進化し続けるブロックチェーンと暗号通貨の世界では、現実世界のトークン化という概念が大きな注目を集めています。このトピックをさらに深く掘り下げるために、私たちは最近、政府間ブロックチェーンの専門家であり本の著者でもある Anndy Lian 氏との炉辺談話を主催する機会に恵まれました。
議論は、アブダビを拠点とし、ステーブルコインと世界規模の実世界の資産組織化に注力するレイヤー1チェーン、Venom Foundationの最高商務責任者であるファラジ氏が主導した。ファラジ氏は、約2,000人の会員を誇る大規模な暗号通貨幹部コミュニティの創設者でもある。

東南アジア（SEA）は、人口が7億人近くに達し、デジタル経済が急速に拡大しており、暗号通貨の革新と導入の中心地として浮上しています。しかし、この地域の暗号通貨の規制状況は複雑で常に進化しており、国によってアプローチやポリシーが異なります。
この記事では、東南アジアにおける暗号通貨規制の現状を詳しく調べ、暗号通貨業界とユーザーの両方にもたらされる課題と機会について考察します。さらに、2024 年にこの地域で勢いを増すと予想される規制の動向を予測します。

2023年9月1日に韓国ソウルのCOEXコンベンションセンターで開催されたNFT 2023ソウルカンファレンスに基調講演者として招待されたことを光栄に思います。カンファレンスは大成功を収め、非代替性トークン分野の最新の動向やトレンドに関心を持つ多くの参加者が世界中から集まりました。
スピーチのタイトルは「AIとWeb3時代のNFTの旅」でした。その中で私は、NFTがどのように進化し、その将来がどうなるか、人工知能（AI）がNFTに新たな可能性と課題をどのように生み出しているか、そしてWeb3がより分散化され、オープンで、ユーザー中心の新しいバージョンのインターネットとしてどのように浮上しているかについて、私の見解を共有しました。

アンディ・リアン氏は、数千人の投資家から14億香港ドル（1億8000万米ドル）以上を詐取したとされる暗号通貨プラットフォームJPEXの最近の崩壊について意見を述べた。
JPEXの崩壊は香港の暗号通貨業界の暗い側面を露呈させ、その規制枠組みについて深刻な疑問を提起した。
JPEXは、認可され規制されたプラットフォームであると主張し、派手な広告、有名人の支持、高収益の約束で投資家を誘い込んだ。JPEXは、そのプラットフォームでのみ取引可能な独自のネイティブトークンであるJPCのほか、ビットコインやテザーなどの他の人気の暗号通貨も提供した。

