成人小说亚洲一区二区三区,亚洲国产精品一区二区三区,国产精品成人精品久久久,久久综合一区二区三区,精品无码av一区二区,国产一级a毛一级a看免费视频,欧洲uv免费在线区一二区,亚洲国产欧美中日韩成人综合视频,国产熟女一区二区三区五月婷小说,亚洲一区波多野结衣在线

立即打開
Libra面臨哪些挑戰(zhàn)?中本聰會(huì)怎么看?

Libra面臨哪些挑戰(zhàn)?中本聰會(huì)怎么看?

Timothy Massad 2019年07月17日
Libra的治理體系引發(fā)了許多有趣的問題。有人指出,Libra協(xié)會(huì)的集中控制與區(qū)塊鏈技術(shù)的去中心化承諾背道而馳。

首先要說的是,F(xiàn)acebook的Libra項(xiàng)目是經(jīng)過深思熟慮的。在這個(gè)行業(yè),首次公開發(fā)行貨幣(ICO)往往是在信息披露嚴(yán)重不足的情況下為不靠譜的概念籌集資金,這已經(jīng)成了行業(yè)特點(diǎn),F(xiàn)acebook的做法無疑相當(dāng)受歡迎。不管你對這個(gè)項(xiàng)目滿懷希望還是持有懷疑,至少Facebook已經(jīng)花時(shí)間思考了很多復(fù)雜的問題。

然而,項(xiàng)目白皮書引發(fā)了人們對監(jiān)管的擔(dān)憂,也讓人們質(zhì)疑其功用和價(jià)值等根本問題,加上Facebook影響力很大,在隱私和安全問題上又有不良記錄,這些擔(dān)憂進(jìn)一步被放大了。美國國會(huì)的反應(yīng)速度之快,力度之強(qiáng)——將于本周舉行聽證會(huì)——也說明了這一點(diǎn)。

在監(jiān)管方面,F(xiàn)acebook為Libra設(shè)計(jì)了一些方案來解決許多加密貨幣面臨的一些基本問題。Facebook把Libra貨幣和用于為該項(xiàng)目籌集資金的投資令牌區(qū)分開,目的是為了避免美國(和其他國家)的法律把Libra列為一種證券。如果Libra被認(rèn)定為證券,這個(gè)項(xiàng)目很可能無法啟動(dòng)。雖然Libra得到了由現(xiàn)金和現(xiàn)金等價(jià)物組成的資產(chǎn)儲(chǔ)備的充分支持,但Libra的用戶不會(huì)從這些儲(chǔ)備中得到任何收益。所有的收益都將用于維護(hù)系統(tǒng)以及向投資令牌持有者發(fā)放股息。

但安全性分析可不會(huì)止步于此。盡管有儲(chǔ)備意味著Libra可能不會(huì)像其他加密貨幣那樣劇烈波動(dòng),但它的價(jià)值仍然將隨著匯率的變化而波動(dòng)。儲(chǔ)備可以投資于“低波動(dòng)性”資產(chǎn),也可以用于“保值”,但貨幣市場基金也是如此。Libra 協(xié)會(huì)鼓勵(lì)在電子交易所交易Libra,而且有權(quán)改變儲(chǔ)備資產(chǎn)的構(gòu)成,這個(gè)事實(shí)可能會(huì)讓美國證券交易委員會(huì)(SEC)蹙眉。如果SEC認(rèn)為Libra的設(shè)計(jì)具有投資類產(chǎn)品的特點(diǎn),它可能還要克服證券法律設(shè)置的重大障礙。

潛在的匯率風(fēng)險(xiǎn)也對稅收構(gòu)成了挑戰(zhàn):Libra是否應(yīng)該像比特幣一樣,被視為應(yīng)納稅財(cái)產(chǎn)?與美元等單一貨幣掛鉤的穩(wěn)定幣不被視為財(cái)產(chǎn)。但與一籃子法幣掛鉤的貨幣面臨的稅收政策尚不清楚。如果Libra在美國或其他國家的法律下被視為財(cái)產(chǎn),那么用戶在每筆交易中都可能面臨確認(rèn)損益的問題。這將嚴(yán)重削弱其作為支付機(jī)制的功用。

如何符合反洗錢(AML)和充分了解客戶(KYC)的要求也將成為挑戰(zhàn)。如果Libra可能被用于非法支付,一定會(huì)導(dǎo)致全世界金融監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)聯(lián)合起來反對。Libra白皮書中承認(rèn)“反洗錢”的重要性,但沒有提供任何具體的合規(guī)計(jì)劃。用戶是否有責(zé)任在進(jìn)行任何交易前,確保該交易滿足KYC和AML標(biāo)準(zhǔn)?Libra的治理主體——Libra協(xié)會(huì)是否會(huì)對收發(fā)Libra的人集中進(jìn)行AML和KYC審查?

