<p>官僚时代的终结：从执法到鼓励创新</p>
<p>在过去的几年里，美国监管机构对加密资产的态度就像过山车一样起伏不定。</p>
<p>前 SEC 主席加里·根斯勒以 “监管就是执法” 的方式而闻名。他依赖于 1946 年的霍威测试将任何用于筹款的代币归类为证券，并对 Ripple 等项目提起诉讼。例如，在 2023 年，一家法院裁定 XRP 在机构销售中属于证券，但在零售市场中则不属于。即使是已经通过 SEC S-1 申请上市的 Coinbase，也因 “运营未注册证券交易所” 而被起诉。这种矛盾在市场上造成了一种恐惧气候，被称为 “SEC 效应”：每当一个代币被指定为证券时，其价格往往会暴跌，资本和开发者纷纷逃往监管环境更友好的欧洲和亚洲。</p>
<p>在 2025 年美国政府更迭后，政策方向发生了重大转变。新任证券交易委员会（SEC）主席保罗·阿特金斯在接受 CNBC 采访时表示，大多数加密资产不应被归类为证券，并提出了三项主要改革：<strong>代币分类</strong>、<strong>加密项目</strong> 和 <strong>创新豁免</strong>。他表示，大多数加密资产类似于商品、收藏品或工具代币，只有少数符合霍威测试的投资合同是真正的证券。新政府撤回了几起诉讼，并指示 SEC 和商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）共同制定规则，美国希望重新夺回作为全球加密创新中心的地位。关于创新豁免，阿特金斯承诺将在 2026 年 1 月推出 “创新豁免” 沙盒。该沙盒设想允许项目在有限的时间内快速测试其产品，而无需繁琐的注册，但它们必须发布运营报告，遵守 KYC/AML 规则，并实施投资者保护措施。公众舆论认为，这项政策将为区块链初创企业提供喘息空间，并降低合规成本。然而，允许发行人筛选用户身份被一些去中心化社区批评为 “违反开放原则”，一些去中心化自治组织（DAO）担心流动性池将被划分为有权限和无权限的系统。警钟：FTX 崩溃与监管转变 监管方向的转变与过去的教训密不可分。2022 年 11 月，全球最大的加密货币交易所之一 FTX 在数天内崩溃，其曾估值 320 亿美元的帝国申请破产。创始人山姆·班克曼 - 弗里德随后被逮捕，并面临多项刑事指控。媒体将这一事件称为 “加密版雷曼时刻”，数百万用户的资产消失。随后，欧美监管机构意识到，未受监管的交易所可能轻易成为庞氏骗局的温床。报告显示，每次重大危机都会推动新的风险管理标准的出现，社会开始要求更严格的监管框架。FTX 事件促使美国政府启动加密冲刺，要求 SEC 和 CFTC 提供适用于加密资产的具体指导。同时，国会通过了 GENIUS 法案，首次承认合规的稳定币为合法支付工具。美国财政部撤销了 SAB 121，允许银行持有加密资产，使高盛和花旗等银行能够持有客户的比特币和以太坊。这些措施表明，当局不再仅仅是压制市场，而是借鉴过去的教训重新设计风险控制系统。监管与创新的 “猫鼠游戏”：案例研究 更严格的监管并不意味着行业停滞；相反，一些公司积极拥抱合规，并将其转化为竞争优势。以 Coinbase 为例。在被 SEC 起诉后，Coinbase 开发了高效的 KYC/反洗钱技术，并将这些工具作为 “合规即服务” 出售给其他机构。其报告显示，通过为外部公司提供技术支持，Coinbase 的合规业务收入增长超过 215%。这个案例表明，即使在严格的监管环境中，公司仍然可以通过创新解决方案寻求商业价值。风险投资巨头安德森·霍洛维茨（a16z）也选择了 “先发制人” 的策略，聘请前 CFTC 主席希思·塔伯特担任首席法律官，积极参与政策制定，并游说监管机构为零知识证明等技术提供更宽松的监管环境。这种 “旋转门” 策略不仅为其投资项目争取了发言权，也反映了监管机构与行业之间的权力斗争。另一个有趣的例子来自特斯拉。由于美国劳动法禁止公司直接以加密货币支付工资，马斯克的团队利用加州一项旧法律中的漏洞，允许进行 “紧急预支”，使员工可以选择以稳定币 USDC 的一部分工资进行支付，然后由加密货币交易所每日结算。这一巧妙的操作表明，在监管框架内可以探索创新的薪酬方案，以满足员工对数字资产的兴趣。全球视角：欧洲、亚洲和新兴市场的监管竞赛 美国政策的转变并非孤立事件。在欧洲，加密资产市场指令（MiCA）于 2024 年生效，为欧盟提供了统一的规则。欧洲证券和市场管理局（ESMA）表示，在 2024 年 12 月 30 日之前提供加密服务的公司可以在过渡期内继续运营，但成员国可以自行缩短过渡期以保护投资者。MiCA 要求数字资产服务提供商以标准化格式披露交易记录、订单簿和透明度数据，并提交白皮书信息以确保市场秩序。由于各国的过渡期不同，学者们担心监管套利可能导致 “监管拼图”。德国等国为了抢占市场份额，缩短了过渡期，以吸引更多公司申请当地许可证。这种差异化实施促使欧盟考虑在 ESMA 下建立统一的监管平台，以避免碎片化影响竞争力。另一方面，英国通过了金融服务和市场法案（FSMA），建立了多层次的监管。其监管沙盒允许初创企业在受控环境中测试创新产品，监管机构从中收集数据并调整政策。在亚洲，新加坡和香港自 2020 年以来开设了监管沙盒项目，向虚拟资产交易平台发放许可证，以吸引交易所。新加坡金融管理局批准了 InvestaX 和富兰克林·坦普顿推出的基于区块链的货币市场基金，允许零售投资者购买代币化的短期债券和商业票据。该基金的股份在区块链上记录，提供实时透明度和每日流动性。这个例子表明，亚洲监管机构更倾向于采用 “试错” 方法，根据实际经验评估风险和回报。在发展中市场，巴基斯坦政府还与 Binance 签署了谅解备忘录，试点价值 20 亿美元的主权债务和商品的代币化。位于西方制裁边缘的巴基斯坦正在利用代币化来改善流动性并吸引海外资本，展示了新兴经济体通过金融创新突破传统限制的策略。尽管美国和欧盟仍在讨论监管框架，但新兴市场迅速接受区块链融资工具；这种 “跨越式发展” 值得关注。展望未来：在监管竞赛的时代，资本和创新将流向何方？回顾美国 SEC 的 “创新豁免” 更像是全球加密政策转变的路标：从强硬执法到分类监管、临时豁免和沙盒试验。政策制定者开始意识到，单纯封堵通道只会加速人才流失和灰色地带的扩张；更可行的方法是划定投资者保护与创新步伐之间的可行界限。游戏远未结束。传统金融机构的持续进入拓宽了区块链的应用场景，并带来了新的权力平衡：芝加哥商品交易所和纽约证券交易所等传统巨头相继推出相关产品；世界交易所联合会担心放松监管会削弱市场诚信，主张对传统交易所和去中心化金融平台适用同一套规则；而像 Citadel Securities 这样的机构则要求对去中心化协议施加更强的约束，Uniswap 的创始人则认为过度监管将扼杀开源创新。这些分歧正是新范式复杂性的证明。对于普通读者而言，理解 “创新豁免” 并不需要深入晦涩的条款。可以将其视为政府指定的测试场，允许种子项目在有限的时间内测试新变种，然后在成熟后申请正式进入。监管机构愿意提供灵活性，但也会设立障碍——项目必须持续披露运营进展和风险。随着详细规则的实施，美国可能会看到项目的回归，也可能促使欧洲和亚洲加速引入基准机制，从而促进更普遍的监管模板，推动加密生态系统走向更标准化和包容的阶段。对于交易平台而言，监管竞赛带来的机会往往体现在两个方面：“合规实施 + 改善用户体验和降低摩擦。”</p>