美国证券交易委员会（SEC）主席加里·根斯勒（Gary Gensler）因其对各种数字资产监管状况的言论而成为加密货币领域的头条新闻。他多次申明比特币是一种商品，但一直不愿意对于其他加密货币来说也是如此，特别是那些通过首次代币发行（ICO）发行或具有某种形式的治理机制的加密货币。 他还表达了对稳定币及其对金融体系潜在影响的担忧。 他这些言论背后的意图是什么？ 他是想保护投资者、扼杀创新还是其他什么？
我将尝试根据詹斯勒的公开演讲、采访和证词，从固执己见的角度分析他的观点和动机。 我还将讨论他的立场对加密货币行业和投资者的影响。
Gensler 的背景和理念
在成为 SEC 主席之前，Gensler 在公共和私营部门拥有长期而杰出的职业生涯。 他曾担任高盛合伙人 18 年，在交易、金融和技术领域担任过多个领导职务。 他还曾在比尔·克林顿总统领导下担任负责国内金融的财政部副部长和负责金融市场的财政部助理部长。 巴拉克·奥巴马总统后来任命他为商品期货交易委员会 (CFTC) 主席，负责监督《多德弗兰克法案》的实施以及 2008 年金融危机后衍生品市场的监管。
詹斯勒也是一位学者和教育家。 他是麻省理工学院斯隆管理学院全球经济和管理实践教授，教授区块链技术、数字货币、金融创新和公共政策等价格。 他还是麻省理工学院媒体实验室数字货币计划的高级顾问。
鉴于他在该领域的专业知识和兴趣，一些观察家将他描述为“加密货币友好”的监管者。 他承认区块链技术和数字资产对于创新、效率、包容性和竞争的潜在好处。 他还称赞比特币是“变革的催化剂”和不受任何政府或中央机构控制的“稀缺价值储存手段”。
然而，他也是一位“精通加密货币”的监管者，了解新兴行业带来的风险和挑战。 他强调了加密货币领域投资者保护、市场诚信、金融稳定和国家安全的必要性。 他还警告加密货币生态系统中普遍存在欺诈、操纵、黑客攻击、洗钱、逃税和恐怖主义融资行为。
在我个人看来，詹斯勒的哲学似乎基于两个主要原则：第一，每一种金融产品或服务都应该受到某种形式的监管或监督；第二，每一种金融产品或服务都应该受到某种形式的监管或监督。 第二，现行法律法规应当一致、公平地适用于所有市场参与者。
Gensler 对比特币的立场
Gensler 对比特币的立场相对直接和一致。 他多次表示，比特币不是联邦证券法规定的证券，而是《商品交易法》（CEA）规定的商品。 这意味着比特币属于 CFTC 的管辖范围，而不是 SEC 的管辖范围。
这种分类基于最高法院的豪伊测试，该测试根据资产是否涉及对普通企业的资金投资并期望从他人的努力中获得利润来确定资产是否为证券。 比特币不符合这一标准，因为它没有任何发行者或发起人控制其供应或价值。 它也是去中心化的，分布在用户之间，用户通过工作量证明挖矿来验证交易并保护网络安全。
他的观点与美国证券交易委员会和商品期货交易委员会的前任一致，他们也承认比特币是一种商品。 它还反映了比特币在市场中运作和运作的现实。 这并不意味着比特币不受任何监管或监督。 作为一种商品，比特币受到 CEA 和证券法的反欺诈和反操纵条款的约束。 它还须遵守《银行保密法》和《爱国者法》的报告和记录保存要求。 此外，比特币衍生品，例如期货和期权，作为商品合约受到美国商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）的监管。 比特币交易所、平台、钱包和托管人受到各州和联邦机构作为货币转移者、经纪自营商或投资顾问的监管。
Gensler 对比特币立场的意图似乎是承认其独特性和创新性，同时确保其遵守保护投资者和公共利益的适当规则和标准。
Gensler 对其他加密的立场
接下来，他对其他加密的立场。 它不太清楚，也更微妙。 他表示，根据联邦证券法，其中许多应被视为证券，但他没有具体说明哪些证券或如何确定其地位。 他还表示，其中一些可能是属于 SEC 和 CFTC 职权范围的大宗商品或混合工具。
Gensler 的立场基于他对 Howey 测试的解释，他认为该测试适用于大多数通过 ICO 发行或具有某种形式治理机制的加密货币代币。 他认为，这些代币涉及对普通企业的资金投资，并期望从其他人（例如网络开发者、发起者或验证者）的努力中获得利润。
他的观点与 SEC 工作人员的观点一致，SEC 工作人员已针对各种他们认为未经适当注册或豁免的证券发行的加密货币项目发布了几份指导文件和执法行动。 它还得到了一些联邦法院的支持，这些法院已将 Howey 测试应用于民事和刑事案件中的加密货币代币。
然而，他的观点并没有被普遍接受或应用。 一些加密货币项目在法庭或行政诉讼中挑战了 SEC 的权威或解释。 一些人还通过不采取行动的信件或安全港提案寻求美国证券交易委员会的澄清或救济。 有些人还认为，他们的代币不是证券，而是商品、货币、实用代币或网络代币，其目的或功能与投资合约不同。
他对其他加密的立场背后的意图似乎是维护 SEC 对他认为对投资者和市场构成重大风险的加密货币行业很大一部分的管辖权和授权。 他似乎还寻求加密货币行业更多的合作和协调，以遵守现有的法律和规则或寻求适当的豁免或豁免。
Gensler 对稳定币的立场
Gensler 对稳定币的立场也不清楚且复杂。 他表达了对稳定币及其对金融体系潜在影响的担忧，但他没有提出任何具体的监管框架或方法。 他还表示，一些稳定币可能是证券，而其他稳定币可能是商品或混合工具，属于 SEC 和 CFTC 的管辖范围。
稳定币是一种数字资产，旨在相对于其他资产（例如法定货币、商品或一篮子资产）保持稳定的价值。 它们通常被用作加密货币领域的交易所媒介、价值存储或记账单位。 它们还被用作不同区块链或平台之间的桥梁。 稳定币有不同类型，例如法币支持的稳定币、加密货币支持的稳定币、算法稳定币或混合稳定币。
Gensler 的立场基于他对稳定币给金融体系带来的风险和挑战的评估。 他强调了稳定币带来的透明度、问责制、治理、流动性、偿付能力、市场诚信、消费者保护和系统稳定性等问题。 他还警告稳定币有可能促进洗钱、逃税和恐怖主义融资等非法活动。
其他监管机构和政策制定者也表达了对稳定币及其对金融体系影响的担忧。 金融稳定委员会 (FSB) 是一个负责监督全球金融体系并提出建议的国际机构，它发布了一份关于稳定币的报告，概述了对其监管和监督的 10 项高级别建议。 总统金融市场工作组（PWG）是一个由美国高级官员组成的小组，负责就金融问题向总统提供建议，该工作组也发表了一份关于稳定币的声明，呼吁为其建立全面的监管框架。
不过，Gensler的观点尚未转化为任何具体行动或建议。 他表示，他正在与美国商品期货交易委员会、美联储、财政部和其他机构的监管机构同事合作解决稳定币引发的问题。 他还表示，他愿意与国会和业界合作，为稳定币制定明确且一致的监管制度。
Gensler 对加密货币行业和投资者的影响
Gensler 对比特币、其他加密货币和稳定币的立场对加密货币行业和投资者具有重大影响。 根据他如何实现自己的愿景以及行业的反应，他的立场可能会对加密货币领域的创新、增长和采用产生积极或消极的影响。
从积极的一面来看，Gensler 的立场可以为加密货币行业和投资者提供更多的清晰度、确定性和合法性。 通过将现有的法律和规则应用于加密货币领域，Gensler 可以为所有市场参与者创造一个公平的竞争环境，促进公平竞争与合作。 通过加强合规性和问责制，可以加强投资者保护和市场诚信，并减少欺诈和操纵。 通过与国会和行业合作，他可以​​进一步为加密货币领域制定一个全面且一致的监管框架，以平衡创新和监管。
从消极的一面来看，Gensler 的立场也可能给加密货币行业和投资者带来更多的挑战、成本和障碍。 通过主张 SEC 对加密货币领域很大一部分的管辖权和授权，Gensler 可能会在不同监管机构和司法管辖区之间造成更多混乱、不确定性和冲突。 通过实施注册和报告要求，Gensler 可能会增加加密货币项目和平台的监管负担和复杂性。 通过发起执法行动和诉讼，Gensler 可以阻止加密货币领域的创新和投资。
结论
总之，Gensler 对比特币、其他加密货币和稳定币的立场反映了他作为 SEC 主席的背景、理念和意图。 他是一位对加密货币友好但又精通加密的监管者，了解新兴行业的潜在好处和风险。 他也是一位务实但有原则的监管者，相信应一致、公平地将现有法律和规则应用于加密货币领域。
值得注意的是，他的立场对加密货币行业和投资者具有重大影响。 它可以为加密货币空间提供更多的清晰度、确定性和合法性，但也可能给加密货币空间带来更多的挑战、成本和障碍。 他立场的最终结果将取决于他如何实现他的愿景以及业界如何回应他的行动。

