FinCEN MSB只是入场券,合规美股代币交易平台需要哪些牌照?

Odaily星球日报Publicado a 2025-08-17Actualizado a 2025-08-17

原创 / Odaily 星球日报(@OdailyChina

作者 / Golem(@web 3_golem

今年随着特朗普政府放开加密监管,证券代币化赛道也有了实质性进展,美股代币交易平台如雨后春笋般涌现。但有了加密中心化交易所发展的前车之鉴,几乎所有美股代币交易平台在成立时都早早意识到了合规的重要性,并将其视为一大核心竞争力。特别是近期因 MyStonks“620 万美元”公关事件涉及监管(相关阅读:620 万美元提现受阻?MyStonks 直面回应:监管执法所致,非平台挪用),市场对于美股代币交易平台的合规性再次展开讨论。

那么,如果要做一家合规的美股代币交易平台,需要获得哪些牌照呢?市场上绝大多数美股代币交易平台采用的都是订单流模式,即用户在美股代币交易平台买卖美股代币,平台在链下通过美股账户 1:1 买卖对应美股份额,并且选择与有牌照的传统银行或券商合作托管用户资产。因此,本质上美股代币交易平台开展的是证券经纪/券商业务。

根据美 SEC 2025 年 7 月 9 日发布的关于证券代币化的 声明,代币化证券仍然是证券,市场参与者在进行这些交易时必须考虑并遵守联邦证券法。这意味着虽然目前美国针对美股代币交易平台的监管尚有模糊不清的地方。但从业务相似性角度,参考传统券商的合规要求对美股代币交易平台有很大的指导意义。如目前在美国具有合规性的美股代币交易平台 Dinari,就是按照传统券商/经纪商要求申请的监管合规,其是依据美 SEC(第 17 A(c)条)注册的证券过户代理人,且获得了获得美国证券经纪商注册资格。

不过在实际的业务场景中,是否对美国用户提供服务、是否会撮合/做市交易、是否提供法币入出金、是否亲自持有/托管实股等对美股代币交易平台要求对牌照都有区别。Odaily 星球日报将在本文中以美国对传统券商的合规要求作为参考,讨论一个合规的美股代币交易平台可能需要哪些牌照。(注:本文仅作为一般性讨论,不应作为企业正式的合规参考及法律建议)

FinCEN MSB(Money Services Business)注册(必拿)

FinCEN 全称为美国金融犯罪执法网络,它是美国财政部下属机构,主要负责执行反洗钱(AML)和反恐融资(CFT)相关法规,并监管包括虚拟货币在内的“货币服务业务”(MSB)。

FinCEN 在其 2019 年发布的 解释 中,就把“可兑换虚拟货币(CVC)”界定为“能与法币互换,或能作为法币替代物使用的虚拟货币”,并指出接受/传输或买卖 CVC 的“交换商/发行人/管理员”都需在 FinCEN 登记为 MSB 并履行 AML/CFT 报告与记录义务。

对于合规的美股代币交易平台而言,这几乎是必拿的牌照。因为即使大多数美股代币交易平台不直接涉及美元出入金,但他们的业务基本都基于接收和传输以美元挂钩的稳定币,这符合 FinCEN 对 CVC 的定义,因此会触及 FinCEN 监管。

ATS(Alternative Trading System)牌照(存在模糊)

ATS 牌照全称为另类交易系统牌照,它是由美 SEC 授予的,允许持牌方运营一个不属于传统证券交易所但依然能撮合证券买卖的交易平台。一般而言,数字资产交易平台并不需要这个牌照,因为数字资产大多已被认定为商品,但因代币化的美股仍属于证券,因此触及到了美 SEC 的监管领域。

申请 ATS 牌照需要先在美 SEC 登记注册为 broker-dealer(经纪自营商),然后申请成为 FINRA(金融业监管局)成员,才能向美 SEC 提交 Form ATS 申请,提交申请后需要持续向美 SEC 报告运营数据,并遵守相关交易透明度与反洗钱规定。

但美 SEC 对 ATS 牌照的要求是平台运营着一个证券撮合交易系统。不过现实情况是,目前大多数美股代币交易平台并不撮合来自多方的美股买卖交易,而是采用订单流模式,与用户一对一交易,因此暂时还不在 ATS 范畴内。但因仍然涉及证劵交易,平台依旧必须拿到 broker-dealer 牌照。

