专栏：欧盟稳定币规则为何威胁颠覆加密货币市场

Hugo Coelho 是剑桥替代金融中心的数字资产监管负责人，Mike Ringer 是 CMS 的合伙人兼加密和数字资产集团联席负责人。他们的观点仅代表他们自己。

为了警告即将出台的欧盟稳定币监管法规的影响，稳定币发行商 Circle 的战略主管 Dante Disparte 试图将其与千禧年之交的技术传说中的概念区分开来。

Disparte 于 6 月 3 日在社交网络 X 上写道：“MiCA 并不是可以忽略的加密货币千年虫问题。世界第三大经济体的数字资产正在发生真正重大的发展。”

Y2K 问题又称“千年虫”，是指 2000 年之际出现的计算机故障，有可能对全球计算机网络造成严重破坏。

千年虫问题并非骗局，人们为避免其负面影响付出了很多努力。但正如《

Disparte 将此与加密市场正在发生的情况以及可能发生的情况进行了对比，这是恰当的，因为电子货币代币（欧盟加密资产市场监管中指稳定币的单一法定货币的法定名称）的规则将于 6 月 30 日生效。

EMT 在加密资产市场中发挥着关键作用。

它们促进加密货币交易，通过成为大多数交易对的一方，它们保护投资者免受波动的影响，并提供支持去中心化应用程序的抵押品。

任何影响其设计或限制其在像欧盟这样大的市场上发行、提供或交易的规则无疑都会产生影响。

到目前为止，加密市场仍然不受 MiCA 的影响。

根据剑桥数字货币仪表板的数据，稳定币的总供应量已超过 1550 亿美元，高于 1 月份的 1270 亿美元。

每个发行者的供应份额基本保持不变，其中两种最大的稳定币 USDT 和 USDC 分别占据市场的 70% 以上和 20%。

然而，透过统计数据，你仍可以看到一些变化。

主要加密资产服务提供商已公布计划，将对其在欧盟涉及稳定币的服务进行更改，以准备遵守该法规。

OKX率先采取行动，宣布将从其交易对中移除USDT。

Kraken 随后表示正在审查其立场。

最近，币安宣布将限制欧盟用户在某些服务中使用未经授权的稳定币，尽管最初不会在现货交易中使用。

“那么，MiCA 的哪些方面可能需要改变我们所熟知的稳定币呢？”

The inconsistency in responses suggests there is no shared understanding of the implications of the regulation.

Compared with the weeks and days leading up to the end of the millennium, one could say there are far fewer obvious signs of panic, but nearly as much uncertainty.

So, what is it about MiCA that could require stablecoins, as we know them, to change?

In our view, the major source of disruption is likely to be the localisation requirements for issuers.

For issuers trying to comply with the rules, this will be a much more challenging requirement to adjust to than prudential requirements, including the requirement to hold at least 30% or — in the case of significant EMTs — 60% of the reserves in bank accounts and split them between different local banks.

And it will deliver a more immediate blow than the hard limits on the use of dollar-denominated stablecoins within the EU.

These have been designed to force the market to shift to Euro-denominated stablecoins, but there is not much evidence of that yet.

Under MiCA, no EMT can be offered to the public in the EU, and no-one can seek its admission to trading, unless it is issued by an EU-incorporated entity which is licensed as either a credit or e-money institution — notwithstanding that the authorisation regime for crypto asset service providers will not take effect until December 30.

Some of its reserves will also have to be localised, as described above.

It is unclear how overseas issuers of stablecoins such as the dollar-denominated ones that currently dominate the market can continue to serve EU clients under such a regime.

In theory, issuers could relocate to the EU and distribute EU-issued stablecoins to the rest of the world. But that is highly unlikely in practice.

The strict prudential requirements of MiCA would put these issuers at a competitive disadvantage in many non-EU markets.

It is also hard to see why other jurisdictions would not take tit-for-tat action and require the issuers to localise in the same way as the EU, thus fragmenting the market.

An alternative route would be to issue the stablecoin from two parallel entities, one in the EU, from which it would serve EU clients, the other from overseas, to serve clients from the rest of the world.

This option, oft touted in crypto circles, is marred with legal and operational complexities that have yet to be convincingly resolved.

There are basically two challenges to be addressed.

The first is preserving fungibility between two coins issued from two separate entities, subject to different regulatory requirements and insolvency regimes and backed by different pools of assets.

The second is ensuring EU clients only hold coins issued by the EU entity, including through secondary market trading.

While this issue is more noticeable and imminent in the EU than elsewhere, it would be wrong to dismiss it as an EU oddity.

日本、新加坡和英国等司法管辖区也一直在努力解决如何在全球范围内监管稳定币的问题。

监管机构需要保证，在其监督下的投资者能够获得足够的保护，并且即使在危机时期，即使发行人和储备金存放在国外，他们也可以按面值赎回稳定币。

如果以金融史为参考，那么只有当规则足够一致，能够实现监管尊重或对等，并让不同司法管辖区的监管机构之间开展合作时，这种情况才有可能实现（如果有的话）。

由于许多活动具有无边界或数字化的性质，因此等效制度在加密货币领域比其他领域更为紧迫和必要。

矛盾的是，由于监管环境尚不成熟且分散，两者之间的距离也更加遥远。

由于某种原因，MiCA 是没有等效制度的欧盟金融服务法规之一。

英国和新加坡还在等效安排上继续拖延，日本的等效机制的有效性仍有待考验。

作为加密货币监管的先行者，欧盟正在揭示全球稳定币监管背后的难题。

其直率的做法有可能扰乱 1,550 亿美元的市场。

我们很快就会知道，对于欧盟的稳定币来说，2024 年 6 月 30 日是否是新的 2000 年 1 月 1 日，或者比这更糟糕的时间。

热点：加密货币 加密 市场 稳定币