SBF 關於 DeFi 監管的說法正確嗎？

FTX 創辦人因其加密貨幣監管提案而受到嚴厲批評。但所謂有效的利他主義者只是務實而已。

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried's political campaign spending has been a hot topic of discussion, with the billionaire initially stating his intention to spend upwards of $1 billion, a plan he later downplayed as a “dumb quote.” To date, SBF has spent about $40 million to back Democrats and Republicans running for office across the country.

FTX 創辦人 Sam Bankman-Fried 的政治競選支出一直是討論的熱門話題，這位億萬富翁最初表示打算支出超過10 億美元，後來他淡化了這一計劃，稱其為“愚蠢的報價”。迄今為止，SBF 已花費約 4000 萬美元支持全國範圍內的民主黨和共和黨競選公職。

According to CNBC, the majority of Bankman-Fried's political recipients have pulled ahead in primary voting, thanks in part to his support. However, the former Wall Street quant believes there's a limit on what money can buy in general elections.

根據 CNBC 報道，班克曼-弗里德的大多數政治獲獎者在初選投票中取得了領先，這在一定程度上要歸功於他的支持。然而，這位前華爾街分析師認為，在大選中金錢能買到的東西是有限的。

“At some point, when you've given your message to voters, there's just not a whole lot more you can do,” Bankman-Fried said in an interview with Politico. “You can spend more time on it and more messaging, more money, more anything else [but] you're not accomplishing anything more.”

班克曼-弗里德在接受 Politico 採訪時表示：“在某種程度上，當你向選民傳達了你的信息後，你就無能為力了。” “你可以花更多的時間、更多的消息、更多的錢，或者更多的東西，但你不會再取得任何成就。”

Bankman-Fried subscribes to the political theory of “effective altruism,” where people build wealth to give away either by making targeted donations now, or through the magic of compound interest, founding well-endowed charities later in life. I guess he reckons his cash is better spent elsewhere than on a TV ad in Scranton, Pennsylvania. But where will his money and influence go? The trouble with effective altruism is that it's a way of thinking that allows people to rationalize any of their actions.

班克曼-弗里德同意「有效利他主義」的政治理論，即人們要么透過現在進行有針對性的捐贈，要么透過複利的魔力，在以後的生活中建立捐贈豐厚的慈善機構來積累財富並進行捐贈。我猜他認為他的錢花在其他地方比花在賓州斯克蘭頓的電視廣告上更好。但他的金錢和影響力會流向哪裡呢？有效利他主義的問題在於，它是一種讓人們合理化自己行為的思考方式。

Bankman-Fried's political pragmatism was also on display in his recently published crypto-regulatory manifesto “Possible Digital Asset Industry Standards.” The blog, what SBF called “an industry norms manual,” outlined a path for crypto industry self-regulation. Somewhat surprisingly, SBF's industry prescriptions were widely panned.

班克曼-弗里德的政治實用主義也體現在他最近發布的加密貨幣監管宣言「可能的數位資產產業標準」。這篇部落格被 SBF 稱為“行業規範手冊”，概述了加密行業自我監管的路徑。有點令人驚訝的是，SBF 的行業處方遭到了廣泛的批評。

It covered seven areas where crypto might write rules for itself while it waits for clearer regulations from above. Some are dead simple: more disclosures around crypto advertising, regular audits for cash-backed stablecoins and a three-step checklist for crypto exchanges determining whether a token they want to list is a security.

它涵蓋了加密貨幣在等待上面更明確的法規期間可能為自己制定規則的七個領域。有些非常簡單：圍繞加密貨幣廣告進行更多揭露，對現金支持的穩定幣進行定期審計，以及加密貨幣交易所的三步驟清單，以確定他們想要列出的代幣是否是證券。

Others show how crypto has rubbed off on SBF: He wants a standard where hackers are guaranteed 5% of the bounty if they exploit a protocol – assuming they give the rest back. (That could incentivize more ethical hacking, one of the ways code enthusiasts think the industry literally evolves.)

其他人則展示了加密技術如何影響 SBF：他想要一個標準，保證駭客如果利用某個協議就能獲得 5% 的賞金——假設他們返還剩餘的部分。 （這可能會激勵更多的道德駭客行為，這是代碼愛好者認為該行業真正發展的方式之一。）

But SBF ran into trouble on social media when writing about decentralized finance (DeFi). He put forward a “suitability test” that would restrict access to crypto, sort of like qualified investor rules based on net worth and other factors in the traditional market. This flies in the face of crypto's reigning open-source ethos: equal access for all.