成为 FINRA/SIPC 会员(推荐拿)

FINRA(金融业监管局)是美国的自律性证券行业监管机构(非政府部门,但受美 SEC 监督)。负责监管券商和注册经纪人,制定并执行行业规则、进行审计检查、考核执照、处理行业纪律和投资者投诉,并运行 BrokerCheck(查询券商/经纪人背景的工具)。

在美国,涉及证券买卖的经纪商(broker-dealer)都必须注册,并且绝大多数情况下要成为 FINRA 成员,FINRA 负责日常监管、业务规则、反洗钱、合规体系等。美股代币交易平台作为类券商和证劵经纪服务,为了合规也应该加入 FINRA 会员。

SIPC(证券投资者保护公司)是由国会设立的非营利机构,是一种投资者保护机制,当一家 SIPC 成员的券商破产且客户的现金或证券被挪用或丢失时,SIPC 可帮助恢复客户资产或提供现金/证券赔付。加入 SIPC 并非是法律要求但已经成为行业常态,不过前提是平台必须注册成为 broker-dealer,在美国大多数面向公众的注册 broker-dealer 都是 SIPC 成员。

虽然 SIPC 并未明确说明保护代币化资产,但鉴于美股代币本质上还是证券,因此客户保护义务依然可能触发,合规的美股代币交易平台应该成为 SIPC 会员。

过户代理人注册(不必须)

过户代理人(Transfer Agent)是受美 SEC 监管的,主要负责证券登记、过户、股东名册维护。当投资者买卖股票时,过户代理人会更新股东记录,确保股份从卖方名下转到买方名下,还会处理股息派发、配股、股票分割等事件。传统金融的券商和经纪商一般都会申请过户代理人。

美股代币交易平台也可以申请注册过户代理人,如 Dinari 就成功申请了这个牌照,但一般情况下,大多数美股代币交易平台会选择与已有牌照的券商或银行合作,并不亲自申请注册过户代理人。

但值得注意的一个问题是,有些美股代币交易平台会给平台持币用户派发股息的功能,这也就涉及到记录持股人权属关系,为了合规就需要平台注册过户代理人,或与委托的过户代理人制定详细合作方案。例如,Dinari 就将股息以在 Arbitrum One 上发行的 USD+稳定币形式分发给美股代币持有人。

CFTC(商品期货交易委员会)相关注册(衍生品业务必拿)

如果美股代币交易平台涉及美股代币的合约或杠杠交易,那么也需要向 CFTC(美国商品期货交易委员会)注册。因为美股代币本质上还是证券,因此以它为基础资产衍生出合约或杠杆交易,就会被纳入 CFTC 的衍生品监管范畴。

如果为用户处理期货/衍生品交易并收取保证金需要 FCM(Futures Commission Merchant)注册;如果平台衍生品交易涉及外汇则需要 RFED(Retail Foreign Exchange Dealer)注册;如果平台包含撮合系统并引入客户到衍生品市场,那么就需要 Introducing Broker (IB)注册。

此次之外,提供美股代币衍生品交易的平台还要遵守 NFA(美国全国期货协会)的规则。

不对美国用户提供服务,合规难度减半

综上所述,要成为一个合规的美股代币交易平台并不容易,拿到单一或几个牌照也不意味着“全合规”。但为什么市场上还有美股交易平台宣称自己合规呢?或者说是否还有另一种合规标准。

答案是有的,事实上只要坚持不对美国用户提供服务,合规难度将大幅降低。只要美股代币交易平台不对美国用户提供服务,理论上 ATS 牌照、FINRA/SIPC、过户代理人、CFTC 注册均不需要。市场上也有许多美股代币交易平台通过 KYC 验证身份、IP 屏蔽等限制美国人及美国地区,以此达到不对美国用户提供服务的要求,从而绕过美国繁琐的监管程序。

对于面向全球市场的美股代币交易平台,限制美国人及美国地区访问并不会对其业务造成太大影响。但需要注意的是,美国作为“世界警察”,美 SEC 和 CFTC 的“长臂管辖”也很强,如果美国用户通过 VPN、代理或第三方渠道绕过了 KYC 或 IP 限制,那么仍会触发美 SEC 和 CFTC 的合规监管要求。

这样的例子在 CEX 中已经发生过很多次,许多宣称退出美国市场的交易所仍遭到了美 SEC/CFTC 起诉。因此,对于美股代币交易平台而言,即使当前阶段的目标是非美国用户,但也要未雨绸缪,避免落入美 SEC/CFTC 的“监管陷阱”。

Lecturas Relacionadas

Is RWA Still Meaningful Without DeFi?

