BIS | 关于CBDC的第二次调查报告(部分)

人大金融科技研究院2022-03-10 tarihinde yayınlandı2022-03-10 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

国际清算银行(BIS, Bank for International Settlements)网站发布调查报告《即将到来—央行数字货币调查的后续》。

国际清算银行(BIS, Bank for International Settlements)网站发布调查报告《即将到来—央行数字货币调查的后续》。研究团队经过调研发现:全球中央银行正在对数字货币广泛开展研究,且新兴市场经济体在这一方面表现出更强的动机,正从概念研究转向实践开发;代表全球五分之一人口的央行表示或将在未来几年内发行首批央行数字货币(CBDC)。中国人民大学金融科技研究所对报告核心内容进行了编译。

一、引言

虽然现金目前仍占主导地位,但各国中央银行已经开始思考如何用中央银行数字货币(CBDC)补充或取代传统货币。2018年,国际清算银行(BIS)和“支付与市场基础设施委员会”(CPMI)向各国央行询问了:(1)在CBDC领域的工作进展;(2)CBDC工作开展的动力;(3)发行CBDC的可能性。该项调查显示,大多数央行正在研究CBDC,但相关工作主要是概念性研究,有意在短中期内发行CBDC的央行较少。

一年后,该项调查再次开展。调查显示,大多数央行仍在努力了解发行CBDC对其所属国家或地区的影响,仅有代表世界五分之一人口的少数央行有望在未来几年发行CBDC;新兴市场经济体发行CBDC的动机更强,可能性更大。

二、中央银行数字货币(CBDC)

不同于实物现金或央行储蓄/结算账户,CBDC是中央银行货币的新变体。货币的分类基于以下属性:(1)发行人(是否为中央银行);(2)形式(数字或实物);(3)使用范围(广或窄);(4)技术(点对点代币或账户)。按照定义,CBDC是由中央银行发行的数字货币。根据使用范围的不同,CBDC分为两大类型:通用型(general purpose)和批发型(wholesale)。

通用型CBDC即公众可以使用的CBDC,可以基于代币或账户。此类数字货币将广泛可用,且主要用于零售式交易,但也可以用于更广泛的用途。相比于基于账户的类型,基于代币的通用型CBDC类似于一种“数字现金”,可以通过不同的方式向公众发放。

批发型CBDC是访问受限的数字代币,基于代币,用于批发式(大宗)交易,例如银行间支付或证券结算。相关实验关注如何取代现有技术,以实现效率的提高。

三、调查研究

(一)地域覆盖范围

约66家央行对此次调查做出了回应,其中大多数已是第二次参与。调查对象代表了21个发达经济体和45个新兴市场经济体,覆盖全球75%的人口和90%的经济产出。

(二)问题

该项调查于2019年下半年进行,重用了2018年的调查问题且只进行了少量改动。调查过程中,首先询问中央银行是否在进行CBDC相关工作,如果回答为“是”,则进一步询问CBDC的类型以及工作的进展。同时还询问了发行CBDC的动机和期望,以及央行是否具有发行CBDC的法定权力。本次调查中,首次添加了有关现金使用情况的问题。

本项调查还询问了“私人数字代币”以及用其进行支付的问题,“私人数字代币”包括各类非央行发行的数字代币。调查对所谓的加密货币和其他私有数字代币(例如“稳定币”stablecoins)进行了区分。

四、结果

本次调查证实了去年的研究结果,各种动机推动了央行对CBDC的广泛研究和实验。仅有少数新兴市场经济体的中央银行开始CBDC的试点项目或集约化开发(例如,制定CBDC的运营安排,修订法律以允许央行发行CBDC),且有较强的意愿尽快发行CBDC。与先前的预期相比,各国央行的计划似乎正在加速。

(一)正在开展的工作

越来越多的中央银行正在或即将开展CBDC工作。约80%的央行(上次调查时为70%)进行相关工作,其中一半同时关注批发型和通用型CBDC。约40%的央行已从概念研究发展到实验或概念证明,另有10%已经开发了试点项目。正进行试点项目的央行均来自新兴市场经济体。

(二)动机

央行对CBDC的研究有诸多潜在动机,本项调查要求央行对预先给定的潜在动机进行排序,从“不太重要”到“非常重要”设有多个等级。

1. 通用型CBDC

如图1所示,与发达经济体相比,新兴市场经济体推进通用型CBDC的意愿更强。平均而言,国内支付效率,支付安全性和金融包容性在新兴市场经济体被认为“非常重要”;对于发达经济体,唯一“非常重要”的动机是支付安全。

与现金相关的挑战各异。一些央行报告称其高度依赖现金,推进通用型CBDC的动机是降低成本、更好了解客户和打击恐怖主义融资(KYC/ CFT)。其他央行则面临相反的挑战,即现金支付的使用率低或使用率不断下降,这促使央行研究CBDC以维持公众对央行资金的使用。本次调查中有关现金使用的新问题进一步阐明了该趋势,调查显示,全球不到一半的央行正在调查公众的现金使用情况,其中三分之一担心现金使用率在中期会下降。流通现金正在增加,但其中大部分是作为价值储存而非支付手段的高面额纸币。