CRCL

<p>美国证券交易委员会（SEC）从严格监管转向鼓励创新，标志着加密行业的新阶段。在主席保罗·阿特金斯的领导下，SEC 计划进行包括代币分类和创新豁免在内的改革，旨在促进美国的加密创新。FTX 的崩溃突显了监管的必要性，促使美国重新设计风险控制系统。像 Coinbase 和 a16z 这样的公司正在利用合规作为竞争优势，而特斯拉则在劳动法的框架内探索以稳定币支付工资的方式</p>

<p>The End of the Bureaucratic Era: From Law Enforcement to Encouraging Innovation</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>官僚时代的终结：从执法到鼓励创新</p>
</div><p>In the past few years, the attitude of US regulators towards crypto assets has been like a roller coaster.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在过去的几年里，美国监管机构对加密资产的态度就像过山车一样起伏不定。</p>
</div><p>Former SEC Chairman Gary Gensler was known for his &#34;regulation is law enforcement&#34; approach. He relied on the 1946 Howey test to classify any token used for fundraising as a security and filed lawsuits against projects like Ripple. For example, in 2023, a court ruled that XRP was a security in institutional sales but not in the retail market. Even Coinbase, which had already gone public through an SEC S-1 filing, was sued for &#34;operating an unregistered securities exchange.&#34; Such contradictions created a climate of fear in the market, known as the &#34;SEC effect&#34;: whenever a token was designated as a security, its price often plummeted, and capital and developers fled to more regulatory-friendly Europe and Asia.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>前 SEC 主席加里·根斯勒以 “监管就是执法” 的方式而闻名。他依赖于 1946 年的霍威测试将任何用于筹款的代币归类为证券，并对 Ripple 等项目提起诉讼。例如，在 2023 年，一家法院裁定 XRP 在机构销售中属于证券，但在零售市场中则不属于。即使是已经通过 SEC S-1 申请上市的 Coinbase，也因 “运营未注册证券交易所” 而被起诉。这种矛盾在市场上造成了一种恐惧气候，被称为 “SEC 效应”：每当一个代币被指定为证券时，其价格往往会暴跌，资本和开发者纷纷逃往监管环境更友好的欧洲和亚洲。</p>
</div><p>Following the change of government in the United States in 2025, a major shift in policy direction occurred. New SEC Chairman Paul Atkins, in an interview with CNBC, stated that most crypto assets should not be classified as securities and proposed three major reforms: **token taxonomy**, **crypto projects**, and **innovation exemptions**. He said most crypto assets resemble commodities, collectibles, or instrumental tokens, and only a small fraction of investment contracts that meet the Howey test are true securities. With the new administration dropping several lawsuits and directing the SEC and CFTC to work together on rule development, the United States hopes to reclaim its position as a global center for crypto innovation. Regarding innovation exemptions, Atkins pledged to launch an &#34;innovation exemption&#34; sandbox in January 2026. This sandbox envisions allowing projects to quickly test their products within a limited timeframe without cumbersome registration, but they must