A Pause That Punishes the Public: Why a Blanket Crypto Moratorium Is the Wrong Move
A recent bill introduced in Parliament would effectively halt virtually all virtual-asset business activity in our jurisdiction until the end of 2027. The measure would make it illegal to carry on virtual-asset business here unless authorised — while also preventing authorisations from being granted during the moratorium period.
This is not a prudent “breathing space.” It is a prolonged freeze that will punish ordinary citizens, innovators and small businesses while creating winners and losers among powerful incumbents.
1. Most leading jurisdictions are regulating, not banning
Across major advanced economies, the trend is not prohibition but regulated access: licensing, AML/KYC requirements, consumer protections, and targeted rules for different token types (payment tokens, stablecoins, securities-like tokens).
The European Union’s MiCA framework, the United States’ tax and securities guidance, Japan’s licensing regime, and Germany’s asset-class treatment all illustrate responsible regulation — not blanket prohibition.
A sweeping moratorium would make Trinidad and Tobago an outlier rather than a model.
2. You cannot truly ban a decentralised system — a ban drives activity underground
Cryptocurrencies and decentralised finance run on peer-to-peer networks that do not rely on any single licensable server. When a government bans legal, regulated on-ramps, users simply shift to offshore platforms, peer-to-peer trades, or informal networks — making oversight harder, not easier.
Bans have historically driven activity underground, where scams and abuse proliferate. If the goal is consumer protection and financial integrity, this approach achieves the opposite.
3. The real winners from a long moratorium
Who benefits when digital finance is frozen for years?
Traditional financial institutions and established payment processors.
A freeze shields legacy banks and major incumbents from competition, buying them time to shape the next generation of digital finance on their terms — or to create closed, bank-controlled “stablecoins” that exclude smaller innovators.
Global reports show banks are lobbying for rules that restrict independent crypto platforms. A long moratorium risks entrenching those incumbents and punishing entrepreneurs, consumers, and the underbanked who might otherwise benefit from cheaper, faster, and more inclusive financial systems.
4. There’s a better way: targeted, risk-based regulation
Other Caribbean jurisdictions with fintech ambitions — such as The Bahamas — have shown that a balanced approach works. They introduced licensing regimes, consumer-protection rules, and clear definitions instead of long prohibitions.
Global standard-setters like the IMF, FSB, and FATF all advocate risk-based regulation aligned with international standards, not multi-year bans that isolate small economies.
5. The real cost of a ban
-
Innovation loss – Startups and fintechs move operations abroad.
-
Consumer harm – Users turn to offshore or unregulated services with no recourse.
-
Enforcement difficulty – Fewer legal on-ramps mean less traceability for AML/CFT.
-
Market concentration – Large institutions gain more control, reducing competition and inclusion.
If the goal is to protect citizens, the solution is not a blackout — it’s smart regulation that keeps innovation within the legal and supervised economy.
6. A constructive path forward
-
Classify assets by risk — stablecoins, payment tokens, tokenised securities, NFTs, etc.
-
License and supervise service providers (VASPs) with KYC/AML standards.
-
Create a regulatory sandbox to pilot local innovations safely.
-
Educate consumers through clear public campaigns and disclosure rules.
-
Align with IMF/FSB/FATF standards to avoid isolation and encourage investment.
Final Note
A three-year moratorium framed as a “pause” is not neutral — it’s a policy choice that protects a few and punishes many.
It hands more control to traditional finance, pushes ordinary people into unsafe channels, and delays our participation in a rapidly evolving global financial ecosystem.
Trinidad and Tobago can still choose to be cautious and competitive. But time is running out to make that choice wisely.
🔗 References
IMF–FSB Synthesis Paper: Policies for Crypto Assets https://www.fsb.org/2023/09/imf-fsb-synthesis-paper-policies-for-crypto-assets
IMF Technical Assistance Report (Trinidad & Tobago, 2023): Strategy for Managing Crypto Assets https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2023/01/27/Trinidad-and-Tobago-Technical-Assistance-Report-Crypto-Asset-Regulation-and-Supervision-529110
FATF Guidance (2023): Virtual Assets and Virtual Asset Service Providers https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/Guidance-RBA-virtual-assets-2023.html
Law Library of Congress – Global Legal Research Center Offers in-depth legal surveys on cryptocurrency regulation by country, often used by academics and policymakers. https://www.loc.gov/collections/publications-of-the-law-library-of-congress/about-this-collection/
PwC Global Crypto Regulation Report 2025 https://legal.pwc.de/content/services/global-crypto-regulation-report/pwc-global-crypto-regulation-report-2025.pdf
Atlantic Council: Crypto Regulation Tracker https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/programs/geoeconomics-center/cryptoregulationtracker
Investopedia: Countries Where Bitcoin Is Legal or Illegal https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/041515/countries-where-bitcoin-legal-illegal.asp
OECD – Global Forum on Digital Assets The OECD provides comparative studies and policy recommendations on crypto regulation across jurisdictions. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/finance-and-investment.html
TechNewsTT (Mark Lyndersay): A Blanket Ban on Cryptocurrency Is a Luddite’s Strategy https://technewstt.com/pr-un-digitalcurrency
Submitted by: C.Patrick
Contact CAIR today:
.jpg)
Subscribe to our blog and contact CAIR on any of our pages:
No comments:
Post a Comment