consumption3 or a limited transaction throughput when settling a large number of transactions. 4 so, yes – the technology underlying crypto - assets is different from the technology used in traditional finance. and yes – this technology holds the promise of potential improvements. but, the economics underlying the crypto eco - system are actually not so 2 / 5 bis - central bankers'speeches different from traditional finance. so no - " it won't be so different this time ". as always, too little supervision and regulation will attract malicious actors, purporting to offer reliable services. at present many crypto markets are characterised by pseudonymity and high levels of information asymmetry. which means that it is often impossible to know ex ante which actors have bad intentions. or indeed, which platforms are at risk of the type of overreach that the bank of amsterdam was tempted into. recent crypto - market developments have highlighted once more the age - old lesson that trust is built in drops and lost in buckets. as always, the financial innovation of the day will undergo the same public scrutiny as the bank of amsterdam faced three centuries ago. whether with regards to reserve backing, governance, transparency or other issues. and after carefully scrutinizing the current crypto eco - system, the financial stability board ( fsb ) sees legitimate reasons for concern. 5 as one of the guardians of financial stability, we believe the rapid growth of these markets in the presence of structural vulnerabilities and incomplete regulation and supervision, mean crypto - asset markets could soon reach a point where they represent a threat to the stability of the global financial system. especially given the large and continued institutional interest from traditional financial parties. i think the mere fact that we – crypto - native companies, regulators and traditional institutions – are all together here today, shows crypto cannot simply be considered a fad. the fsb's concerns are underscored by the fact that many crypto activities are not in compliance with existing regulation or take place outside of the regulatory perimeter ; that existing crypto - asset regulation differs across jurisdictions ; and that monitoring of financial stability risks is challenging given limited regulatory reporting and public disclosure. so, enhanced regulatory action is definitely required. let me touch upon three elements that are important for the way forward. first, the fsb is well - aware that the cross - border nature of crypto - assets poses an obvious challenge for national supervisors. inherently cross - border activities, like

over national payment systems, central banks guard against systemic risks that could be transmitted via these systems. there are therefore clear synergies between financial stability and other tasks. central to these synergies is the wealth of knowledge on the financial system through the central bank´s active presence in financial markets. again, the structural differences in financial systems across the euro area mean that the financial stability task is more appropriately located at the national level, although communication and co - ordination across borders are increasingly important. whereas all national central banks have a financial stability task, not all have direct competence in the field of prudential supervision. the choice to delegate the supervisory task to the central bank is, of course, based on national circumstances and preferences. however, the important synergies between the financial stability and supervisory tasks should not be ignored. i will come back to this issue when i discuss the supervisory arrangements in the netherlands. in general, it is important to stress that on both a national and european level the national central banks remain involved in discussions on prudential supervision. this is essential for the proper execution of their financial stability task and, as such, enables the system to contribute to the smooth conduct of supervisory policies. recent developments in europe regarding supervision recently, the perception of increased cross sector and cross border financial integration has resulted in demands for enhancing the supervisory structure in europe. i fully subscribe to the ambitions to speed up the regulatory process of supervision in europe. moreover, the convergence of supervisory practices would serve a level playing field in european financial markets. last year, a european committee under chairmanship of mr brouwer – director at the dutch central bank – made several recommendations on this point. as i explained, the involvement of national central banks will continue to offer welcome expertise in assessing the supervisory needs and challenges of financial integration. concerning topics directly related to financial stability and systemic risks, the national central banks will be at the frontline of european discussions, together with their counterparts from the ministries of finance. however, i would warn against the suggestion of introducing a single european supervisor. it is a misconception to expect that a top down approach to the design of supervision in europe would promote financial integration. clearly, that would simply ignore the structural differences on the national level. indeed, the practice of emu has shown that a critical mass in integration is needed before institutional convergence ( i. e. the introduction of the euro ) can work as a catalyst. likewise, i would warn against the suggestion that