數位貨幣有3種 陳冲：這種最危險卻沒人管

數位貨幣有3種 陳冲：這種最危險卻沒人管

加密貨幣昨天崩跌，投資人血流成河。行政院前院長、新世代基金會董事長陳冲指出，數位貨幣有三種，其中比特幣等加密貨幣（Cryptocurrency）無內在價值，也許是投資工具，但不是貨幣，「小心為上」。他指出，加密貨幣交易平台及交易事業今年7月1日將納入洗錢防制法歸管，跟上國際趨勢，但至今卻無主管機關，蔡政府總說「有政府，請安心」，但實際上「安心真不容易」。

近期交易價格從7000美元衝上6萬4829美元高點的比特幣，昨天一度崩跌30%，陷入3萬美元保衛戰，一個多月來市值仍蒸發逾40%。其他加密貨幣也未倖免於難，乙太幣與狗狗幣也一度大跌超過40%，昨天堪稱「血洗幣圈」的一日。

加密貨幣這波令投資人措手不及的殺盤，讓這項新興資產暴起暴落的風險展露無遺。金管會日前再次提醒民眾投資加密貨幣風險甚高，強調7月1日開始，台灣洗錢防制法將正式將虛擬通貨平台及交易業務事業納入洗錢防制範疇，未來虛擬貨幣投資須採實名制，預計5月將邀請國內八家交易平台業者參加公聽會。

國際上對加密貨幣的管控也收緊，中國銀行業協會、互聯網金融協會等三大團體在5月18日聯合公告，要求業者勿用虛擬貨幣（加密貨幣）為產品定價、不得提供虛擬貨幣相關服務、並要求消費者提高風險防範意識，此舉實已代表官方的風向。

5月初，韓國金管會（FSC）主席表示，鑒於各加密貨幣交易平台業者均未於3/25依法提出登記文件，政府有可能在9月24日新法所定期限，將全國二百家交易所全部勒令停業，以符國際上對虛擬資產服務業者（VASP，Virtual Asset Service Provider）的期待。

一般人稱「數位貨幣」有三種，陳冲分析，一種是央行數位貨幣（CBDC），依國際清算銀行（BIS）報告指出，三年內可見真章，時下是人民幣暫居領先。一種是模擬法定貨幣價值、與法定貨幣掛鉤的穩定幣（Stable coin），對目前發行法幣的各主要央行帶來挑戰，遭受不小的抵制，但未來發展非常看好。第三種則是加密貨幣，或稱虛擬貨幣、虛擬通貨；全世界加密貨幣大約有五千種，比特幣當然是箇中翹楚。

陳冲表示，比特幣不是錢，只是商品、投資工具，不是貨幣，更不是法償，因為這些加密貨幣沒有內在價值。但有商品，就有交易。十多年來，各種虛擬幣價格起伏劇烈，也成為洗錢工具的首選，常是國際洗錢防犯討論的要角，晚近各種交易平台的透明度，也被質疑。

配合國際趨勢，行政院四月初完成洗錢防制法第五條第四項的指定，將虛擬通貨平台及交易業務，界定為虛擬通貨與法定貨幣的互換、虛擬通貨間之交換/移轉、保管/管理虛擬通貨等。陳冲表示，規定雖不盡完美但都還有所本，卻暴露洗錢防制法長期以來無主管機關的爭議。

陳冲表示，今年七月一日以後虛擬資產服務業者以及通貨間的移轉/交換要納管，如果發生糾紛、出了問題，甚至刑事責任，還是得有主管機關負責。

商品推薦

虛擬貨幣誰來管？ 行政院前院長陳冲：勿把虛擬當空虛

行政院前院長、新世代金融基金會董事長陳冲今（20）日指出，相較於中國、韓國出招控管虛擬貨幣，台灣卻連主管機關都未能確定，今年7月1日後，虛擬通貨交易所及通貨間的交換，如果發生糾紛、出了問題，甚至刑事責任，難不成要行政院親自出馬控管VASP（虛擬資產服務提供者）？

陳冲表示，當台北疫情正緊之際，5月18日中國銀行業協會、互聯網金融協會等三大團體聯合公告，要求業者勿用虛擬貨幣為產品定價、不得提供虛擬貨幣相關服務、並要求消費者提高風險防範意識，熟悉大陸環境的人「你懂的」，此舉實已代表官方的風向。

陳冲還說，自己上月在扶輪社一場演講後，聽眾席有人發問，「你認為數位貨幣的前途如何？」

對此，他表示，「如果說的是央行數位貨幣（CBDC），請參考2021年1月27日國際清算銀行BIS的報告，三年內可見真章，時下是人民幣暫居領先。如果說的是穩定幣（Stable coin），個人非常看好，但目前各主要央行好像相當不爽。如果說的是加密幣（Cryptocurrency），那也許是投資工具，但不是貨幣，小心為上。」

陳冲說，當時正值比特幣價位迭創新高，提問人關心的自然是Cryptocurrency（加密貨幣） ，也就是前述北京三大團體口中的虛擬貨幣。全世界加密幣大約有五千種，比特幣當然是箇中翹楚。

2014年，他曾撰寫兩篇文章談論比特幣，也都認為只是商品、投資工具，不是貨幣，更不是法償。此一看法，至今並無改變，最主要原因，虛擬（貨）幣沒有intrinsic value（內在價值）。

陳冲說，有商品，就有交易。十多年來，各種虛擬幣價格起伏劇烈，也成為洗錢工具的首選，常是國際洗錢防犯討論的要角，晚近各種交易平台的透明度，也被質疑，本月初，韓國金管會FSC主席表示，鑒於業者均未於3月25日依法提出登記文件，政府有可能在9月24日新法所定期限，將全國二百家交易所全部勒令停業，以符國際上對虛擬資產服務提供者（Virtual Asset Service Provider,VASP）的期待。