Gary Gensler, the chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), has garnered attention in the cryptocurrency sphere due to his views on the regulatory status of digital assets. While he confidently labels Bitcoin as a commodity, his stance on other cryptocurrencies, especially those linked to initial coin offerings (ICOs) or possessing governance mechanisms, remains enigmatic. Additionally, Gensler has expressed concerns about stablecoins and their potential impact on the financial system. This article delves into the motives behind his statements and whether they are driven by investor protection, stifling innovation, or other considerations.
Unpacking Gensler's Views and Motivation
To understand Gary Gensler's views and motivations, we must analyze his public speeches, interviews, and testimonies. This analysis will illuminate the consequences of his regulatory stance for the cryptocurrency industry and investors.
Gensler's Diverse Background
Before assuming the role of SEC chair, Gensler's illustrious career spanned the public and private sectors. He spent 18 years as a partner at Goldman Sachs, where he held various leadership positions in trading, finance, and technology. Furthermore, he served as the undersecretary of the Treasury for domestic finance and the assistant secretary of the Treasury for financial markets during President Bill Clinton's administration. Later, President Barack Obama appointed him as the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), where he oversaw the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act and the regulation of derivatives markets following the 2008 financial crisis.
Gensler is not just a practitioner; he is also an academic and educator. He serves as a professor of the practice of global economics and management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, where he teaches courses on blockchain technology, digital currencies, financial innovation, and public policy. Additionally, he is a senior advisor to the MIT Media Lab's Digital Currency Initiative.
Gensler's Philosophy
Some observers have characterized Gensler as a "crypto-friendly" regulator, given his expertise and interest in the field. He recognizes the potential advantages of blockchain technology and digital assets in terms of innovation, efficiency, financial inclusion, and competition. He lauds Bitcoin as a "catalyst for change" and a "scarce store of value" that operates independently of governmental or central authority.
However, Gensler is not blindly infatuated with the cryptocurrency space. He comprehends the inherent risks and challenges it poses. He emphasizes the importance of safeguarding investors, maintaining market integrity, ensuring financial stability, and upholding national security within the crypto sphere. He has sounded the alarm regarding issues such as fraud, manipulation, hacking, money laundering, tax evasion, and the financing of terrorism in the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
In my personal opinion, Gensler's philosophy appears grounded in two core principles: first, that every financial product or service should be subject to some form of regulation or oversight; and second, that existing laws and rules should be applied consistently and fairly to all market participants.
Gensler's Stance on Bitcoin
Gensler's position on Bitcoin is unequivocal and consistent. He repeatedly asserts that Bitcoin does not fall under the purview of federal securities laws but is rather categorized as a commodity according to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). Consequently, Bitcoin's regulation falls under the jurisdiction of the CFTC, not the SEC.
This classification is founded on the Supreme Court's Howey test, which determines an asset's security status based on whether it involves an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profit derived from the efforts of others. Bitcoin does not meet this criteria as it lacks an issuer or promoter who can control its supply or value. It is decentralized and distributed among its users, who validate transactions and secure the network through proof-of-work mining.
Gensler's stance aligns with his predecessors at the SEC and CFTC, who also recognize Bitcoin as a commodity. Moreover, it reflects the functional reality of Bitcoin within the market. It is essential to note that Bitcoin is not exempt from regulation. As a commodity, Bitcoin is subject to anti-fraud and anti-manipulation provisions under the CEA and securities laws. Additionally, it is subject to reporting and recordkeeping requirements pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act and the Patriot Act. Furthermore, Bitcoin derivatives such as futures and options fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the CFTC. Bitcoin exchanges, platforms, wallets, and custodians are also subject to regulation by various state and federal agencies, being classified as money transmitters, broker-dealers, or investment advisers.
Gensler's intent behind classifying Bitcoin as a commodity seems to be a recognition of its unique characteristics and innovation while ensuring that it operates within a framework of appropriate rules and standards, safeguarding investors and the public interest.
Gensler's Stance on Other Cryptocurrencies
Gensler's position on other cryptocurrencies is less clear-cut and more nuanced. He has hinted that many of these cryptocurrencies should be treated as securities under federal securities laws, but he has not explicitly identified which ones or provided a definitive method for determining their status. He has also suggested that some cryptocurrencies may have characteristics of commodities or hybrid instruments that fall under the jurisdiction of both the SEC and the CFTC.
Gensler's stance is rooted in his interpretation of the Howey test, which he believes is applicable to most crypto tokens issued through ICOs or those with governance mechanisms. He argues that these tokens entail an investment of money in a common enterprise with an expectation of profit derived from the efforts of others, such as the developers, promoters, or validators of the network.
His viewpoint aligns with that of the SEC staff, who have issued guidance documents and enforcement actions against various crypto projects they deemed to be conducting unregistered securities offerings. Some federal courts have also applied the Howey test to crypto tokens in both civil and criminal cases.
