IMF承认比特币是其BPM7中的资本资产，而不是“数字黄金”。

尽管如此，他们还是提出了许多对加密行业及其在国际金融体系中的统一跟踪至关重要的分类。

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.

国际货币基金组织（IMF）已承认比特币（BTC）是其付款手册平衡手册（BPM7）中的资本资产，这与在线流传的谣言相反。

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

尽管有这样的认可，但正如一些报道所声称的那样，该组织并未将比特币归类为“数字黄金”。

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.

该组织介绍了加密行业至关重要的要素的许多分类，以及如何将其包括在国际金融体系中。不仅是比特币或稳定币等主要加密货币，还分类了相关的操作，例如加密货币和加密货币。

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.

临时文档是仍在待处理的最终版本，提供了很多信息，但是加密行业感兴趣的关键方面是对比特币和其他关键加密货币的分类及其交易。

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.

现在，网络中有很多关于IMF称为比特币为“数字黄金”的事实的猜测，但实际上，官方文件并未提及这样的事实。另外，它不提供有关向SDR添加比特币的信息。也许那会改变，但是就目前而言，事实仍然存在。

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.

让我们继续进行关键加密资产的实际分类。比特币被称为无关责任的加密资产，旨在用作付款或存储价值的手段，应归类为非生产的非财务资产，并记录在资本帐户中。

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，我们的情况是，比特币未标记为金融资产或工具（而稳定币则是金融工具），但具有经济价值，并且应在土地，权利或自然资源等跨境交易中考虑。也许这是我前面提到的猜测的起源，因为乍一看，比特币似乎与黄金，土地等相同的水平。但是，黄金是分开的，被认为是生产的金融资产，这是基本的差异。

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，对于其他关键的加密货币（例如以太坊和其他关键），它更复杂，取决于参数，例如存在已知的发行商和使用情况。例如，如果以太坊仅用于类似于比特币的存储，则应将其分类。但是，以太坊具有更广泛的功能，并且在储存中，ETH被认为是一种股票般的资产，尤其是在有创收的实体时。

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.

如果代币允许持有人获得参与治理或经济福利（例如股权）的平台或权利，并且有一个明显的对手（例如，基金会或发行实体），则代币可以作为股权投资。

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.

正如您已经意识到的那样，更多地说明了桩，也有新的准则，并且它们非常广泛，例如直接在验证者或通过交易所进行的不同选择。但是关键的规定是，从积累中的收入被视为投资收入，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.

只要存放活动代表投资关系，就可以将存放奖励记录为经常账户中的投资收入。

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.

同样，SEC最近提出了非常明确的法规的采矿也已被分类。国际货币基金组织还在协议之间有所区别，这很有趣。也就是说，他们将POW归类为生产/服务，所支付的收入以及统计中的反思为服务的出口/进口。有了POS，它是完全不同的，即，它被视为投资/参与协议（Staging），收入为投资收入以及报告作为投资收入。

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.

其中一个中央监管机构的另一个澄清。当然，这与机构接受或政策决策无关，主要旨在简化国际透明度和报告的数据。

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

但是，没有必要认为这并不重要。