principle of full cost recovery. it is anticipated that the price per transaction would not exceed 1 euro cent, with the aim of ultimately reaching a level of around 0. 5 euro cent. fourth, market participants would be able to connect to the service via a network service provider of their choice, as long as this network vendor meets the criteria that the eurosystem will establish. the eurosystem is committed to taking a decision in june 2017 on whether to develop the service. tips could commence operations in 2018. conclusion to conclude, we can look forward to 2017 being a year of decisive action for innovation in retail payments. the main deliverables at the consumer end of the payments chain are pan - european instant payment solutions and a service for ( person - to - person ) mobile payments using the mobile phone number as a proxy for the iban. in the payment service provider domain, a common set of technical, operational and business requirements for the development of an integrated market for payment initiation services is to be developed. in the market infrastructure domain, the eurosystem is committed to taking a timely decision on whether to build a settlement service for instant payments in euro in central bank money, leveraging the paneuropean nature of target2. 3 / 3 bis central bankers'speeches

and terrorist financing to vcs, and called on international standard - setters to monitor vcs closely – and assess multilateral responses where needed. 6 restraining the facilitators 3 / 5 bis central bankers'speeches let me turn to the facilitators of vcs. we need to hold vc exchanges to the same rigorous standards as the rest of the financial system. for this purpose, the 5th anti - money laundering directive will bring vc exchanges and walletproviders within the scope of anti - money laundering ( aml ) and combating the financing of terrorism ( cft ). but we need a broader perspective on regulation. possible regulatory action to extend licensing and supervision rules to vc facilitators could be explored. 7 protecting financial market infrastructures third, i would like to cover financial market infrastructure services. one of the key questions is whether vcs could become a settlement asset in payment and settlement services or be used in the clearing domain. existing standards for fmis refer to the usage of “ a settlement asset with little or no credit and liquidity risk ” 8 while this appears to exclude settlement involving vcs, such standards do not systematically apply to all fmis. the situation is similar in the field of securities settlement. could vcs be used as an asset for settling securities transactions or constitute a security per se? the answer hinges on whether they could be legally characterised as a “ financial instrument ” under the applicable regulation. and this depends on whether crypto - assets allow the identification of an issuer who can be held liable. the use of vcs at central counterparties ( ccps ) should also be monitored. here too, standards require ccps to accept highly liquid collateral with minimal credit and market risk. while it is doubtful that a vc would meet such a requirement, clear guidelines ex ante would be helpful. in my view, there ’ s a need to examine whether any vc activity carried out by fmis should have to be ring - fenced. the enforcement of segregated accounts and liabilities could be discussed. fmis play an important role in financial markets, and any liquidity support offered by central banks should be to mitigate shocks emanating from the real economy, not from gambling in risky assets. regulating banks finally, we need to look at the banking sector. due to the high volatility of vcs it might seem appropriate to require any vc trading to be backed by adequate levels of capital, and segregated from other trading and investment