publish operational reports, comply with KYC/AML rules, and implement investor protection measures. Public opinion believes this policy will provide breathing room for blockchain startups and reduce compliance costs. However, allowing issuers to screen user identities has been criticized by some decentralized communities as &#34;violating the principle of openness,&#34; and some DAOs worry that liquidity pools will be divided into permissioned and permissionless systems. A Wake-Up Call: The FTX Collapse and Regulatory Shift The shift in regulatory direction cannot be separated from past lessons. In November 2022, one of the world's largest cryptocurrency exchanges, FTX, collapsed within days, its once-valued empire of $32 billion filing for bankruptcy. Founder Sam Bankman-Fried was subsequently arrested and faces multiple criminal charges. The media described this event as the &#34;crypto Lehman moment,&#34; with millions of users' assets vanishing. Subsequently, European and American regulators realized that unregulated exchanges could easily become incubators for Ponzi schemes. Reports indicate that each major crisis drives the emergence of new risk management standards, and society begins to demand a stricter regulatory framework. The FTX case prompted the US government to launch the Crypto Sprint, requiring the SEC and CFTC to provide specific guidance applicable to crypto assets. Simultaneously, Congress passed the GENIUS Act, recognizing compliant stablecoins as legitimate payment instruments for the first time. The US Treasury Department revoked SAB 121, which prohibited banks from holding crypto assets, allowing banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup to hold their clients' Bitcoin and Ethereum. These measures signify that the authorities are no longer simply suppressing the market, but rather redesigning risk control systems after learning from past lessons. The &#34;Cat and Mouse Game&#34; of Regulation and Innovation: Case Studies Tighter regulation does not mean industry stagnation; on the contrary, some companies are proactively embracing compliance and turning it into a competitive advantage. Take Coinbase as an example. After being sued by the SEC, Coinbase developed efficient KYC/anti-money laundering technology and sold these tools as a &#34;compliance-as-a-service&#34; to other institutions. Its report shows that by providing technical support to external companies, Coinbase's compliance business revenue increased by over 215%. This case demonstrates that even in a stringent regulatory environment, companies can still seek commercial value through innovative solutions. Venture capital giant Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) also chose a &#34;preemptive&#34; approach, hiring former CFTC Chairman Heath Tarbert as chief legal officer to actively participate in policy-making and lobby