《世界經濟論壇：2024數字資產監管：九個司法管轄區的監管框架及其政策制定與實施方法洞察報告（英文版）（41頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《世界經濟論壇：2024數字資產監管：九個司法管轄區的監管框架及其政策制定與實施方法洞察報告（英文版）（41頁）.pdf（41頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional ApproachesI N S I G H T R E P O R TO C T O B E R 2 0 2 4Images:Getty ImagesDisclaimer This document is published by the World Economic Forum as a contribution to a project,insight area or interaction.The findings,interpretations and conclusions

2、expressed herein are a result of a collaborative process facilitated and endorsed by the World Economic Forum but whose results do not necessarily represent the views of the World Economic Forum,nor the entirety of its Members,Partners or other stakeholders.2024 World Economic Forum.All rights reser

3、ved.No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,including photocopying and recording,or by any information storage and retrieval system.ContentsPreface 3Executive summary 4Introduction 51 Regulatory approaches,outcomes and unintended consequences 71.1 Eur

4、opean Union 91.2 Gibraltar 111.3 Hong Kong SAR,China 121.4 Japan 141.5 Singapore 161.6 Switzerland 181.7 United Arab Emirates 201.8 United Kingdom 221.9 United States of America 232 Recommendations 262.1 Anti-money laundering(AML)and know your customer 27(KYC)recommendations 2.2 Regulatory and techn

5、ical sandbox recommendations 282.3 Decentralized finance(DeFi)recommendations 292.4 Privacy and security policy recommendations 30Conclusion 31Contributors 32Endnotes 35Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches2As the adoption of digital assets continues,2024 marks a pivotal

6、moment for the global landscape of digital asset regulation.As of early September 2024,the total market capitalization of cryptocurrencies,one type of digital asset,was valued at$2.01 trillion and stablecoins comprised 8.5%of this market,amounting to$171 billion.1 When it comes to the status of regu

7、lation globally,according to a recent Bank for International Settlements(BIS)survey,two-thirds of the 86 jurisdictions surveyed were or will soon be regulating digital assets.2 The main goals of implementing regulation are to protect investors and consumers and maintain financial stability.As regula

8、tory developments continue,countries such as Australia,the United Kingdom,Brazil and South Korea have this year committed to unveiling new regulatory frameworks.In addition,the full rollout of the European Unions Markets in Crypto-Assets(MiCA)regulation is poised to set a precedent for comprehensive

9、 digital asset oversight.Although there has been recent progress in digital asset regulation,countries are taking divergent approaches and have established different timelines for creation and implementation.Each jurisdiction is developing regulations based on unique goals and objectives,which risks

10、 a lack of coordination globally.With these varying approaches,it is imperative that stakeholders collaborate to forge a secure and equitable regulatory environment.This necessitates the sharing of learnings from global regulatory experiments,identifying both successful policies and shortcomings.The

11、 analysis contained in this report aims to highlight these critical regulatory insights,enabling policy-makers and regulators to craft effective and harmonized frameworks that promote innovation while safeguarding stakeholders.As the global economy navigates the complexities of digital assets,the re

12、port endeavours to contribute a clear and impartial perspective on the evolving regulatory landscape.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional ApproachesOctober 2024PrefaceDigital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches3Executive summaryThere is a need for clear guidel

13、ines in the fast-evolving digital assets industry.This report provides a close analysis of the regulatory frameworks in nine jurisdictions and their unique approaches to policy creation and implementation.The work builds on previous research undertaken by the World Economic Forum on digital asset re

14、gulation,which established a foundation to further explore the jurisdiction-specific approaches detailed in this new report.By examining nine jurisdictions,the report draws key lessons from each approach and reveals the unintended consequences that may result from different regulatory frameworks.The

15、 nine jurisdictions are leading economies for digital asset activity and regulation implementation the European Union;Gibraltar;Hong Kong SAR,China(Hong Kong);Japan;Singapore;Switzerland;the United Arab Emirates;the United Kingdom;and the United States.The analysis enables leaders to take a jurisdic

16、tional view of both the potential advantages and the disadvantages of implementing certain policies.This investigation of each jurisdiction not only enhances the understanding of the direct effects of regulatory methodologies but also provides context for predicting upcoming trends and preparing for

17、 potential challenges in the evolving digital assets landscape.Through such analysis,policy-makers and regulators can anticipate the impacts of their decisions,better enabling them to build and implement regulations that are in line with their intended goals.Across these nine jurisdictions,the repor

18、t examines four key industry topics:anti-money laundering(AML)and know your customer(KYC);regulatory and technical sandboxes;decentralized finance(DeFi);and privacy and security.These subjects surfaced as the most pressing during the assessment,standing out as the industrys most prominent issues at