Nevertheless, Gensler's perspective is not universally accepted or implemented. Certain crypto projects have challenged the SEC's authority and interpretations through court proceedings or administrative actions. Others have sought clarification or relief from the SEC by submitting no-action letters or proposing safe harbors. Some argue that their tokens do not constitute securities but rather commodities, currencies, utility tokens, or network tokens serving distinct purposes or functions unrelated to investment contracts.
Gensler's intent behind classifying other cryptocurrencies seems to involve asserting the SEC's jurisdiction and oversight over a significant segment of the crypto industry, which he believes poses substantial risks to investors and the market. He also appears to seek greater cooperation and coordination from the crypto industry to ensure compliance with existing laws and regulations or to pursue suitable exemptions or waivers.
Gensler's Stance on Stablecoins
Gensler's position on stablecoins is intricate and still evolving. While he has expressed concerns about stablecoins and their potential repercussions on the financial system, he has not proposed a specific regulatory framework or approach for them. He has also indicated that some stablecoins may be classified as securities, while others may fall under the category of commodities or hybrid instruments subject to the jurisdiction of both the SEC and the CFTC.
Stablecoins are digital assets designed to maintain a stable value relative to another asset, such as a fiat currency, a commodity, or a basket of assets. They serve various purposes, including acting as a medium of exchange, a store of value, or a unit of account within the cryptocurrency space. Furthermore, they facilitate interoperability between different blockchains and platforms. Stablecoins exist in various forms, such as fiat-backed, crypto-backed, algorithmic, or hybrid stablecoins.
Gensler's position arises from his evaluation of the risks and challenges posed by stablecoins to the financial system. He has highlighted concerns regarding transparency, accountability, governance, liquidity, solvency, market integrity, consumer protection, and systemic stability linked to stablecoins. He has also raised alarms about their potential use in illicit activities such as money laundering, tax evasion, and terrorist financing.
Gensler's viewpoint resonates with other regulators and policymakers who share concerns about stablecoins and their implications for the financial system. The Financial Stability Board (FSB), an international organization overseeing and making recommendations regarding the global financial system, has issued a report outlining ten high-level recommendations for regulating and supervising stablecoins. The President's Working Group on Financial Markets (PWG), composed of senior U.S. officials advising the president on financial matters, has also issued a statement advocating for a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoins.
Nevertheless, Gensler's perspective has not yet translated into concrete actions or proposals. He has indicated that he is collaborating with fellow regulators at the CFTC, the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and other agencies to address the concerns raised by stablecoins. Additionally, he has expressed a willingness to engage with Congress and the cryptocurrency industry to establish a clear and consistent regulatory framework for stablecoins.
Implications of Gensler's Stance for the Cryptocurrency Industry and Investors
Gary Gensler's stance on Bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies, and stablecoins carries substantial implications for both the cryptocurrency industry and investors. Depending on how he executes his vision and how the industry responds, his regulatory posture could yield positive or negative consequences for the advancement, expansion, and adoption of the cryptocurrency space.
Positive Implications:
Clarity and Legitimacy: Gensler's regulatory stance could bring much-needed clarity and legitimacy to the cryptocurrency industry. By applying existing laws and regulations consistently, he could create a level playing field for all market participants, fostering equitable competition and cooperation.Investor Protection: Regulatory enforcement and accountability measures could enhance investor protection, reducing the risk of fraud and manipulation in the cryptocurrency market.Market Integrity: Gensler's oversight could bolster market integrity, curbing illicit activities and ensuring fair and transparent trading practices.Regulatory Framework: Engaging with Congress and industry stakeholders could lead to the development of a comprehensive and coherent regulatory framework for the cryptocurrency space, striking a balance between innovation and regulation.
Negative Implications:
Confusion and Complexity: By asserting the SEC's jurisdiction over a substantial segment of the cryptocurrency industry, Gensler may inadvertently sow confusion, uncertainty, and conflicts among different regulators and jurisdictions.Regulatory Burden: Imposing registration and reporting requirements on cryptocurrency projects and platforms could increase the regulatory burden and complexity, potentially stifling innovation.Deterrent to Innovation: Initiating enforcement actions and litigation may deter innovation and investment in the cryptocurrency space, as companies grapple with legal challenges.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Gary Gensler's regulatory stance on Bitcoin, other cryptocurrencies, and stablecoins reflects his background, philosophy, and intentions as the chairman of the SEC. He exhibits a nuanced perspective as a regulator who acknowledges both the potential benefits and risks associated with the cryptocurrency industry. He seeks to apply existing laws and regulations consistently and fairly to ensure investor protection and market integrity.
It is crucial to recognize that Gensler's stance carries significant implications for the cryptocurrency industry and investors alike. While it may offer clarity and legitimacy, it could also introduce complexity and regulatory hurdles. The ultimate outcome of his regulatory approach will depend on how he executes his vision and how the cryptocurrency industry responds to his actions.

