A new IOTA-backed INATBA policy paper states that regulators are incorrectly conflating distributed ledger technology with the legal nature of underlying assets. The paper notes that regulators are ignoring the fact that tokenization is simply a digital representation, not a legal reclassification. The International Association for Trusted Blockchain Applications (INATBA) released its new policy paper [...]]]>A new IOTA-backed INATBA policy paper states that regulators are incorrectly conflating distributed ledger technology with the legal nature of underlying assets. The paper notes that regulators are ignoring the fact that tokenization is simply a digital representation, not a legal reclassification. The International Association for Trusted Blockchain Applications (INATBA) released its new policy paper [...]]]>

IOTA Foundation Expert Co-Authors INATBA Paper Pushing Back on Overreaching Web3 Rules

2025/12/10 16:47
  • A new IOTA-backed INATBA policy paper states that regulators are incorrectly conflating distributed ledger technology with the legal nature of underlying assets.
  • The paper notes that regulators are ignoring the fact that tokenization is simply a digital representation, not a legal reclassification.

The International Association for Trusted Blockchain Applications (INATBA) released its new policy paper slamming the new Web3 rules and the “regulatory conflation” in the digital economy. In a direct involvement, IOTA Foundation’s Giannis Rousopoulos is among the five experts authoring the document. The policy paper notes that treating all tokenized assets as financial securities threatens innovation.

INATBA’s Policy Paper Slams Regulatory Overreach

In its policy paper, INABTA has delivered a clear message to global policymakers as frameworks for digital assets continue to evolve. They added that the broad and assumption-based classifications of tokenized assets don’t align with long-term regulatory policies.

It notes that it won’t be right for regulators to treat all virtual digital assets as financial instruments. INATBA argues that regulators have confused the distributed ledger technology (DLT), used to record ownership, with what is actually owned. They added that tokenization is just a new way to keep digital records, while the regulators treat it as if it changes the legal nature of something.

Co-chairs Jean-Christophe Mathonet of ProSquare and Izzat-Begum B. Rajan of Imani Partners emphasize that regulators are applying the principle of “same activity, same regulatory outcome” too broadly. Although applicable to traditional markets, this framework is not suitable for decentralized business models.

“Tokenization is merely a technological process for digital representation and consequently is not a legal reclassification of the underlying asset,” the paper states. Tokenized real-world assets like commodities or infrastructure rights represent property interests, not financial securities.

In its policy paper, INATBA uses the example of fractional real estate ownership. In it, multiple people jointly purchase property through traditional contracts and share costs and benefits proportionally. Any subsequent sale transfers are not a financial product.

INATBA argues that using blockchain tokens for the same arrangement should not transform the underlying asset into a security that requires financial reporting.

IOTA Foundation’s Role In Regulatory Policy

Being the founding member of INATBA, the IOTA Foundation has a major contribution in this policy paper. At the same time, IOTA’s legal team, including former Director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs Anja Raden, had co-authored several papers for decentralized finance (DeFi), non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and autonomous organizations.

The IOTA Foundation has also provided feedback to the European Commission on anti-money laundering packages as well as the Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) regulation. The organization’s involvement reflects its broader commitment to make sure that regulations accommodate decentralized technologies while maintaining market integrity

]]>
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Crypto whale loses $6M to sneaky phishing scheme targeting staked Ethereum

Crypto whale loses $6M to sneaky phishing scheme targeting staked Ethereum

The post Crypto whale loses $6M to sneaky phishing scheme targeting staked Ethereum appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. A crypto whale lost more than $6 million in staked Ethereum (stETH) and Aave-wrapped Bitcoin (aEthWBTC) after approving malicious signatures in a phishing scheme on Sept. 18, according to blockchain security firm Scam Sniffer. According to the firm, the attackers disguised their move as a routine wallet confirmation through “Permit” signatures, which tricked the victim into authorizing fund transfers without triggering obvious red flags. Yu Xian, founder of blockchain security company SlowMist, noted that the victim did not recognize the danger because the transaction required no gas fees. He wrote: “From the victim’s perspective, he just clicked a few times to confirm the wallet’s pop-up signature requests, didn’t spend a single penny of gas, and $6.28 million was gone.” How Permit exploits work Permit approvals were originally designed to simplify token transfers. Instead of submitting an on-chain approval and paying fees, a user can sign an off-chain message authorizing a spender. That efficiency, however, has created a new attack surface for malicious players. Once a user signs such a permit, attackers can combine two functions—Permit and TransferFrom—to drain assets directly. Because the authorization takes place off-chain, wallet dashboards show no unusual activity until the funds move. As a result, the assets are gone when the approval executes on-chain, and tokens are redirected to the attacker’s wallet. This loophole has made permit exploits increasingly attractive for malicious actors, who can siphon millions without needing complex hacks or high-cost gas wars. Phishing losses The latest theft highlights a wider trend of escalating phishing campaigns. Scam Sniffer reported that in August alone, attackers stole $12.17 million from more than 15,200 victims. That figure represented a 72% jump in losses compared with July. According to the firm, the most significant share of August’s damages came from three large accounts that accounted for nearly half…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/19 02:31