美国证券交易委员会正在迅速转移其对加密货币的立场

美国证券交易委员会正在迅速转移其对加密货币的立场，对主要公司的案件和调查

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.

美国证券交易委员会正在迅速转移其对加密货币的立场。在对Coinbase（NASDAQ：COIN），Opensea，Uniswap和Robinhood（NASDAQ：HOOD）等主要公司（例如Coinbase（NASDAQ：COIN）等大型公司开放案件和调查之后），SEC现在已经放弃了这些调查。

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

唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）总统通过公告对战略比特币和/或加密保护区的宣布，进一步巩固了该行业的合法性。

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?

当该行业庆祝这些发展时，仍有许多尚未解决的问题。 SEC对Opensea和Yugalabs的调查是否真的意味着NFT不是证券？

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.

数字与模拟合作伙伴的Yuriy Brisov说，并不是真的，并补充说，这是对复杂法律问题的过度简化。他还指出，托雷斯法官在波纹案中希望亲自参与此案，这可能会使事情进一步复杂化。

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.

这些调查的良好结果并不总是一项诉讼。这也可能导致SEC报告澄清监管分类 - 就像波纹的公用事业令牌被视为某些销售中的证券一样，SEC可能断言NFTS和Memecoins在某些条件下也可以是证券，而DEFI平台可能被视为经纪人或根据1934年的Exchange Act所示的经纪人或经销商。

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.

现在，他们只是放弃了指控，而加密社区说NFT不能成为证券。 UNISWAP案件表明，根据《交换法》，所有DEFI平台不能是交换或经纪经销商。

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.

我会说这是市场收到的错误信息：他们可以做任何事情。我不支持这种方法。让新的创新公司成长可能是一件好事。但是有人必须不时调查他们并提出一些问题，发出报告并提出建议。

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·贡斯勒（Gary Gensler）的领导下，SEC过分了。例如，使用Coinbase，它们严格遵循所有KYC程序。 Coinbase实际上投入了很多资金来遵循所有法律。因此，对我而言，与Coinbase的战斗从一开始就毫无意义。但是有了Opensea，使用Uniswap，我不会说这是毫无意义的，但是这些调查的结果在这一点上不能令人满意。

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

鉴于美国加密法律影响了其他国家，因此像香港，新加坡和迪拜这样的司法管辖区可能会看到类似的突然变化吗？

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，这种急剧的调节性掉头的可能性较小。这些司法管辖区采取了一种更加衡量的和结构化的方法来进行加密调节。

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，香港的证券和期货委员会的方法是有条理的。当SFC首次推出其加密监管框架时，它排除了诸如期权交易之类的风险产品。只有在最初的框架已经建立了一段时间之后，SFC宣布才能探索允许选择和利用交易。这种分阶段的方法可确保仅在参与者被审查和认为足够复杂之后才引入生态系统的风险更高。

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.

这种稳定的增量方法与SEC的突然变化截然不同。它还强调了建立一个根据经验和司法投入而不是执政者的个人观点而发展的监管框架的重要性。在香港，新加坡和迪拜，重点是为创新创造一个可预测且值得信赖的环境，这是美国可以从中学到的。

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

加密公司是否认为监管机构认为监管行为会损害其业务？

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

在美国，即使您没有积极的主张，您也可以起诉任何人。

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.

没有什么可以阻止您发起诉讼。这就是为什么在我的工作中，我们要做的是我们经常有赔偿条款，即如果另一方的行动要起诉一方，无论该诉讼是否有价值，被起诉的那一方仍然会损害法律费用，只是为了消失或捍卫自己。因此，问题的答案是，他们绝对可以起诉。他们是否要获胜显然是另一回事。

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方法及其放弃Opensea调查的决定是否围绕着加密法律造成了更多的法律不确定性？

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.

现在，人们对市场有一个普遍的了解，即NFT不能成为证券。我认为这不是这项调查的很好的结果，因为NFT显然可以是证券，并且可以对证券造成某些风险。实际上，SEC正在调查Opensea的事实本可以像我们对Ripple一样创造这种理解。在涟漪案件之前，我们不知道如何处理公用事业令牌。现在，我们知道有两种类型的令牌，这些令牌是在交易所出售的，以及出售给机构投资者的标记。同样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.

我们可以对NFT有同样的了解，某些NFT确实是收藏品，它们不是证券立法的一部分。

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

例如，我们做了一个项目，在房地产项目中以NFT的形式提供证券，