СМИ: Власти Индии могут ограничить или запретить оборот частных криптовалют

investing.ru2024-10-22 tarihinde yayınlandı2024-10-22 tarihinde güncellendi

Издание Hindustan Times, со ссылкой на информацию, полученную от осведомленных чиновников, сообщает, что группа правительственных экспертов подготовила дискуссионный документ и пришла к выводам о значительном дисбалансе риска над выгодами криптовалют, включая стейблкоины.

Они подчеркнули, что потенциал цифровой рупии, валюты Центрального банка (CBDC), в полной мере соответствует требованиям финансовой инклюзивности и безопасности, по сравнению с такими криптовалютами, как биткоин и эфир.

«CBDC могут делать все то же, что и криптовалюты. На самом деле, CBDC имеют больше преимуществ, чем криптовалюты, за исключением рисков, связанных с частными криптовалютами», — сказал один из чиновников на условиях анонимности.

Источник добавил, что положения сводного документа Международного валютного фонда (МВФ) и Совета по финансовой стабильности допускают введение более высоких ограничений по регулированию криптоактивов, включая их полный запрет на территории стран G-20.

Чиновник подчеркнул, что технология блокчейна, лежащая в основе криптовалют, может использоваться в различных общественно полезных целях, таких как токенизация государственных ценных бумаг, в отличие от биткоина или эфира, которые представляют угрозу для слабозащищенных слоев населения Индии.

Ранее Управляющий Резервного банка Индии (RBI) Шактиканта Дас (Shaktikanta Das) заявил, что цифровая рупия может смягчить неопределенность, создаваемую криптовалютами, и защитить граждан Индии от высокой волатильности инструментов криптовалютного рынка.

Читайте оригинальную статью на сайте Bits.media

İlgili Okumalar

What's It Like Working with Two "Madmen": Peter Thiel and Elon Musk? Palantir Co-founder Shares His Experience

Joe Lonsdale, co-founder of Palantir and a member of the "PayPal Mafia," shared his experiences working alongside Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. He described both as highly opinionated, ambitious, and intolerant of broken systems, demanding immediate fixes and rapid execution. Thiel is characterized as a strategic philosopher, while Musk is a hands-on engineer deeply involved in technical details. Musk is noted as one of the hardest workers Lonsdale has ever seen, a trait common in PayPal's early, passionate culture that later spawned numerous billion-dollar companies. Lonsdale recounted Palantir's origin story. While working at Thiel's hedge fund, he and Thiel discussed how Silicon Valley's technology far outpaced the government's, especially after 9/11. They saw an opportunity to build a platform to help stop terrorist attacks while protecting civil liberties. Their initial venture capital pitches were met with rejection and ridicule. However, Thiel viewed this as motivation. Critical funding eventually came from the CIA's venture arm and Thiel himself. Reflecting on Palantir's impact, Lonsdale believes their work helped neutralize thousands of terrorists and ensured government oversight, though he acknowledges the potential dangers if such powerful technology is misused. His key takeaway echoes Thiel's early advice: being rejected and laughed at can fuel the determination to prove the doubters wrong.

marsbit3 dk önce

What's It Like Working with Two "Madmen": Peter Thiel and Elon Musk? Palantir Co-founder Shares His Experience

marsbit3 dk önce

15 Reasoning Models Flip Collectively: Unpacking the Latent Risks Hidden in the Chain of Thought Behind Their Outputs

"15 Reasoning Models Collectively Fail: Revealing Hidden Risks in Chain-of-Thought Outputs" A systematic study led by researchers from Harvard, USC, Brown, and MIT warns that evaluating only the final output of large reasoning models (LRMs) is insufficient for safety. The research highlights that the intermediate reasoning chains (CoT) these models expose can contain dangerous content—like bomb-making instructions or poisoning recipes—even when the final answer appears safe. The core methodology involves separately assessing the reasoning chain and the final answer against 20 safety principles, each scored 1-5 for risk. This identifies three key failure modes: 'Unsafe' (both stages unsafe), 'Leak' (unsafe reasoning but safe answer), and 'Escape' (safe reasoning but unsafe answer). The team evaluated 15 reasoning models on a combined in-distribution dataset of 41K prompts from seven public harmful/jailbreak datasets. A universal finding across all 15 models was that reasoning chains are consistently riskier than final answers. Risk is concentrated in categories like misinformation, illegal activity, bias, and physical/psychological harm, with illegal compliance showing the starkest divergence. Case studies reveal instances where harmful operational details are 'leaked' in reasoning or a seemingly harmless chain 'escapes' into a dangerous final answer. To mitigate this, the researchers propose 'Adaptive Multi-Principle Steering,' a white-box, test-time intervention method. It identifies unsafe principles being activated during reasoning and gently steers the model's internal representations towards safer directions. Validated on open-source models, this approach reduced unsafe outputs by up to 40.8% while preserving 97.7% of benchmark performance. The work underscores the critical need to monitor and secure the entire reasoning process, not just the final output.

marsbit8 dk önce

15 Reasoning Models Flip Collectively: Unpacking the Latent Risks Hidden in the Chain of Thought Behind Their Outputs

marsbit8 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片