美國證券交易委員會正在迅速轉移其對加密貨幣的立場

美國證券交易委員會正在迅速轉移其對加密貨幣的立場，對主要公司的案件和調查

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission is rapidly shifting its stance on cryptocurrency. After opening cases and investigations against major companies like Coinbase (NASDAQ:COIN), OpenSea, Uniswap and Robinhood (NASDAQ:HOOD), among others, the SEC has now dropped these probes.

美國證券交易委員會正在迅速轉移其對加密貨幣的立場。在對Coinbase（NASDAQ：COIN），Opensea，Uniswap和Robinhood（NASDAQ：HOOD）等主要公司（例如Coinbase（NASDAQ：COIN）等大型公司開放案件和調查之後），SEC現在已經放棄了這些調查。

President Donald Trump has further cemented the legitimacy of the industry with his announcements about a strategic Bitcoin and/or crypto reserve.

唐納德·特朗普（Donald Trump）總統通過公告對戰略比特幣和/或加密保護區的宣布，進一步鞏固了該行業的合法性。

While the industry is celebrating these developments, there are plenty of unresolved questions. Does the SEC dropping its investigations into OpenSea and YugaLabs really mean that NFTs are not securities?

當該行業慶祝這些發展時，仍有許多尚未解決的問題。 SEC對Opensea和Yugalabs的調查是否真的意味著NFT不是證券？

Not really, says Yuriy Brisov of Digital & Analogue Partners, adding that it’s an oversimplification of a complex legal issue. He also notes that Judge Torres, in the Ripple case, wanted to be personally involved in the case, which might complicate matters further.

數字與模擬合作夥伴的Yuriy Brisov說，並不是真的，並補充說，這是對複雜法律問題的過度簡化。他還指出，托雷斯法官在波紋案中希望親自參與此案，這可能會使事情進一步複雜化。

The good outcome of these investigations isn’t always a lawsuit. It could also result in an SEC report clarifying regulatory classifications — just as Ripple’s utility tokens were deemed securities in certain sales, the SEC might assert that NFTs and memecoins can also be securities under certain conditions, while DeFi platforms may be considered brokers or dealers under the Exchange Act of 1934.

這些調查的良好結果並不總是一項訴訟。這也可能導致SEC報告澄清監管分類 - 就像波紋的公用事業令牌被視為某些銷售中的證券一樣，SEC可能斷言NFTS和Memecoins在某些條件下也可以是證券，而DEFI平台可能被視為經紀人或根據1934年的Exchange Act所示的經紀人或經銷商。

Now, they just dropped charges and the crypto community is saying that NFTs cannot be securities. And the Uniswap case suggests that all DeFi platforms cannot be an exchange or broker dealer under the Exchange Act.

現在，他們只是放棄了指控，而加密社區說NFT不能成為證券。 UNISWAP案件表明，根據《交換法》，所有DEFI平台不能是交換或經紀經銷商。

I would say that it’s the wrong message that the market receives: that they can do whatever. I don’t support this approach. It’s probably a good thing to let the new, innovative companies grow. But someone must, from time to time, investigate them and ask some questions, issue reports, and make recommendations.

我會說這是市場收到的錯誤信息：他們可以做任何事情。我不支持這種方法。讓新的創新公司成長可能是一件好事。但是有人必須不時調查他們並提出一些問題，發出報告並提出建議。

Under Gary Gensler, the SEC was overdoing it. For instance, with Coinbase, they were strictly following all the KYC procedures. Coinbase actually invests a lot into following all the laws. So this battle with Coinbase, for me, was meaningless from the very beginning. But with OpenSea, with Uniswap, I wouldn’t say that it was meaningless but the results of these investigations, I cannot call them satisfactory at this point.

在加里·貢斯勒（Gary Gensler）的領導下，SEC過分了。例如，使用Coinbase，它們嚴格遵循所有KYC程序。 Coinbase實際上投入了很多資金來遵循所有法律。因此，對我而言，與Coinbase的戰鬥從一開始就毫無意義。但是有了Opensea，使用Uniswap，我不會說這是毫無意義的，但是這些調查的結果在這一點上不能令人滿意。

Given that US crypto laws influence other countries, are jurisdictions like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Dubai likely to see similar abrupt changes?