但 SBF 在撰寫有關去中心化金融（DeFi）的文章時在社群媒體上遇到了麻煩。他提出了一項“適合性測試”，限制對加密貨幣的訪問，有點像傳統市場中基於淨資產和其他因素的合格投資者規則。這違背了加密貨幣盛行的開源精神：人人平等。

He also initially proposed a licensing system for websites that interact with DeFi and other crypto protocols, and an automatic blacklist to keep sanctioned players from using centralized services. Adam Cochran of Synthetix and Yearn Finance called the rules “a moat that lets centralized entities control at least part of the flow into DeFi.”

他也最初提出了一個針對與 DeFi 和其他加密協議互動的網站的許可系統，以及一個自動黑名單，以防止受制裁的玩家使用中心化服務。 Synthetix 和 Yearn Finance 的 Adam Cochran 稱這些規則為「一條護城河，讓中心化實體控制至少部分流入 DeFi 的資金」。

In response to the draft, many noted that SBF seemed less concerned with the freedoms DeFi provides than the revenue centralized firms can milk from the industry. Industry gossip site Rekt, which wrote that he was “positioning himself as the U.S. government-approved gatekeeper” to crypto, and elsewhere was compared to a drug kingpin.

針對草案，許多人指出，SBF 似乎不太關心 DeFi 提供的自由，而更關心中心化公司可以從該行業榨取的收入。行業八卦網站 Rekt 寫道，他“將自己定位為美國政府批准的加密貨幣看門人”，而在其他地方則被比作毒梟。

The most cogent arguments came from Bitcoin OG and ShapeShift founder Erik Vorhees, who noted the self-enforced rules and blacklists would only serve established exchanges that could afford to pay for compliance. “You can advocate Effective Altruism, or you can advocate banning 80 million innocent Iranians from the future of global finance,” Voorhees tweeted. “You can't do both.”

最有說服力的論點來自 Bitcoin OG 和 ShapeShift 創辦人 Erik Vorhees，他指出，自我執行的規則和黑名單只會服務於有能力支付合規費用的成熟交易所。 「你可以提倡有效的利他主義，或者你可以提倡禁止 8,000 萬無辜的伊朗人參與全球金融的未來，」沃里斯在推特上寫道。 “你不能兩者兼得。”

SBF took the criticism in stride, reworked parts of his draft and wrote a long Twitter thread addressing particular concerns from a number of critics. The heart of the debate, however, cannot be ironed over. SBF is a realist who sees regulation coming, and wants a hand in shaping it.

SBF 從容地接受了這些批評，修改了部分草案，並寫了一篇很長的 Twitter 帖子，解決了一些批評者的特殊擔憂。然而，爭論的核心卻無法解決。 SBF 是一位現實主義者，他預見到監管即將到來，並希望參與制定監管。

This will always offend the ideologically driven crypto advocates, who see crypto itself as a means of bettering the world. For his part, SBF has never fully embraced the crypto mindset – and he's been on recording saying as much. For him, crypto is a means to an end: building wealth so those funds can be redirected. (Remember the DeFi infinite “ box” fiasco?)

這總是會冒犯受意識形態驅動的加密貨幣倡導者，他們將加密貨幣本身視為改善世界的一種手段。就 SBF 而言，他從未完全接受加密貨幣思維——他一直在錄音中這麼說。對他來說，加密貨幣是達到目的的手段：累積財富，以便可以重新分配這些資金。 （還記得 DeFi 無限「盒子」慘敗嗎？）

Although there were still criticisms of the toned-down draft, SBF clarified that he was talking about centralized on-ramps into crypto, not self-executing protocols. “It is not making claims about what DeFi devs, smart contracts, and validators must do,” Bankman-Fried wrote. “It’s looking to eventually establish guidelines about how e.g., FTX’s platform – or Fidelity's – could interface with DeFi contracts.”

儘管仍有人對緩和的草案提出批評，但 SBF 澄清說，他談論的是加密貨幣的集中入口，而不是自動執行協議。 Bankman-Fried 寫道：“它並沒有對 DeFi 開發人員、智能合約和驗證器必須做什麼做出要求。” “它希望最終建立關於 FTX 平台或 Fidelity 平台如何與 DeFi 合約互動的指南。”

The debate over whether crypto should capitulate and erect barriers to entry in the name of protecting

關於加密貨幣是否應該投降並以保護的名義設置進入障礙的爭論