取引高で世界最大の仮想通貨取引所であるバイナンスは、証券法に違反し投資家を詐欺したとして米国証券取引委員会（SEC）から法的異議申し立てに直面している。
バイナンスとその最高経営責任者（CEO）、チャオ・チャンペン氏は、SECには自社の活動に対する管轄権がなく、適用されるすべての法律を遵守していると主張し、訴訟の却下を求める法廷書類を提出した。しかし、SECはバイナンスへの追及を諦めておらず、最近バイナンス.USのソフトウェアと文書へのアクセスを要求したが、米国の裁判所によって拒否された。

Digital assets are digital representations of value, including ownership of financial or real economy assets. These assets have the potential to facilitate more efficient transactions, improve financial inclusion, and unlock economic value. To create a new digital asset ecosystem, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), tokenized bank liabilities, and well-regulated stablecoins, along with smart contracts, can serve as mediums of exchange. However, these new forms of digital money need to demonstrate their utility beyond existing e-payment systems.

Programmability and Fungibility of Money

One touted advantage of digital money is its programmability, but there is ongoing debate regarding this feature. It is crucial to ensure that programmability does not hinder the ability of digital money to serve as a medium of exchange. Money's singleness should be preserved, and programmability should not lead to fragmentation of liquidity in the system.

Purpose Bound Money (PBM)

This paper presents the concept of Purpose Bound Money (PBM), which allows money to be directed toward a specific purpose without requiring direct programming of the money itself. PBM utilizes a standardized protocol that works with different ledger technologies and forms of money. Users can access digital money using their preferred wallet provider.

Background and Motivation

Efforts to digitalize financial services have gained momentum, but they face challenges, such as the proliferation and fragmentation of payment schemes and platforms. Consolidating these schemes into a single platform that is open and interoperable across all schemes would enhance user experience and streamline digitalization.

Models of Programmability

There are different models of programmability: programmable payment and programmable money. Programmable payment involves executing payments based on predefined conditions, while programmable money embeds rules within the store of value itself. Both models have their advantages and limitations. With the increasing diversity of CBDCs, tokenized bank liabilities, and stablecoins, a common framework for interacting with different forms of digital money is needed.

Purpose Bound Money (PBM)

PBM combines elements of programmable payment and programmable money. It consists of a wrapper that defines the conditions for use and an underlying store of value serving as collateral. This design allows existing digital money to be deployed for various purposes without altering its native properties. When the conditions are met, the underlying digital money is released and becomes unbounded.

Components and Roles

A PBM consists of a wrapper implemented as smart contract code and the underlying digital money. The PBM creator defines the logic, mints PBM tokens, and distributes them. PBM holders can redeem non-expired tokens, while PBM redeemers receive the underlying digital money when tokens are transferred.

Lifecycle of Purpose Bound Money

The PBM lifecycle includes the issue, distribute, transfer, redeem, and expired stages. PBM tokens are created, distributed, and can be transferred based on programmed rules. When the conditions are fulfilled, PBM tokens are redeemed, and the underlying digital money is transferred to the recipient. Expired tokens can be destroyed or paused indefinitely.

Conclusion

Purpose Bound Money offers a new approach to programmability in the digital asset ecosystem. By defining conditions within a wrapper and using existing digital money, it enables directed use without compromising fungibility or the medium of exchange function. The PBM framework provides a common language to interact with different forms of digital money and promotes interoperability within the financial infrastructure.

Non-Fungible Token (NFT) の台頭は、文化的および創造的な経済に目覚ましい変革を引き起こし、Web3 エコシステム内に新たな可能性に満ちた時代の到来をもたらしました。 NFT は、エキサイティングかつ革新的な方法で、クリエイターに自分の作品を収益化し、所有権を確立し、視聴者と関わるための前例のない機会を提供します。 WikiEXPOが主催するこのパネルでは、NFTがクリエイターエコノミーに力を与え、文化産業の発展と繁栄に貢献する方法を探ります。

Best selling book author, Anndy Lian gave his speech titled “Think Bigger In the next NFT Summer” at NFT.NYC 2023. NFT NYC is a yearly event dedicated to NFTs and blockchain technology, which has quickly become a major focus of the art and collectibles world. This immersive conference and festival attracts a wide variety of participants, including industry leaders, artists, collectors, and enthusiasts, who come together to explore the possibilities of NFTs. Attendees can learn about the latest trends, technologies, and best practices related to NFTs.

