Since March of this year, when FinCEN released new guidelines requiring virtual currency operators to be licensed as money transmitters, the subject of compliance has been the main topic of conversation within the virtual currency world. Conferences devoted to federal and state regulations such as the Virtual Currency Compliance Conference “VC3” hosted by the NMTA two weeks ago are being held in order to connect and learn from regulators, traditional money transmitters and virtual currency operators. And although the efforts of conference organizers are valiant, one huge piece of the compliance puzzle is being overlooked; Surety Bonds.
The process of getting licensed and bonded nationally is onerous for emerging startups in the money transmitter space. For that reason, a number of traditional money transmitters have expanded their business models to include an agent program that allows virtual currency operators to “piggyback” off of their licenses, and by extension, their surety bonds. But there is a mounting problem with that business model. The surety bond carriers that are denying bond applications from virtual currency operators are the same carriers that are currently providing the bonds to the money transmitters offering agent programs to the virtual currency industry. Surety bond carriers are beginning to question their desire to continue providing bonds to money transmitters interested in opening their licenses and bonds to be piggybacked on by virtual currency operators.
A leading underwriter for a large surety bond carrier expressed his concern for the business model in a recent message where he points out that one misstep by an agent could be a money transmitter’s demise and easily cause a claim on one of the bonds. He goes on to say that he understands that they are only underwriting the money transmitter, but that they are ultimately relying on the principal’s ability to underwrite the agents. The pinnacle of his concerns is this; “They (traditional money transmitters) are getting into the Bitcoin arena, which is a class of business we are not comfortable with at the moment.”
It is yet to be seen if surety bond carriers will take action against traditional money transmitters that partner with virtual currency operators by cancelling their bonds and therefore rendering them unlicensed. However, we do know that bond carriers have the right to cancel a bond at renewal for whatever reason they deem appropriate. For example, virtual currency companies that have been issued a money transmitter bond in the past are now seeing those bonds being cancelled upon renewal due to the uncertainty of the virtual currency industry. Without the ability for companies to secure the necessary surety bonds, there is no hope for a legitimate virtual currency market.
The success of math-based currency relies on the efforts of advocates involved in each aspect of compliance. Alpha Surety is working hard to educate surety bond carriers on the virtual currency industry by representing both virtual currency operators and traditional money transmitters seeking to provide solutions to emerging technology companies.