Libra的治理體系引發(fā)了許多有趣的問題。一些加密貨幣愛好者很快指出,Libra協(xié)會(huì)的集中控制與區(qū)塊鏈技術(shù)的去中心化承諾背道而馳。另外一些人認(rèn)為,除此之外,沒有其他切實(shí)可行的方法可以讓Libra落地。白皮書說,F(xiàn)acebook致力于長期的去中心化治理,宣揚(yáng)Facebook只是該協(xié)會(huì)眾多成員之一,這無疑是為了減輕人們對Facebook通過Libra增強(qiáng)其自身權(quán)力和影響力的擔(dān)憂。雖然許多知名公司已經(jīng)宣布同意加入該協(xié)會(huì),但我對此不會(huì)有過多解讀。在這個(gè)階段,這些承諾既不能告訴我們Facebook將在何時(shí)或多大程度上放棄控制權(quán),也不能說明第三方認(rèn)證了該項(xiàng)目的可行性。對于Visa這樣一家年收入200億美元、每年?duì)I銷費(fèi)用高達(dá)10億美元的公司來說,為了占個(gè)位置押上1000萬美元想必是一個(gè)簡單的決定。

此外,對于那些希望區(qū)塊鏈能夠減少我們對大型機(jī)構(gòu)的依賴的人來說,他們未必會(huì)樂見該協(xié)會(huì)的組成——成員包括許多金融和科技行業(yè)巨頭。

白皮書稱,之所以把協(xié)會(huì)設(shè)成在瑞士的基金會(huì),原因是瑞士“一直以來都在全球持中立立場,而且對區(qū)塊鏈技術(shù)持開放態(tài)度”,但實(shí)際原因可能更復(fù)雜。在《財(cái)富》雜志最近舉行的頭腦風(fēng)暴金融大會(huì)上,加密貨幣愛好者們稱,這證明美國在區(qū)塊鏈創(chuàng)新競賽中輸給了瑞士等其他地區(qū)。但使用瑞士基金會(huì)開展國際非營利性活動(dòng)的做法并不罕見。這樣的基金會(huì)在稅收和普通公司法上享有優(yōu)勢,如果基金會(huì)不像Libra那樣主要依賴美國人提供的可減稅捐款,優(yōu)勢則更加明顯。此外,即使選擇瑞士作為組織的轄地,如果代幣是在美國提供、出售和使用的,F(xiàn)acebook或該協(xié)會(huì)就仍然必須遵守美國法律。

因?yàn)槿藗儗acebook的技術(shù)主導(dǎo)地位和過去的不良記錄表示擔(dān)憂,Libra計(jì)劃迅速引發(fā)了華盛頓方面的強(qiáng)烈反應(yīng),這并不奇怪。參眾兩院兩黨領(lǐng)袖都計(jì)劃在7月中旬舉行聽證會(huì),一些人呼吁Facebook停止Libra的相關(guān)工作。就連美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)主席杰伊·鮑威爾也很快表示,美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)將仔細(xì)研究這項(xiàng)提議,而在一年前,鮑威爾曾經(jīng)對美國國會(huì)表示,美聯(lián)儲(chǔ)對加密貨幣沒有管轄權(quán)。世界各地的監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)也發(fā)表了類似聲明。

美國國會(huì)的聽證會(huì)肯定會(huì)審查Facebook的目標(biāo)。真的是像白皮書宣稱的那樣,為世界上沒有銀行賬戶的人提供金融服務(wù)嗎?還是為了創(chuàng)造一個(gè)新的收入來源以及數(shù)據(jù)來源?即使這不是Facebook的主要目標(biāo),F(xiàn)acebook要如何防止自己把Libra帶來的數(shù)據(jù)用于其他目的?Libra協(xié)會(huì)的其他金融巨頭成員也可以獲得這些數(shù)據(jù)嗎?Facebook自身在用戶隱私方面擁有不良記錄,整個(gè)加密行業(yè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全記錄又十分難看,F(xiàn)acebook將如何保護(hù)用戶的數(shù)據(jù)和賬戶不受攻擊?