The article "Would RWA Still Matter Without DeFi?" argues that tokenizing real-world assets (RWA) alone, like putting a barcode on a container, is not transformative. True value emerges when these tokenized assets are integrated into decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystems, enabling valuation, financing, hedging, trading, and loss management in a programmable, automated manner. Tokenization provides digital representation, but DeFi provides utility through leverage, liquidity, and composability. The core challenge lies in aligning the different "time clocks" of blockchain (fast, 24/7), traditional markets (limited hours), and asset redemption (slow processes), which creates liquidation risks and gaps. Effective RWA integration requires more than a token; it needs a full stack: legally enforceable rights, reliable data oracles, clear transfer rules, executable secondary liquidity, appropriate collateral parameters, and credible loss resolution paths. Liquidity is defined not by total value locked (TVL) but by the ability to exit a position under stress within a required timeframe. Risk management for RWAs must be modeled as a dependency graph, monitoring interconnected nodes like issuers, custodians, oracles, and liquidity pools for early warning signs beyond just price data. While tokenized government bonds serve as an initial "ping test," the future lies in more complex assets like computing power and energy, which require bespoke risk models. Tokenized stocks paired with perpetual futures present a major test, combining global equity ownership with crypto-native leverage, necessitating robust architectural safeguards like isolation and dynamic collateral rules. The conclusion is that without DeFi, RWA tokenization offers limited value—improving distribution and transparency. The significant opportunity arises when tokenized assets become functional components within open, programmable capital markets, where they can be used as collateral and facilitate complex financial strategies. The token is merely the barcode; the market operating system is the real machine.

marsbitHace 13 min(s)

Is RWA Still Meaningful Without DeFi?

marsbitHace 13 min(s)

Government Intervention in the Bond Market: What Does It Mean?

On August 19, 2026, the U.S. Treasury unexpectedly announced it would at least double the size of its long-term Treasury buyback operations, starting September 9. The move triggered an immediate market reaction, with the 30-year yield falling 9 basis points. This intervention came against a backdrop of the 30-year yield hitting a 19-year high of 5.34% the previous day, driven by persistent inflation, high oil prices, deteriorating U.S. fiscal health with public debt surpassing $40 trillion, and a global "buyers' strike" for long-dated bonds. Treasury buybacks involve the government repurchasing older, less liquid bonds from the market via reverse auctions to improve market functioning, not to reduce overall debt. While the action provided tactical relief and signaled the Treasury's willingness to intervene, analysts caution it does not address core structural issues: massive fiscal deficits, high borrowing needs, and fading demand from traditional buyers like foreign central banks. For investors, the announcement offered short-term support for long-duration bond ETFs and boosted assets like gold, which rose 2.7%. However, it's unlikely to significantly lower mortgage rates or alter the challenging environment for long-term bonds. The key takeaway is the distinction between a tactical market operation and the unresolved structural pressures that continue to push yields higher, requiring close monitoring of upcoming economic data, Treasury auctions, and potential signals of more aggressive policy measures.

marsbitHace 17 min(s)

Government Intervention in the Bond Market: What Does It Mean?

marsbitHace 17 min(s)

After 'Bessent Put', How Far Is the U.S. from Restarting QE?