無獨有偶，今年4月9日，配合國際趨勢，行政院完成依洗錢防制法第五條第四項之指定，其中將虛擬通貨平台及交易業務，界定為虛擬通貨與法定貨幣之互換、虛擬通貨間之交換／移轉、保管／管理虛擬通貨等，規定雖不盡完美，但都還有所本，卻暴露洗錢防制法長期以來的一項爭議，「三個和尚沒水喝」，五、六個單位開會，結果卻無主管機關。

陳冲說，行政院院長蘇貞昌可能樂於扛責任，但今年7月1日以後，虛擬通貨交易所以及通貨間的移轉／交換等，如果發生糾紛、出了問題，甚至刑事責任，還是得有主管機關負責，難不成還要行政院出馬管VASP？ 看看其他國家由單一機關主政，或是數機關會銜，都有前例，這才是超前布署，「有政府，請安心」。看看中國，想想韓國，環顧全球，安心真不容易。

商品推薦

A potential solution for cheap pizza: stablecoins and the MiCA

An outline of how stablecoins fit within the current Dutch regulatory framework and the proposed Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA)

On 22 May 2010, the first ‘real-world’ bitcoin transaction was executed in the US state of Florida, by transferring 10,000 bitcoin for two pizzas. If these pizzas had been paid for with stablecoins, this would have likely avoided the regret of discovering that the transaction would be valued over hundreds of millions of euro 10 years later.

Over the last year, bitcoin, ethereum and other cryptocurrencies have significantly fluctuated in value and proven to be profitable or sometimes imprudent investments for crypto speculators. As a result, some cryptocurrencies seem to have surpassed their original goal as a means of payment by moving on to being seen as an investment-like asset. As a response to the volatility of such crypto-assets, stablecoins, which are designed to be inherently less volatile than other cryptocurrencies, have entered the crypto stage.

As the rise of stablecoins and other more reliable crypto-assets have further increased the popularity of the crypto market, the European Commission (EC) has proposed the MiCA for the purposes of regulating crypto-assets, including the use of stablecoins. The MiCA aims to regulate crypto-assets and related financial services that remain outside the scope of the existing European regulatory framework.

In this blog, we will briefly touch upon the regulatory framework for stablecoins under the MiCA, which which, together with an outline of the current Dutch regulatory framework, is discussed in more detail in our recent publication in the Dutch Journal for Financial Law (Tijdschrift voor Financieel Recht) available via the link below (in Dutch only).

Stablecoin or simply a stable coin?

Stablecoins are defined by the European Central Bank as digital units that rely on stabilisation tools to minimise price fluctuations. Naturally, the stablecoin derives its name from the stability in value it offers compared to volatile cryptocurrencies. Stablecoins can be pegged to a stable asset that has intrinsic value (eg gold) or be backed by a central issuer. An example is the private stablecoin tether, which is pegged to and backed by the US dollar. Generally speaking, the price stabilisation of a stablecoin may be achieved by a central issuer that buys or sells more of the pegged assets on its balance sheet, or by an autonomous (decentralised) algorithm that adjusts the mining-process (release) of cryptocurrency by tracking supply and demand.

(Future) regulation of stablecoins

Depending on the technical and functional design of the respective stablecoin, it may be subject to (relevant Dutch laws implementing) EU legislation, including AMLD5, MiFID2, PSD2, EMD2, UCITSD, AIFMD and/or the SIPS-regulation (of which only AMLD5 currently provides for a distinct regime for crypto-assets, focusing on virtual currencies). The MiCA will introduce a new bespoke regulatory regime for cryptocurrencies and stablecoins alike. Its applicability to stablecoins is dependent on whether the stablecoin qualifies as an ‘asset-referenced token’ or ‘electronic money token’. With regard to stablecoins, we made the following four observations:

The MiCA regime for electronic money tokens seems to favour e-money over electronic money tokens. The scope of the MiCA is limited to stablecoins that do not qualify as financial instruments under MiFID2 or electronic money under the EMD2. However, once a certain stablecoin qualifies as an electronic money token under MiCA, issuers of e-money-tokens may need to comply with both the EMD2 and the MiCA. As this implies that payment technologies that solely qualify as e-money would only need to comply with the requirements of the EMD2, such seems to contradict with the self-declared principle of the EC that EU financial services law cannot favour one specific technology over another. The definitions of asset-referenced and e-money-tokens do not fully seem to represent the technological reality. Some stablecoins may refer to one fiat currency (electronic money tokens), whereby the issuer may hold several fiat currencies, commodities or crypto-assets to stabilise the value of the token (asset-referenced tokens), such as the stablecoin dai. It is unclear whether such a stablecoin would need to adhere to the regime for electronic money tokens or asset-referenced tokens. It also seems somewhat unnecessary to use the element ‘stable’ as part of the definition of asset-referenced and electronic money tokens. The EC could simply mention that stablecoins should be backed by one or more other assets, as it is not crystal clear which assets are considered stable or at what point in time such stability would actually be achieved. There is currently no specific regime for stablecoins based on an algorithmic stabilisation mechanism under the MiCA. In our view, some of these types of stablecoin also have the potential to be widely adopted among the general public, therefore justifying a separate regime under the MiCA.

The EC has a done a great job by introducing the first bespoke regulatory framework for crypto-assets, but the current proposal for the MiCA still raises some questions. Just like ordering pineapple on a pizza.

For a more extensive discussion of the above topics, please refer to our recent publication in the Dutch Journal for Financial Law (Tijdschrift voor Financieel Recht), which is available via the link below (in Dutch only).