稳定币不该匿名?瑞士金融管理局稳定币指南透露了什么?

比推Опубліковано о 2024-08-13Востаннє оновлено о 2024-08-13

稳定币是瑞士不记名存折的数字版本。

撰文:JP Koning

编译:Luffy,Foresight News

在瑞士出台反洗钱法之前,任何人都可以走进瑞士银行开立账户,无需出示任何身份证件。然后银行会给你一本不记名存折,也称为 inhabersparheften。当时银行认为,拥有存折即为拥有账户中基础资金的证明。开户人可以保留存折,或者,如果他们愿意,可以在不通知银行的情况下将存折转交给其他人,而这个人可以提取账户中的资金。

从本质上讲,瑞士银行发行的是他们自己的现金。

随着时间的推移,社会对洗钱的认识不断提高,瑞士不记名储蓄账簿的使用受到了法律的限制。1977 年,银行首次被要求确认开户客户的身份。此外,任何想要提取超过 25,000 瑞士法郎的人都必须得到银行的身份确认。但储蓄账簿仍然享有相当程度的匿名性。开户后、提款前,账簿可以继续流通,无需身份检查。

2003 年,瑞士政府禁止发行新的不记名储蓄账簿,现有的储蓄账簿提交给银行的实体柜台时将被注销。不记名储蓄账簿可以继续像现金一样匿名地在人们手中流通,但由于不断被注销,到 2019 年,它们仅占瑞士银行账户总资产的 0.002%。

瑞士不记名储蓄账簿就此终结。但与此同时,一种类似的金融工具出现了:稳定币。

要获得稳定币,你需要向发行人存入资金,存款时发行人会验证你的身份,但此后稳定币可以自由流通,无需任何形式的检查。你可以把它们发送给朋友,他可以把它们送给海外的亲戚,亲戚可以把它们转给毒贩,这些后续的所有参与者都不需要向发行人出示身份证明。稳定币发行人就像曾经发行不记名储蓄账簿的瑞士银行一样,不知道他们在与谁打交道。

那么,如果瑞士不记名储蓄账簿早已被禁止,为什么稳定币却快速增长呢?

这正是瑞士金融监管机构 FINMA 上个月提出的观点,FINMA 表示将不再容忍稳定币的匿名转移。新指南指出,任何持有稳定币的人的身份都必须「得到发行机构的充分验证」。所以不仅你本人,你的朋友,他的亲戚,以及上述交易链中的毒贩都需要提供他们的身份证。

为了证明新政策的合理性,FINMA 诉诸技术中立的理念。我对技术中立的看法是,仅仅因为一种金融产品(在本例中是支付产品)出现在一种新媒介或基底(即区块链)上,并不意味着它可以免于已经适用于在旧基底上发行的等效产品(如银行存折)的相同规则。相同的功能,相同的规定。

到目前为止,像 Tether 这样的稳定币发行人一直试图通过抵触法律来规避这些身份识别要求,即只有稳定币的主要持有人(最初存入资金以获得稳定币的人)才是他们的客户,因此他们只对这批持有人负有尽职调查义务。二级、三级和后续持有人不是「客户」,因此发行人表示不需要知道他们是谁。

但 FINMA 并不认同这一观点,这是理所当然的。FINMA 表示,所有持有人(不仅仅是主要持有人)都与发行人有「永久的业务关系」,因此必须识别每个人的身份。你当然可以理解为什么 FINMA 想要解决这个问题。如果普通瑞士银行都看到稳定币享受特殊待遇,那么他们都会加入这一行列,转而使用新的基础货币。

FINMA 的指南似乎不是什么大事。目前只有两种瑞士法郎稳定币适用该指南,而且规模都很小。Bitcoin Suisse 的 XCHF 流通量不到 100 万瑞士法郎,而 Centi 的 CCHF 的规模也差不多。

但作为全球金融体系中扮演重要角色的监管机构,FINMA 很可能会被其他监管机构效仿。更重要的是,FINMA 是金融行动特别工作组 (FATF) 的成员,该组织是一个代表 38 个主要国家反洗钱机构的合作组织。FATF 通过将未能采用这些标准的国家列入黑名单来促进全球反洗钱标准。如果 FINMA 的稳定币政策表明 FATF 正在采取一种新的稳定币策略,那么预计它会被大范围采用。

