, as long as this proposal ensures consistency with existing legislation, notably in europe. to that end, i suggest the fsb to monitor closely the implementation of its own recommendations on cryptos, as the basel committee does on banking regulations. more broadly, big techs did not make the breakthrough in traditional banking activities that many had expected : why is that? regulatory constraints certainly stand as a first explanation, especially since they were tightened following the great financial crisis. both lending and deposit - taking are highly regulated in most advanced economies, and big techs tend to set up partnerships with banks in these countries rather than create a fully - owned subsidiary for instance. in addition, the low - rate environment that prevailed until recently may have been unfavourable to new banks – as their business model relies strongly on the value of sight deposits –, and an ageing population in advanced economies may have preserved loyalty to incumbent banks and insurance companies which benefit from high public trust. for the first time, big techs may now be touching on the limits of their core business models, and might seek further diversification, as financial activities already account for around 11 % of their revenuesvi. so the question is : will this breakthrough in finance happen at all? time will tell, but in my view, disintermediation by big techs remains a plausible scenario. the massive and prosperous tech firms can learn from their difficulties and enter into the space of banking and finance. this raises the question of the conditions under which big techs could broaden their reach. 2 / 5 bis - central bankers'speeches ii. maturity and consistency years ahead? in a bildungsroman, the early and learning years are eventually followed by the maturity years, which hopefully coincide with greater consistency. in this particular case, big techs are not the only ones to mature as time and digital innovation proceed : financial institutions and supervisors must also mature and modernize. the regulatory environment has to stay up - to - date and preserve financial stability, without bringing the technological revolution to a halt. while the sound principle " same activity, same risk, same regulatory outcome " remains fully valid, several international institutions – including the bis and the imf – have recently called for a " hybrid approach " vii : home supervisors should implement an entity - based approach that would encompass all big tech's activities and risks, and host supervisors should implement an activity - based approach. it opens up interesting perspectives, although it can only be carried out

effectiveness and security of our financial system. because this nascent ecosystem is also a source of many risks. the international work of public authorities highlighted these issues from the risk of money laundering to the risk of the consumer or investor. i would like to highlight one of them : the risk related to the network effect. this risk was mentioned when some bigtechs considered creating supra - national “ currencies " : by offering to an extremely large customer base, these projects raised questions about monetary sovereignty of the states, as well as serious questions about the functioning of competition. users may de facto be captured by an ecosystem and have no choice of their payment service, or at least be 1 / 3 bis central bankers'speeches influenced by bigtechs to use their services at the expense of competitors. but the opposite risk exists : payment system fragmentation, which can lead to a deterioration in the service to users. central banks have a long experience with these issues, especially in the field of payments. in this respect, the balance of cooperation and competition between industry players, in other words “ co - opetition ”, has proven to be historically valuable. one of the challenges now is to maintain these “ co - opetition ” relationships over time, ensuring that they can include all players and coordinate effectively the payment systems ( and ecosystems ) – traditional or innovative. 2. the banque de france ’ s action to help meet these challenges, at the banque de france, we develop our actions along two lines : ( i ) the first one is to support and implement regulatory frameworks and supervisory practices that promote both innovation and the stability of our financial system most of the current regulatory framework was designed before the technological “ breaks ” that we now face. it therefore seems logical to adapt it to these technological changes and to the challenges and risks associated with them. the same applies, of course, to our supervisory framework and methods. in terms of regulating crypto - assets, france pioneered the establishment of a legal framework in 2019, with two objectives : creating legal certainty and trust to promote the development of a healthy and innovative ecosystem ; preserving innovation by being careful not to curtail further development opportunities and risk depriving the economy of beneficial innovations. with these two objectives in mind, we also support the european project for markets in cryptoassets ( mica ), which will, in particular, provide a first harmonised eu - wide regulatory framework for stablecoins. ( ii ) be involved