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:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2024/11/24/bitcoin-privacy-carf-and-government-oversight/

💕💕

You can watch the full debate here:

https://www.youtube.com/live/dCGWpaAfJIw?si=wWPWs0ow5r597h49

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 is now formally recognised in UK law.

Now policy needs to catch up on tax, innovation and mining.

Our goals for 2026.
@nevent1qqs...

The Genesis Block anchored Bitcoin to a moment in financial history, while setting the core architecture that still governs the network today:

- proof of work
- finite supply
- self custody
- rules that don’t bend to political pressure

Which is why 3 January is also known as Proof of Keys Day … a reminder of what ownership means in a system secured by keys, not by permission.

@nevent1qqs...

Hey you… it’s been ages!!!

Is this time different?

Are we in a bear market or is the four year cycle breaking down?

As 2026 begins, bitcoin’s behaviour looks increasingly shaped by structure and capital flows rather than speculation.

Full analysis in yesterday’s Forbes article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2026/01/01/what-is-bitcoins-price-prediction-for-2026/

Bitcoin hasn’t changed, but the market around it has.

My annual NGU article looks at what that means for 2026, as structure and capital flows begin to dominate price discovery.

Full analysis in my latest Forbes article.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2026/01/01/what-is-bitcoins-price-prediction-for-2026/

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.

@npub18uape...

Signed off for Christmas on @nprofile1q... with Gemmy.

Fiat is on the naughty list.

Bitcoin is hope, freedom, and patience.

Santa rally or not, the signal stays the same.

Merry Christmas!