美國的國會(huì)和金融監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)還將考慮Libra對金融穩(wěn)定和金融包容性的長期影響。如果Libra的目標(biāo)真的是普惠金融——為沒有銀行賬戶的人提供服務(wù),那么你必須問一問,一種新的移動(dòng)支付服務(wù)是否能夠滿足目標(biāo)客戶的全部需要。難道他們不需要信貸產(chǎn)品和流動(dòng)性產(chǎn)品幫助他們在兩次發(fā)薪日中間度過難關(guān),或者幫助他們應(yīng)對意外的現(xiàn)金需求嗎?目前已經(jīng)有一些移動(dòng)支付服務(wù),如微信和M-Pesa,其中一些為存款付息并提供貸款。Facebook能夠提供更廣泛的金融服務(wù)嗎?Calibra數(shù)字錢包或Libra協(xié)會(huì)應(yīng)該在什么時(shí)候作為銀行或其他金融中介機(jī)構(gòu)接受監(jiān)管?

雖然Facebook表示不打算為Libra的存款支付利息,但應(yīng)該考慮在Libra中存入大量存款可能對金融穩(wěn)定性產(chǎn)生的影響。金融體系與其他行業(yè)不同,因?yàn)樗菀资艿綌D兌和恐慌的影響。自20世紀(jì)30年代以來,聯(lián)邦政府一直為銀行賬戶提供存款保險(xiǎn),以把銀行擠兌的可能性降至最低。白皮書稱,準(zhǔn)備金的存在“阻止了‘銀行擠兌’”。人們一直認(rèn)為貨幣市場基金是穩(wěn)定的,因?yàn)樗鼈兊耐顿Y也比較保守——直到2008年秋季?,F(xiàn)在,我們已經(jīng)采取了一些措施來減少脆弱,盡管可能還不夠。

金融創(chuàng)新一次又一次地催生了在監(jiān)管框架之外運(yùn)作的金融中介機(jī)構(gòu),往往能夠帶來更低的成本、更好的服務(wù)或更多的選擇。但遲早——由于危機(jī)的爆發(fā)或其他原因——我們必須重新設(shè)定監(jiān)管參數(shù),將這些新創(chuàng)新納入監(jiān)管范圍。監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)面臨的挑戰(zhàn)是,能否在創(chuàng)新和一開始就把金融穩(wěn)定風(fēng)險(xiǎn)降至最低之間找到合適的平衡。

十年前,中本聰宣布,比特幣可以提供一種點(diǎn)對點(diǎn)的價(jià)值轉(zhuǎn)移方式,能夠消除或至少減少我們對大型中央金融中介機(jī)構(gòu)的依賴。2008年金融危機(jī)后,這個(gè)想法尤其有吸引力,但尚未實(shí)現(xiàn)。Libra是這一愿景的一個(gè)新迭代,還是一種歪曲?畢竟,如果區(qū)塊鏈照著自己“敵人”的樣子創(chuàng)造了一個(gè)科學(xué)怪人式的化身——一種由全球最強(qiáng)大、最霸道的科技公司集中控制和管理的數(shù)字貨幣——這恰恰是區(qū)塊鏈一直宣揚(yáng)自己要打敗的,將十分諷刺。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))

蒂莫西·馬薩德是哈佛大學(xué)肯尼迪政府學(xué)院的高級研究員、喬治敦大學(xué)法律中心的兼職法學(xué)教授。他曾于2014年至2017年擔(dān)任商品期貨交易委員會(huì)主席。

譯者:Agatha

?

The first thing that should be said about Facebook’s Libra proposal is it is thoughtful. In an industry characterized by initial coin offerings (ICO) seeking to raise funds for flimsy concepts on the basis of grossly inadequate disclosure, this is quite welcome. Whether you are enthusiastic or skeptical about the idea, at least Facebook has taken the time to think through a number of complex issues.

