Hugo Coelho 是劍橋替代金融中心的數(shù)字資產監(jiān)管負責人，Mike Ringer 是 CMS 的合伙人兼加密和數(shù)字資產集團聯(lián)席負責人。他們的觀點僅代表他們自己。

為了警告即將出臺的歐盟穩(wěn)定幣監(jiān)管法規(guī)的影響，穩(wěn)定幣發(fā)行商 Circle 的戰(zhàn)略主管 Dante Disparte 試圖將其與千禧年之交的技術傳說中的概念區(qū)分開來。

Disparte 于 6 月 3 日在社交網絡 X 上寫道：“MiCA 并不是可以忽略的加密貨幣千年蟲問題。世界第三大經濟體的數(shù)字資產正在發(fā)生真正重大的發(fā)展。”

Y2K 問題又稱“千年蟲”，是指 2000 年之際出現(xiàn)的計算機故障，有可能對全球計算機網絡造成嚴重破壞。

千年蟲問題并非騙局，人們?yōu)楸苊馄湄撁嬗绊懜冻隽撕芏嗯?。但正如?/p>

華盛頓郵報》

Disparte 將此與加密市場正在發(fā)生的情況以及可能發(fā)生的情況進行了對比，這是恰當?shù)?，因為電子貨幣代幣（歐盟加密資產市場監(jiān)管中指穩(wěn)定幣的單一法定貨幣的法定名稱）的規(guī)則將于 6 月 30 日生效。

EMT 在加密資產市場中發(fā)揮著關鍵作用。

它們促進加密貨幣交易，通過成為大多數(shù)交易對的一方，它們保護投資者免受波動的影響，并提供支持去中心化應用程序的抵押品。

任何影響其設計或限制其在像歐盟這樣大的市場上發(fā)行、提供或交易的規(guī)則無疑都會產生影響。

到目前為止，加密市場仍然不受 MiCA 的影響。

根據劍橋數(shù)字貨幣儀表板的數(shù)據，穩(wěn)定幣的總供應量已超過 1550 億美元，高于 1 月份的 1270 億美元。

每個發(fā)行者的供應份額基本保持不變，其中兩種最大的穩(wěn)定幣 USDT 和 USDC 分別占據市場的 70% 以上和 20%。

然而，透過統(tǒng)計數(shù)據，你仍可以看到一些變化。

主要加密資產服務提供商已公布計劃，將對其在歐盟涉及穩(wěn)定幣的服務進行更改，以準備遵守該法規(guī)。

OKX率先采取行動，宣布將從其交易對中移除USDT。

Kraken 隨后表示正在審查其立場。

最近，幣安宣布將限制歐盟用戶在某些服務中使用未經授權的穩(wěn)定幣，盡管最初不會在現(xiàn)貨交易中使用。

“那么，MiCA 的哪些方面可能需要改變我們所熟知的穩(wěn)定幣呢？”

The inconsistency in responses suggests there is no shared understanding of the implications of the regulation.

Compared with the weeks and days leading up to the end of the millennium, one could say there are far fewer obvious signs of panic, but nearly as much uncertainty.

So, what is it about MiCA that could require stablecoins, as we know them, to change?

In our view, the major source of disruption is likely to be the localisation requirements for issuers.

For issuers trying to comply with the rules, this will be a much more challenging requirement to adjust to than prudential requirements, including the requirement to hold at least 30% or — in the case of significant EMTs — 60% of the reserves in bank accounts and split them between different local banks.

And it will deliver a more immediate blow than the hard limits on the use of dollar-denominated stablecoins within the EU.

These have been designed to force the market to shift to Euro-denominated stablecoins, but there is not much evidence of that yet.

Under MiCA, no EMT can be offered to the public in the EU, and no-one can seek its admission to trading, unless it is issued by an EU-incorporated entity which is licensed as either a credit or e-money institution — notwithstanding that the authorisation regime for crypto asset service providers will not take effect until December 30.

Some of its reserves will also have to be localised, as described above.

It is unclear how overseas issuers of stablecoins such as the dollar-denominated ones that currently dominate the market can continue to serve EU clients under such a regime.

In theory, issuers could relocate to the EU and distribute EU-issued stablecoins to the rest of the world. But that is highly unlikely in practice.

The strict prudential requirements of MiCA would put these issuers at a competitive disadvantage in many non-EU markets.

It is also hard to see why other jurisdictions would not take tit-for-tat action and require the issuers to localise in the same way as the EU, thus fragmenting the market.

An alternative route would be to issue the stablecoin from two parallel entities, one in the EU, from which it would serve EU clients, the other from overseas, to serve clients from the rest of the world.

This option, oft touted in crypto circles, is marred with legal and operational complexities that have yet to be convincingly resolved.

There are basically two challenges to be addressed.

The first is preserving fungibility between two coins issued from two separate entities, subject to different regulatory requirements and insolvency regimes and backed by different pools of assets.

The second is ensuring EU clients only hold coins issued by the EU entity, including through secondary market trading.

While this issue is more noticeable and imminent in the EU than elsewhere, it would be wrong to dismiss it as an EU oddity.

日本、新加坡和英國等司法管轄區(qū)也一直在努力解決如何在全球范圍內監(jiān)管穩(wěn)定幣的問題。

監(jiān)管機構需要保證，在其監(jiān)督下的投資者能夠獲得足夠的保護，并且即使在危機時期，即使發(fā)行人和儲備金存放在國外，他們也可以按面值贖回穩(wěn)定幣。

如果以金融史為參考，那么只有當規(guī)則足夠一致，能夠實現(xiàn)監(jiān)管尊重或對等，并讓不同司法管轄區(qū)的監(jiān)管機構之間開展合作時，這種情況才有可能實現(xiàn)（如果有的話）。

由于許多活動具有無邊界或數(shù)字化的性質，因此等效制度在加密貨幣領域比其他領域更為緊迫和必要。

矛盾的是，由于監(jiān)管環(huán)境尚不成熟且分散，兩者之間的距離也更加遙遠。

由于某種原因，MiCA 是沒有等效制度的歐盟金融服務法規(guī)之一。

英國和新加坡還在等效安排上繼續(xù)拖延，日本的等效機制的有效性仍有待考驗。

作為加密貨幣監(jiān)管的先行者，歐盟正在揭示全球穩(wěn)定幣監(jiān)管背后的難題。

其直率的做法有可能擾亂 1,550 億美元的市場。

我們很快就會知道，對于歐盟的穩(wěn)定幣來說，2024 年 6 月 30 日是否是新的 2000 年 1 月 1 日，或者比這更糟糕的時間。

熱點：加密貨幣 加密 市場 穩(wěn)定幣