鑑於美國加密法律影響了其他國家，因此像香港，新加坡和迪拜這樣的司法管轄區可能會看到類似的突然變化嗎？

In places like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Dubai, such drastic regulatory U-turns are less likely. These jurisdictions have taken a more measured and structured approach to crypto regulation.

在香港，新加坡和迪拜等地方，這種急劇的調節性掉頭的可能性較小。這些司法管轄區採取了一種更加衡量的和結構化的方法來進行加密調節。

For example, Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission has been methodical in its approach. When the SFC first introduced its crypto regulatory framework, it excluded riskier products like options trading. Only after the initial framework had been in place for some time did the SFC announce it would explore allowing options and leveraged trading. This phased approach ensures that riskier aspects of the ecosystem are introduced only after participants have been vetted and deemed sufficiently sophisticated.

例如，香港的證券和期貨委員會的方法是有條理的。當SFC首次推出其加密監管框架時，它排除了諸如期權交易之類的風險產品。只有在最初的框架已經建立了一段時間之後，SFC宣布才能探索允許選擇和利用交易。這種分階段的方法可確保僅在參與者被審查和認為足夠複雜之後才引入生態系統的風險更高。

This steady, incremental approach contrasts sharply with the SEC’s abrupt shifts. It also highlights the importance of building a regulatory framework that evolves based on experience and judicial input, rather than the personal views of those in power. In Hong Kong, Singapore, and Dubai, the focus is on creating a predictable and trustworthy environment for innovation, which is something the US could learn from.

這種穩定的增量方法與SEC的突然變化截然不同。它還強調了建立一個根據經驗和司法投入而不是執政者的個人觀點而發展的監管框架的重要性。在香港，新加坡和迪拜，重點是為創新創造一個可預測且值得信賴的環境，這是美國可以從中學到的。

Can crypto firms sue regulators if they believe regulatory actions have harmed their business?

加密公司是否認為監管機構認為監管行為會損害其業務？

In the US, you can sue anyone for anything, even if you don’t have a meritorious claim.

在美國，即使您沒有積極的主張，您也可以起訴任何人。

Nothing stops you from launching a lawsuit. This is why, in my line of work, what we do is we often have indemnification clauses that if a party were to be sued as a result of the other party’s actions, regardless if that suit has merit or not, that party that is sued still incurs legal costs simply just to make this go away or defend themselves. So the answer to the question is, they can absolutely sue. Whether or not they’re going to win is obviously a whole other thing.

沒有什麼可以阻止您發起訴訟。這就是為什麼在我的工作中，我們要做的是我們經常有賠償條款，即如果另一方的行動要起訴一方，無論該訴訟是否有價值，被起訴的那一方仍然會損害法律費用，只是為了消失或捍衛自己。因此，問題的答案是，他們絕對可以起訴。他們是否要獲勝顯然是另一回事。

Has the SEC’s approach to NFTs and its decision to drop the OpenSea investigation created more legal uncertainty around crypto laws?

SEC的NFT方法及其放棄Opensea調查的決定是否圍繞著加密法律造成了更多的法律不確定性？

Now, there is a general understanding for the market that NFTs cannot be securities. I don’t think that is a very good outcome of this investigation because NFTs obviously can be securities, and they can create certain risks regarding securities. Actually, the fact that the SEC was investigating OpenSea could have created this understanding, as we have with Ripple. Before the Ripple case, we didn’t know how to approach utility tokens. Now, we know that there are two types of tokens, those that are sold on exchanges and those that are sold to institutional investors. And the same token can be either a security or not.

現在，人們對市場有一個普遍的了解，即NFT不能成為證券。我認為這不是這項調查的很好的結果，因為NFT顯然可以是證券，並且可以對證券造成某些風險。實際上，SEC正在調查Opensea的事實可能會像我們對Ripple一樣創造這種理解。在漣漪案件之前，我們不知道如何處理公用事業令牌。現在，我們知道有兩種類型的令牌，這些令牌是在交易所出售的，以及出售給機構投資者的標記。同樣的令牌可以是安全性。

We could have the same understanding regarding NFTs, that some NFTs are really collectibles and they’re not a part of securities legislation.

我們可以對NFT有同樣的了解，某些NFT確實是收藏品，它們不是證券立法的一部分。

For instance, we did a project where we offered securities in the form of NFT in a real estate project,

例如，我們做了一個項目，在房地產項目中以NFT的形式提供證券，