《天才法》將增強恐怖主義的融資

美國參議院和眾議院都在考慮為穩定幣創建監管框架的法案，所有常規的加密懷疑論者都已經演唱了，包括加密貨幣犯罪的讚美詩。

Both the U.S. Senate and House are considering bills creating a regulatory framework for stablecoins, and all of the usual crypto-sceptic refrains have been sung, including the hymn that crypto is for crime.

美國參議院和眾議院都在考慮為穩定幣建立一個監管框架的法案，所有常規的加密coptication的拒絕都已演唱，其中包括加密貨幣犯罪的讚美詩。

For instance, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) warned that the Senate’s GENIUS Act “will supercharge the financing of terrorism.” During debate on the House’s STABLE Act, Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA) worried about the use of “unhosted wallets to evade” anti-money laundering provisions.

例如，參議員伊麗莎白·沃倫（D-MA）警告說，參議院的天才法案“將增強恐怖主義的融資”。在有關眾議院穩定法案的辯論中，代表布拉德·謝爾曼（Brad Sherman）（D-CA）擔心使用“未遺產的錢包逃避”反洗錢的規定。

Not surprisingly, both the GENIUS and STABLE Acts include significant sections on illicit finance, subjecting stablecoin issuers to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). But lawmakers must ensure that the bills’ anti-money laundering measures don’t open the door to unfettered financial surveillance of stablecoin users.

毫不奇怪，天才和穩定的法案都包括有關非法財務的重要部分，使Stablecoin發行人遵守《銀行保密法》（BSA）。但是，立法者必須確保法案的反洗錢措施不會為不受約束的穩定使用者的財務監視打開大門。

Stablecoins are crypto tokens that are pegged to the value of another asset, like the U.S. dollar. The general idea is that the stable value of these tokens will promote their use as a digital medium of exchange. Stablecoins can be thought of both as an improvement to existing payment rails and as a way to bring the U.S. dollar “on-chain.” In other words, stablecoins are a 21st-century upgrade to cash. The Senate and the House have both advanced bills that would create a regulatory regime for “permitted stablecoin issuers” aimed, in part, at ensuring that stablecoins are, in fact, stable.

Stablecoins是加密代幣，與其他資產（如Dollar）的價值掛鉤。一般的想法是，這些代幣的穩定價值將促進它們用作數字交換媒介。可以將Stablecoins視為對現有付款軌道的改進，也可以將其帶入“鏈上”。換句話說，Stablecoins是21世紀現金的升級。參議院和眾議院都有高級法案，將為“允許的Stablecoin發行人”建立一個監管制度，部分目的是確保穩定的穩定性實際上是穩定的。

But these days, conversations about the dollar, financial services, and crypto seem to go hand-in-hand with conversations about preventing illicit finance. The BSA requires financial institutions to help federal agencies detect and prevent money laundering and other crimes by, among other things, keeping records of transactions and filing reports with the government. Both the GENIUS Act and the STABLE Act tackle illicit finance concerns by stating clearly that a permitted stablecoin issuer “shall be treated as a financial institution for the purposes of the Bank Secrecy Act.”

但是如今，關於美元，金融服務和加密貨幣的對話似乎與有關防止非法財務的對話並駕齊驅。 BSA要求金融機構通過保留交易記錄並向政府提交報告，幫助聯邦機構發現並防止洗錢和其他犯罪。 《天才法》和《穩定法》都清楚地指出，允許的穩定發行人“應將其作為銀行保密法的目的視為金融機構”，以解決非法財務問題。

Designating a permitted stablecoin issuer as a financial institution is comparatively non-controversial. Putting aside the question of whether the BSA is a good (or constitutional) way to manage illicit finance risks, permitted stablecoin issuers look a lot like other entities, like banks and trust companies, that are already BSA financial institutions. But it’s not quite so simple.

將允許的Stablecoin發行人指定為金融機構是相對無爭議的。撇開BSA是否是管理非法融資風險的好方法（或憲法），允許的Stablecoin發行人看起來很像其他已經是BSA金融機構的銀行和信託公司，例如銀行和信託公司。但這並不是那麼簡單。

The BSA’s surveillance framework requires financial institutions to “know their customers” and to monitor transactions taking place through the institution. However, such surveillance does not extend to transactions that take place between individuals without the involvement of an institution. For example, the BSA doesn’t apply when cash changes hands between two people, allowing individuals to transact privately.

