• no ads
  • no ads

European Crypto News – September 2020 edition

Here I am back with a new format, more succinct, which will allow me more regularity.

The objective is to compile the news that I consider important in the world of crypto-currencies on the European territory. A simple summary with the links to deepen the subject will be provided

Don’t worry, the law will never be far away but much less developed than in my previous articles.

I invite you to read my academic research on the subject if you wish to go deeper into the topics covered in these reviews. You can also do your own research (DYOR is valid for everything).

I hope you will like it.

 

  • France choose TEZOS blockchain for his CBDC experiment :

As I mentioned in this previous article (https://www.publish0x.com/fla/public-crypto-currency-why-and-how-banque-de-france-successf-xdrndnv ), France, like many European countries, has launched an experiment with a European central bank digital currency (CBDC) based on the blockchain.

The advantages of using this type of technology are numerous, and the experiment seems to be progressing rapidly. France is trying to position itself as a leader in this experimentation with, I find, a lot of determination and relevance.

It was announced on September 15, 2020 that Société Générale’s internal startup will explore the technical feasibility in partnership with Nomadic Labs.

It was announced on September 15, 2020 that the Banque de France experiment led by Société Générale would use the TEZOS blockchain, in partnership with Nomadic Labs. The objective is to test the technical feasibility of such a use.

The arguments put forward for this choice are :

– Use of the proof-of-stake consensus instead of the less energy consuming proof-of-work.

– Public and decentralized governance.

There is no doubt that further information will be provided in the future on the results of this experimentation.

 

  • The CJEU recalls the principle of net neutrality:

In a judgment dated 15 September 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) considers that the principle of net neutrality precludes an Internet Service Provider (ISP) from favouring certain services and applications by means of preferential access bundles.

This decision is the first interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of 25 November 2015, establishing measures on access to an open Internet and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No. 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union.

This article 3 of the European directive enshrined the principle of net neutrality, in contrast to recent US decisions. Indeed, it states that :

– The right of end-users to access and distribute content, to use and provide applications and services, and to operate the terminal equipment of their choice (paragraph 1)

– The fact that the agreements and ISPs and their customers do not limit the exercise of the above rights (paragraph 2)

– The obligation for ISPs to treat all traffic “equally”. However, with the possibility of implementing “reasonable” traffic management measures. That is, among other things, based not on commercial considerations, but on “objective differences in the technical requirements for quality of service for certain categories of traffic. Unless they are necessary to comply with legislation, to protect the integrity and security of the network or to “prevent imminent congestion and mitigate the effects of exceptional or temporary congestion” (paragraph 3).

The European judge therefore holds that slowing or blocking measures are incompatible with the general obligation of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic on the exercise of end-users’ rights, as long as they are based on commercial considerations, and not on objective differences between the technical requirements in terms of quality of service for certain categories of traffic.

However, this means that an operator is then entitled to discriminate against traffic based on objective differences according to the technical requirements of the network, but not because of the identity of the partner (Deezer, Youtube etc…).

Related post