穩定幣大對決：系統性風險、天才法案和華爾街的未來之戰

隨著穩定幣在系統性風險索賠、有爭議的天才法案和華爾街的代幣化野心的雷區中航行，紐約正在熱鬧起來。

The financial world, never one for a quiet moment, is currently fixated on the evolving saga of stablecoins. These digital assets, designed to maintain a steady peg to traditional currencies, are at the heart of a spirited debate pitting the innovative crypto industry against the established titans of traditional banking. The stakes? Nothing less than the future of digital finance, the management of systemic risk, and the efficacy of newly minted legislation like the GENIUS Act.

金融界從來都不是安靜的時刻，目前正關注著穩定幣不斷演變的傳奇。這些旨在與傳統貨幣保持穩定掛鉤的數字資產，是創新加密貨幣行業與傳統銀行巨頭之間激烈辯論的核心。賭注？無非是數字金融的未來、系統性風險的管理以及《天才法案》等新立法的有效性。

Unpacking the Systemic Risk Debate

解開系統性風險爭論

At the center of the ongoing legislative wrangling is the question of whether stablecoins pose a "systemic risk" to the broader U.S. financial system. Coinbase, a prominent voice in the crypto space, staunchly argues against this notion. Its Chief Policy Officer, Faryar Shirzad, recently dismissed comparisons to risky money market funds (MMFs) that triggered past financial crises, asserting that stablecoins, backed dollar-for-dollar in short-term instruments like U.S. Treasuries, are inherently safer than traditional banks. He envisions them as a "future safe haven."

持續的立法爭論的核心是穩定幣是否對更廣泛的美國金融體系構成“系統性風險”的問題。 Coinbase 是加密貨幣領域的知名人士，堅決反對這一觀點。其首席政策官 Faryar Shirzad 最近駁斥了與引發過去金融危機的高風險貨幣市場基金 (MMF) 的比較，並聲稱穩定幣以美元兌換美國國債等短期工具，本質上比傳統銀行更安全。他將它們視為“未來的避風港”。

However, not everyone is convinced. Financial reform non-profit Better Markets and the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), a powerful lobby for traditional banks, contend that the GENIUS Act, while aiming for regulation, permits stablecoin reserves to include riskier assets such as uninsured deposits, repurchase agreement loans, and shares of MMFs. This, they argue, makes stablecoins vulnerable to bank-like runs, echoing the financial turbulence of 2008 and 2020. This fundamental disagreement over what constitutes a "safe" reserve composition has, predictably, stalled progress on a crucial market structure bill, though reports suggest Democrats are pushing for resolution.

然而，並非所有人都相信。金融改革非營利組織 Better Markets 和傳統銀行的強大遊說機構銀行政策研究所 (BPI) 認為，GENIUS 法案在旨在監管的同時，允許穩定幣儲備包括風險較高的資產，例如未保險存款、回購協議貸款和貨幣市場基金 (MMF) 股份。他們認為，這使得穩定幣很容易受到類似銀行擠兌的影響，這與 2008 年和 2020 年的金融動盪相呼應。可以預見的是，這種關於“安全”儲備構成的根本分歧已經阻礙了關鍵市場結構法案的進展，儘管有報導稱民主黨正在推動解決方案。

The GENIUS Act: A Double-Edged Sword?

天才法案：一把雙刃劍？

Signed into law last July, the bipartisan GENIUS Act sought to create a much-needed regulatory framework for stablecoins, requiring issuers to hold sufficient liquid assets. Yet, this legislative step has quickly drawn sharp criticism from an unexpected quarter: senior prosecutors in New York. State Attorney General Letitia James and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, among others, argue that the Act, in its current form, falls woefully short on victim protection and, astonishingly, might even provide legal cover for companies that inadvertently "profit from fraud."

去年 7 月簽署成為法律的兩黨 GENIUS 法案旨在為穩定幣創建急需的監管框架，要求發行人持有足夠的流動資產。然而，這一立法舉措很快遭到了意想不到的人士的尖銳批評：紐約的高級檢察官。州總檢察長利蒂西亞·詹姆斯和曼哈頓地區檢察官阿爾文·布拉格等人認為，該法案目前的形式在受害者保護方面嚴重不足，令人驚訝的是，它甚至可能為無意中“從欺詐中獲利”的公司提供法律保護。

Their primary concern lies with the Act's glaring omission: it lacks provisions compelling companies to return stolen funds to victims. Prosecutors point to major stablecoin issuers like Tether and Circle, alleging they have, at times, hampered law enforcement efforts to confiscate and return funds. While Tether claims to cooperate with federal agencies on a case-by-case basis, prosecutors lament that stolen funds in USDT often remain unrecovered. Circle's policies, they suggest, are even less favorable to victims, with the company allegedly freezing funds but retaining them and earning interest on the underlying assets. This creates a "crystal-clear financial incentive" for issuers not to return stolen funds, a situation that critics say the GENIUS Act has failed to address adequately.

