Agenda Profile: Anastassia Kovalenko-Kõlvart

According to him, the current form of the draft law is too strict and places an excessive burden on businesses; he has supported the Centre Party's amendments and called for a longer transition period. He emphasizes that effective protective mechanisms are necessary to mitigate risks, but he does not support double documentation or the introduction of burdensome requirements at the expense of entrepreneurs.

Illustrates knowledge of cryptocurrency market supervision structures: mentions the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU), the Financial Supervision Authority (FSA), operators defined under Articles 48–49, and the licensing procedure; refers to the three lines of defense and the qualification requirements for the supervisory and management boards.

A critical yet constructive tone; uses examples (Wolt) and factual data; expresses emotion when necessary ("was astonished," "a massive undertaking"), but keeps the discussion grounded in facts and objectives.

Participated in the Finance Committee and related discussions; indicated a plan to submit amendments and proceed to a vote; demonstrates active involvement and a willingness to compromise.

Opposes the current form of the draft bill and criticizes the government’s approach; emphasizes that the proposed strict requirements could lead to businesses withdrawing their investments; and astutely notes that the concept of “cleansing the market” is not supported by entrepreneurs in its current form.

Stresses cooperation with the coalition; mentions the Centre Party's proposed amendments and seeks support for the coalition; ready to present substantive amendments.<profile type="REGIONAL_FOCUS">Focus on the regulation of the Estonian crypto market and the impact of Estonian entrepreneurs; refers to Estonian institutions and the foreign policy context, including the practices of other member states.

A regulatory issue focused on Estonia: the draft law on the cryptocurrency market primarily affects Estonia’s regulatory and economic environment. Currently, 48–49 operators have come into compliance in Estonia, demonstrating the local impact and intensity of oversight. The licensing process is moving from the Bureau for the Prevention of Money Laundering to the Financial Supervisory Authority, which increases administrative burden and creates bottlenecks in terms of resource availability. If the requirements remain too strict, Estonian companies and investments may redirect their activities to another member state; examples cited are Wolt and the general impact on local entrepreneurs.

It emphasizes that excessive regulation creates an administrative burden and risks the relocation of investments; it calls for a flexible approach, a longer transition period, and the preservation of business competitiveness.

It emphasizes consumer protection and security against fraud; notes that people may fall victim to scams, but focuses primarily on the economy and regulation as an aspect of social security.

The primary emphasis is on conducting the discussion regarding the changes and the pre-transition period; it highlights the transition deadlines, the admissibility of proposed amendments, and the vote in the plenary hall; this indicates the need for both progress and cooperation.