海外之声 | 监管机构面临加密狂潮——打击欺诈者的同时支持创新（中英双语）

观点速递

本文作者是瑞士金融市场监督管理局（FINMA）首席执行官马克·布兰森（Mark Branson），原文选自国际货币金融机构官方论坛（OMFIF）出版的The Bulletin。OMFIF是一家总部位于伦敦的全球金融智库。

作者提出，区块链和加密货币等金融科技的蓬勃发展让监管机构意识到应该提供一个支持创新的环境而不是固步自封。金融技术具有巨大前景并带来无限机遇，也让一些套利者、欺诈者有机可乘。因此，监管机构应该在打击欺诈套利者的同时，支持创新者的想法，从而营造创新友好型的监管环境。

中文译文如下：

监管机构面临加密狂潮

——打击欺诈者的同时支持创新

马克·布兰森

翻译：张鹏

审校：熊若洁

2018年5月

区块链和加密货币的世界萦绕着一丝歇斯底里的氛围，令金融监管机构为之振奋。

在不牺牲金融监管核心目标的前提下，监管机构的目标应该是创造一个支持创新的环境。但他们通常持有自然的保守偏见，很少与潜在的下一代市场创新者进行交流。这一体系迎合了在任者，却不利于创新。这意味着监管机构在纠正平衡时必须有意识地进行自我批评。

因此，瑞士金融市场监管机构FINMA已为区块链创新扫清障碍。瑞士的监管沙盒和专用金融科技许可证都是FINMA的提议。

金融技术无疑拥有巨大前景。手机银行正在拓宽金融服务的渠道。智能投顾基于数学规则和算法，提供在线投资建议，让人们低成本地获得人工智能和机器学习的益处。众筹正在开辟新的融资渠道。区块链正在接受许多金融机构的测试。我们可以想象，部分金融基础设施将转而采用这项技术，现在的一些活动甚至某些市场参与者都将被淘汰。

金融在技术进步中受益匪浅。但是，这些进步并未降低成本惠及消费者，也没有阻止行业盈利能力的持续下降。

1

网络和市场风险

对于监管机构来说，金融科技不仅仅是机会。与此相关的一些风险更具哲理性或社会性。随着各种流程越来越基于算法，出现了关于消费者自主权的问题，也引发了人们对充分隐私保护的担忧。

最显著的风险是网络攻击。金融部门是最诱人的目标。瑞士信息保障报告分析中心Melani的数据显示，2017年，该机构接到的94起针对重要基础设施的案件中，有62起发生在金融部门。

第二个重要风险是外包的限度。传统价值链的分化使得风险得以转移。许多金融机构外包后台功能，跨越国界的现象也越来越多。这其中的经济原理是令人信服的，但不应以牺牲稳定性为代价。在危机期间，数据必须能够及时访问，其保密性也应得到保护。第三方服务提供商的稳定性也同样重要，这些提供商大多数是非金融机构。

第三是存在市场风险。2017年比特币价格上涨17倍，过去三年上涨64倍。有些人认为这是金融史上最大的泡沫。对于其他人来说，这只是迈向匿名且自由的金融体系途中的短暂逗留。在我看来，一个无政府、平行的货币世界不可能达到临界质量。要开发区块链技术潜力，最佳途径是认识到创新友好型的监管和监督才是最好的做法。

2

加密代币分类

加密货币的首次代币发行（ICO）在去年爆发。自区块链社区使用的一种相对不知名的筹资方式发展而来。2017年，通过近900个项目，ICO筹集了超过60亿美元的资金。瑞士已成为ICO的中心，2017年的六大ICO中有四个在瑞士举行。

加密狂潮无处不在。去年FINMA接到大量关于其监管对ICO的适用性的质询。有三个基本选择：政府不介入、明令禁止或第三种更合理的方法。

第三种方法非常简单。在对ICO进行评估时，FINMA研究了已发行代币的经济功能和目的，这些代币分为三类。支付代币与加密货币是同义词，没有其他功能，也与其他开发项目没有关系。功能代币可提供数字访问，使人们可使用应用程序或获得服务。资产代币是在筹资过程中发行的代币，功能类似于股票、债券或金融衍生品。比特币等支付代币及较新的功能代币看起来像支付方式，因此受到反洗钱控制。资产代币看起来像证券，因此属于证券法的管理范畴。

加密世界中有各种各样的创新者、模仿者、监管套利者和欺诈者。监管机构的职责是确保创新者能通过好的想法走向成功，套利者颗粒无收，欺诈者罪有应得。

英文原文如下：

Regulators Face up to Cryptomania

Supporting innovation while curtailing fraudsters

Mark Brason

May  2018

There is a hint of hysteria around the world of blockchain and cryptocurrencies, a heady atmosphere for financial regulators.

Regulators’ goal, without compromising on the core objectives of financial supervision, should be to create an environment supportive of innovation. But they tend to have a natural conservative bias and only rarely communicate with the unproven next generation of market innovators. The system is stacked partly against innovation to the comfort of incumbents. That means regulators must be consciously self-critical when redressing the balance.

