ConsenSys致信美国财政部:四个与加密有关的立法和监管建议

Odaily星球日报Publicado em 2022-08-15Última atualização em 2022-08-15

Resumo

当地时间8月12日,区块链公司 ConsenSys Software Inc. 致信美国财政部,旨在回应监管机构关于负责任地开发数字资产的评论请求。

当地时间8月12日,区块链公司 ConsenSys Software Inc. 致信美国财政部,旨在回应监管机构关于负责任地开发数字资产的评论请求。

信函中提到,像以太坊这样的去中心化网络可以进行前所未有的创新和成就,以太坊是世界上最大的可编程区块链,在开发者社区、用户活动和业务采用方面处于领先地位,在这个值得信赖的开源基础上,世界各地的人们正在建设未来的数字经济和在线社区。Consensys 的软件套件由MetaMask、 Infura 、Quorum、Truffle、Codefi和Diligence组成,被数百万人使用并支持数十亿的区块链调用,使世界各地的开发人员、企业和用户可以构建下一代应用程序、启动现代金融基础设施并访问去中心化网络。

以下是这封信函的主要内容:

1、区块链是“编程平台”

正如美国财政部的理解,像以太坊这样的可编程区块链允许任何人编写和发布任何其他人都可以访问的代码,只要他们能够访问区块链网络并能够编写和传输链上交易。近年来,区块链软件开发的增长显着, Github 等平台上解决特定编程问题的开发人员数量也显著增长。根据2021 年底发布的一项分析,每月有超过 18,000 名活跃开发人员从事区块链编程项目,2021 年有超过 34,000 名新开发人员迁移到区块链生态系统。

MetaMask 被公认为世界上最受欢迎的以太坊自托管钱包,但很少有人认识到它既是一个开发者平台,也是一个客户端密钥管理解决方案。ConsenSys 并不是唯一一家致力于提高开发人员参与度和生产力的公司,蓬勃发展的开发者生态系统的例子比比皆是,来自世界各地的聪明才智正在解决新兴技术带来的新问题。

从这个角度来看,美国财政部应该考虑围绕区块链协议的监管问题。尽管迄今为止,无论是监管还是其他方面,都非常关注以美元计价的数字代币价格以及二级市场交易中经常伴随的投机行为,但只有当新兴区块链网络的技术功能得到完善时,才能实现健全的监管。

2、区块链网络及其相关软件风险

区块链软件(链上代码和链下工具)和参与区块链生态系统存在某些风险,Consensys 提供了一些关于如何减轻这些风险的意见,具体如下:

网络钓鱼:MetaMask 用户成为社交媒体和网络钓鱼者通过电子邮件的目标,欺诈者会诱骗用户分享他们的钱包密码,这些密码只有用户可以拥有和保护。目前,MetaMask 通过其客户支持渠道收到的所有客户投诉单中,约有 80% 是用户举报网络钓鱼者,Twitter等社交媒体平台也是欺诈活动的“重灾区”,在 Twitter 上发布“MetaMask”这个词会让人联想到机器人试图诱骗用户钱包密钥,这些社交媒体平台没有采取任何有效措施来减少欺诈活动。

解决方案——首先,为欺诈者提供滋养平台的社交媒体应投入更多时间和精力来消除此类行为;其次,监管机构和执法部门可以更密切地合作,以报告、调查和破坏有组织的大型网络钓鱼诈骗。第三,区块链生态系统应该创造工具来对抗网络欺诈。

黑客和 Bug:链上软件(即智能合约)的一个风险是会被恶意攻击者入侵,另外也存在潜在 Bug 问题导致用户资金损失。

解决方案——首先,构建和参与大量实验性协议的人需要识别自己所承担的风险;其次,协议的老化,用户在使用协议时可以依赖的可靠性能的记录越来越长,但风险不会消失;第三,软件开发的最佳实践有助于降低黑客攻击和错误的风险,包括在软件发布之前进行第三方代码审计。

恶意智能合约:一些可编程的区块链协议用户不明白,当他们与智能合约交互时通常会授予该软件批准以将其钱包中的代币发送到其他地址,这对用户来说是一个风险,因为虽然有些合约要求用户授予严格定制的批准以利用其功能,但有些智能合约需要广泛的批准,包括控制钱包中的所有代币以用于任何目的。

解决方案——区块链开发人员目前正在努力从行业最佳实践的角度解决这个问题。一方面,MetaMask 正在考虑可以集成到 MetaMask 界面中的解决方案,以在智能合约要求对其钱包进行无限制批准时向用户发出警告。其次,用户熟悉智能合约的功能及其危险也将降低这种风险,执法机构也需要了解链上软件的风险交互。

3、立法和监管建议

Consensys给出了四个与加密有关的立法和监管的建议:

首先,建议修改联邦税法,对小额加密货币交易免税。相关税法已经成为在商业交易和其他小额支付中日常使用加密货币的障碍,Toomey 和 Sinema 参议员最近提出的法案希望建设性地解决这个问题,我们鼓励美国财政部支持这些举措。

