Ask the treasuryXL expert #1 How might digital trade transactions reduce the threat of fraud and money laundering?​

04-07-2022 | treasuryXL Vincenzo Masile | LinkedIn |

treasuryXL is the community platform for everyone with a treasury question or answer!

Today, we discuss a question that treasuryXL expert Vincenzo Masile often gets to hear within his treasury network about digital trade finance.

Continue reading

Discussion LinkedIn poll | What is the expected conclusion of crypto volatility for Corporate Treasury?

08-06-2022 | treasuryXL | LinkedIn |


A couple of weeks ago we launched a poll on our LinkedIn page about the impact of crypto volatility on corporate treasury.

The poll received 72 votes in total, which is a great number! Thanks to everyone who joined the poll.

Scroll down to read our recap with the results and treasuryXL expert opinions. 



Currently, we see Crypto volatility crushing Stablecoins. What is the expected conclusion of these events for Corporate Treasury?



              • Crypto is too risky (25x) 35%

              • We need more regulation (19x) 26%

              • Crypto is the solution (8x) 11%

              • Let’s wait and see (20x) 28%

What do our treasuryXL experts say about this topic?


Francois De Witte



“There is a clear need for more regulation”

It is quite clear that cryptos present a high-risk profile. The volatility is high, and it is not easy to hedge these risks. In addition, payment transactions in cryptos take more time and energy than existing payments systems like the instant payments.

Currently, cryptos are held within the blockchain and are based upon a consensus. As a corporate, you do not have a control over these assets. In addition, you do not have the stringent KYC and AML checks which you have in the classic payment systems. The KYC and AML controls occur only on the moment that an individual or a company buys cryptocurrencies with its bank account or card, or when the proceeds of the sales of cryptocurrencies are paid to their bank account.


For this reason, there is a clear need for more regulation. Although the 5th AML Directive covers certain crypto assets under the term “virtual currencies”, it does not provide a harmonized approach. This problem will be addressed by the proposal of the EU Commission for the Regulation of Markets in Crypto Assets (abbreviated as MiCAR), which aims to create an EU framework for crypto assets falling outside the scope of other existing EU financial regulation and is expected to enter into force by end 2024. Let’s hope that this will bring more clarity in this complex topic.


Pieter de Kiewit



“Let’s see what will happen”



Rejecting crypto currencies or even blockchain before fully understanding the concept is like holding on tohorse and wagon when seeing the first cars. And current inflation following the QE strategy of the ECB shows that stability is not guaranteed in the traditional system. At the same time, treasurers are there to manage risk and the current crypto landscape seems very risky. So let’s see what will happen.




Carlo de Meijer


“Without well thought-out regulation, the inherent volatility of cryptocurrencies will continue to make stablecoins vulnerable to various risks”

Regulation of stablecoins has long been on the agenda of regulators worldwide. To date, however, the crypto sector in general and the stablecoin segment in particular remain largely unregulated.

Stablecoins continue to come under scrutiny from regulators, given the rapid growth of the $130 billion market and its potential to impact the broader financial system. As stablecoins are deemed increasingly important to the system by regulators, with the potential to disrupt payment and settlement transactions.

The recent collapse of stablecoin TerraUSD (UST) and the resulting fall of Bitcoin below the $28.000 level have provided an additional argument for speeding up the regulatory process and coming up with adequate regulatory measures.


With a growing number of traditional financial institutions, investors and also companies entering the Crypto and DeFi market, regulation becomes urgent to prevent such collapses in the future. Buyers need to understand the risks of these algorithmically stablecoins in particular. Therefore, standards are needed.

Without well thought-out regulation, the inherent volatility of cryptocurrencies in general but also of some types of stablecoins, will continue to make these stablecoins vulnerable to various risks, and make using these instruments for treasury purposes a difficult activity. The lack of transparency about what assets are being used and whether they have enough dollars to support all the digital coins in circulation also amplifies this consequence.


Would you care to explain your vote on this poll? Or would you like to explain your vote in a future poll? Don’t hesitate to get in touch with us!



Question treasuryXL Panel #4 | When do I pay an FX surcharge to my payment service provider?

14-12-2021 | treasuryXL | EcomStream | LinkedIn |

treasuryXL is the community platform for all your relevant treasury questions.

We received the following question from one of our followers… Read more

Question treasuryXL Panel #3 | Should treasury always report to the CFO?

02-11-2021 | treasuryXL | Treasurer Search | LinkedIn |

treasuryXL is the community platform for all your relevant treasury questions.

We received the following question from one of our followers… Read more

Question treasuryXL Panel #2 | How is PSD2 being applied in a business context?

12-10-2021| treasuryXL | Cobase |LinkedIn |

treasuryXL is the community platform for all your relevant treasury questions.

We received the following question from one of our followers…



“As a treasurer, efficient and risk-free handling of payments and reporting are top of mind. In the daily news I read a lot about PSD2, but why don’t I see much of this being applied in a business context?”


We asked for assistance of our highly valued partners to answer the question: Joost Kevelam, Head of Sales and Head of Financial Markets & Risk Solutions at Cobase.

With his expertise he could help out our contact perfectly!

Joost Kevelam responds:

“That is a great question. Today PSD2 is very much geared towards retail users. For corporate usage, we see three key hurdles that need to be cleared.

Firstly, for reporting purposes PSD2 still demands use of bank-specific tokens; either for periodical consent (for reporting) or for each payment. For treasurers that have several banks this is prohibitive.

Secondly, corporate treasurers want to connect in such a way that they can do all their cash management tasks in their ERP and the ERP then connects (unattended) to all their banks. The banks’ PSD2 (or Open Banking) connections often do not support these patterns.”


Lastly PSD2 protocols vary wildly across banks, there is no standard yet. Developments in the right direction are unfolding slowly.
In the meanwhile there are solution providers in the market that offer much of the touted future PSD2 benefits, but with technology that is already easily available today (e.g. swift, host-2-host and other APIs). If you select a provider, please consider whether they have the license and capability to easily migrate you to the PSD2/Open Banking interfaces once they are suitable for corporate usage.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss how these technologies can make your life as a treasurer easier.

Do you also have a treasury related question? Feel free to leave your question at our treasuryXL Panel. The panel members are willing to answer your question, free of charge, no commitment.





Question treasuryXL Panel #1 | Is a BIC registration possible for both financial as non-financial institutions?

28-09-2021| treasuryXL | Enigma |LinkedIn |

treasuryXL is the community platform for all your relevant treasury questions.

We received the following question from one of our followers… Read more