Following an unscheduled announcement from the U.S. Treasury Department on August 19th, investor discussions have intensified regarding the potential for future policy interventions in long-term bond markets. The Treasury increased the maximum size of its regular buyback operations for 10-to-30 year bonds from $2 billion to $4 billion, citing a desire to improve liquidity. This move came shortly after a surge in long-term yields, with the 30-year Treasury yield briefly touching 5.34%. Market analysts, rather than focusing on the modest operational size, have interpreted the timing—outside the normal quarterly communication window—as a significant signal. The move has been dubbed the "Bessent Put," implying the market's growing expectation that Treasury officials, led by Deputy Secretary Josh Bessent, may act to prevent a disorderly rise in long-term borrowing costs. This perception represents a potential shift in the market's view of the government's "policy reaction function." The underlying pressures on long-term bonds are multifaceted, including large fiscal deficits, increased Treasury supply, a rise in corporate debt issuance for AI infrastructure (creating a "crowding out" effect), and uncertainty around foreign holdings, particularly from Japan. Geopolitical risks in the Middle East further complicate the policy landscape, potentially creating conflicting pressures between fighting inflation and managing financing costs. However, the article clarifies that this Treasury buyback program is distinct from Quantitative Easing (QE). It is a debt management operation, not a Federal Reserve balance sheet expansion. While the announcement opens the door for market speculation about more forceful tools like Yield Curve Control (YCC) or a return to QE, analysts note that conditions would need to deteriorate significantly for such measures to be implemented. For now, the "Bessent Put" reflects a change in market expectations about possible policy boundaries, not an imminent launch of new monetary stimulus.

marsbitHace 18 min(s)

After 'Bessent Put', How Far Is the U.S. from Restarting QE?

marsbitHace 18 min(s)

Is Stablecoin Really Necessary for Cross-border Payments?

"Is Stablecoin Truly Necessary for Cross-Border Payments? While stablecoins are often praised as superior for cross-border transfers—especially if the recipient desires crypto—their advantage is less clear in traditional cross-currency scenarios (e.g., USD to Mexican Peso). The existing correspondent banking system is slow and costly (≈15% fees) due to multiple intermediaries. Modern fintech solutions like Wise have dramatically improved this by using a netting model: they hold local currency pools and settle payments domestically, avoiding actual cross-border fund movement. This offers near-instant transfers with low, transparent fees (averaging ~0.52%). The 'stablecoin sandwich' model (convert fiat to stablecoin, transfer on-chain, convert to local fiat) offers similar user experience but doesn't inherently provide major cost or speed advantages over fintech. Its on-chain transfer is cheap, but fiat conversion spreads remain. Stablecoin's real innovation is 'unbundling' the cross-border payment stack. Instead of requiring a proprietary global network like Wise, businesses only need reliable on- and off-ramps in specific corridors. This lowers market entry barriers, fosters competition among local providers, and can drive down costs, particularly for niche or underserved corridors (e.g., US to Africa). While vertical integration may reoccur, the open, permissionless nature of the underlying blockchain layer makes monopolistic pricing difficult. The long-term benefit is the potential redistribution of value—previously captured as intermediary rents—to consumers through lower costs."

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

Is Stablecoin Really Necessary for Cross-border Payments?

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

Ethereum Finally 'Bounces Back'! ETH Returns to the Golden Line, What's Different About This Rally?

Ethereum has surged above $2,300, a level not seen in over three months, marking a significant recovery and technical breakthrough by reclaiming key resistance levels, including the weekly EMA50 for the first time in the current bear market. The rally has been fueled by a combination of factors: improved market risk appetite, positive regulatory sentiment, and a major short squeeze where over 88% of recent ETH liquidations were short positions. The ETH/BTC ratio has also broken its long-term downtrend, indicating renewed strength for Ethereum relative to Bitcoin. Fundamentally, Ethereum spot ETFs have shown strong inflows, outperforming their Bitcoin counterparts in recent months. Wall Street institutions like Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan have notably increased their ETH exposure, while several banks have added or expanded positions in ETH ETFs. On-chain fundamentals remain robust, with the proportion of staked ETH reaching a new all-time high of nearly 33.7%. Data indicates long-term holding sentiment, as small wallet holdings increased while large outflows were often directed towards staking or contracts, not selling. However, potential headwinds include declining staking yields and community debate over proposals to adjust staking rewards at high participation levels. The upcoming Glamsterdam upgrade, featuring improvements to validator exit efficiency, could enhance liquidity and further attract institutional stakers. While the rebound is supported by sentiment, capital flows, and fundamentals, its sustainability hinges on continued positive developments.

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

Ethereum Finally 'Bounces Back'! ETH Returns to the Golden Line, What's Different About This Rally?

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片