BIS颁布新的加密货币法规-最新加密货币新闻

币界网Published on 2024-07-18Last updated on 2024-07-18

币界网报道:

国际清算银行(BIS)公布了可能对加密货币行业产生重大影响的新规则。巴塞尔银行监管委员会于7月17日发布的报告要求对银行管理加密货币风险进行更严格的控制,并要求进行详细的披露。主要重点是提高透明度和稳定性,特别是影响Tether的USDT和Circle的USDC等稳定币。

内容隐藏1新规定意味着什么?2行业反应如何?3重要见解

新规定意味着什么?

这些法规的关键要素之一是将稳定币归类为有利的“1b类”监管类别的严格标准。这一调整意味着USDT和USDC等稳定币现在将面临更严格的监管,这可能会使合规性更具挑战性。访问NEWSLINKER获取最新技术新闻。

国际清算银行的这些举措突显了监管机构对广泛使用的区块链稳定币相关风险的日益关注。有趣的是,这一监管转变与香港金融管理局关于稳定币许可制度的咨询文件不谋而合。

行业反应如何?

行业领导者对这些发展表示担忧。Custodia Bank首席执行官Caitlin Long批评国际清算银行偏袒某些稳定币,而将公共区块链上的稳定币边缘化。她指出,美国等主要金融管辖区可能不符合这些新准则。

与国际清算银行的立场相反,金融领域的一些有影响力的人物主张公共区块链。贝莱德加密资产主管表示,相较于私有区块链,他们更倾向于公共区块链,这反映了行业内持续的争论。尽管如此,国际清算银行的指导方针倾向于允许私人区块链上的稳定币,如摩根大通的JPMCoin。

重要见解

    更严格的控制可能会使USDT和USDC等稳定币更难遵守。美国可能不会采用国际清算银行的新加密货币指导方针。公共区块链与私人区块链的争论在金融领域仍在继续。新法规可能会将竞争动态转向允许的稳定币。

随着讨论的深入,道富银行可能推出稳定币,这可能会引入来自成熟金融实体的更多竞争,挑战公共区块链的主导地位。国际清算银行的新规定可能会显著重塑竞争格局,推动更多金融机构转向允许的稳定币。

总之,国际清算银行的新规定和行业的反应可能会给加密货币市场带来相当大的变化。公共区块链稳定币和允许的稳定币之间的持续竞争可能会对金融体系的未来结构产生重大影响。

您可以在Telegram、Twitter(X)和Coinmarketcap上关注我们的新闻。免责声明:本文所含信息不构成投资建议。投资者应该意识到加密货币具有高波动性,因此存在风险,应该进行自己的研究。

Related Reads

When Real Estate Ownership Goes Digital: What Happens to Your Rights, Risks, and Liquidity?

"Tokenizing Real Estate: Rights, Risks, and the Path to Liquidity" While tokenizing real-world assets (RWA) gains traction, real estate presents unique complexities. Beyond technical token issuance, critical challenges remain: enforcing legal rights, managing the underlying physical asset, and creating genuine secondary market liquidity. This article explores these issues through OneAsset, a Dubai-based commercial real estate (CRE) tokenization platform. OneAsset moves away from simply offering asset fragmentation. Instead, it focuses on institutional-grade infrastructure, prioritizing asset quality, legal enforceability, and operational fundamentals. Each property is held in an independent, single-asset vault, backed by a legally separate Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for bankruptcy remoteness. Investors acquire tokens representing the economic rights to a specific property, with precise legal claims defined by the underlying SPV structure. OneAsset emphasizes that tokenization cannot transform a poor-quality asset. Its initial focus is on institutional investors and quality Dubai-based CRE, selected for stable tenant cash flows and a clear regulatory environment. The platform integrates compliance by design, aiming to embed investor qualification and transfer rules directly into the token architecture. A core insight is that asset fragmentation does not automatically create liquidity. True liquidity depends on the asset's inherent quality—its location, cash flow, and valuation—as well as sufficient buyer demand. The goal is not just tradability, but making real estate rights more easily priced, verified, and reallocated. Looking ahead, the article discusses the potential for "AiFi" (AI-powered finance). For AI agents to autonomously allocate capital, investment assets like real estate tokens must become truly "machine-readable." This requires a high degree of standardization in legal rights, valuations, cash flows, and compliance data—a direction OneAsset is pursuing through its structured data reporting. In conclusion, real estate tokenization is shifting from a technology narrative to a focus on asset fundamentals. Blockchain can enhance efficiency and programmability, but it cannot replace sound underwriting, property management, or legal execution. The real work begins after the asset is on-chain.

marsbit24m ago

When Real Estate Ownership Goes Digital: What Happens to Your Rights, Risks, and Liquidity?

marsbit24m ago

After Affecting Two Generations, Meta Ordered to Pay $18 Billion in Damages

After more than two decades, a legal parallel has emerged. In 1998, major U.S. tobacco companies settled for $206 billion, leading to strict advertising bans and warning labels that significantly reduced smoking rates. On August 26, 2026, Meta reached a landmark settlement with U.S. attorneys general, agreeing to pay up to approximately $18 billion and implement mandatory changes to Facebook and Instagram. This historic settlement, one of the largest against a tech company, stems from allegations that Meta deliberately designed addictive features like infinite scroll and push notifications, harming youth mental health and violating child privacy laws. Facing a potential $1.4 trillion lawsuit and a series of unfavorable jury verdicts, Meta chose to settle on the eighth day of trial to avoid a catastrophic ruling. The core of the agreement is not just the financial penalty, which Meta will pay over 10 years, but a series of strict, 10-year product mandates for young users. These include a hard two-hour daily time limit (combined across apps), a default "nighttime block" from midnight to 6 AM, restricted notifications during school hours, hidden "like" counts, an optional non-algorithmic feed, and stronger age verification. An independent auditor will monitor compliance. Crucially, roughly 30% ($5.3 billion) of Meta's payment is contingent on YouTube and TikTok adopting similar measures and paying around $5 billion each. This move aims to create an industry-wide standard and prevent Meta from being competitively disadvantaged. The settlement is being likened to Big Tobacco's "tobacco moment." By legally framing addictive algorithm design as a "public nuisance," it sets a powerful precedent. Nearly 3,000 similar cases are pending against other social media giants, signaling a fundamental shift in regulatory pressure. The era where platforms could deny the addictive impact of their designs on children is effectively over.

marsbit30m ago

After Affecting Two Generations, Meta Ordered to Pay $18 Billion in Damages

marsbit30m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片