That is why FINMA, Switzerland’s financial markets regulator, has cleared the way for blockchain innovation. The country’s regulatory sandbox and dedicated fintech licence were ideas proposed by FINMA.

Financial technology, undoubtedly, holds great promise. Mobile banking is broadening access to financial services. Roboadvising – online investment advice based on mathematical rules and algorithms – can reap the benefits of artificial intelligence and machine learning at low cost. Crowdfunding is opening new channels for financing. Then there is the blockchain, which many financial institutions are testing. It is conceivable that parts of the financial infrastructure will shift to this technology and render existing processes, and even some players, obsolete.

Finance has benefited greatly from technological advances. However, these improvements have not been passed on as lower costs to the consumers. And they have not halted the decline in the industry’s profitability.

1

Cyber and market risk

For regulators, fintech cannot only be about opportunity. Some of the risks associated with it are more philosophical or societal. There are questions about consumer autonomy as processes become more algorithm-based, as well as concerns about adequate privacy protection.

The most obvious risk is cyber attacks. The financial sector is the single most attractive target. Data from Melani, the Swiss reporting and analysis centre for information assurance, show that 62 out of 94 incidents reported to it targeting critical infrastructure in 2017 occurred in the financial sector.

A second important risk is the extent of outsourcing. As traditional value chains fragment, risks migrate. Many financial institutions outsource back office functions, increasingly across borders. The economic rationale is compelling, but should not come at the cost of stability. Data needs to be instantly accessible during a crisis and confidentiality protected. Equally important is the stability of third party service providers, who are mostly non-financial institutions.

Then there is market risk. Bitcoin’s price rose 17-fold in 2017 and 64-fold in the last three years. Some see this as the biggest bubble in financial history. For others, this is merely a short stop on the march to an anonymous and free financial system. In my view, an anarchic, parallel monetary world is unlikely to grow to critical mass. The best way to exploit the potential of blockchain technology is to accept that innovation-friendly regulation and supervision is the best deal there will be. 

2

Categorising crypto tokens

Initial coin offerings of cryptocurrencies erupted last year. Growing from a relatively unknown fundraising method used in the blockchain community, ICOs raised over $6bn in 2017 through almost 900 projects. Switzerland has become a hub for ICOs, with four of the six largest offerings in 2017 taking place there.

Cryptomania is everywhere. Last year FINMA was flooded with enquiries about the applicability of its regulation to ICOs. There were three basic options: anarchy, prohibition, or a third, more reasonable approach.

The third option is quite simple. In assessing ICOs, FINMA looks at the economic function and purpose of the issued tokens, which are categorised into three types. Payment tokens are synonymous with cryptocurrencies and have no further functions or links to other development projects. Utility tokens are tokens which are fully functioning ways of providing digital access to an application or service. And asset tokens are tokens that are issued in fundraising processes and are functionally analogous to equities, bonds or derivatives. Payment tokens like bitcoin and newer utility tokens look like means of payment and are therefore subject to anti-money laundering controls. Asset tokens look like securities and therefore fall under securities law.

There is an assortment of innovators, imitators, regulatory arbitrageurs and fraudsters in the cryptoworld. It’s the job of regulators to ensure that the innovators have the chance to thrive if their idea is worth it, that the arbitrageurs have nothing to gain, and that the fraudsters end up where all fraudsters should.

内容整理 罗梦宇

图文编辑 罗梦宇

审校  田雯

监制  安然

点击查看近期热文

欢迎加入群聊

为了增进与粉丝们的互动，IMI财经观察建立了微信交流群，欢迎大家参与。

入群方法：加群主为微信好友（微信号：imi605）,添加时备注个人姓名（实名认证）、单位、职务等信息，经群主审核后，即可被拉进群。

欢迎读者朋友多多留言与我们交流互动，留言可换奖品：每月累积留言点赞数最多的读者将得到我们寄送的最新研究成果一份。

关于我们

中国人民大学国际货币研究所（IMI）成立于2009年12月20日，是专注于货币金融理论、政策与战略研究的非营利性学术研究机构和新型专业智库。研究所聘请了来自国内外科研院所、政府部门或金融机构的90余位著名专家学者担任顾问委员、学术委员和国际委员，80余位中青年专家担任研究员。

研究所长期聚焦国际金融、宏观经济理论与政策、金融科技、财富管理、金融监管、地方金融等领域，定期举办高层次系列论坛或讲座，形成了《人民币国际化报告》《金融机构国际化报告》《中国财富管理报告》《金融科技二十讲》等一大批具有重要学术和政策影响力的产品。

2016年，研究所入围《中国智库大数据报告》影响力榜单列高校智库第4位，并在“中国经济类研究机构市场价值排行榜（2016）”中名列第32位。

国际货币网：www.imi.org.cn

微信号：IMI财经观察

（点击识别下方二维码关注我们）

理事单位申请、

学术研究和会议合作

联系方式:  

010-62516755 

[e-mail]

只分享最有价值的财经视点

We only share the most valuable financial insights.