The 527 respondents incorporated exchanges and firms involved in cryptocurrency assets & derivatives, trade bodies, national competent authorities, legal representatives as well as individuals.
The 97% who opposed the FCA proposed ban argued that cryptocurrency assets do have intrinsic value, retail investors are capable of assessing this value, which other measures could achieve the specified results without applying a “disproportionate” ban.
Within his official web-blog, attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain, crypto-skeptic David Gerard suggested that this was an example of “Cryptocurrency derivatives peddlers [thinking] they might be able to spam the process and that they were wrong.”
Certainly, the responses came from a “range of stakeholders” covering the U.K. cryptocurrency industry. However, it might be over than a little incongruous if a consultation on crypto derivatives elicited an outsized response from parties with no stake within the outcome, as Gerard would appear to prefer.
As per an article published on buyshares.co.uk also accuses the FCA of cherry-picking its data.
Despite acknowledging that 60% of outcomes from trading crypto-ETNs between June 2015 & April 2019 were profitable, the FCA report deems this era unsuitable for consideration due to its inclusion of Bitcoin’s late-2017 run to its all-time high.
Instead, the report focuses on a period from April 2018 to Dec last year, during which 57% of cryptocurrency-ETN clients lost money.
Buyshares.co.uk researcher Justinas Baltrusaitis also points out that within the time period from April 2018 until today, an even greater number of investors would have lost money on the FTSE100, that has dropped 20% in value, adding:
“One wonders whether the FCA’s decision to ban cryptocurrency derivatives is a politically motivated one which will absolve the responsibility of the FCA with regards to cryptocurrencies. As against to starting a long-term strategy which will safeguard both United States-based users as well as the blockchain innovation at large.”