Legislative Consultations Are Routine, Not Collusion

Szymon Witkowski, president of the Foundation for Law and Economy Forum, clarifies that private sector input in the drafting of crypto-asset legislation is a standard, essential part of the Polish lawmaking process.

The Reality of Legislative Participation

Allegations regarding behind-the-scenes influence in the crypto-asset bill are based on a misunderstanding of how lawmaking functions in Poland. Rather than a systemic failure, this engagement is a constitutional requirement under Article 20, which promotes social participation in drafting regulations to build a competitive economy.

The legislative path is clearly defined, involving the Council of Ministers, the President, the Senate, and citizens. Industry organizations do not “write” laws; they offer expert feedback. Final control over the content of any bill rests exclusively with the government and, subsequently, the parliamentarians who are legally responsible for the text.

Expert Input vs. Private Interests

Public administration lacks the specialized, day-to-day knowledge held by market practitioners. Engaging the private sector allows policymakers to acquire necessary analytical data, which ensures that regulations are practical rather than theoretical. Without this dialogue, lawmaking would occur in a vacuum.

Concerns regarding specific entities like Zondacrypto are misplaced, as these organizations simply provided expert feedback aligned with the broader consensus of groups such as the FinTech Poland Foundation and the Blockchain and New Technologies Chamber of Commerce. This coordination is natural for industry bodies seeking to prevent over-regulation that harms national competitiveness.

Ensuring Transparency and Process Integrity

Industry bodies are not investigative agencies and cannot be held responsible for the internal affairs of their members. Responsibility for vetting and law enforcement lies solely with state institutions, which had not flagged these entities previously.

The primary threats to the legislative process are not external consultations, but rather the internal circumvention of transparency. Governments often bypass standard procedures by using “parliamentary bills” to avoid social consultation, or by drastically shortening the time allotted for public feedback. The framework for transparency is sufficient, provided that it is honestly and consistently applied by those in power.