regulators to provide a more lenient regulatory environment for technologies such as zero-knowledge proofs. This &#34;revolving door&#34; strategy not only gains a voice for its own investment projects but also reflects the power struggle between regulators and industry. Another interesting example comes from Tesla. Because US labor law prohibits companies from paying wages directly in cryptocurrency, Musk's team exploited a loophole in an old California law that allowed for &#34;emergency advances,&#34; enabling employees to choose to receive a portion of their salary in the stablecoin USDC, which was then settled daily by a cryptocurrency exchange. This clever operation illustrates that innovative compensation schemes can be explored within a regulatory framework, catering to employees' interest in digital assets. Global Perspective: The Regulatory Race in Europe, Asia, and Emerging Markets The US policy shift is not an isolated event. In Europe, the Crypto Asset Markets Directive (MiCA) came into effect in 2024, providing unified rules across the EU. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) stated that companies offering crypto services before December 30, 2024, can continue operating during the transition period, but member states can shorten the transition period themselves to protect investors. MiCA requires digital asset service providers to disclose transaction records, order books, and transparency data in a standardized format, and to submit white paper information to ensure market order. Due to varying transition periods across countries, scholars worry that regulatory arbitrage could lead to a &#34;regulatory jigsaw puzzle.&#34; Countries like Germany, in an effort to seize market share, have shortened transition periods to attract more companies to apply for local licenses. This differentiated implementation has prompted the EU to consider a unified regulatory platform under ESMA to avoid fragmentation impacting competitiveness. The UK, on ​​the other hand, has adopted the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) to establish multi-tiered regulation. Its regulatory sandbox allows startups to test innovative products in a controlled environment, from which regulators gather data and adjust policies. In Asia, Singapore and Hong Kong have opened regulatory sandbox programs since 2020, issuing licenses to virtual asset trading platforms to attract exchanges. The Monetary Authority of Singapore approved a blockchain-based money market fund launched by InvestaX and Franklin Templeton, allowing retail investors to purchase tokenized short-term bonds and commercial paper. The fund's shares are recorded on the blockchain, providing real-time transparency and daily liquidity. This example shows that Asian regulators prefer a &#34;trial and error&#34; approach, assessing risks and returns based on practical