The white paper nevertheless raises many regulatory concerns, as well as fundamental questions about its utility and value, which are amplified by concerns about Facebook’s power and past record on privacy and security issues. The speed and intensity of the congressional reaction—with hearings scheduled for this week—illustrates that.

On the regulatory side, Facebook has designed Libra to address some of the basic problems with many previous crypto tokens. By separating the currency, Libra, from the investment token that will be used to raise capital for the project, Facebook is seeking to avoid having Libra classified as a security under U.S. (and other nations’) laws. If Libra were deemed a security, it is unlikely the project could get off the ground. While Libra is to be fully backed by a reserve of cash and cash equivalents, users of Libra will not receive any return from that reserve. Instead, any earnings will be used to pay for maintaining the system and issuing dividends to holders of the investment token.

But the security analysis may not end there. While the reserve means Libra is likely to be less volatile than other cryptocurrencies, it will still fluctuate in value as exchange rates fluctuate. The reserve may be invested in “l(fā)ow-volatility” assets and may be designed for “value preservation,” but so are money market funds. The fact that the association will encourage the listing of Libra on electronic exchanges and will have the power to change the composition of the reserve may raise eyebrows at the SEC. If it sees features of an investment product in the design, Libra may still have significant security law hurdles to overcome.

That potential exchange rate risk poses a tax challenge as well: Should Libra be considered property for tax purposes, like Bitcoin? Stablecoins tied to a single currency such as the U.S. dollar are not treated as property. But the tax treatment of a coin tied to a basket of fiat currencies is not clear. If Libra is deemed property under U.S. or other nations’ laws, then a user could face recognition of loss or gain on each transaction. That would severely diminish its utility as a payment mechanism.

Compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) and know your customer (KYC) requirements will also be a challenge. The possibility that Libra could be used for illegal payments is the surest path to uniting financial regulators around the world against it. The white paper acknowledges the importance of AML but does not provide any specific compliance plans. Will a user have the responsibility to satisfy KYC and AML standards before making any transfer? Will the Libra Association, Libra’s governing body, implement central KYC and AML clearance of any person sending or receiving Libra?

The governance of Libra raises a host of interesting questions. Some crypto enthusiasts have been quick to point out that the centralized control by the Libra Association is antithetical to the decentralized promise of blockchain technology. Others have taken the view that there is no other practical way to launch the currency. The white paper says Facebook is committed to decentralized governance in the long term, and touts the fact that Facebook will be just one of many members of the association, no doubt seeking to allay concerns about Facebook increasing its own power and influence through Libra. But I would not read too much into the announcement that many prominent companies have agreed to participate. At this stage, those commitments neither tell us when or to what degree Facebook will relinquish control, nor are they evidence of third-party verification of the project’s viability. For a company like Visa, which has $20 billion in annual revenue and spends $1 billion a year on marketing, it is presumably an easy decision to ante up $10 million to have a seat at the table as this unfolds.

Moreover, for those who hope that blockchain can reduce our reliance on large institutions, the composition of the association—which includes many financial and technological giants—is not necessarily comforting.

The reasons for organizing the association as a Swiss foundation may also be more mixed than the white paper suggests, which says it is because Switzerland has a “history of global neutrality and an openness to blockchain technology.” Crypto enthusiasts at Fortune’s recent Brainstorm Finance conference claimed this is evidence that the U.S. is losing the blockchain innovation race to jurisdictions like Switzerland. But the use of Swiss foundations for international nonprofit activities is not uncommon. There are tax and general corporate law advantages to using such foundations, particularly if the organization is not primarily dependent on receiving tax-deductible contributions from U.S. persons, as will be the case for Libra. In addition, the choice of Switzerland as the jurisdiction of organization does not exempt Facebook or the association from having to comply with U.S. law if the token is offered, sold, and used here.

Given the concerns about Facebook’s technological dominance and past record, it is not surprising that the Libra proposal provoked quick and strong reactions in Washington. Senate and House leaders on both sides of the aisle have scheduled hearings for mid-July, and some have called on Facebook to halt work on the proposal. Even Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell—who one year ago told Congress that the Fed did not have jurisdiction over cryptocurrencies—was quick to say the Fed will be examining the proposal closely. Regulators around the world have made similar statements.

