從監管拼湊制定全面的加密貨幣政策

CFTC 前執法總監 Aitan Goelman 表示，有關 CFTC 是加密行業「首選監管機構」且更容易被逮捕的說法並不成立。

Despite FTX’s U.S. bankruptcy filing, the crypto exchange was largely overseen by Bahamian regulators, and the exchange’s American subsidiary, FTX US Derivatives (formerly known as LedgerX), remained solvent throughout the ordeal.

儘管 FTX 在美國申請破產，但該加密貨幣交易所主要受到巴哈馬監管機構的監管，該交易所的美國子公司 FTX US Derivatives（以前稱為 LedgerX）在整個磨難中仍然保持償付能力。

In the wake of FTX’s bankruptcy, there have been renewed calls for urgent action by Congress to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for crypto. However, these calls have not led to unanimity, or even consensus, among the key stakeholders involved.

FTX 破產後，人們再次呼籲國會採取緊急行動，建立全面的加密貨幣監管框架。然而，這些呼籲並未在相關主要利害關係人之間達成一致，甚至達成共識。

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has maintained that it already possesses regulatory authority over most cryptocurrencies, and that it merely requires additional funding to carry out this responsibility effectively.

美國證券交易委員會（SEC）堅稱，它已經擁有對大多數加密貨幣的監管權，並且只需要額外的資金來有效履行此職責。

In contrast, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has highlighted the solvency of FTX’s CFTC-regulated American subsidiary as a testament to the effectiveness of CFTC oversight in the crypto domain.

相較之下，商品期貨交易委員會（CFTC）強調了 FTX 受 CFTC 監管的美國子公司的償付能力，以此證明 CFTC 在加密領域的監管有效性。

Meanwhile, crypto enthusiasts have countered these arguments by pointing out the presence of fraudsters in virtually all industries, and emphasizing that centralized exchanges like FTX fundamentally contradict the ethos of crypto, which was conceived as a decentralized form of finance that eliminates the need for trust in institutions or other market participants.

同時，加密貨幣愛好者反駁了這些論點，指出幾乎所有行業都存在欺詐者，並強調像FTX 這樣的中心化交易所從根本上違背了加密貨幣的精神，加密貨幣被認為是一種去中心化的金融形式，消除了對信任的需求。

Interestingly, even some staunch crypto skeptics have cited the limited contagion from FTX’s collapse as a reason to refrain from regulating crypto. They contend that integrating crypto into the mainstream financial system would essentially grant it government approval, which could entice more retail investors to engage in speculative crypto activities. As a consequence, the entire economy would be subjected to the volatility, money laundering, fraud and manipulation that are both pervasive and, to some crypto critics, an inherent aspect of crypto.

有趣的是，甚至一些堅定的加密貨幣懷疑論者也將 FTX 崩盤帶來的有限傳染作為不監管加密貨幣的理由。他們認為，將加密貨幣納入主流金融體系本質上將獲得政府批准，這可能會吸引更多散戶參與投機加密貨幣活動。因此，整個經濟將受到波動、洗錢、詐欺和操縱的影響，這些現象普遍存在，對於一些加密貨幣批評者來說，這也是加密貨幣固有的一面。

This regulatory debate underscores the adage that “where you stand depends on where you sit.” For instance, SEC Chair Gary Gensler, who was an ardent advocate for the CFTC’s expansive remit during his tenure as CFTC chair in the Obama Administration, now asserts that nearly all crypto qualifies as a “security.”

這場監管辯論強調了「你的立場取決於你的坐席」這句格言。例如，美國證券交易委員會 (SEC) 主席加里·詹斯勒 (Gary Gensler) 在奧巴馬政府擔任 CFTC 主席期間熱心支持 CFTC 的廣泛職權範圍，現在他斷言，幾乎所有加密貨幣都符合「證券」的資格。

On the other hand, former SEC Chair Mary Jo White and former Enforcement Director Andrew Ceresney, who are both currently representing Ripple in its legal battle against the SEC, are among those arguing for a more limited interpretation of a “security.”

另一方面，前 SEC 主席 Mary Jo White 和前執法總監 Andrew Ceresney 目前都代表 Ripple 與 SEC 進行法律訴訟，他們都主張對「證券」進行更有限的解釋。

It is also worth noting that crypto companies continue to evade U.S. jurisdiction, primarily by establishing their headquarters offshore (e.S.B.F.’s crypto exchange, FTX, was headquartered in the Bahamas) and employing geo-blocking techniques to restrict access to their platforms by individuals whose computers are identified as being located in the U.S. However, it is crucial to note that VPNs can easily circumvent these geo-blocking measures.

另外值得注意的是，加密貨幣公司繼續逃避美國的司法管轄，主要是透過在海外設立總部（eSBF 的加密貨幣交易所FTX 總部位於巴哈馬）並採用地理封鎖技術來限制電腦位於其境內的個人存取其平台。

In the absence of legislation and regulation, the legal landscape surrounding crypto continues to evolve through litigation and the interpretation of various enforcement actions. Nevertheless, true clarity will not emerge incrementally through the legal system; it will require decisive legislative action.

在缺乏立法和監管的情況下，圍繞加密貨幣的法律環境透過訴訟和各種執法行動的解釋不斷發展。然而，真正的明確性不會透過法律體系逐步出現；這需要採取果斷的立法行動。

Ironically, FTX’s collapse has, in some ways, complicated the path to Congressional action. In addition to the now-poisonous association with S.B.F., both draft bills are facing renewed criticism for granting primary regulatory jurisdiction to the CFTC instead of the SEC.

諷刺的是，FTX 的崩潰在某種程度上使國會採取行動的道路變得複雜。除了現在與 SBF 的有害關聯之外，這兩項法案草案還因將主要監管管轄權授予 CFTC 而不是 SEC 而面臨新的批評。

However, suggestions that the CFTC is the crypto industry’s “regulator of choice” and more susceptible to capture by the industry simply don’t hold up against the facts. In 2022, more than 20% of the agency’s enforcement actions were related to crypto. Furthermore, the CFTC sought – and, more often than not, successfully obtained – increasingly significant sanctions.

然而，有關 CFTC 是加密貨幣行業的「首選監管機構」並且更容易被業界捕獲的說法根本不符合事實。 2022 年，該機構超過 20% 的執法行動與加密貨幣有關。此外，美國商品期貨交易委員會尋求 — — 並且往往成功地獲得 — — 越來越嚴厲的製裁。

Under its current funding structure, the agency undoubtedly does not have the resources to be fully effective. However, if any legislation retains a grant to the CFTC of authority to levy user fees on crypto actors, the agency’s efforts in the crypto sector will be even more robust.

在目前的資金結構下，該機構無疑沒有足夠的資源來充分發揮作用。然而，如果任何立法保留授予 CFTC 向加密貨幣參與者徵收用戶費用的權力，那麼該機構在加密貨幣領域的努力將更加強勁。

Disclosure

揭露

Please note that ourprivacy policy,terms of use,cookies, do not sell my personal information CoinDesk is anaward-winning strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk was acquired Bullish, Block.one; both companies haveinterests

請注意，我們的隱私權政策、使用條款、cookie、不出售我的個人資訊 CoinDesk 是一套屢獲殊榮的嚴格編輯政策。 CoinDesk 被 Bullish、Block.one 收購；兩家公司都有利益