IMF的新框架將XRP歸類為安全性，引發爭議

國際貨幣基金組織最近發布了第七版的付款和國際投資手冊（BPM7）。該最新版本是一個重大更新，是自2009年以來的首次修訂，尤其是加密貨幣在全球經濟中的作用日益增長。但是，在此更新中，國際貨幣基金組織試圖對這些數字資產進行分類引發了爭議，尤其是關於XRP的爭議。

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has released the seventh edition of its Balance of Payments and International Investment Manual (BPM7). This latest version is a significant update, being the first revision since 2009. It incorporates the growing role of cryptocurrencies in the global economy. However, its attempt to categorize these digital assets has sparked controversy, especially concerning XRP.

國際貨幣基金組織（IMF）發布了其付款餘額和國際投資手冊（BPM7）的第七版。該最新版本是一個重大更新，是自2009年以來的首次修訂。它結合了加密貨幣在全球經濟中的越來越多的作用。但是，它對這些數字資產進行分類的嘗試引發了爭議，尤其是關於XRP的爭議。

How does the IMF classify crypto like XRP?

IMF如何像XRP一樣對加密分類？

Under this newly updated framework, the IMF classifies crypto assets by whether they create a financial claim or liability on the issuer. In this context, the IMF states that utility tokens, which include many altcoins, provide future access to goods or services and should be classified as “debt securities.”

在這個新更新的框架下，國際貨幣基金組織通過對發行人創建財務索賠還是責任來對加密資產進行分類。在這種情況下，國際貨幣基金組織指出，包括許多AltCoins在內的公用事業令牌提供了未來的商品或服務訪問權限，應歸類為“債務證券”。

[coin_intro_banner]

[COIN_INTRO_BANNER]

This classification made some humorously predict that XRP could soon be permanently listed as a security.

這種分類使一些幽默地預測XRP很快可能被永久列為安全性。

Interestingly, the IMF’s approach to categorizing utility tokens could potentially classify not only XRP but also other leading cryptocurrencies like Ethereum and Solana as “debt securities.”

有趣的是，國際貨幣基金組織將公用事業令牌分類的方法不僅可以對XRP進行分類，還可以將其他領先的加密貨幣（如以太坊和Solana）歸類為“債務證券”。

However, Ripple's CTO, David Schwartz, doesn't agree with this line of reasoning. He argued that if XRP fits this definition, then other major cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, should also fall under the same category.

但是，Ripple的首席技術官David Schwartz不同意這一推理。他認為，如果XRP符合此定義，那麼其他主要的加密貨幣（例如比特幣和以太坊）也應屬於同一類別。

"If XRP is a utility token or a security according to the IMF's criteria because it can be used for future transaction fees, then BTC and ETH should also be classified the same way," Schwartz argued.

Schwartz認為：“如果XRP是根據IMF的標準是實用令牌或安全性，因為它可以用於將來的交易費用，那麼BTC和ETH也應以相同的方式進行分類。”

If XRP is a utility token because you can use it to pay future transaction fees, then so are BTC and ETH.

如果XRP是實用程序代幣，因為您可以使用它來支付未來的交易費用，那麼BTC和ETH也是如此。

Moreover, Ripple's CTO also pointed out that, in his opinion, no major token really fits the IMF's definition of a utility token.

此外，Ripple的首席技術官還指出，他認為，沒有任何大的令牌真正符合IMF對公用事業令牌的定義。

"I'm not sure what major token, if any, would be an example of that," he said.

他說：“我不確定什麼（如果有的話）將是一個例子。”

This debate over XRP's classification comes at a crucial time. Ripple is nearing the end of its ongoing legal battle, where the status of XRP was at the center of the dispute.

關於XRP分類的這場辯論在關鍵時刻進行。 Ripple接近正在進行的法律鬥爭的盡頭，XRP的地位是爭端的中心。

Back in 2020, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a lawsuit against Ripple, alleging that the company's sale of XRP violated securities laws. However, in 2023, District Judge Analisa Torres ruled that Ripple's sales of XRP to the general public did not qualify as securities transactions. She did, however, find that the firm's direct sales to institutional investors did violate the Integration Theory.

早在2020年，美國證券交易委員會（SEC）提起了針對波紋的訴訟，指控該公司出售XRP違反了證券法。但是，在2023年，地方法院法官Analisa Torres裁定，Ripple向公眾的XRP銷售不符合證券交易的資格。但是，她確實發現該公司向機構投資者的直接銷售確實違反了整合理論。