The concept of NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens) has been in existence for some time now. However, while it has gained considerable popularity, it has also raised concerns amongst some people. Many individuals have developed a negative perception of NFTs due to the hype surrounding them. There have also been instances of NFT wash trades, which are used to inflate NFT prices artificially. Additionally, some NFTs have no practical use, and some are regarded as securities, which is a regulatory issue.

Despite this, the NFT craze is far from over, and it could be just the beginning of a new era. Big names like Gucci, Porsche, Starbucks, Amazon, and Red Bull Racing have started investing in NFTs, which suggests that the market is gaining traction and legitimacy. This year could be the last NFT summer where people only see NFTs as a speculative asset.

In 1999, Bill Gates predicted that everything would be on the internet. Jack Ma did the same in China, but people thought it was impossible. Now, we are living in a world where the internet is an integral part of our daily lives. If we continue to use our current mindset to envision the future, we risk being left behind, just like those who laughed at the internet in its early days.

We need to broaden our minds and start thinking beyond the current limitations of NFTs. NFTs can be used for anything, from digital art and music to virtual real estate and gaming items. The possibilities are endless, and the new assets are in the digital world. Crypto natives need to think bigger and explore the true potential of NFTs.

Although we currently view NFTs as speculative, we must start using them in the future we create. Big brands have recognized this and are willing to invest in the technology. It is time for us to move past the current hype and start creating and exploring the digital world that awaits us.

The full video of this speech can be obtained at https://youtu.be/cLAP1htYwD4.

仮想通貨市場は過去数カ月間に若干の変動を経験しており、多くの投資家が市場の将来について疑問を抱いている。ファウンダーズクラブのユージン・シロフ氏がアンディ・リアン氏と対談し、仮想通貨市場サイクルと仮想通貨投資に関する洞察について話し合いました。



クリプトサイクル

アンディはまず、仮想通貨サイクルにおける私たちの現在の立ち位置について触れました。同氏は数字を見て、ビットコインは現在良い位置にあると信じていると強調した。同氏は、第3四半期と第4四半期がビットコインが今年どこまで伸びるかを見極める良い時期だと考えている。同氏は、今後1～2四半期以内に超強気サイクルに突入するとは考えていないが、それが近いうちに到来する兆候が徐々に現れるだろうとは信じている。同氏は、FTX事件、三本の矢事件、銀行危機の後、市場を一掃するには時間がかかると考えている。したがって、第4四半期は市場が回復する良い時期だと同氏は見ている。

Founders Club は、あらゆる分野の創業者を集めます。Sergey Kochnev がドバイのブルー ウォーターズ アイランドで、政府間ブロックチェーン アドバイザー、投資家、本の著者である Anndy Lian にインタビューしました。

暗号通貨の現状

アンディ氏は、暗号通貨市場の現状とビットコインの将来についても質問を受けた。同氏は、全体的な感情は悪くなく、市場にはまだ希望があると考えている。市場は好調に推移しており、30,000ドルへの上昇が予測されているものの、それは見方の​​問題にすぎない。

A great deal of buzz has been generated by a novel type of non-fungible tokens known as Ordinal inscriptions. What sets these NFTs apart is that all of their data is etched onto the Bitcoin blockchain, diverging from Ethereum NFTs which are reliant on off-chain metadata that can be altered. Here’s a closer look at Ordinal inscriptions and their potential impact on the future of Bitcoin.

Ordinal inscriptions are a type of NFT that can be created on the Bitcoin blockchain, which allows for all of the data to be directly inscribed on the chain. This is in contrast to Ethereum NFTs, which rely on off-chain metadata. Due to this distinction, Ordinals are considered a potential solution to the challenges that are associated with Ethereum NFTs.

 

Ordinal inscriptions serve as a means of organizing data on the Bitcoin blockchain. The Bitcoin blockchain functions as a decentralized ledger of all Bitcoin transactions, and Ordinal inscriptions provide a unique identifier for each transaction.

While these identifiers are useful for tracking and verifying transactions, there are concerns about the potential for issues, such as “transaction malleability,” to arise as a result of Ordinal inscriptions. Some experts have raised concerns in this regard.

The term transaction malleability refers to the ability of a third party to modify a transaction ID without altering the transaction itself. This can result in confusion and make it more challenging to track and verify transactions.

The concern with Ordinal inscriptions is that if they are not used correctly, they may lead to an environment in which transaction malleability is more prevalent. This could have the effect of making it harder to rely on Bitcoin as a secure and dependable method of payment and transfer.

Fortunately, many experts in the crypto community are aware of the potential risks associated with Ordinal inscriptions and are taking steps to mitigate them. One of the most significant efforts in this regard is the implementation of Segregated Witness (SegWit).

