在加密貨幣空間中，穩定黴素的調節已成為一個重要的討論點

該內容旨在告知，不應被視為財務建議。本文中表達的觀點可能包括作者的個人意見，並且不代表小報的觀點。

The regulation of stablecoins has become a significant point of discussion in the cryptocurrency space, especially with the introduction of the Genius Act. This act mandates that issuers of payment stablecoins possess the “technological capability to comply with the terms of any lawful order.”

在加密貨幣空間中的調節已成為一個重要的討論點，尤其是隨著《天才法》的引入。該法令規定，付款穩定幣的發行人具有“遵守任何合法命令條款的技術能力”。

This requirement extends to the ability to freeze, burn, or prevent the transfer of stablecoins as stipulated by the Act. To put it simply, if a court tells the issuer to freeze an account or confiscate tokens, the issuer must be able to carry out that order on-chain.

這項要求擴展到凍結，燃燒或防止該法案規定的穩定黴素轉移的能力。簡而言之，如果法院告訴發行人凍結帳戶或沒收令牌，則發行人必須能夠在鏈上執行該命令。

A recent discussion on X between legal expert Jeremy Hogan, blockchain researcher ‘Vet,’ and Ripple CTO David Schwartz shed light on how these regulatory expectations align with RLUSD, Ripple’s recently introduced stablecoin. The conversation also clarified Ripple’s reasoning for implementing freeze and clawback functionalities for RLUSD, sparking questions about whether the legislation was tailored with RLUSD in mind.

最近關於法律專家傑里米·霍根（Jeremy Hogan），區塊鏈研究人員“獸醫”和Ripple CTO David Schwartz之間的討論闡明了這些監管期望與Ripple最近引入的Stablecoin Rlusd如何保持一致。對話還闡明了Ripple的推理，用於為RLUSD實施凍結和扣背功能，引發了有關該立法是否是按照RLUSD量身定制的問題。

The Freezing and Clawback Mechanism of RLUSD

RLUSD的凍結和回扣機制

Hogan initially posed an important question:

霍根最初提出了一個重要的問題：

“Can Ripple or Circle actually freeze RLUSD or USDC once it’s transferred? I didn’t think that was possible, for either.”

“轉移後，波紋或圓圈能夠真正凍結RLUSD或USDC一旦轉移嗎？我認為這是不可能的。”

Vet responded with a direct confirmation, stating that both Ethereum and the XRP Ledger (XRPL) allow for the freezing and clawback of RLUSD. According to him, Ripple, as the issuer, can freeze or reclaim RLUSD if requested by law enforcement or through court orders.

獸醫以直接的確認做出了回應，並指出以太坊和XRP分類帳（XRPL）允許RLUSD的凍結和回扣。據他說，如果執法部門的要求或通過法院命令，則發行人可以凍結或收回RLUSD。

This aligns with the regulatory requirements outlined in the Genius Act, highlighting the need for issuers to retain control over their stablecoins in compliance with legal obligations.

這符合《天才法》中概述的監管要求，強調了發行人必須按照法律義務保留對穩定的人的控制權。

The discussion further revealed that Ripple’s decision to enable clawback functionality had initially delayed the introduction of the RLUSD AMM (Automated Market Maker) pool on the XRPL due to an amendment. However, in light of the regulatory landscape, this move appears to be a strategic and necessary step.

討論進一步表明，Ripple決定啟用回扣功能的決定最初推遲了由於修正案而在XRPL上引入了RLUSD AMM（自動營銷商）池。但是，鑑於監管格局，這一舉動似乎是戰略和必要的步驟。

Understanding Clawback and Its Necessity

了解回擊及其必要性

Vet’s exchange with David Schwartz provided deeper insights into why Ripple integrated clawback in addition to freeze for RLUSD. The debate arose when a user, ‘Cookie,’ asked: “Why is clawback needed on a stablecoin?”

獸醫與大衛·施瓦茨（David Schwartz）的交流提供了更深入的見解，說明為什麼除了凍結RLUSD之外，Ripple Integript intect intect intects intects intects。當用戶“ cookie”問：“為什麼要在穩定幣上需要回扣？”

Vet responded by stating that while other issuers, such as Circle and Tether, have implemented a system of blocking accounts, which serves a similar function to freezing, and input from another user, ‘FIGMENTZCRYPTO,’ highlighted the fact that Tether has also been known to cooperate with authorities in re-routing stolen funds.

