that, at their last summit meeting, the g20 heads of state and government laid down a clear principle on the matter. they have indeed committed themselves to ensuring that “ all financial markets, products and participants are regulated or subject to oversight, as appropriate to their circumstances ”. the crisis shows quite clearly that the markets and institutions that have a systemic role must be regulated. this criterion implies re - examining the functioning of certain otc markets, such as the interbank money market or the credit derivatives market. similarly, rating agencies should also be regulated, given the key role they play in correcting information asymmetries on financial markets. lastly, public authorities should pay greater attention to those financial institutions that are central to the supply of market liquidity and financing. an important starting point is to acknowledge that financial system participants have very different functions, pursue different strategies and operate according to different economic models. this diversity is crucial to the smooth functioning of markets. a one - size - fits - all regulatory framework applied to all participants would certainly give rise to herd behaviour and, consequently, reinforce the endogeneity of certain risks. a gradation could reasonably be applied to the regulations and requirements imposed on financial system participants. three levels, ranging from oversight to regulation, naturally come to mind. the first level would take the form of a mandatory registration and the commitment to comply with a code of good practices. the second – more restrictive – level would include disclosure obligations with regard to activities and accounts, in addition to the mandatory registration and the compliance with good practices. hedge funds and, more generally, institutions pursuing strategies essentially based on leverage or risk - taking could have to meet such requirements. finally, the last level would involve more restrictive regulations with regard to activities and risk - taking, as well as closer oversight. in many respects, this gradation system is not only relevant with regard to prudential requirements. it should also apply to accounting rules for example. beyond the theoretical considerations, it is important that financial regulation, in all its forms, should contribute to maintaining financial system diversity. thus, attempting to measure all assets and liabilities at fair value has some drawbacks – and even entails risks – that need to be taken into account if lessons are to be drawn from the financial crisis for accounting rules. to conclude, i would like to stress an important point regarding the new financial regulatory framework. it would be unrealistic to believe that financial regulation is the answer, and, above

denis beau : after the crypto - winter, the spring of crypto - assets regulation and supervision keynote speech by mr denis beau, first deputy governor of the bank of france, at the world bank global payments week 2023 " the future of payments ", marrakesh, 18 may 2023. * * * dear colleagues from the world bank, ladies and gentlemen, according to some commentators, in a context of cascading bankruptcies ( i. e. terra / luna, celsius, three arrows, genesis, blockfi, ftx ), the crypto ecosystem may have entered a so - called " crypto - winter ". i don't know if this winter is going to last but i believe that it should be seen as " spring time " by regulators and supervisors, whose initiatives should be burgeoning. recently, many countries have indeed sped up their regulatory work within their jurisdiction. however, we have also seen variances in combining three regulatory approaches : banning crypto - asset activities ; containing and isolating them from traditional finance and the real economy, which implies banning certain specific aspects and practices ( e. g. advertising ) ; regulating the crypto - asset market, either by assimilating crypto - assets to traditional financial assets and applying the corresponding existing regulatory regime, or by adopting a dedicated regulation ( e. g. on stablecoins ). with the exception of china, the world's major economies and currency zones have developed or are in the process of adopting a combination of the last two approaches, based on the principle of " same activities, same risks, same rules ". as a blunt banning of crypto - asset activities is not seen as an option for most, for a number of reasons, starting for instance with the belief in france that it would most likely lead to regulatory arbitrages between jurisdictions, most of the attention at national and international level has been put on " what? " ( what activities and what risks ) and " how? " ( by which means ) to regulate. in my short introductory remarks today, i would like to share with you my perspective, as the organisers of this global payments week conference have kindly suggested, speaking from the standpoint of a central bank in charge of ensuring financial stability, on the types of risks associated with crypto - activities that particularly need to be considered for regulation and supervision, and the importance of a convergent and coordinated regulatory approach on crypto - assets at