showroomprivé.com, France’s second largest flash sale web retailer, which has accepted bitcoins since 2014]. Second, as intermediaries in exchanges, crypto-assets are far less effective than a currency with legal tender status, insofar as (i) their price volatility makes it hard to use them as a means of payment, (ii) they generate transaction fees that are far too high for simple retail transactions, and (iii) they offer no guarantee of a refund in the event of fraud. Third, the fact that they have no intrinsic value means that they cannot be used to create trustworthy stores of value. In addition, crypto-assets may be conduits for financial risk, security risk and especially risks of cyber-attacks, money laundering and terrorist financing. These would represent major risks for users and hence for the orderly functioning of our payment system if crypto-assets were ever to play a major role in that system. II- In this complicated context, with crypto-assets undergoing technical and economic trials that offer opportunities but also present material risks for our payment system, should we consider establishing a regulatory framework and supervisory approach and, if so, how should we go about this? 1) Various courses of action are available to the public authorities. The first would be to ignore crypto-assets. But even if the volumes in play remain small and do not represent a threat to financial stability, the risks that I mentioned earlier must be addressed. The second course of action would be to ban crypto-assets outright because of these same risks.
The distribution of the government's financial investments and the choice of corporate funding structure should not be based on the notion that we are living in a barter economy. The government can choose the composition, required rate of return and risk profile for its financial investments without regard for the funding requirements of Norwegian enterprises. By the same token, Norwegian companies can choose their debt and equity structure independently of the government's financial investments. Both mainland private saving and business fixed investment have been high in recent years. Thus a possible weak capital market has not been reflected in a low level of investment and saving. As a result of developments in the late 1990s, equities and funds make up an increasing share of 1 households’ total assets. The equity ratio of enterprises strengthened in the 1990s, with a rise in new equity capital from the markets in particular. 1  Norwegian limited companies excluding petroleum companies, financial undertakings and government activities, and groups and holding companies. 2  BIS Review 18/2002  The Norwegian loan and capital market probably has weaknesses nevertheless, with thin securities markets and little breadth in investor and owner environments compared with some other countries. The reasons, and hence the solutions, can probably be found in the structure of the taxation of dwellings, property and financial assets, in a high level of government ownership of enterprises and in the organisation of pension saving in Norway.