IMF承認比特幣是其BPM7中的資本資產，而不是“數字黃金”。

儘管如此，他們還是提出了許多對加密行業及其在國際金融體系中的統一跟踪至關重要的分類。

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has acknowledged Bitcoin (BTC) as a capital asset in its Balance of Payments Manual (BPM7), contrary to rumors circulating online.

國際貨幣基金組織（IMF）已承認比特幣（BTC）是其付款手冊平衡手冊（BPM7）中的資本資產，這與在線流傳的謠言相反。

Despite this recognition, the organization did not classify Bitcoin as “digital gold,” as some reports claimed.

儘管有這樣的認可，但正如一些報導所聲稱的那樣，該組織並未將比特幣歸類為“數字黃金”。

The organization presented a number of classifications of crucial elements of the crypto industry and how they will be included in the international financial system. Not only the main cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or stablecoins but also related operations like crypto-mining and crypto-staking have been classified.

該組織介紹了加密行業至關重要的要素的許多分類，以及如何將其包括在國際金融體系中。不僅是比特幣或穩定幣等主要加密貨幣，還分類了相關的操作，例如加密貨幣和加密貨幣。

The interim document, the final version of which is still pending, provides a lot of information, but the key aspect that the crypto industry is interested in is the classification of Bitcoin and other key cryptocurrencies and transactions with them.

臨時文檔是仍在待處理的最終版本，提供了很多信息，但是加密行業感興趣的關鍵方面是對比特幣和其他關鍵加密貨幣的分類及其交易。

Now, there is a lot of speculation in the network regarding the fact that the IMF called Bitcoin “Digital Gold,” but in fact, the official document makes no such mention. Also, it does not give information on adding Bitcoin to the SDR. Perhaps that will change, but for now, the fact remains.

現在，網絡中有很多關於IMF稱為比特幣為“數字黃金”的事實的猜測，但實際上，官方文件並未提及這樣的事實。另外，它不提供有關向SDR添加比特幣的信息。也許那會改變，但是就目前而言，事實仍然存在。

Let’s move on to the actual classification of key crypto assets. Bitcoin is called crypto assets without a corresponding liability, designed to act as a means of payment or store of value, are to be classified as nonproduced non-financial assets and recorded in the capital account.

讓我們繼續進行關鍵加密資產的實際分類。比特幣被稱為無關責任的加密資產，旨在用作付款或存儲價值的手段，應歸類為非生產的非財務資產，並記錄在資本帳戶中。

Thus, we have a situation where Bitcoin is not labeled as a financial asset or instrument (while stablecoins as financial instrument) but has economic value and is to be accounted for in cross-border transactions like land, rights, or natural resources. Perhaps this is the origin of the speculation I mentioned earlier because, at first glance, it may seem that Bitcoin is placed on the same level as gold, land, etc. But, gold stands apart and is considered a produced financial asset, and this is the fundamental difference.

因此，我們的情況是，比特幣未標記為金融資產或工具（而穩定幣則是金融工具），但具有經濟價值，並且應在土地，權利或自然資源等跨境交易中考慮。也許這是我前面提到的猜測的起源，因為乍一看，比特幣似乎與黃金，土地等相同的水平。但是，黃金是分開的，被認為是生產的金融資產，這是基本的差異。

Further, regarding other key cryptocurrencies like Ethereum and others, it is a bit more complicated and depends on parameters such as the presence of a known issuer and the usage scenario. For example, if Ethereum is only used for storage similar to Bitcoin, then it is categorized accordingly. But Ethereum presents a wider functionality, and in PoS-staking ETH is considered an equity-like asset, especially if there is a revenue-generating entity.

此外，對於其他關鍵的加密貨幣（例如以太坊和其他關鍵），它更複雜，取決於參數，例如存在已知的發行商和使用情況。例如，如果以太坊僅用於類似於比特幣的存儲，則應將其分類。但是，以太坊具有更廣泛的功能，並且在儲存中，ETH被認為是一種股票般的資產，尤其是在有創收的實體時。

If the token grants the holder access to a platform or rights to participate in governance or economic benefits (such as staking), and there is a clear counterparty (e.g., foundation or issuing entity), then the token may be treated as an equity-type investment.

如果代幣允許持有人獲得參與治理或經濟福利（例如股權）的平台或權利，並且有一個明顯的對手（例如，基金會或發行實體），則代幣可以作為股權投資。

Speaking more about staking, as you have already realized, there are also new guidelines, and they are quite extensive, taking into account different options of staking, for example, directly at the validator or through the exchange. But the key provision is that income from staking is treated as investment income, i.e. dividends from shares.

正如您已經意識到的那樣，更多地說明了樁，也有新的準則，並且它們非常廣泛，例如直接在驗證者或通過交易所進行的不同選擇。但是關鍵的規定是，從積累中的收入被視為投資收入，即股票的股息。

Staking rewards are to be recorded as investment income in the current account, provided that the staking activity represents an investment relationship.

只要存放活動代表投資關係，就可以將存放獎勵記錄為經常賬戶中的投資收入。

Also, mining, for which the SEC has recently introduced a very clear regulation, has also been categorized. The IMF also makes a distinction between protocols, and that is interesting. That is, they classify PoW as Production/Service, the income from which is a Payment for Service, and the reflection in statistics as Export/Import of Services. With PoS it is quite different, namely, it is treated as Investing/participating in the protocol (staking), the income as Investment Income, and the reporting as Investment Income.

同樣，SEC最近提出了非常明確的法規的採礦也已被分類。國際貨幣基金組織還在協議之間有所區別，這很有趣。也就是說，他們將POW歸類為生產/服務，所支付的收入以及統計中的反思為服務的出口/進口。有了POS，它是完全不同的，即，它被視為投資/參與協議（Staging），收入為投資收入以及報告作為投資收入。

Another clarification from one of the central regulators. Of course, this has nothing to do with institutional acceptance or policy decisions and is primarily intended to streamline data for international transparency and reporting.

其中一個中央監管機構的另一個澄清。當然，這與機構接受或政策決策無關，主要旨在簡化國際透明度和報告的數據。

But there is no need to think that this is not of fundamental importance.

但是，沒有必要認為這並不重要。