experience. In developing markets, the Pakistani government also signed a memorandum of understanding with Binance to pilot the tokenization of $2 billion worth of sovereign debt and commodities. Located on the edge of Western sanctions, Pakistan is using tokenization to improve liquidity and attract overseas capital, demonstrating emerging economies' strategy of breaking through traditional restrictions through financial innovation. While the US and EU are still discussing regulatory frameworks, emerging markets have quickly embraced blockchain financing tools; this &#34;leapfrog development&#34; is noteworthy. Looking ahead: In an era of regulatory race, where will capital and innovation flow? Looking back, the US SEC's &#34;innovation exemption&#34; is more like a signpost for a global shift in crypto policy: from hardline enforcement to categorized regulation, temporary exemptions, and sandbox trials. Policymakers are beginning to realize that simply blocking access will only accelerate the brain drain and the expansion of gray areas; a more feasible approach is to draw a workable line between investor protection and the pace of innovation. The game is far from over. The continued entry of traditional financial institutions has broadened the application scenarios for blockchain and brought about a new balance of power: traditional giants such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange have successively launched related products; the World Federation of Exchanges is concerned that deregulation will weaken market integrity and advocates applying the same set of rules to traditional exchanges and DeFi platforms; while institutions such as Citadel Securities are demanding stronger constraints on decentralized protocols, the founder of Uniswap argues that excessive regulation will stifle open-source innovation. The very disagreements are a testament to the complexity of the new paradigm. For the average reader, understanding &#34;innovation exemptions&#34; doesn't require delving into obscure clauses. Think of it as a testing ground designated by the government, allowing seed projects to test new varieties within a limited timeframe, and then apply for formal access once they mature. Regulators are willing to provide flexibility, but they will also erect barriers—projects must continuously disclose operational progress and risks. As the detailed rules are implemented, the US may see a return of projects, and it may also prompt Europe and Asia to accelerate the introduction of benchmarking mechanisms, thereby fostering more universal regulatory templates and leading the crypto ecosystem towards a more standardized and inclusive stage. For trading platforms, the opportunities brought about by the regulatory race often lie in two areas: &#34;compliance implementation + improved user experience and reduced friction.