Agenda Profile: Maris Lauri

The political position is one of strong support for stricter regulation of the crypto asset market, emphasizing the need to mitigate the high risks stemming from Estonia's previous negative experience. There is support for transferring supervision from the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) to the Financial Supervision Authority (FSA), justifying this move based on the specific requirements of financial supervision. This position is clearly policy- and risk-based, highlighting that the Estonian regulatory framework is not stricter than what EU regulations mandate, but rather implements the necessary specific characteristics arising from the Estonian legal system.

The speaker demonstrates deep technical expertise regarding financial regulation, the risks associated with crypto asset markets, and the legislative process. Detailed data is utilized (e.g., 650 licenses in 2021 vs. 48 companies currently), and specific amendment numbers and discussions of their content within the committee are referenced. The expertise covers both the specific characteristics of the Estonian legal system (specifically, the corporate governance level) and the application of EU regulations.

The language register is formal, procedural, and analytical, concentrating on factual data and the established course of action. The tone is explanatory and occasionally corrective, especially when addressing criticism regarding the strictness of Estonian regulation or responding to a presented "biased viewpoint." The appeals are predominantly logical, stressing risk mitigation, fiscal prudence, and technical feasibility.

The speaker’s activity pattern is associated with intensive legislative work, likely serving as the rapporteur for the bill committee. Four committee sessions and a public hearing in April and May are mentioned, indicating deep participation in the procedural details and schedule. The work also involves answering questions regarding the practical feasibility of data transfer.

The resistance is aimed at those who criticize Estonian regulation for its alleged strictness, or those who submitted amendments (e.g., No. 9 and No. 12) that failed to gain support in the committee. The criticism targets political viewpoints that fail to consider the state's financial risks and technical feasibility, such as the high cost associated with automatic data transfer. Mention is also made of an opposition party that declined to discuss its own draft legislation.

The cooperation style within the commission is pragmatic and consensual, with several amendments (such as extending the transition period to 1.5 years and the proposals put forward by the Ministry of Finance) receiving support. It is emphasized that the commission reached a consensus to consider the changes prepared by the Ministry of Finance concerning remote identification. However, the positions of the commission's majority, which stood against the minority's proposals, are also highlighted, illustrating the limits of the compromise.

The focus is strongly on the national level (Estonian financial sector, RAB, Financial Supervision Authority) as well as the international level, referencing EU directives and regulations. Estonia's negative experience in the development of the virtual services market is mentioned, and the global context is referenced (55% of the world's service providers in 2021). Specific local or regional projects are not addressed.

Economic views emphasize financial discipline and responsible risk management, especially in protecting clients' assets. The principle that supervised entities should cover the supervision fee is supported, and the increase in the maximum rate of fees for the Financial Supervision Authority was also supported. Opposition is expressed to unreasonably costly national IT solutions (e.g., automatic data transfer) that are not resource-efficient.

Not enough data

The main legislative focus is on finalizing the second reading and moving the Crypto Asset Market Bill (398 SE) to a final vote in order to strengthen financial oversight. Priorities include mitigating the risks associated with money laundering and terrorist financing, extending the transition period, and implementing the requirement for a two-tier governance system based on the level of risk. Several technical and bureaucracy-reducing amendments that received support in the committee were also noted.