Publication
Road to COP29: Our insights
The 28th Conference of the Parties on Climate Change (COP28) took place on November 30 - December 12 in Dubai.
Middle East | Publication | September 2024
On 20 August 2024, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (the FSRA), the financial services regulator in the Abu Dhabi Global Market (the ADGM), published Consultation Paper No. 7 of 2024 (CP7) on a proposed regulatory framework for the issuance of stablecoins that are backed by a fiat currency, or what the CP7 refers to as “Fiat-Referenced Tokens” (FRTs).
The FSRA’s proposed rules come at a time where key players in the stablecoin industry are showing a strong interest in the UAE. The purpose of this briefing note is to provide a high-level overview of the FSRA’s proposed rules and address some key questions often raised by prospective issuers.
The proposed new rules only cover a specific type of stablecoins that are backed by fiat or high-quality liquid assets. This means that although all FRTs may qualify as stablecoins, not all stablecoins would be considered to be FRTs. The proposed rules will not apply to stablecoins that are not backed by fiat or high-quality liquid assets. Further, stablecoins which are algorithmic in nature continue to be expressly prohibited.
Although FRTs and Virtual Assets share certain underlying similarities (in that they are underpinned by blockchain technology), the key difference is that an FRT can be redeemed on demand with the issuer who is required to deliver a certain amount of fiat currency or other thing of value. In contrast, a Virtual Asset’s value is generally speculative, and holders do not have a redemption right. The ability for FRT to be redeemed in a "timely and efficient manner" is a key concern for the FSRA.
With the above in mind, the FSRA has put forward the following definition of an FRT:
"a digital asset whose transfer and storage is achieved electronically through the use of distributed ledger technology, which:
The FSRA is considering to treat FRT issuance as a new separate regulated activity, or to keep it as part of an expanded “Providing Money Services” regulated activity.
We note that the proposed minimum capital requirement is USD 2 million or the issuer’s Annual Audited Expenditure, whichever is higher.
Finally, we note that:
The FSRA is proposing for FRT issuers to maintain a minimum capital resources which would be the higher of USD 2 million or the issuer’s “Annual Audited Expenditure” (with a minimum CET1 USD 2 million component). This is welcome development which does not follow other jurisdictions which impose a variable capital requirement based on the par value FRT in circulation.
The FSRA proposes that FRTs be backed by “Reserve Assets” consisting of cash and investments comprising of high-quality liquid assets in the same currency of the FRT. The types of investments are limited to:
The Issuers will also be required to submit their allocation limits for the various classes of Reserve Assets to the FSRA for approval. The FSRA proposes that the minimum percentage of cash against the total value of the FRT outstanding should consider the level of recent and anticipated redemption requests.
For completeness, FRT issuers will also be expected to publish an independent monthly assessment of their Reserve Assets.
The FSRA is proposing to keep Reserve Assets segregated at all times with third party custodians to help ensure insolvency remoteness. This means that an issuer proposing to issue more than one type of FRT would need to maintain a separate Reserve Asset pool for each FRT.
The FSRA has opted not to prohibit an FRT from accruing and distributing income derived from Reserve Assets.
However, the FSRA is proposing to prohibit the promotion of FRTs as an investment or savings product to mitigate the risks of:
Moreover, FRT issuers are required to disclose in their white paper that an FRT will generate income only if the value of the Reserve Assets exceeds the par value of the FRT in circulation, and not by default (in addition to any redemption conditions such as fees).
Incidentally, the CP7 states the reason for requiring FRTs to be backed by high-quality liquid assets with minimal market, credit and concentration risks, is to prevent FRT issuers competing to offer more yield to holders.
To ringfence the FRT issuer from risks that might impair redemption, the FSRA not only proposes to prohibit issuer from carrying on any other regulated activity alongside the issuance (and redemption) of FRTs but also from having any ownership stake in any other entity.
Note that the prohibition does not prevent members of the same group as the FRT issuer from carrying on regulated activities, especially given the FRT issuer’s prohibition from holding shares in other group members.
Similar to its existing Accepted Virtual Assets regime, only FRTs that the FSRA deems to be “Accepted Fiat-Referenced Tokens” may be dealt with in the ADGM. However, this time around the FSRA is proposing to publish a list of which FRTs it deems as such.
Finally, note that the requirements set out in Chapter 17 of the COBS Rulebook (i.e., anti-money laundering, transaction monitoring, IT risk and travel rule requirements) will apply to FRTs.
Publication
The 28th Conference of the Parties on Climate Change (COP28) took place on November 30 - December 12 in Dubai.
Publication
While country risk cannot be avoided in cross-border transactions entirely, it can be effectively mitigated through careful transaction structuring and tailored contractual protections.
Publication
Miranda Cole, Julien Haverals and Emma Clarke of our Brussels/ London offices are the authors of a chapter on procedural issues in merger control that has been published in the third edition of the Global Competition Review’s The Guide to Life Sciences. This covers a number of significant procedural developments that have affected merger review of life sciences transactions.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023