2024-09-09-亚开行-数字资产导论（英）_12页_715kb

Summary of Cross-Border Settlement Infrastructure Forum Brief No. 3: An Introduction to Digital Assets

Introduction:

• The document provides an overview of digital assets, noting the lack of a universal definition and the emergence of various terminologies (crypto-asset, digital currency, virtual asset).
• It emphasizes the importance of distinguishing digital assets from existing financial instruments like e-money.

Definitions by International Standard-Setting Bodies:

• FSB: Defines crypto-assets as private digital assets using cryptography or DLT, highlighting risks for regulation but not setting a uniform standard.
• BCBS/BIS: Defines crypto-assets broadly, classifying them into stable/unstable groups with capital implications.
• IOSCO: Synonymous with crypto-assets, defines them as digital representations potentially traded and transferred, excluding fiat and regulated securities.
• FATF: Defines virtual assets/crypto-assets (excluding fiat) as digitized value transferable, not implying technology specifics.
• UNIDROIT: Defines digital assets as "electronic records subject to control," focusing on controllability and neutrality to existing legal frameworks.

National and Regional Legal Perspectives:

• Definitions vary significantly based on legal tradition and policy goals.
• US: Uses UCC Article 12 (amended 2022) defining Controllable Electronic Records (CERs), emphasizing control and security interests. State/federal regulators have different focuses (SEC: securities, CFTC: commodities).
• Japan, EU, UK: Emerging regulatory frameworks (e.g., Japan segregates potentially, EU's MiCA, UK proposes a new "thing that is digital in nature" category).
• Jurisdictions often tailor definitions to specific market segments or policy objectives (e.g., UK Law Commission's focus on common law coherence).

Characteristics of Digital Assets:

• Key characteristics include: record type (account-based vs. token-based), creation process (native/mined vs. non-native/issued), and purpose/use (payment, asset token, utility token, security).
• Account vs. Token Type: Differences in how value is recorded and managed.
• Creation: Native assets ("mined," no issuer) vs. Non-native assets (pegged to underlying assets, issued by entity).

Comparative Analysis & Difficulties:

• Many definitions link digital assets primarily to technology (DLT/blockchain).
• Usage purpose can influence classification (utility vs. asset token vs. payment token).
• Lack of harmonization creates challenges for cross-border business, requiring financial service providers to navigate diverse regulations.

Conclusion:

• Digital assets are intrinsically linked to underlying technology (though definitions vary). Elaborate definitions often aim to fit into existing legal frameworks.
• Cross-border settlement infrastructure members adopted linkage with central security depositories.
• Divergent perspectives impede a single definition.
• The UNIDROIT Principles offer a technology-neutral definition emphasizing legal certainty and control.
• Policymakers face challenges in defining and regulating adequately given the technology-agnostic nature of some definitions. A practical approach often involves regulating via existing frameworks (like property or securities).