Stefano Capaccioli is an Italian accountant expert in the field of regulation, blockchain and cryptocurrencies who has also been selected to be one of the 30 blockchain experts of MiSE (The Italian Ministry of Economic Development).
For years he has also managed Coinlex, a strategic consulting firm for companies, public entities and institutions in the design of blockchain technology application models.
The Cryptonomist had the opportunity to interview Stefano Capaccioli, also as a follow-up to his speech during Blockchain Week Rome a few weeks ago.
What do you think of the new Consob guidelines?
An excellent start, both in terms of content and methods, since consultation procedures are always a sign of openness. We need to start building a “hospitable” and balanced environment.
Do you think cryptocurrencies need their own laws?
In order to normalise cryptocurrencies we need to understand them, both in their current and prospective forms: unfortunately, we do not have suitable conceptual tools or elaborate conceptual categories. That is why it is dangerous to want to regulate something that is not known. If anything, it is necessary to better outline and define the concepts that until now were indicated as “basic” such as asset, currency, financial instrument, concepts that often do not have clear borderlines.
Where do you see the future of Italy in terms of the development in the crypto world, also considering the imminent regulation?
The future of crypto will depend on the ability of this country to intercept trends, rejecting reactionary tendencies which only raise doubts and uncertainties, without ever taking the time to analyse the potential.
What do you think about Facebook’s Libra?
I am more interested in the composition of the members than in the technological implications, on the basis of a necessary premise: it is not a cryptocurrency, if anything it resembles electronic money. The hypothesis of creating a basket of currencies is not a new idea, as it is the basis of the Special Drawing Rights of the International Monetary Fund.
And what do you think of STOs?
Here a distinction must be made between ST (Security Token) and O (Offering). The first part suffers from a fundamental ambiguity since the concept of security tokens is not defined, resulting in too many people being confused by this ambiguity, proposing solutions that are either remedial or imaginative and have no connection with reality.
No token has a direct relationship with the company, except for one solution that we have implemented in Italy. The Offering part leads to having to deal with the legislation aimed at protecting the solicitation of public savings provided for by the TUF (in Italy) and the Prospectus Regulation that is coming into force.