The congressional hearings will surely examine Facebook’s objectives. Is it really to bring financial services to the unbanked people of the world, as the white paper claims? Or is it to create a new source of revenue as well as data collection? Even if that is not the primary objective, how will Facebook prevent itself from using the data generated by Libra for other purposes? Will the other financial giants who are members of the Libra Association have access to that data? And in light of its own poor privacy record, as well as the poor record of cybersecurity in the crypto industry generally, how will Facebook keep its users’ data protected and their accounts free from hacks?

Congress and financial regulators will also want to consider the long-term implications for financial stability and financial inclusion. If the goal of Libra really is financial inclusion—providing services to the unbanked, one must ask whether another mobile payments service is all that the targeted constituency needs. Don’t they also need credit and liquidity products, to tide them over between paychecks, or to help with unexpected cash needs? There are already several mobile payment services, such as WeChat and M-Pesa, some of which pay interest on deposits and provide loans. Will Facebook offer a broader range of financial services? At what point should Calibra or the Libra Association be subject to regulation as a bank or other financial intermediary?

While Facebook has said it does not intend to pay interest on Libra deposits, the financial stability consequences of significant deposits in Libra should be considered. The financial system is different than other industries because it is vulnerable to runs and panics. The federal government has provided deposit insurance on bank accounts since the 1930s to minimize the potential for bank runs. The white paper claims that the existence of the reserve “discourages ‘runs on the bank.’” But money market funds were thought to be stable because of their conservative investments also—until the fall of 2008. Now, we have taken some steps to reduce that vulnerability, though probably not enough.

Time and again, financial innovation has given rise to types of financial intermediation that operate outside the regulatory framework, often bringing lower costs, better services, or more choice. But sooner or later—as a result of a crisis or otherwise—we must reset the parameters of regulation to bring these new innovations into the fold. The challenge is whether regulators can strike a proper balance between allowing innovation and minimizing risks to financial stability at the outset.

Ten years ago, Satoshi Nakamoto proclaimed that Bitcoin could provide a peer-to-peer means to transfer value that could eliminate or at least reduce our reliance on large centralized financial intermediaries. It was an especially attractive idea in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, but one that has not been realized. Should we regard the Libra proposal as a new iteration of that vision or a perversion of it? It would be ironic, after all, if blockchain gives rise to a Frankenstein-like incarnation of the very thing it was advertised to cure—a digital currency centrally controlled and administered by one of the most powerful, domineering technology companies in the world.

Timothy Massad is a senior fellow at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and an adjunct professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center. He was the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 2014 to 2017.

掃碼打開財(cái)富Plus App
两根大肉大捧一进一出好爽视频| 久久国产天堂福利天堂| 国产在线观看精品| 99在线精品国自产拍中文字幕| 国产国语毛片在线看国产| 日韩亚洲av人人夜夜澡人人爽| 亚洲AV秘无码一区二区三资讯,| 一级a性色生活片久久无国产suv精品一区二区6| 精品香蕉久久久午夜福利| 夜间老司机精品福利网站| 亚洲成AV人片在线观看无码| 一极a做片性视频无码鲁鲁网| 青青尤物热在线视频免费观看| 国产女人爽的流水毛片| 美国一级毛片片aa久久综合| 熟女少妇丰满一区二区| 精品99久久一A毛免费观看| 久久精品无码一区二区www| 精品无码AV一区二区三区不卡| 日韩免费网站日韩91| 国产精品天天看特色大片互動交流| 久久se无码精品一区二区| 国产欧美成人精品久久久久| 一级做a爰片性色毛片成人久久久国产一级a毛| a级毛片黄免费a级毛片| 亚洲精品一区中文字幕乱码| 亚洲国产一二三精品无码| 精品无码久久久久久尤物| 久久久久精品国产AV免费| 久久综合狠狠色综合伊人| 国产国产精品人在线观看| 久久国产加勒比精品无码| 国产AⅤ精品一区二区三区| 欧美日本韩国一二区视频| 亚洲精品国产成人片| 国产成人毛片亚洲精品不卡| 日本国产理论片午午伦夜理片| 丰满少妇熟女高潮流白浆| 人妻丰满熟妇岳AV无码区HD| 国产精品高潮呻吟久久av无码午夜鲁丝片| 中文字幕无码一区二区免费|