其次,在 PoS 网络上验证区块的协议奖励不应被视为应税收入。鉴于以太坊向 PoS 的迁移以及其他 PoS 可编程区块链网络的持续增长,这是一个特别重要的问题。如果没有这个解决方案,在不久的将来,数以百万计的普通美国人可能会发现很难遵守他们的联邦税收义务,这在很大程度上不是他们自己的过错。美国财政部应提供指导,美国国税局也应该现行法律提供此类待遇。

第三,FinCEN 拟议的关于非托管钱包报告规则会对钱包用户施加更大的报告责任或监控负担,美国财政部应避免最终确定任何旨在限制非托管数字资产钱包或以其他方式合法使用的规则。此外,钱包是用户不仅仅是持有、发送和接收虚拟货币的机制。它们越来越成为用户控制其数字身份、参与 DAO 等在线社区的机制,从事不会导致任何洗钱或恐怖主义融资风险的商业活动。特别是在数字身份方面,许多普通人将在不久的将来使用以太坊帐户作为身份登录在线应用程序,破坏非托管钱包的自由、隐私和可用性,与技术创新目标背道而驰。

第四,美国财政部应倡导修改法律,允许参与区块链决策的美国政府雇员持有一定数量的数字资产。Consensys 恭敬地建议美国财政部推动法规更新,以纠正数字资产最低限度豁免约束,并支持通过立法程序纠正相关政策缺陷。

总结

尽管区块链日常用例不断增长,但 NFT 、链上数字身份和去中心化自治组织等新现象仍处于早期发展阶段,随着编程实验在这些概念上不断创新,预计将有更多用户进入生态系统探索数字所有权,可证明的隐私数字身份以及新的基于社区的组织、决策和行动方法。

在推动新技术采用方面,美国财政部和世界各地的政府机构和政策制定者也发挥着重要作用,但与互联网的情况一样,新技术需要时间才能让潜在用户愿意使用并能够使用,易用性和更广泛的实用性肯定会激发普通人对区块链系统的更多兴趣,但这一切需要时间。

Leituras Relacionadas

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Major Bull Loses $15 Billion On June 25th, Bitcoin fell below $60,000, hitting a low of $58,030—its lowest level since October 2024. The sell-off triggered over $1 billion in leveraged liquidations in 24 hours, with longs accounting for $788 million. This marks a more than 53% decline from the October 2025 all-time high of $126,198. A critical factor in the downturn is the weakening position of MicroStrategy, the largest corporate Bitcoin holder. With 847,363 BTC at an average cost of $75,651, the company now faces over $14.6 billion in unrealized losses. Its core financing flywheel—raising capital to buy Bitcoin—is stalling. Its variable-rate preferred shares (STRC), a key fundraising tool, have fallen 25% below their $100 target. This raises doubts about its ability to continue providing steady institutional demand for Bitcoin. Simultaneously, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs are experiencing significant outflows, with a single-day net outflow of $469 million on June 24th. This represents the most severe sustained capital flight since their launch. The macroeconomic backdrop remains restrictive, with persistent inflation delaying expected Fed rate cuts. Analysts note a shift in capital allocation, with institutional funds moving away from crypto towards AI infrastructure stocks. Immediate pressure comes from approximately $10 billion worth of Bitcoin options expiring on June 26th, which could increase market volatility. The combined effect of these factors—eroding core demand pillars, macro headwinds, and capital rotation—has decisively broken the $60,000 support level.

Foresight NewsHá 7m

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Foresight NewsHá 7m

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

The article analyzes whether the STRC (a perpetual preferred stock issued by MicroStrategy) presents a buying opportunity after its price fell below its $100 par value to around $80, offering a seemingly high yield of 13-15%. The core argument is that STRC's discount reflects market skepticism about the sustainability of MicroStrategy's capital structure model, not just temporary panic. This model relies on issuing securities (like STRC) to raise funds to buy more Bitcoin, a "flywheel" that works in a bull market. The recent small sale of BTC to fund dividends, while minor, broke the psychological "never sell" anchor and signaled potential strain. Key risks identified are not a traditional Ponzi collapse but a potential breakdown in the financing narrative: 1) If Bitcoin enters a deep bear market, crushing MicroStrategy's stock premium (mNAV), its ability to raise cheap capital weakens. 2) If STRC remains deeply discounted, it signifies permanently higher funding costs. 3) The high cash dividend yield represents a significant ongoing expense. 4) If selling BTC to pay dividends becomes routine, the bullish narrative reverses. The conclusion is that STRC is not a risk-free high-yield asset. It is a high-coupon bet on whether MicroStrategy's BTC treasury financing model can withstand a bear market. Buying it is a wager that the market will continue to believe in and fund this structure at acceptable costs. The current price asks if this cycle's "casualty" might be a BTC treasury company's融资 model itself.