他們主要擔心的是該法案的明顯遺漏：它缺乏強制公司將被盜資金返還給受害者的條款。檢察官指向 Tether 和 Circle 等主要穩定幣發行商，聲稱他們有時會阻礙執法部門沒收和返還資金。儘管 Tether 聲稱會根據具體情況與聯邦機構合作，但檢察官遺憾的是，被盜的 USDT 資金往往仍未追回。他們認為，Circle 的政策對受害者更不利，據稱該公司凍結了資金，但保留了這些資金並賺取了基礎資產的利息。這為發行人不返還被盜資金創造了“明確的財務激勵”，批評者稱《天才法案》未能充分解決這種情況。

Wall Street's Own Tokenized Endeavors

華爾街自己的代幣化努力

Adding another layer to this complex narrative, Wall Street itself is quietly exploring its own brand of tokenization. The CME Group, a powerhouse in derivatives, is reportedly investigating a proprietary "CME Coin." This isn't your everyday retail stablecoin for payments; instead, it's designed to function as a crucial piece of market infrastructure, moving collateral and margin on-chain, almost in real-time. By tokenizing this process, CME aims to reduce reliance on traditional banks' limited operating hours, all while maintaining its control over acceptable collateral.

為這個複雜的敘述增添了另一層，華爾街本身正在悄悄探索自己的代幣化品牌。據報導，衍生品領域的巨頭芝商所集團正在研究一種專有的“芝商所硬幣”。這不是您日常用於支付的零售穩定幣；它是一種穩定幣。相反，它的設計目的是作為市場基礎設施​​的重要組成部分，幾乎實時地在鏈上移動抵押品和保證金。通過對這一流程進行代幣化，芝商所旨在減少對傳統銀行有限營業時間的依賴，同時保持對可接受抵押品的控制。

A CME Coin would move risk, not just money, potentially becoming systemically more important than most payment tokens due to its central role in derivatives trading. This institutional approach to tokenization highlights a fascinating dichotomy: while the public stablecoin market grapples with consumer protection and systemic risk from a regulatory standpoint, traditional finance is adopting blockchain technology to strengthen its existing power structures, not necessarily to decentralize them. It's a reminder that "stablecoin" can mean very different things to very different players.

芝商所代幣將轉移風險，而不僅僅是金錢，由於其在衍生品交易中的核心作用，它可能在系統上比大多數支付代幣更重要。這種代幣化的製度方法凸顯了一個令人著迷的二分法：雖然公共穩定幣市場從監管的角度努力解決消費者保護和系統性風險，但傳統金融正在採用區塊鏈技術來加強其現有的權力結構，而不一定是去中心化。這提醒我們，“穩定幣”對於不同的玩家來說可能意味著非常不同的東西。

The Road Ahead

未來之路

As discussions continue in Washington, with White House meetings and congressional committees pondering the next steps, the path forward for stablecoins and their regulation remains anything but stable. The balancing act between fostering financial innovation, safeguarding consumers from fraud, and mitigating systemic risks is a delicate one, demanding nuanced solutions. Whether the GENIUS Act can evolve to address its critics' concerns, or if new legislative efforts will emerge, only time, and perhaps a few more heated debates, will tell. But one thing's for sure: in this bustling financial metropolis, the conversation around digital assets is never dull, always dynamic, and forever shaping tomorrow's markets. Stay tuned, folks, because this story's far from over.

隨著華盛頓的討論繼續進行，白宮會議和國會委員會正在考慮下一步行動，穩定幣及其監管的前進道路仍然不穩定。促進金融創新、保護消費者免受欺詐和減輕系統性風險之間的平衡是一項微妙的任務，需要細緻入微的解決方案。 《天才法案》是否能夠發展以解決批評者的擔憂，或者是否會出現新的立法努力，只有時間，或許還有一些更激烈的辯論才能證明。但有一點是肯定的：在這座繁華的金融大都市，圍繞數字資產的討論永遠不會沉悶，總是充滿活力，並且永遠塑造著明天的市場。各位，請繼續關注，因為這個故事還遠未結束。