Bitcoin does not need permission. Unfortunately, in the UK, buying it increasingly does. In 2022, Rishi Sunak said he wanted the UK to become a “global cryptoasset technology hub”. Since then, buying Bitcoin has become wrapped in layer after layer of friction. - 24 hour cooling-off period - Personalised risk warnings - Investor categorisation - Appropriateness assessments - Financial-promotion restrictions - Rising compliance costs for UK facing businesses The rules do not stop at the FCA. Banks now sit on top of them and decide whether a legal purchase goes through. - Chase blocks crypto payments - Santander limits them to £1,000 per transaction and £3,000 per 30 days - NatWest limits them to £1,000 per day and £5,000 per 30 days - HSBC limits them to £2,500 per transaction and £10,000 per 30 days - Barclays limits transfers and blocks crypto purchases on Barclaycard You can pass the test, wait out the cooling-off period, use a compliant exchange and try to make a completely legal purchase with your own money, only to find your bank still decides how much Bitcoin you can buy, or whether you can buy it at all. Consultations may technically be open to everyone, but meaningful participation takes time, lawyers, policy teams and money. The UK says it wants to be a global digital-assets hub while simultaneously building more friction between citizens and permissionless money. The irony is hard to miss. The toughest parts of the UK crypto promotion regime landed across late 2023 and early 2024, just before Bitcoin went on to more than double during 2024. Bitcoin does not need permission, protection or representation, but people in the UK do need a voice when bad rules are being written around it. You should not need permission from a broken financial system to step outside a broken monetary system. Thanks for the article @BitcoinEventsHQ, the support is really appreciated.

Bitcoin Policy UK is coming out of consolidation and I am resuming my role as CEO. Dr Cristina Llamas-Rey is returning as COO. Getting here has not been easy. I have never taken a salary from BPUK, and the organisation is still run by a small team of volunteers giving their time around jobs, families and other commitments. In January, I reached the point where I could not justify taking recurring donations when we did not have the resources to operate properly. Scaling back was the responsible thing to do. The aim was to keep BPUK going while we cut costs and rebuilt around what we could actually sustain. That is what we have done. Throughout consolidation, the work continued and we sent our 2026 Manifesto to all 650 MPs. We also responded to Government, FCA, HMRC and Bank of England consultations, worked on banking access, Digital ID and privacy, and continued publishing articles and practical resources. The way we work has been simplified, with a stricter line on what BPUK can realistically take on. We are still unfunded and our resources remain limited, so coming out of consolidation does not mean we suddenly have the capacity to do everything people would like BPUK to do. There are a lot of worthwhile projects and great people doing important work, but we have to guard our time carefully and focus on where BPUK can have the most impact. A huge thank you to everyone who helped keep BPUK going through this period. The people who continued giving their time, expertise and support made it possible for us to keep moving while we worked through everything behind the scenes. I am very grateful. I would like BPUK to have a paid team and do far more. If you can help with funding, please email contact@bitcoinpolicy.uk. Press release below.

KYC is framed as protection, but when identity data is required to use a service, the information collected for safety can later be used for extortion. One of the points I made, quoted in @Cointelegraph was: “We need to stop treating identity verification and surrendering your identity as though they are the same thing.” Revolut released identity files after requests were sent from a legitimate Italian law enforcement address. The piece looks at: - what went wrong - why collecting documents is not the same as proving a fact - how we can verify without storing so much personal data Efrat Fenigson of You’re The Voice warns: “When regulators keep mandating a model that guarantees this outcome, while the technology to verify without storing already exists, it raises a red flag.” Lyudmyla Kozlovska of the Open Dialogue Foundation highlights another weakness: “EU AML law imposes no verification duty on the bank and provides no meaningful mechanism to check who is really behind an authenticated state request.” Evin McMullen of Billions Network sums up the wider problem: “This is a governance and standards problem wearing a technology costume. You cannot lose what you never held.” This is a really important piece from Christina Comben, bringing together the risks around how identity data is collected, stored and shared and the possible alternatives that already exist. Read the full article here:

@w_s_bitcoin Absolute Spaces marathon. I was listening from 3 to 4am UK time and you’re still going strong when I woke up. Insane dedication. Thank you Wicked & everyone involved. Really appreciate it. 💕