SegWit is a software upgrade that allows for more efficient use of the Bitcoin blockchain by separating signature data from transaction data. This helps to decrease the size of transactions and reduces their susceptibility to malleability.

Beyond SegWit, ongoing efforts are being made to develop other solutions to address the potential risks associated with Ordinal inscriptions. The Lightning Network is one such solution, as it is a layer of two solutions that enables faster and less expensive Bitcoin transactions by conducting them off-chain.

 

Should you be concerned? If you are a casual Bitcoin user, you likely do not need to be overly concerned about Ordinal inscriptions. The potential risks associated with them primarily affect those involved in more complex Bitcoin transactions, such as multi-signature wallets or smart contracts.

 

Despite the potential benefits of Ordinal inscriptions, there has been a lot of debate over whether they are a “good use” of block space. As more Ordinals are being inscribed, the cost of Bitcoin transactions has risen. Ordinals introduce additional, non-financial data on the Bitcoin blockchain, which can bog down on-chain confirmation times. This includes images, audio clips, and even games. Those not in favour of Ordinals see this as an impediment to the ability of Bitcoin to scale and reach full global adoption.

Inscribing non-fungible characteristics to satoshis, the individual increments of Bitcoin, may challenge its use in place of conventional currency. Ordinals challenge the fungibility of satoshis on the Bitcoin network, as all satoshis should be equal, or they begin to lose a significant trait of money. But Ordinals can alter the value of these units of money, much like rare collectible coins. This debate over whether these individual units must be deemed equal is unfolding before our eyes and needs to be understood.

Bitcoin is money, and that’s the largest and most important use case, impacting the most people in the world. In the end, I believe that Ordinals will remain niche. While Ordinals may be viewed as exciting, they are unlikely to become the go-to choice for many people who use Bitcoin’s block space.

Ultimately, the markets decide. One of the biggest yet baseless claims is that Bitcoin doesn’t evolve or change. While there may be some truth to this, any changes to the protocol should be slow and methodological. Ultimately, the markets will decide whether Ordinal inscriptions are a viable solution for the challenges associated with Ethereum NFTs.

One key factor to remember about Bitcoin, and any other digital asset, is that its success depends on market demand. If the market values the features offered by Ordinal inscriptions, then they are likely to be adopted and integrated into the Bitcoin network. However, if the market does not value them, then they will remain a niche offering.

While Ordinal inscriptions may pose some potential risks to the Bitcoin network, the crypto community is actively working to address these issues. As long as you take appropriate precautions to protect your Bitcoin holdings, there’s no need to be overly concerned about this discussion in the short term. In fact, these discussions help to strengthen and test the resilience of the Bitcoin network. I see lots of positivity in this.

 

Source: https://intpolicydigest.org/what-do-ordinal-inscriptions-mean-for-the-future-of-bitcoin/

India's Finance Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, has stated that the Indian government is in "detailed discussions" with other G20 members to develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) for regulating cryptocurrencies. Given the current unregulated environment for cryptocurrencies in India and globally, India is seeking a collaborative effort, on the sidelines of the G20 Summit, to develop a comprehensive framework. Sitharaman emphasized the need for a globally coordinated approach to regulating cryptocurrencies in a recent meeting with the International Monetary Fund Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva.

The G20, comprising 19 countries and the European Union, representing around 85% of the global GDP, over 75% of global trade, and about two-thirds of the world population, is working with India to develop a "coherent, comprehensive approach" to regulate cryptocurrency mining and transactions.

In India, the cryptocurrency trade currently attracts a 30% tax and a 1% tax deducted at source (TDS). Although the government has not yet prepared a regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies, it introduced new crypto tax penalties, including jail time for nonpayment of crypto TDS. Meanwhile, India's central bank, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), has continued to recommend a complete ban on crypto assets, including bitcoin and ether. RBI Governor Shaktikanta Das has warned that cryptocurrencies pose a risk to the country's financial system and will cause the next financial crisis if they are not banned. The Indian crypto industry has challenged the government's stance on cryptocurrencies, advocating for regulatory clarity and a favorable operating environment.

Sitharaman's call for a coordinated approach to regulating cryptocurrencies is a significant development that highlights the need for international collaboration to develop comprehensive regulatory frameworks for digital assets. The outcome of the discussions within the G20 will be closely watched by industry stakeholders and governments around the world as they could provide a model for regulating cryptocurrencies in other countries.

My humble opinion is that I have no objections to forming regulatory frameworks to protect users, but having uniform regulations throughout G20 countries may not work. The global cryptocurrency market is highly fragmented, with different countries and regions having different regulatory frameworks and approaches to cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies are also highly diverse and complex, and any attempt to impose uniform regulations may not take into account the nuances and specificities of different types of cryptocurrencies. Moreover, there may be differences in the priorities and interests of different countries and regions when it comes to regulating cryptocurrencies. Finally, even if uniform regulations are agreed upon, enforcing them may be a challenge, given the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies and their anonymous transactions.