令我惊讶的是,一家重要的全球监管机构花了这么长时间才就稳定币匿名性问题做出具体裁决。是时候了,标准的反洗钱实践要求金融机构核实谁在使用他们的平台,稳定币发行人不应该搭便车。

说明: 比推所有文章只代表作者观点,不构成投资建议

Пов'язані матеріали

Ethereum's Next Stop Glamsterdam: The Core Upgrades You Must Know

The Glamsterdam upgrade, scheduled for late 2026, is a major Ethereum hard fork combining the Amsterdam execution layer and Glasgow consensus layer updates. Its primary goal is not simply increasing throughput but restructuring Ethereum's block production, validation, and resource pricing to enable future scaling. Key technical changes include **EIP-7732 (ePBS)**, which formally enshrines proposer-builder separation into the protocol. This decouples consensus and execution tasks, extending the execution payload propagation window to ~9 seconds. This provides more time for node verification, allowing for safer increases in block capacity (Gas limit) in the future. Another core component is **EIP-7928 (Block-Level Access Lists - BAL)**. It mandates a list of all state accessed within a block, moving this feature from an optional transaction-level (EIP-2930) to a mandatory block-level requirement. This explicit access list enables client optimizations like parallel disk reads and state root computations, paving the way for parallel execution. To manage long-term state growth, **EIP-8037** increases the cost of creating new state (e.g., accounts, storage slots), separating the pricing of permanent database bloat from temporary computation. This allows execution capacity to scale more aggressively without causing state size to explode proportionally. The planned upgrade bundle includes around 10 EIPs categorized into: 1) Core protocol restructuring (ePBS, BAL), 2) Resource pricing adjustments (state costs, calldata costs), and 3) EVM/developer improvements. Several other EIPs, including those potentially improving staker exit liquidity (EIP-8061, EIP-8080), are under consideration. The technical development coincides with significant personnel changes within the Ethereum Foundation's Protocol team. The Foundation's official communications frame this as part of a broader shift towards a "coalition of organizations" working on the Ethereum roadmap, citing new entities like ethlabs and the Ethereum Economic Zone. In summary, Glamsterdam represents a foundational re-engineering of Ethereum's block pipeline and economic model—focusing on ePBS, BAL, and multi-dimensional resource pricing—to prepare the network for sustainable, high-throughput scaling in the years ahead.

Foresight News10 хв тому

Ethereum's Next Stop Glamsterdam: The Core Upgrades You Must Know

Foresight News10 хв тому

The Ethereum Foundation Has Split?! An In-depth Look at Ethlabs' "Bright Future"

"Ethereum Foundation Splits? Understanding Ethlabs and Its 'Bright Future'" Former Ethereum Foundation members Ansgar Dietrichs, Barnabé Monnot, Caspar Schwarz-Schilling, Josh Rudolf, and Julian Ma have announced the launch of Ethlabs, an independent non-profit research and development lab. Announced on June 22nd, the initiative comes amidst discussions about the need for new organizational structures within the Ethereum ecosystem, a point highlighted by Bankless founder David Hoffman. Ethlabs' mission is to establish Ethereum as the foundational settlement layer for the global economy. The organization positions itself as a bridge connecting frontline developers, applications, and user needs with the core protocol. It aims to translate real-world demands into protocol improvements, industry standards, and deployable products. The founding team brings significant expertise: Dietrichs and Monnot are highly cited researchers in areas like Proposer-Builder Separation (PBS) and MEV, while Schwarz-Schilling, Rudolf, and Ma contribute backgrounds in economic modeling, consensus research, and applied cryptography. Initial supporters include BitMine, a major corporate ETH treasury; Sharplink, another treasury firm; and Consensys founder Joe Lubin in a personal capacity. Community backers include figures like Uniswap's Hayden Adams and Base's Jesse Pollak. The timing coincides with internal Ethereum Foundation discussions about "spinout" projects. While Ethlabs and the Foundation share research interests like MEV mitigation, Ethlabs frames its role not as a competitor but as part of a shift from a "single-core coordination model" to a "multi-R&D entity collaboration model." It views Ethereum as a public project belonging to all builders, with Ethlabs as one node in a broader governance network. Ultimately, Ethlabs represents an organizational evolution within the maturing Ethereum ecosystem. The key question is whether multiple research bodies can collaborate effectively to advance Ethereum as a competitive global settlement infrastructure.