marsbitHá 22m

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

marsbitHá 22m

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

**Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Names?** In the crypto world, changing a project's name is common—over 16% of projects have done so, including major ones like Polygon (formerly Matic Network). This contrasts sharply with traditional businesses, which fiercely protect brand equity. The core reason is that in crypto, brand loyalty is often weak. Users are frequently investors, airdrop hunters, or yield seekers, not traditional consumers. A name associated with price crashes, hacks, or failed narratives becomes a liability, not an asset. Renaming can be a strategic reset to shed this baggage. Name changes serve as a potent marketing tool. They can signal a genuine pivot in strategy or scope (e.g., EthSign dropping "Eth" as it expanded). However, they are often used to "narrative surf," rebranding to align with hot trends like AI, RWA, or the metaverse (e.g., Elrond → MultiversX). Critically, renaming is also a PR tactic to distance a project from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap → Multichain). The most significant risk emerges when a name change is coupled with a token migration or swap. This process can allow projects to reset exchange price charts, erase visible historical downtrends, and create an illusion of a fresh start. It often facilitates liquidity resets, where low float can be exploited for pumps. More alarmingly, migrations sometimes mask overhauls to tokenomics, introducing substantial new token supply through "ecosystem funds" or "node rewards," effectively diluting existing holders. The fundamental issue isn't renaming itself, which can be valid for strategic evolution. The problem is when it functions as an escape from history—a way to avoid accountability for past mistakes, failed promises, and poor performance. When a project announces a rebrand, the critical questions are: What tangible new capability or strategy does it represent? Has the tokenomics changed? And what part of its past is it most trying to make users forget?

marsbitHá 29m

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbitHá 29m

A Trillion-Dollar Entry Point for Pension Funds? Franklin's Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETFs Come with a Built-In Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton filed for two ETFs on June 18 that embed a "default option" logic into Bitcoin investing. These funds—the Franklin US Equity Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETF and the Franklin US Innovative Equity Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETF—aim to automatically allocate a portion of investor dividends to Bitcoin, initially with a 95% stock and 5% Bitcoin allocation. The mechanism is designed for financial advisors, not retail investors. By packaging Bitcoin exposure within a standard equity fund label, advisors can bypass internal compliance restrictions against direct cryptocurrency allocation for their clients. Dividends from the stock holdings are automatically used to buy Bitcoin via spot ETFs, futures, or options. However, the structure imposes strict rebalancing rules: if Bitcoin's allocation exceeds 5%, it is trimmed back to 4.5% quarterly, with a hard cap of 20%. This means the fund becomes a systematic seller during Bitcoin price rallies. Realistically, the potential buying pressure is minimal. Based on dividend yields (approximately 1.05% for broad market, 0.52% for innovative equity), the annual inflow into Bitcoin would be a tiny fraction of the fund's assets. For comparison, Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF ($359 million AUM) would generate only about $3.6 million in annual Bitcoin purchases—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. The innovative equity fund, heavily weighted in low-dividend stocks like Nvidia, would have even weaker buying power. The product utilizes an offshore Cayman subsidiary to hold Bitcoin, a common compliance tactic for commodity exposure in mutual funds. A key drawback for investors is the tax liability: they must pay taxes on dividends that are automatically converted into Bitcoin, requiring out-of-pocket cash for a gain they never directly receive. For the strategy to scale significantly, such funds would need to become a default or near-default option in retirement plans like 401(k)s. Recent regulatory moves, including a Trump executive order and a Department of Labor proposal offering fiduciary safe harbors for including crypto assets, could pave the way. However, widespread employer adoption likely awaits further legal clarity. Ultimately, the fund's model leverages investor inertia and automated systems, rather than convincing anyone to actively choose Bitcoin. While it creates a new, albeit small, structural buyer, its rebalancing rules also establish a built-in "selling ceiling" that could dampen price upside if similar products proliferate.

Foresight NewsHá 30m

A Trillion-Dollar Entry Point for Pension Funds? Franklin's Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETFs Come with a Built-In Selling Pressure Ceiling

Foresight NewsHá 30m

Why Do Crypto Projects Always Love Changing Names?

This article explores why cryptocurrency projects frequently change their names, a practice uncommon in traditional businesses where brand equity is a core asset. Over 16% of crypto projects have reportedly rebranded, often for strategic, marketing, or defensive reasons. The primary explanation is the weak user loyalty in crypto; many users are investors, airdrop hunters, or narrative traders, not traditional consumers. When a project's token price falls, its narrative fades, or it faces scandals/hacks, its old name becomes a liability laden with negative history rather than brand value. Therefore, frequent rebranding aims to shed this historical baggage. Name changes can be a marketing strategy to align with new business directions (e.g., Matic to Polygon), capitalize on trending narratives (e.g., adding "AI" or "Multiverse"), or distance from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap to Multichain). However, the most concerning aspect often involves a simultaneous token migration or swap. This process can serve as a "liquidity reset": it wipes historical price charts, potentially eases market manipulation, and is sometimes used to introduce new tokenomics that dilute existing holders' value through hidden inflation. The article concludes that while legitimate strategic pivots can justify a rebrand, many crypto name changes are less about building a new future and more about escaping the past—erasing bad memories, failed narratives, and dissatisfied communities. The key questions for any rebranding project are: what genuine new value or strategy does it bring, how has the tokenomics changed, and what part of its history is it trying to make users forget?

链捕手Há 37m

Why Do Crypto Projects Always Love Changing Names?

链捕手Há 37m

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片