# Сопутствующие статьи по теме Compliance

Новостной центр HTX предлагает последние статьи и углубленный анализ по "Compliance", охватывающие рыночные тренды, новости проектов, развитие технологий и политику регулирования в криптоиндустрии.

Non-Dollar Stablecoins Are Winning the Wrong Battle

The article argues that non-USD stablecoins (euros, local currencies) create a misleading impression of challenging dollar dominance by merely changing the currency label, without altering the underlying monetary power structure. True monetary sovereignty is analyzed through three layers: 1. **Pricing Layer (most visible):** The currency unit used for pricing. Non-USD stablecoins win here, but this is a superficial, low-cost change—like changing a shop's sign without changing its ownership. 2. **Settlement Layer (most valuable):** The actual infrastructure (banking, payments, compliance, liquidity networks) through which money moves. This "plumbing" is controlled by existing players. Changing the currency flowing through these pipes doesn't change who owns them. 3. **Freeze Layer (most powerful):** The ultimate authority to freeze, blacklist, or halt transactions. This final control often remains with external entities enforcing KYC/AML and sanctions. The case of Argentina's $LIBRA token scandal is used to illustrate that such initiatives are often not genuine innovation but a symptom of a failing local currency. When a national currency loses its pricing power and trust (e.g., due to hyperinflation), external digital credit (like dollar-based or crypto narratives) rushes in to fill the void. The dependency merely shifts from traditional dollar systems to on-chain dollar networks; the underlying power dynamics remain. The conclusion is that non-USD stablecoins are expanding monetary expression but not rewriting monetary power. The real battle isn't about which currency is used for pricing, but about who controls the settlement infrastructure and the ultimate authority to freeze assets. Until that changes, "de-dollarization" remains superficial.

marsbit04/09 00:08

Non-Dollar Stablecoins Are Winning the Wrong Battle

marsbit04/09 00:08

Pharos Network Completes $44 Million Series A Funding, Total Funding Reaches $52 Million, Accelerating the Scalable Development of the On-Chain Economy

Pharos Network, a Layer 1 blockchain designed for institutional financial applications, has raised $44 million in Series A funding, bringing its total funding to $52 million. The round was co-led by undisclosed major institutions, including a top Asian private equity fund, a listed new energy company, and a licensed Hong Kong institution. Other strategic investors include Sumitomo Corporation (via a subsidiary), SNZ, Chainlink, and Flow Traders. The funds will accelerate the development of its on-chain real-world asset (RWA) infrastructure in Asia and globally. Pharos aims to integrate $50 trillion in RWA, traditional finance (TradFi), and cross-chain capital into a modular on-chain economy. The network uses a deeply parallel execution architecture with built-in compliance modules tailored for real-time, asset-backed financial applications. The company recently partnered with energy giant GCL to launch an RWA pilot project backed by energy assets. Its Atlantic Ocean testnet is already operational, supporting millions of users and hundreds of millions of addresses, demonstrating its capacity for high-frequency, high-value asset transfers in preparation for mainnet launch. Pharos was co-founded by ex-Ant Group core management, including CEO Wish Wu, and previously raised an $8 million seed round in November 2024.

marsbit04/08 12:21

Pharos Network Completes $44 Million Series A Funding, Total Funding Reaches $52 Million, Accelerating the Scalable Development of the On-Chain Economy

marsbit04/08 12:21

Chaos Labs Exits, Who Will Take Over Aave's Risk?

Chaos Labs, the core risk management provider for Aave V2 and V3 markets, has announced its decision to terminate its partnership with Aave. Despite Aave Labs increasing the budget to $5 million to retain them, Chaos Labs chose to leave due to fundamental disagreements on how risk should be managed. Key reasons for the departure include: the loss of core Aave contributors increasing operational risk, the expanded scope and complexity introduced by Aave V4 (which requires rebuilding risk infrastructure from scratch), and the fact that Chaos Labs operated at a financial loss even with increased budgets. They estimate that proper risk management for both V3 and V4 should cost at least $8 million annually (≈5.6% of protocol revenue), closer to traditional banking standards, rather than the previous 2%. Chaos Labs emphasized that Aave’s reputation and institutional adoption rely heavily on its risk management track record. They also highlighted unquantified costs like legal liability and operational security risks. The exit occurs as Aave plans its V4 upgrade and expands into institutional markets. Chaos Labs warns that migrating to V4 while maintaining V3 will double, not halve, the workload, and that accumulated operational experience cannot be easily transferred. The decision reflects a principled stance: Chaos Labs only attaches its name to work that meets its high-risk standards, even at significant financial sacrifice.

marsbit04/07 03:36

Chaos Labs Exits, Who Will Take Over Aave's Risk?

marsbit04/07 03:36

活动图片