Odaily星球日报13 хв тому

The Ethereum Foundation Has Split?! An In-depth Look at Ethlabs' "Bright Future"

Odaily星球日报13 хв тому

'Bear' Doomsday Prophecy: AI 'Reaching Its Peak', U.S. Stocks to Top Out Fastest in Q3, Down 30-50%

"A Short Seller's Dire Prediction: AI Boom Fading, US Stocks to Peak by Q3 with 30-50% Decline" Prominent macro investors Jeffrey Gundlach and Felix Zulauf warn that the AI-driven market rally is nearing its end, forecasting a major US stock market correction of 30-50%, potentially beginning as early as Q3. Their analysis points to alarming parallels with historical market tops, citing extreme concentration in the top AI-related stocks within the S&P 500. Zulauf's bearish thesis hinges on unsustainable capital expenditure trends among major cloud companies, negative free cash flow emergence, and soaring semiconductor prices. Gundlach highlights dangerous parallels to the 1999 tech bubble peak. A key divergence from conventional wisdom is Gundlach's view that long-term Treasury yields will not fall meaningfully even during a recession, due to America's structurally out-of-control fiscal deficits and soaring interest costs. He warns this could force the government into yield curve control or even a sovereign debt restructuring. Both investors express severe concerns about the opaque private credit market, drawing parallels to the pre-2008 financial crisis environment. They allege widespread rating inflation, misrepresented credit quality, liquidity illusions, and fraudulent asset valuations within this sector. The analysis links the AI boom and private credit crisis through financing costs. They argue that as AI companies' cash flows weaken and they seek funding, a high and sticky long-term interest rate environment will severely stress lower-rated corporate borrowers, exposing cracks in credit markets. Finally, they predict a regime shift where the US dollar weakens and US equities underperform global markets, marking the end of their long dominance. The stage is set for a significant market reversal.

marsbit21 хв тому

'Bear' Doomsday Prophecy: AI 'Reaching Its Peak', U.S. Stocks to Top Out Fastest in Q3, Down 30-50%

marsbit21 хв тому

Why Does No One Buy DeFi Insurance?

**Title: Why Isn't DeFi Insurance Being Bought?** DeFi insurance, which promised automated, unbiased payouts via smart contracts, has failed to gain traction. The core issue is economic: high premiums severely erode the yields that attract users to DeFi in the first place. For example, insuring a USDC deposit on Aave V3 could cost 1.5–2.5% of the annual yield, leaving a net return barely above a savings account. For riskier platforms like Maple Finance or Ethena, premiums can even turn net yields negative. Consequently, users often forgo insurance, as it nullifies their profit motive. The market also suffers from structural flaws. First, DeFi risks are highly correlated (e.g., an oracle failure can impact multiple protocols simultaneously), unlike the independent risks in traditional insurance. This makes large-scale events potentially catastrophic for insurers. Second, the total capital in DeFi insurance pools (e.g., Nexus Mutual's ~$81.5M) is minuscule compared to the hundreds of billions in total value locked (TVL), creating a massive capacity gap. A single major hack could drain the entire industry's reserves. Furthermore, the governance model where tokenholders vote on claims creates a conflict of interest, incentivizing them to deny payouts to protect their own funds. As a result, the sector is shrinking. While pioneers like Nexus Mutual are pivoting to preventative measures (bug bounties) and seeking external capital via reinsurance, the fundamental problems remain. DeFi insurance represents a public good—its stability benefits the entire ecosystem—but without a mechanism to share costs, a "tragedy of the commons" ensues where no one is willing to pay, leaving the system vulnerable.

marsbit35 хв тому

Why Does No One Buy DeFi Insurance?

marsbit35 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片