SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda slams agency’s crypto policy as a ‘disaster’

Opinion by: Robin Singh, CEO of KoinlyIs there a catch for Bitcoin hodlers, with the asset’s price up over 600,000% since the beginning of 2013? Perhaps — if governments keep waking up to Bitcoin’s value, the whole “you only pay tax when you sell” mantra could soon be a thing of the past.What if a wealth tax is the answer for revenue-hungry tax agencies with no time to lose? It’s a yearly tax on a person’s total net worth — cash, investments, property and other assets — minus any debts, applied whether or not those assets are sold or generating income. The idea is to boost public revenue and curb inequality, mainly by taxing the ultra-rich. A wealth tax takes a clip off what you own, not what you earn.Countries such as Belgium, Norway and Switzerland have had wealth taxes baked into their tax systems for ages, yet some of the world’s biggest economies — like the US, Australia and France — have largely steered clear. That might be changing. More governments are eyeing wealth taxes for crypto. In December 2024, French Senator Sylvie Vermeillet took it a step further, suggesting Bitcoin (BTC) be labeled “unproductive,” which would mean taxing its gains every year — whether or not it’s ever sold. Yep, every asset holder’s favorite word is unrealized capital gains tax. It would be naive to assume other countries are not thinking about the same idea. With Bitcoin’s significant gains and industry executives such as ARK Invest’s Cathie Wood eyeing a $1.5-million price tag by 2030, I’d bet a magic 8-ball would say, “Signs point to yes.”The growing global interest in wealth taxIt might seem far-fetched, but it is hard to ignore the gains. The average long-term Bitcoin holder is already sitting on significant profits.The incentive is obvious. Switzerland’s wealth tax goes up to 1% of a portfolio’s value, and governments know there is plenty to collect.Countries catch on — sooner or later. Consider how capital gains tax became the norm.The US introduced capital gains tax in 1913, the UK jumped on board 52 years later in 1965, and Australia followed in 1985. Governments likely considering the wealth taxGovernments are likely entertaining the idea — whether they admit it or not. If any country seriously considers it, Germany could be a prime candidate, even though it scrapped its wealth tax back in 1997.Recent: Ukraine floats 23% tax on some crypto income, exemptions for stablecoinsIn July 2024, offloading 50,000 seized BTC at $58,000 might have seemed like a smart move for the German government, but when Bitcoin hit $100,000 just months later in December, it became clear they left a fortune on the table. In retrospect, a costly mistake…Will this be remembered as a blunder on par with Gordon Brown selling half of the UK’s gold reserves at $275 an ounce? Imposing such a rule on the wealthy comes with obvious risks.To understand the real effect of taxation on a country, just follow the money — specifically, where millionaires are moving. Recent data shows that high-net-worth individuals are leaving countries like the United Kingdom in droves, heading for tax-friendly havens like Dubai.The potential repercussions of a wealth taxWill nations risk losing these individuals to tap into unrealized gains on Bitcoin and other assets?Bitcoin is volatile and full of unknowns. While some events could lead to massive losses, governments may still push forward with policies that ultimately drive away millionaires, only to realize the trade-off wasn’t worth it. Conversely, US President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order establishing a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve — a clear nod to the hodl mentality. No doubt, this has other nations considering a similar move.If nations are embracing the hodl mindset, could that mean wealth taxes are off the table in those countries? Only time will tell.One thing is sure: Bitcoin hodlers have amassed enough wealth to put themselves on the radar of tax authorities. Whether this sparks fundamental policy changes or just political grandstanding, the crypto community won’t sit back quietly.Opinion by: Robin Singh, CEO of Koinly.This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Goldman Sachs-backed cryptocurrency custody firm BitGo is the latest cryptocurrency company to secure regulatory approval to operate across the European Union.Germany’s financial regulator, the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin), granted BitGo Europe a Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) license to provide digital asset services in the EU, the firm announced on May 12.The license allows BitGo to offer services to crypto-native firms and traditional finance institutions, including banks and asset managers within the EU.Source: BitGo“This license underscores our commitment to the highest standards of security, transparency, and trust,” BitGo Europe managing director Harald Patt said.BitGo set up the EU headquarters in 2023Founded in 2013 in Palo Alto, California, BitGo is a major platform in the cryptocurrency industry specializing in crypto custodial services, holding cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC) on behalf of its clients. BitGo’s latest regulatory milestone in Europe follows efforts to increase its presence in the EU, including establishing local headquarters in Frankfurt in 2023.Since setting up BitGo Europe in Germany, BitGo has received multiple registrations in EU states, including Italy, Spain, Poland and Greece.