BSA的監視框架要求金融機構“了解他們的客戶”並監視通過該機構進行的交易。但是，這種監視並沒有擴展到在個人之間進行的交易，而沒有機構的參與。例如，當現金在兩個人之間換手時，BSA不適用，允許個人私下進行交易。

While it’s infeasible to track cash transactions in the manner prescribed by the BSA, stablecoins can be tracked across a blockchain as they move between holders, even when the transfers happen between wallets that are unhosted by intermediaries. This characteristic is tempting to those who may want to extend BSA surveillance beyond its already expansive (and constitutionally infirm) boundaries.

儘管以BSA規定的方式跟踪現金交易是不可行的，但即使在持有人之間移動時，也可以在區塊鏈中跟踪Stablecoins，即使在中間人未宣布的錢包之間進行轉移。這種特徵吸引了那些可能希望將BSA監視擴展到已經擴大（和憲法軟弱的）邊界之外的人。

Fundamentally, digital asset transactions that are genuinely peer-to-peer should not be subject to greater government surveillance than peer-to-peer transactions in cash. Applying anti-money laundering provisions to unhosted wallets — which more closely resemble physical wallets holding cash than bank accounts — would be a massive expansion of financial surveillance and an unwelcome intrusion into the abilities of Americans to order their financial lives outside the eyes of the government.

從根本上講，真正是點對點的數字資產交易不應受到更大的政府監視，而不是現金的點對點交易。將反洗錢的規定應用於未遺產的錢包（與持有現金的物理錢包相比，這比銀行賬戶都非常類似於物理錢包 - 將是對金融監視的大規模擴大，並且不受歡迎的不受歡迎的入侵美國人在政府眼外命令其財務生活的能力。

Both the GENIUS and STABLE Acts make clear — to varying degrees — that stablecoin issuers must have customer identification programs only for customers who either hold accounts “with the permitted payment stablecoin issuer” (GENIUS) or who are “initial holders” of a payment stablecoin (STABLE).

天才和穩定的行為都在不同程度上明確表明，穩定的發行人必須只為擁有“允許的付款stablecoin發行人”（GENIUS）的客戶提供客戶身份證明計劃（GENIUS），或者是付款Stablecoin（Stable）的“初始持有人”（Stable）。

But the other BSA requirements the bills would impose on stablecoin issuers, including maintaining anti-money laundering compliance programs, retention of records of stablecoin transactions, monitoring and reporting suspicious activity, are not so clearly limited. This leaves the door open to the imposition of broader surveillance requirements on stablecoin transactions that take place away from the issuer, which would be a major encroachment on Americans’ rights to transact privately.

但是，法案將對Stablecoin發行人施加的其他BSA要求，包括維持反洗錢合規計劃，保留Stablecoin交易記錄，監視和報告可疑活動，並不是那麼明顯地受到限制。這使對與發行人進行的穩定性交易的更廣泛的監視要求開放，這將是對美國人私下交易權利的主要侵犯。

Fortunately, the sponsors of both bills seem to read the surveillance obligations narrowly. Representative Bryan Steil (R-WI), one of the sponsors of the STABLE Act, explained during the bill’s markup that requiring BSA surveillance of “every single self-hosted wallet” would “be a dramatic invasion of personal liberty” and that “Americans should not be treated the same as financial institutions.” And Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), one of the sponsors of the GENIUS Act, said during that bill’s markup that “[r]equiring issuers to monitor transactions on various blockchains would be costly and . . . time-consuming.”

幸運的是，這兩個法案的讚助商似乎都狹義地閱讀了監視義務。穩定法案的讚助商之一的代表布萊恩·史蒂爾（R-WI）在法案的標記中解釋說，需要對“每個自託管錢包”進行BSA監視，“對人身自由的侵害是一種戲劇性的入侵”，並且“美國人不應與金融機構相同。” 《天才法案》的讚助商之一，參議員比爾·哈格蒂（R-TN）在該法案的標記中說：“ [r]等同於發行人監視各種區塊鏈的交易將是昂貴的，而且耗時。”

This sentiment about the scope of the BSA obligations imposed must be clearly reflected in the text of both bills to definitively close the door to more expansive

關於施加的BSA義務範圍的這種觀點必須在兩項法案的文本中明確反映，以確切地關閉大門的更廣闊的範圍