Gemini has announced it is leaving the UK, alongside exits from Europe and Australia, and is refocusing on the US and Singapore.
I discussed exactly this risk at the Financial Times Digital Assets Summit last May.
This is what happens when compliance becomes cumbersome and prohibitively expensive. Smaller companies are pushed out first. Over time large and established businesses reassess whether it makes sense to continue operating in an environment where regulatory uncertainty, cost and process complexity keep increasing.
Gemini is not a small startup, it is one of the largest regulated exchanges to have operated in the UK.
When firms of this size choose to concentrate activity in jurisdictions they view as more business friendly, it reflects how growth conditions, capital allocation, and long term viability are being weighed.
What we are seeing is business leaving the UK, reduced competition, slower growth, and fewer companies choosing to build here.
This is an important moment for policymakers and regulators to reflect on how current frameworks are affecting business confidence, competition, and growth in the UK.
https://support.gemini.com/hc/en-gb/articles/46255474469275-Gemini-closing-accounts-in-the-UK-EU-and-Australia-Everything-you-need-to-know
After 3 years at Bitcoin Policy UK, having worked as Head of Mining and Energy before becoming CEO, I'm stepping back from this role.
We've achieved so much with limited resources: delivering serious Bitcoin only policy engagement and gaining credibility with UK policymakers. We are all proud of that legacy.
However, the required funding did not materialise, so BPUK is working towards minimal maintenance mode by 31 March 2026.
All remaining funds and donations will help keep the work alive, with the rest held in Bitcoin in hope we can revive the organisation when the UK is ready.
With Bitcoin at 60% dominance and the UK a leader in finance and computer science, this should have been a clear priority. The UK still needs to move beyond its altcoin and speculation phase.
It's not over, it's just not the right time. We are still early.
Full announcement here:
Bitcoin Policy UK
Announcement from CEO: BPUK Is Entering a Consolidation Phase
After three years helping to build Bitcoin Policy UK, most recently as CEO, I have decided to step down from my role.
Huge thanks to all our amazing volunteers, advisors, members, supporters, contributors, and everyone who's engaged constructively. The expertise and ideas are there, the real gap is resourcing principled Bitcoin voices in policy.
The recently implemented Crypto Asset Reporting Framework is still being described as a narrow “crypto tax reporting” change. That framing misses what’s actually happening.
CARF doesn’t calculate tax owed. The data it gathers is too blunt for that. Instead, it aggregates holdings and transaction data to build risk profiles, flagging individuals for scrutiny without the context needed to reflect their true tax position.
As I wrote last year,
“CARF remains a high stakes experiment regulating the crypto asset sector.”
The scale of data collection is unprecedented. Under the proposals, exchanges and service providers will hold and transmit balances and transactions, as well as home addresses obtained through KYC and AML checks.
“Given the substantial data volumes and compliance mandates, the risk of misinterpretation is significant.”
The concentration of sensitive financial and personal data across dozens of jurisdictions increases the likelihood of false positives, unwarranted enquiries, data breaches and real world harm.
Governments present CARF as transparency. In practice, it’s a global surveillance framework applied to a system that wasn’t designed for it, with consequences that extend far beyond tax.
“CARF’s rollout marks an important moment for the crypto industry. Its success will depend on balancing government's push for financial transparency with individuals' desire for privacy. Whether it strikes this balance or intensifies existing tensions remains to be seen.”
Article below:
Forbes
Bitcoin Privacy At Risk? CARF And Government Oversight
The OECD's Cryptoasset Reporting Framework may signal a regulatory crack down, expanding oversight and raising privacy concerns.
Digital ID was debated in Parliament, in a Westminster Hall debate opened by Robbie Moore MP on behalf of the Petitions Committee and triggered by a petition signed by nearly three million people.
The response from MPs across parties was overwhelmingly NO.
Across all parties, Conservatives, Labour backbenchers, Liberal Democrats, Greens, the SNP, Reform and Independents raised the same core concerns:
• Moves Britain toward a surveillance state
• Irreversible centralisation of personal data
• Major cyber security risk
• Serious risk of mission creep• Not in the manifesto and no democratic mandate
• Constituents do not want it
• Would become mandatory in practice
• Harms the most vulnerable and the digitally excluded
• Creates a two tier society
Reading from a constituent's message, Jeremy Corbyn, an independent MP, said:
"Digital ID is a deeply illiberal idea that threatens privacy, autonomy and the open access we should be standing for.
It risks creating a two tier Britain where access to basic services, healthcare, housing, employment, even voting, depends on whether someone has the right app, paperwork or digital trail."
Reflecting the vast cross party consensus in the debate, Corbyn endorsed an intervention from Andrew Griffith MP warning about civil liberties, the presumption of innocence and surveillance concerns, saying "he's making an important point," before going on to warn that digital ID is "being pushed by commercial interests" and urging Parliament to "say no to the government, as we have said no before."
In the debate, opposition to the proposals spanned both the political right and left.
Speaker after speaker warned that once this infrastructure exists, it will expand into work, housing, banking, benefits and public services, regardless of today's assurances.
What this debate showed very clearly is that left versus right is no longer the most meaningful divide.
The real divide is libertarian versus authoritarian.
MPs from across the political spectrum lined up on the liberty side. That matters, particularly in a country with a growing reputation for restricting free speech and quietly sleepwalking into authoritarianism.
It also raises uncomfortable questions ... If no one wants this, and Parliament agrees it is dangerous, why is it being pushed so hard?
Jeremy Corbyn was clear about the role of commercial interests, a concern reinforced by policy advocacy from groups such as the Tony Blair Institute and Visa, which has openly argued for the introduction of digital ID's.
Others also raised concerns about lobbying, infrastructure vendors, payments firms, and ID adjacent technology providers.
This petition and debate offered a rare moment of reassurance in our parliamentary system. MPs listened, understood the risks, and spoke up.
Bitcoin was built to remove discretion from money.
When growth weakens and inflation persists, rates are moved and hope is meant to do the rest.
In a discretionary system, those in power decide when to inflict pain, moving rates to crush demand, slow spending, weaken jobs and suppress prices, while calling the damage stability.
Savers lose, risk bends and debt holds the system together ... until it doesn’t.
This is what happens when economic theory hardens into doctrine.
@Roxom TV