獸醫回應說，儘管其他發行人（例如Circle和Tether）已經實施了阻止帳戶的系統，該系統具有與凍結的功能相似的功能，並從另一個用戶“ Figmentzcrypto”中發表了指出，強調了這一事實，即Tether也已知Tether與當局在重新居住的偷偷摸摸的資金中合作。

However, in the case of RLUSD, Schwartz explained that the issuer, in this case, Ripple Labs, retains the ability to adjust the on-chain state of the tokens to reflect changes in legal obligations. This is crucial because, as he put it, “a stablecoin held by a regulated legal entity is supposed to represent a legal obligation.”

但是，在RLUSD的情況下，Schwartz解釋說，在這種情況下，發行人保留了調整代幣鍊式狀態以反映法律義務變化的能力。這是至關重要的，因為正如他所說，“受管制法律實體持有的穩定者應該代表法律義務。”

If something outside the ledger eliminates the legal obligation but the tokens are still there on the ledger, the ledger’s just wrong. There needs to be a way to fix it.

如果分類帳之外的某些東西消除了法律義務，但代幣仍在分類賬上，那麼賬本是錯誤的。需要有一種修復它的方法。

This statement underscores the fundamental challenge that stablecoins present within a decentralized ledger system. Unlike traditional assets, stablecoins are designed to closely mirror real-world financial claims, which can be altered by legal events.

該聲明強調了穩定分類分類帳系統中Stablecoin的基本挑戰。與傳統資產不同，Stablecoins旨在密切反映現實世界中的財務主張，這可以通過法律事件來改變。

For instance, if a dispute arises between two parties over a claim on a specific portion of RLUSD or if a fraud case leads to the cancellation of an obligation, that change must be reflected on-chain. This is where the capability to clawback becomes necessary.

例如，如果兩方之間就特定部分的RLUSD索賠或欺詐案導致取消義務而產生爭議，則必須在鍊子上反映該更改。這是必要回扣的能力。

The Issue with Frozen Trustlines

冷凍信任的問題

Schwartz also explained the distinction between freezing and clawback, especially in cases involving legal disputes. He provided an example:

施瓦茨還解釋了凍結和回扣之間的區別，尤其是在涉及法律糾紛的案件中。他提供了一個例子：

“Say there’s a dispute between Alice and Bill, and the issuer doesn’t know who the tokens rightfully belong to. So they freeze the trustline. At this point, they don’t know to whom they owe the dollars those tokens represent. But they owe them to someone. So a frozen trustline can’t mean no legal obligation.”

“說愛麗絲和比爾之間存在爭議，發行人不知道令牌是誰屬於誰。因此他們凍結了信任線。在這一點上，他們不知道這些代表所代表的錢欠誰。但是他們歸功於某人。因此，冷凍的信任線並不意味著沒有法律義務。”

This example highlights a key limitation of having only a freeze function. If Alice’s tokens are frozen but later Bob gains a court order proving he is the rightful owner of those funds, the issuer must still settle that obligation with Bob.

此示例突出顯示了僅具有凍結功能的關鍵限制。如果愛麗絲的令牌被凍結，但後來鮑勃獲得了法院命令，證明他是這些資金的合法所有者，則發行人仍然必須與鮑勃履行這項義務。

However, without clawback, the frozen tokens would remain in Alice’s account despite her no longer having any legal claim to them. This mismatch between on-chain and off-chain realities creates a situation where the issuer could be held liable for an obligation they can no longer fulfill.

但是，如果沒有回扣，儘管她不再對他們有任何法律要求，但凍結的令牌仍將留在愛麗絲的帳戶中。鏈接和鍊鍊現實之間的這種不匹配造成了一種情況，在這種情況下，發行人應對他們無法履行的義務承擔責任。

But by implementing both freeze and clawback, Ripple ensures that RLUSD accurately reflects the issuer’s obligations at all times. This capability prevents situations where an issuer could be forced to misrepresent their financial position or be unable to respond to a regulator’s demands.

但是，通過同時實施凍結和回擊，Ripple確保RLUSD準確地反映了發行人的義務。這種能力阻止了發行人被迫歪曲其財務狀況或無法應對監管機構要求的情況。

Does the Genius Act Specifically Target RLUSD?

天才行動是否專門針對RLUSD？

Concluding the discussion, Hogan remarked:

結論討論，霍根說：

“It’s almost as though this legislation was written with RLUSD in mind.”

“這幾乎好像是在牢記RLUSD的文章中寫的。”

While the provisions of the Genius Act apply to all

而《天才法》的規定適用於所有人