图1 发行通用型CBDC的动机

2. 批发型CBDC

如图2所示,研究批发型CBDC的动机总体上弱于研究通用型CBDC的动机,而新兴市场经济体的研究动机比发达经济体强。提高国内支付效率、支付安全性和金融稳定性的动机对新兴市场经济体都非常重要。这或许反映出一个事实:一些较小经济体没有针对其货币的实时全额结算系统。对于发达经济体而言,提高跨境支付效率是最重要的动机。

图2 发行批发型CBDC的动机

(三)法律授权

中央银行需具有法律授权才能发行CBDC。约四分之一的央行拥有或即将获得这一授权,三分之一的中央银行没有发行权限,约40%的央行对此尚不确定。

(四)发行意愿

该项调查要求各国央行预测短期(最多三年)和中期(最多六年)发行通用型和批发型CBDC的可能性,以五级量表表示:非常可能,比较可能,或许,比较不可能,非常不可能。(下文所涉及的“可能”包括前两者,“不可能”包括后两者。)

与先前的调查相比,本次调查显示,两种类型CBDC的发行可能性均有所增加,但可能性仍然较低。在可预见的将来,约70%的央行仍然认为不可能发行CBDC。与此同时,选择中间量“或许”的央行正在减少,这可能说明研究和实验正在帮助各国央行确定在近几年发行CBDC的立场。

有10%的央行表示可能在短期内发行通用型CBDC(这一比例是去年调查时的2倍),20%的央行表示可能在中期内发行。代表全球1/5人口的央行可能在未来三年内发行通用型CBDC,尽管可能在中期发行通用型CBDC的央行与前者数量相当,但仅代表全球2%的人口。

很少有央行计划在短期或中期内发行批发型CBDC。在曾于2018年表示可能于短期内发行批发型CBDC的央行中,有一半于2019年调查时则表示不可能发行。

新兴市场经济体央行认为发行CBDC的可能性高于发达经济体。就通用型CBDC而言,每一家称其“很有可能”或“比较可能”在短期内发行通用型CBDC的央行均来自新兴市场经济体,可能中期发行通用型CBDC的央行中90%属于新兴市场经济体。

(五)其他数字货币

该项调查还向各国央行询问了有关私人数字代币的问题。调查中将“加密货币”定义为无发行人的分布式数字代币,这类数字货币不代表任何基础资产或负债。各央行被问及:(1)加密货币在国内支付和跨境支付中的使用情况;(2)对加密货币使用率将上升或下降的判断;(3)是否正在分析其他私人数字代币的影响。

就加密货币而言,调查结果与2018年的调查结果几乎完全相同:没有央行报告在国内支付或跨境支付中,加密货币有任何重大或广泛的公共用途;加密货币的使用“不存在”或“微不足道”,或集中于少数利基群体中。需要强调的一个区别是,在2019年的调查中,一家于2018年所属国家面临严重内部混乱的央行称,加密货币在其国内具有重要意义,并已广泛用于跨境支付。

除加密货币外,该项调查还发现,仅有约60%的央行正在考虑“稳定币”对货币稳定性和金融稳定性的影响。调查将此类代币定义为:发行者可识别的代币,或代表基础资产或负债的代币(这一点不同于加密货币)。此类代币的使用,尤其是在全球范围可用时,意味着诸多风险。未考虑其影响的央行几乎全部来自新兴市场经济体。在全球范围内,仅有少数央行回应说,对加密货币或其他私人数字代币的担忧正在推动CBDC的相关工作。

以下为文章部分截图

İlgili Okumalar

Has the Crypto Utopia Collapsed? The Industry Reaches an Inflection Point After the Frenzy Subsides

Has the crypto utopia collapsed? The industry is at an inflection point as the hype fades. The prevailing view is that crypto has become an outlet for excess liquidity, with many participants leaving as financial returns have fallen short of past-decade expectations. The 2021 boom has been revealed as an illusion, placing the industry in the "trough of disillusionment" on Gartner's Hype Cycle. This forces a return to first principles: re-evaluating token value, securing DeFi protocols, and finding real-world applications. The core failure is a repetitive cycle of reflexive speculation, driven by the premature liquidity of tokens. The industry's incentives prioritized short-term gains over genuine innovation. While curiosity drives invention, recent DeFi hacks signal a need for engineering and iteration, including token models. The culture is shifting; the industry is no longer in its early stages. Positioned at a turning point on the technology adoption curve, crypto faces the immense challenge of rebuilding finance from scratch, a process of inevitable iteration and failure. Regarding crypto VC, claims of its death are overstated. The exceptional returns of 2016-2021 were an anomaly. The initial crypto-anarchist ethos has largely been co-opted by Wall Street and regulators. The utopian vision is over; the industry is being assimilated into the existing system, becoming a business. Current viable project categories include stablecoins, prediction markets, tokenized assets/RWA, perpetual contracts, and AI/agent integration. Crypto is converging with fintech, far from the envisioned DeFi revolution, and must find killer apps within regulatory boundaries. A reconciliation is possible: cryptocurrency may change value storage and transfer in subtle, imperceptible ways that integrate into existing systems, rather than through revolutionary fanfare. True creativity often emerges from adversity. There remains much to build for those driven by genuine curiosity.

