No, Denmark did not propose banning self-custody wallets

Helen Partz12 hours agoNo, Denmark did not propose banning self-custody walletsThe Danish Financial Supervisory Authority said the exemption of self-custodial wallets from MiCA doesn’t mean such wallets should be banned.2673 Total views2 Total sharesListen to article 0:00NewsOwn this piece of crypto historyCollect this article as NFTJoin us on social networksContrary to recent social media reports suggesting that Denmark was “about to ban” Bitcoin wallets, Danish regulators have not proposed banning self-custodial cryptocurrency wallets.

The Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (DFSA) has denied reports suggesting that the regulator plans to ban self-custodial wallets, also known as non-custodial wallets.

“We are aware of some misinformation circulating on social media suggesting that the DFSA intends to ban hardware wallets and other non-custodial wallets,” Tobias Thygesen, DFSA’s director for fintech, payments services and governance, told Cointelegraph. He stated:“This is incorrect. The DFSA has not proposed any such ban.”Self-custodial wallets are not subject to MiCA by nature

DFSA’s clarification followed up on the regulatory assessment of decentralization in the context of the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) Regulation, which came into force on June 30.

Published on June 25, DFSA’s assessment provided a set of principles to address challenges in regulating decentralized crypto-asset services. 

According to Thygesen, MiCA explicitly exempted crypto-asset services “provided in a fully decentralized manner without any intermediary.” As such, for a service to be regulated under MiCA, it must not be fully decentralized. It also should involve one of the activities listed in Article 3(16) of MiCA, such as crypto custody, trading and other crypto services.

“The only regulated activity directly concerning wallets is providing custody and administration of crypto-assets on behalf of clients, which involves custody of crypto-assets on behalf of clients,” Thygesen told Cointelegraph, adding:“Hardware wallets do not give custody of private keys to the wallet provider and thus are not regulated by MiCA. Non-custodial wallets, by their nature, are not subject to MiCAR.”

Mikko Ohtamaa, co-founder of algorithmic investment protocol Trading Strategy, incorrectly interpreted the assessment in an X post on June 26. He believed that by exempting self-custodial wallets, DFSA essentially wanted to stop offering such wallets in Denmark, but that was not the case.Source: Mikko OhtamaaWhat are self-custodial wallets?

Self-custody is a method of storing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC) without any intermediary. This means that a user directly holds crypto assets and has full control over the cryptocurrency stored.

Holding a cryptocurrency in a self-custodial wallet allows users to be their own bank, but there is a trade-off that the responsibility of maintaining the wallet security and safety of the private key falls exclusively on the owner.

Unlike custodial crypto wallets, such as Wallet on Telegram messenger, self-custodial wallets typically do not require Know Your Customer ( procedures. This means that the private key is the sole method of verifying ownership.

Related:SEC sues Consensys over MetaMask’s brokerage, staking services

Self-custodial wallets have a few subtypes, including software-based wallets like MetaMask and hardware wallets like Ledger or Trezor.DFSA’s assessment aimed to increase awareness of potential regulatory requirements

Despite not being subject to MiCA, some software wallets provide integrated interfaces to fully decentralized services in addition to their wallet services. According to Thygesen, such integrations could potentially be independently regulated by MiCA if they are not provided fully decentralized.

For example, a software wallet that directly executes orders on a decentralized exchange on behalf of clients could require authorization if a legal entity has control over the offer and provides this specific activity as a service for clients, the DFSA official said. He added:“These cases are often very complex and would entail a case-by-case assessment. The intention [...] is to ensure awareness of potential regulatory requirements, and underline that the DFSA is open for dialogue for understanding whether specific offers in Denmark are in scope of MICA or not.”

Magazine:Crypto-Sec: Phishing scammer goes after Hedera users, address poisoner gets $70K# Bitcoin# Denmark# Wallet# Hardware Wallet# Regulation# Self CustodyAdd reaction