“With the MiCA license now secured, BitGo can operate across the entire EU under a unified, forward-looking regulatory framework,” the firm said in the announcement.“Broad range of institutional-grade solutions”BitGo did not specify the services it intends to roll out immediately under the new MiCA license.“BitGo’s MiCA licence comes at a pivotal moment as BitGo expands its product suite to offer a broad range of institutional-grade digital asset solutions,” the announcement added.Related: Tether CEO defends decision to skip MiCA registration for USDTAs of May 12, BaFin’s official records did not yet reflect BitGo’s MiCA license, showing only earlier registrations.BaFin data on BitGo’s registrations in Germany as of May 12, 2025, 8:30 am UTC. Source: BaFinCointelegraph approached BitGo for additional details on its MiCA license but did not receive a response by the time of publication.As previously mentioned, Germany has emerged as a major jurisdiction for European businesses seeking MiCA registration, with BaFin issuing licenses to several companies, including Bitpanda and Boerse Stuttgart Digital Custody, in 2025.Magazine: Crypto wanted to overthrow banks, now it’s becoming them in stablecoin fight

US federal prosecutors have rebutted claims they suppressed evidence in their case against the co-founders of the crypto mixing service Samourai Wallet, arguing their disclosure of a conversation with Treasury Department staff was made within the required timeframes. In a May 9 letter to a Manhattan federal court, prosecutors opposed a request for a hearing, claiming they handed over “all known substantive communications” between them and the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) regarding Samourai “months in advance of pretrial motions and trial.”“The defendants will have seven months to make use of the information before trial,” they wrote. “Nothing more is warranted.”On May 5, Samourai co-founders Keonne Rodriguez and William Hill asked the court for a hearing, claiming that prosecutors were late to disclose that FinCEN representatives told them six months before they charged the pair that under the agency’s guidance, the service “would not qualify as a ‘Money Services Business’ requiring a FinCEN license.”However, prosecutors still charged the pair in February 2024 with conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business and money laundering conspiracy, unsealing the charges and arresting the pair in April that year. They have both pleaded not guilty.In their letter, prosecutors argued they “acted in good faith” in disclosing the “contents of this informal conversation” between them and Kevin O’Connor, the chief of FinCEN’s Virtual Assets and Emerging Technology Section in the Enforcement and Compliance Division, and Policy Division staffer Lorena Valente.A highlighted excerpt of the prosecutors’ letter arguing that they disclosed a discussion with FinCEN on time and the discussion was an “informal conversation.” Source: PACERThey claimed O’Connor and Valente’s comments were “their individual, informal, and caveated opinion” on whether Samourai would need to register as a money transmitter under FinCEN regulations.FinCEN “did not have a sense” of broaching SamouraiThe prosecutor’s letter noted that an email from one of the prosecutors summarizing the August 2023 call with FinCEN said that because Samourai doesn’t take custody of the crypto, it “would strongly suggest that Samourai is NOT acting as an MSB [money services business].”However, it noted FinCEN staff “did not have a sense of what FinCEN would decide if this question were presented to their FinCEN policy committee.”An excerpt of an email from prosecutor Andrew Chan said FinCEN “did not have a sense” of what it would decide on Samourai. Source: CourtListenerSamourai’s lawyers had claimed that the call showed Rodriguez and Hill “were not money transmitters under FinCEN’s guidance” and that they “could not possibly be prosecuted for not having a license.”The Samourai co-founders had bid to dismiss the case in April, pointing to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s memo released that month saying the Justice Department wouldn’t prosecute crypto mixers for “unwitting violations of regulations.” In their letter, prosecutors addressed the memo, arguing the court “should not consider” it, as the memo states it “may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit” against the US or its departments.Legal Panel: XRP win leaves Ripple a ‘bad actor’ with no crypto legal precedent set