs, but draw inspiration from regulations in other sectors to regulate for instance "products" even when their "producers" or "issuers" are not clearly identified. Furthermore, we have to recognise technical specificities and pay particular attention to the three layers that schematically constitute DeFi, namely, infrastructures, applications and access gates. To contribute to the development of that extension of MiCA, we recently published a discussion paper outlining possible avenues for regulation. This document is open for consultation on the ACPR website and we encourage industry stakeholders to provide their input. 2) The challenge of international coordination for an effective and global regulatory framework That being said, these regulatory issues are global, which means that we need to ensure that national regimes are consistent with each other in order to avoid any risk of regulatory arbitrage.