marsbit6 dk önce

Has the Crypto Utopia Collapsed? The Industry Reaches an Inflection Point After the Frenzy Subsides

marsbit6 dk önce

Lei Jun Earns 7 Billion in One Day from CXMT's IPO? Xiaomi Executive Responds

On July 28th, Changxin Technology's stock price on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board experienced minor fluctuations. The company had made a historic market debut the previous day, becoming the first A-share stock to record a single-day trading volume exceeding 1 trillion yuan. This led to significant paper gains for its strategic investors. Among them, Xiaomi's wholly-owned subsidiary was allocated 18.24 million shares with an initial investment of approximately 158 million yuan. Reports estimated a paper profit of 717 million yuan for Xiaomi founder Lei Jun based on his shareholding structure. However, a Xiaomi executive clarified that this was a corporate investment and should not be conflated with personal wealth. Other major beneficiaries included Alibaba and Nio. Alibaba, an early investor, held nearly a 5% stake through two entities, with an estimated paper gain exceeding 160 billion yuan. Nio, participating in the strategic placement, also saw substantial paper returns. Additionally, state-owned banks and insurance institutions that invested in Changxin recorded potential gains in the hundreds of billions. Conversely, companies like Country Garden reportedly missed out on nearly 50 billion yuan in potential gains after divesting their stakes before the IPO due to liquidity pressures. The article notes that these are paper profits based on the listing price, as the allocated shares are subject to lock-up periods, and final realized gains will depend on future stock performance. An employee from Changxin Technology commented that ordinary staff remain focused on their salaries and benefits rather than the market hype.

marsbit15 dk önce

Lei Jun Earns 7 Billion in One Day from CXMT's IPO? Xiaomi Executive Responds

marsbit15 dk önce

Selling Tokens or Selling Outcomes: Several Paradoxes of the AI Business Model

"The Token vs. Outcome Sale: Key Paradoxes in the AI Business Model By mid-2026, the AI industry shows rapid growth in revenue and token usage, yet the underlying business models differ significantly. This article analyzes four structural paradoxes defining the current landscape, all pointing to the commoditization of intelligence and the concentration of profits in few segments. **The Cost Paradox: Cheaper Tokens, Heavier Bills** Despite a >95% price drop for equivalent AI capability since 2023, total spending has skyrocketed due to the Jevons Paradox: lower prices expand usage into previously uneconomical tasks. Furthermore, the shift to autonomous agents operating 24/7 multiplies consumption. However, efficiency gains often remain unrealized due to unchanged organizational workflows (the Solow Paradox). The focus is shifting from optimizing token price to optimizing the task itself. **The Hierarchy Paradox: The App is King vs. The App is Dead** While conventional wisdom holds that value accrues at the application layer, the AI stack is inverted. Infrastructure (chips) captures ~70% of industry revenue and ~80% of gross profit, while application-layer margins are thin (0-30%). Fast-evolving base models threaten "thin" apps. Sustainable applications are those that embed intelligence into specific contexts, possessing private data, workflows, or delivery capabilities that become more valuable as the base model improves. **The Responsibility Paradox: Profit Follows Accountability** Growth rates alone don't guarantee profit. A key differentiator is a company's willingness and ability to take responsibility for specific outcomes. Selling by the token competes for IT budgets; selling by the outcome (e.g., a resolved support ticket) taps into larger human labor budgets. Low-responsibility, high-volume tasks (e.g., generic客服) face commoditization. High-stakes, regulated domains (e.g., law, healthcare) where vendors assume heavier liability for results command higher margins, as seen with companies like Harvey in legal tech. **The Open-Source Paradox: Open Wins Traffic, Closed Wins Revenue** Open-source models dominate in usage share and developer adoption, often being 5-20x cheaper. However, closed-source models still capture the majority of enterprise spending (~89%). Enterprises pay a premium for closed-source reliability, support, compliance, and accountability. The total cost of ownership (TCO) is converging as closed-source prices fall faster than open-source builds trust, leading to hybrid deployments. Profit is migrating from the model layer itself to upstream (compute) and downstream (orchestration, data, services)."

marsbit16 dk önce

Selling Tokens or Selling Outcomes: Several Paradoxes of the AI Business Model

marsbit16 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片