&#34;</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在 2025 年美国政府更迭后，政策方向发生了重大转变。新任证券交易委员会（SEC）主席保罗·阿特金斯在接受 CNBC 采访时表示，大多数加密资产不应被归类为证券，并提出了三项主要改革：<strong>代币分类</strong>、<strong>加密项目</strong> 和 <strong>创新豁免</strong>。他表示，大多数加密资产类似于商品、收藏品或工具代币，只有少数符合霍威测试的投资合同是真正的证券。新政府撤回了几起诉讼，并指示 SEC 和商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）共同制定规则，美国希望重新夺回作为全球加密创新中心的地位。关于创新豁免，阿特金斯承诺将在 2026 年 1 月推出 “创新豁免” 沙盒。该沙盒设想允许项目在有限的时间内快速测试其产品，而无需繁琐的注册，但它们必须发布运营报告，遵守 KYC/AML 规则，并实施投资者保护措施。公众舆论认为，这项政策将为区块链初创企业提供喘息空间，并降低合规成本。然而，允许发行人筛选用户身份被一些去中心化社区批评为 “违反开放原则”，一些去中心化自治组织（DAO）担心流动性池将被划分为有权限和无权限的系统。警钟：FTX 崩溃与监管转变 监管方向的转变与过去的教训密不可分。2022 年 11 月，全球最大的加密货币交易所之一 FTX 在数天内崩溃，其曾估值 320 亿美元的帝国申请破产。创始人山姆·班克曼 - 弗里德随后被逮捕，并面临多项刑事指控。媒体将这一事件称为 “加密版雷曼时刻”，数百万用户的资产消失。随后，欧美监管机构意识到，未受监管的交易所可能轻易成为庞氏骗局的温床。报告显示，每次重大危机都会推动新的风险管理标准的出现，社会开始要求更严格的监管框架。FTX 事件促使美国政府启动加密冲刺，要求 SEC 和 CFTC 提供适用于加密资产的具体指导。同时，国会通过了 GENIUS 法案，首次承认合规的稳定币为合法支付工具。美国财政部撤销了 SAB 121，允许银行持有加密资产，使高盛和花旗等银行能够持有客户的比特币和以太坊。这些措施表明，当局不再仅仅是压制市场，而是借鉴过去的教训重新设计风险控制系统。监管与创新的 “猫鼠游戏”：案例研究 更严格的监管并不意味着行业停滞；相反，一些公司积极拥抱合规，并将其转化为竞争优势。以 Coinbase 为例。在被 SEC 起诉后，Coinbase 开发了高效的 KYC/反洗钱技术，并将这些工具作为 “合规即服务” 出售给其他机构。其报告显示，通过为外部公司提供技术支持，Coinbase 的合规业务收入增长超过 215%。这个案例表明，即使在严格的监管环境中，公司仍然可以通过创新解决方案寻求商业价值。风险投资巨头安德森·霍洛维茨（a16z）也选择了 “先发制人” 的策略，聘请前 CFTC 主席希思·塔伯特担任首席法律官，积极参与政策制定，并游说监管机构为零知识证明等技术提供更宽松的监管环境。这种 “旋转门” 策略不仅为其投资项目争取了发言权，也反映了监管机构与行业之间的权力斗争。另一个有趣的例子来自特斯拉。由于美国劳动法禁止公司直接以加密货币支付工资，马斯克的团队利用加州一项旧法律中的漏洞，允许进行 “紧急预支”，使员工可以选择以稳定币 USDC 的一部分工资进行支付，然后由加密货币交易所每日结算。这一巧妙的操作表明，在监管框架内可以探索创新的薪酬方案，以满足员工对数字资产的兴趣。全球视角：欧洲、亚洲和新兴市场的监管竞赛 美国政策的转变并非孤立事件。在欧洲，加密资产市场指令（MiCA）于 2024 年生效，为欧盟提供了统一的规则。欧洲证券和市场管理局（ESMA）表示，在 2024 年 12 月 30 日之前提供加密服务的公司可以在过渡期内继续运营，但成员国可以自行缩短过渡期以保护投资者。MiCA 要求数字资产服务提供商以标准化格式披露交易记录、订单簿和透明度数据，并提交白皮书信息以确保市场秩序。由于各国的过渡期不同，学者们担心监管套利可能导致 “监管拼图”。德国等国为了抢占市场份额，缩短了过渡期，以吸引更多公司申请当地许可证。这种差异化实施促使欧盟考虑在 ESMA 下建立统一的监管平台，以避免碎片化影响竞争力。另一方面，英国通过了金融服务和市场法案（FSMA），建立了多层次的监管。其监管沙盒允许初创企业在受控环境中测试创新产品，监管机构从中收集数据并调整政策。在亚洲，新加坡和香港自 2020 年以来开设了监管沙盒项目，向虚拟资产交易平台发放许可证，以吸引交易所。新加坡金融管理局批准了 InvestaX 和富兰克林·坦普顿推出的基于区块链的货币市场基金，允许零售投资者购买代币化的短期债券和商业票据。该基金的股份在区块链上记录，提供实时透明度和每日流动性。这个例子表明，亚洲监管机构更倾向于采用 “试错” 方法，根据实际经验评估风险和回报。在发展中市场，巴基斯坦政府还与 Binance 签署了谅解备忘录，试点价值 20 亿美元的主权债务和商品的代币化。位于西方制裁边缘的巴基斯坦正在利用代币化来改善流动性并吸引海外资本，展示了新兴经济体通过金融创新突破传统限制的策略。尽管美国和欧盟仍在讨论监管框架，但新兴市场迅速接受区块链融资工具；这种 “跨越式发展” 值得关注。展望未来：在监管竞赛的时代，资本和创新将流向何方？回顾美国 SEC 的 “创新豁免” 更像是全球加密政策转变的路标：从强硬执法到分类监管、临时豁免和沙盒试验。政策制定者开始意识到，单纯封堵通道只会加速人才流失和灰色地带的扩张；更可行的方法是划定投资者保护与创新步伐之间的可行界限。游戏远未结束。传统金融机构的持续进入拓宽了区块链的应用场景，并带来了新的权力平衡：芝加哥商品交易所和纽约证券交易所等传统巨头相继推出相关产品；世界交易所联合会担心放松监管会削弱市场诚信，主张对传统交易所和去中心化金融平台适用同一套规则；而像 Citadel Securities 这样的机构则要求对去中心化协议施加更强的约束，Uniswap 的创始人则认为过度监管将扼杀开源创新。这些分歧正是新范式复杂性的证明。对于普通读者而言，理解 “创新豁免” 并不需要深入晦涩的条款。可以将其视为政府指定的测试场，允许种子项目在有限的时间内测试新变种，然后在成熟后申请正式进入。监管机构愿意提供灵活性，但也会设立障碍——项目必须持续披露运营进展和风险。随着详细规则的实施，美国可能会看到项目的回归，也可能促使欧洲和亚洲加速引入基准机制，从而促进更普遍的监管模板，推动加密生态系统走向更标准化和包容的阶段。对于交易平台而言，监管竞赛带来的机会往往体现在两个方面：“合规实施 + 改善用户体验和降低摩擦。”</p>
</div>

监管操作的新阶段：美国证券交易委员会（SEC）的创新豁免对全球加密行业的影响