##sintermediated – finance. in my view, based on the early lessons that can be drawn from the turbulence of recent months, we need to devise a cautious and differentiated response to the issue of the appropriateness of crisis prevention and management frameworks in the era of digital financial services, depending on whether we are dealing with traditional or “ decentralised ” finance. in the case of traditional finance, i believe the priority would appear to be more effective deployment and adaptation of this framework, whereas for decentralised finance, it is time to develop and apply it in a consistent manner. i. a crisis prevention and management framework for traditional finance that needs to be implemented more effectively and adapted ( slide 3 ) a - priority needs to be given to implementing the regulatory framework and to enhancing oversight as regards the crisis prevention framework for traditional finance, based on regulation and individual supervision of financial intermediaries – known as “ micro - prudential ” supervision – priority should be given to more effective implementation due to the following lessons that can be drawn from the " in just a click " bank run on svb in the united states. first off, this framework – which for banks is based on regulations issued by the basel committee on banking supervision ( bcbs ) – has not been invalidated by the collapse of svb. on the contrary, svb's demise illustrates the consequences of insufficient implementation rather than the ineffectiveness of this framework, for at least 2 reasons : • since 2019, under the principle of proportionality, svb had been subject to lighter regulation than under the basel framework, especially with regard to the twin liquidity and interest rate risks whose crystallisation triggered its collapse. • the post - mortem analyses performed and published by the fed suggest that, had it been subject to these regulations, svb would not have complied with minimum international standards – neither the liquidity coverage ratio nor the alert threshold for sensitivity to interest rate risk stipulated under the basel framework. had these been applied, several warning lights would have turned red and alerted the oversight authority. however, these observations do not mean that there is no lessons to be learned in terms of regulatory developments from the role of new technologies and social networks in accelerating the liquidity stress suffered by svb. the basel committee has identified a number of avenues that could be explored, such as run - off rates for certain deposits – especially large deposits not covered by guarantee mechanisms. ( slide 4 ) in a nutshell, as regards the

. a second important example is provided by decentralised finance or " defi ” – at the banque de france and the acpr, we prefer the term " disintermediated " – based on distributed ledger technology ( dlt or, more simply, the blockchain ). blockchain technology provides a means of storing and sharing information in a decentralised, secure and transparent way, without the need for a central control structure. in this domain, regulators ’ focus is more forward - looking : banque de france is pioneering thinking here and the acpr published a document in april exploring possible regulatory frameworks for defi. from the ensuing public consultation process, we drafted a summary document which we have just published, setting out the possible regulatory frameworks taking shape on each of the three defi'floors': ( 1 ) ensuring the resilience of the blockchain infrastructure, public or otherwise, through security standards ( 2 ) certifying smart contracts, even if this raises a number of operational issues - and ( 3 ) regulating defi entry points to protect users. our approach to innovation based around digital assets and defi remains the same as for other types of innovation ; this innovation is welcome, but it cannot be achieved at the cost of less regulation. as we have seen elsewhere, this would merely work against the interests of the players themselves. b - this transformation also calls for a review of the services offered by central banks ( slide 7 ) new distributed ledger technologies – and blockchains in particular – are driving new financial services, based mostly around tokenisation. tokenisation involves issuing a financial security on a blockchain and it is attracting growing interest from traditional investors and issuers, as well as from new players such as bigtechs and fintechs, because it promises to enhance the settlement and delivery of financial assets by making processes faster, cheaper and more transparent. although tokenisation currently represents only a marginal proportion of financial market capitalisation, its development could still generate counterparty, liquidity and liquidity fragmentation risks which could become systemic. this is why central banks must remain vigilant. we have a duty to anticipate and secure such developments so that players can fully benefit from the potential of tokenisation. how can we do this? by ensuring that at least the most sensitive transactions from a financial stability standpoint – i. e. those between financial intermediaries – are settled in central bank money, the safest