稳定币大对决：系统性风险、天才法案和华尔街的未来之战

随着稳定币在系统性风险索赔、有争议的天才法案和华尔街的代币化野心的雷区中航行，纽约正在热闹起来。

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.

金融界从来都不是安静的时刻，目前正关注着稳定币不断演变的传奇。这些旨在与传统货币保持稳定挂钩的数字资产，是创新加密货币行业与传统银行巨头之间激烈辩论的核心。赌注？无非是数字金融的未来、系统性风险的管理以及《天才法案》等新立法的有效性。

Unpacking the Systemic Risk Debate

解开系统性风险争论

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."

持续的立法争论的核心是稳定币是否对更广泛的美国金融体系构成“系统性风险”的问题。 Coinbase 是加密货币领域的知名人士，坚决反对这一观点。其首席政策官 Faryar Shirzad 最近驳斥了与引发过去金融危机的高风险货币市场基金 (MMF) 的比较，并声称稳定币以美元兑换美国国债等短期工具，本质上比传统银行更安全。他将它们视为“未来的避风港”。

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，并非所有人都相信。金融改革非营利组织 Better Markets 和传统银行的强大游说机构银行政策研究所 (BPI) 认为，GENIUS 法案在旨在监管的同时，允许稳定币储备包括风险较高的资产，例如未保险存款、回购协议贷款和货币市场基金 (MMF) 股份。他们认为，这使得稳定币很容易受到类似银行挤兑的影响，这与 2008 年和 2020 年的金融动荡相呼应。可以预见的是，这种关于“安全”储备构成的根本分歧已经阻碍了关键市场结构法案的进展，尽管有报道称民主党正在推动解决方案。

The GENIUS Act: A Double-Edged Sword?

天才法案：一把双刃剑？

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 月签署成为法律的两党 GENIUS 法案旨在为稳定币创建急需的监管框架，要求发行人持有足够的流动资产。然而，这一立法举措很快遭到了意想不到的人士的尖锐批评：纽约的高级检察官。州总检察长利蒂西亚·詹姆斯和曼哈顿地区检察官阿尔文·布拉格等人认为，该法案目前的形式在受害者保护方面严重不足，令人惊讶的是，它甚至可能为无意中“从欺诈中获利”的公司提供法律保护。

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.

他们主要担心的是该法案的明显遗漏：它缺乏强制公司将被盗资金返还给受害者的条款。检察官指向 Tether 和 Circle 等主要稳定币发行商，声称他们有时会阻碍执法部门没收和返还资金。尽管 Tether 声称会根据具体情况与联邦机构合作，但检察官感叹，被盗的 USDT 资金往往仍未追回。他们认为，Circle 的政策对受害者更不利，据称该公司冻结了资金，但保留了这些资金并赚取了基础资产的利息。这为发行人不返还被盗资金创造了“明确的财务激励”，批评者称《天才法案》未能充分解决这种情况。

Wall Street's Own Tokenized Endeavors

华尔街自己的代币化努力

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.

为这个复杂的叙述增添了另一层，华尔街本身正在悄悄探索自己的代币化品牌。据报道，衍生品领域的巨头芝商所集团正在研究一种专有的“芝商所硬币”。这不是您日常用于支付的零售稳定币；它是一种稳定币。相反，它的设计目的是作为市场基础设施的重要组成部分，几乎实时地在链上移动抵押品和保证金。通过对这一流程进行代币化，芝商所旨在减少对传统银行有限营业时间的依赖，同时保持对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.

芝商所代币将转移风险，而不仅仅是金钱，由于其在衍生品交易中的核心作用，它可能在系统上比大多数支付代币更重要。这种代币化的制度方法凸显了一个令人着迷的二分法：虽然公共稳定币市场从监管的角度努力解决消费者保护和系统性风险，但传统金融正在采用区块链技术来加强其现有的权力结构，而不一定是去中心化。这提醒我们，“稳定币”对于不同的玩家来说可能意味着非常不同的东西。

The Road Ahead

未来之路

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.

随着华盛顿的讨论继续进行，白宫会议和国会委员会正在考虑下一步行动，稳定币及其监管的前进道路仍然不稳定。促进金融创新、保护消费者免受欺诈和减轻系统性风险之间的平衡是一项微妙的任务，需要细致入微的解决方案。 《天才法案》是否能够发展以解决批评者的担忧，或者是否会出现新的立法努力，只有时间，或许还有一些更激烈的辩论才能证明。但有一点是肯定的：在这座繁华的金融大都市，围绕数字资产的讨论永远不会沉闷，总是充满活力，并永远塑造着明天的市场。各位，请继续关注，因为这个故事还远没有结束。