In traditional finance, achieving global harmonization has been a long-standing goal of regulators and industry participants. However, despite years of effort, there are still significant differences in the regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions, and achieving uniformity is a complex and ongoing process. Therefore, it's possible that the cryptocurrency industry may also face similar difficulties in achieving global harmonization. Nonetheless, striving for uniform regulations is essential to promote transparency, consistency, and stability, which can help build trust and confidence in the industry, promote innovation, and protect consumers.

Ideal decentralization refers to a system or network in which no single entity has control or the ability to make decisions for the entire system. Instead, power and decision-making are distributed among multiple participants, making it more difficult for any one person or group to manipulate or control the system. This ideal state could be Web4. 

Web4 is not a widely used term and it's not a consensus definition, so it may refer to different things depending on the context. However, some people use the term "Web4" to refer to the next generation of the World Wide Web, which would be even more decentralized and more focused on artificial intelligence, semantic web, and the internet of things, among other things. It would be characterized by more dynamic, autonomous, and interconnected systems that can learn from data, communicate with each other and adapt to changing environments. This would allow for more dynamic and adaptable systems that can learn from data and improve over time.

It's important to note that Web4 is not an official term and it's not a widely accepted concept in the industry, so the extent to which it would be more decentralized than the current web (Web3) or previous versions of the web would depend on how it is defined.

New decentralization

The idea behind Web4 is to create a more decentralized and autonomous web that allows for more direct interactions between users and devices without the need for intermediaries. This could include the use of decentralized technologies, such as blockchain, peer-to-peer networks, and distributed systems, to enable new forms of online interactions and services that are not controlled by centralized entities. Additionally, Web4 could also have a greater focus on AI and machine learning, which would allow for more dynamic and adaptable systems that can learn from data and improve over time.

Some of the advantages of a more decentralized web include:

Greater security and privacy, as users have more control over their data and online interactions

More open and transparent systems, as there is no central point of control or failure

Greater resilience and robustness, as the network can continue to function even if parts of it fail

More innovation and competition, as there are fewer barriers to entry for new players

Web4 is seen as the next evolution of the World Wide Web, building upon the decentralized technologies of Web3. In Web4, the user experience is streamlined and frictionless, with the underlying technical details abstracted away. This means that users won't need to worry about the specific blockchain being used, the intricacies of ZK-Rollups, or setting the right gas limit for transactions. The gas wars and transaction fees of the current web3 will be a thing of the past.

Moreover, Web4 has the potential to create a circular crypto-economy that transcends physical and digital boundaries, making the need for fiat on and off ramps obsolete. This would be a significant disruption in the current financial system.

There are other interpretations of what Web4 could be, such as the "symbiotic web," which refers to a symbiotic relationship between humans and machines, possibly even utilizing direct brain-machine interfaces.

Overall, the transition from Web1 to Web2, and now from Web3 to Web4, is similar in that it is a gradual process that opens new doors and invites more people to participate. While Web3 is still in its early stages and considered experimental, Web4 is expected to be more accessible and user-friendly, making it more widely adopted by the general public.

Where are the opportunities?

Web 4.0 offers a wealth of possibilities for companies and individuals. The symbiotic web will enable the creation of more personalized experiences, allowing businesses to better understand their customers and provide tailored content.

AI-powered automation will improve efficiency, speed up time to market and lower costs, giving businesses a competitive edge and better customer service.

The combination of hardware, software and data will enable the development of new products and services, such as connected devices that interact with users and gather data for personalization.

Web 4.0 also opens up new revenue streams, like targeted advertising or subscription services, using data collected.

Additionally, VR and AR applications will allow for new ways for businesses to engage with customers, for example, creating an AR application that allows customers to interact with products in a 3D space.

In summary, what do we see in Web4?

1) Industry 4.0 full automation

2) Decentralized sustainable metaverse + AR + VR

3) AI making steps into the decentralized realm

4) Real decentralized app and economies

5) Real power back to the users

Web5 and Jack

In 2022, Jack Dorsey, the former CEO of Twitter, emerged as a leading figure in the development of Web5. He shared his vision for the next generation of the internet at the Consensus crypto and blockchain conference. Dorsey's team at TBD, the Bitcoin-focused division of his fintech company Block (formerly known as Square), supports him in this endeavour.

According to Dorsey, Web5 is a solution to the issues he has with Web3, particularly his belief that it will never fully achieve decentralization.

“You don’t own ‘Web3.’ The [venture capitalists] and their [limited partners] do,” Dorsey said in a tweet, referring to the billions being poured into Web3. “It will never escape their incentives. It’s ultimately a centralized entity with a different label.”

“Know what you’re getting into,” he warned.

Ending note:

Yes, it's important to note that true decentralization is a core principle of a decentralized economy. This means that there is no central authority or intermediary controlling or managing the network or its transactions. Instead, power and control is distributed among the network's participants, and decisions are made through consensus mechanisms such as voting or proof of work. Decentralization ensures that the network is resistant to censorship, fraud, and other malicious activities and that the network's users have full control over their own assets.

Perhaps, Web4 is a chance for us to redefine decentralization, reform and improve decentralization, and revalue the true meaning behind decentralisation.

Tag: #web3 #web2 #defi #gamefi #decentralise #value #blockchain