19、this time.Drawing on this jurisdictional and topic-specific analysis,the report offers a set of recommendations for both public-and private-sector stakeholders,categorized by issue as summarized below.AML and KYC:Building on existing AML/KYC foundations,focusing on the adoption of technology-enhance

20、d solutions,global cooperation,and training and compliance programmes,to help create a more secure digital assets landscape in the future.Regulatory and technical sandboxes:Implementing clear sandbox objectives and support mechanisms and enabling the collaborative participation of diverse and broad

21、networks in sandbox environments.DeFi:Prioritizing the need for risk mitigation and transparency as well as tailored licensing models and clear definitions to refine these regulations in a controlled setting without compromising the unique nature of DeFi and its technological advancements.Privacy an

22、d security:Underscoring the need for strong data protection policies that prioritize the consumer and include regular security audits and compliance checks to safeguard personal and financial information.This report analyses digital asset regulation in several jurisdictions to identify unique approa

23、ches and provide insights to policy-makers and private-sector participants.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches4IntroductionDigital assets continue to have a strong presence in the global economy,as evidenced by a significant market capitalization.3 However,the legal sta

24、tus of cryptocurrencies varies significantly by country.According to an analysis by the Atlantic Council,cryptocurrencies are legal in 33 countries,partially banned in 17 and generally prohibited in 10.4 In an assessment of the status of digital asset regulation globally,the Bank for International S

25、ettlements(BIS)noted that more than 60%of responding jurisdictions possess or are creating a regulatory framework for digital assets(Figure1).5 Most are bringing forward bespoke regulation(48%)because their existing regulatory frameworks do not cover digital assets.Jurisdictions that have establishe

26、d or are developing a tailored regulatory framework for stablecoins include the United Kingdom,Hong Kong and Singapore,while the European Union is developing a framework for digital assets more generally.In just 9%of jurisdictions,digital assets are subject to existing financial regulation.To date,a

27、round 33%of jurisdictions lack a regulatory framework and are not currently working on one.The global regulatory landscape for digital assets is evolving,with differences in regulatory approaches between jurisdictions.Regulatory framework for stablecoins and other cryptoassetsAs a percentage of resp

28、ondents,2023Presence in the jurisdictionsRegulatory objectives0%10%20%30%40%YesCurrently under developmentNoUncertainNo answer0%20%40%60%80%Investor/consumer protectionProtecting financial stabilityCountering illicit financeFair,efficient and transparent markets,innovation and/or competitionSafety a

29、nd soundness of regulated institutions/infrastructuresBespoke regulationGeneral financial regulationBespoke regulationGeneral financial regulationNoUncertainNo answerCentral bank responses to digital asset regulation surveyFIGURE 1Source:Bank for International Settlements.(2024).Annual economic repo

30、rt No.147:Embracing diversity,advancing together results of the 2023 BIS survey on central bank currencies and crypto.www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap147.pdfDigital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches5Globally,digital asset policies and regulations differ to align with the needs o

31、f each jurisdiction,based on variations in goals and risk appetites.In addition,not all digital assets are created equal,and their classification profoundly influences their use,valuation and regulatory treatment.This report promotes a nuanced approach to regulation rather than a“one-size-fits-all”m

32、ethod,a sentiment echoed in the diverse regulatory regimes explored in the report.As the world grapples with the opportunities and challenges presented in the digital assets sector,the World Economic Forums Centre for Financial and Monetary Systems seeks to provide an impartial understanding of the

33、regulatory landscape through the Digital Assets Regulatory(DAR)initiative.The Forum has conducted previous related work on this topic including the Digital Currency Governance Consortium white paper series and most recently the Pathways to Crypto-Asset Regulation paper.This earlier work laid the fou

34、ndation for further exploration ofjurisdiction-specific considerations for shaping new policies and regulations.The DAR initiative engaged more than 80 senior leaders from the public and private sectors and academia to examine the current state of digital asset regulation around the globe,and to ana

35、lyse outcomes from regulatory implementations to date in several advanced jurisdictions.This report synthesizes the findings from these explorations.MethodologyInsights have been gathered from our steering committee and expert working group through:Desk research Workshops InterviewsAudienceThe repor

36、t audience includes global policy-makers and regulators,along with executives of private-sector companies,who all have responsibilities connected to digital assets.TaxonomyGiven the diverse actors and roles that comprise the digital assets ecosystem,a general taxonomy is essential for consistent reg

37、ulation and can assist with clarity and organization,as well as consistent benchmarking across various jurisdictions.The lack of a common taxonomy has been mentioned in the digital asset space and was referenced in the Pathways to Crypto-Asset Regulation report as an important risk.However,there are

38、 still many perspectives and a lack of consensus persists on definitions among ecosystem participants.Bearing in mind these complexities,the term“digital asset”will be used throughout this report as an all-encompassing category.Within each jurisdictional context,the terminology is used in line with

39、each respective jurisdictions usage.This report promotes a nuanced approach to regulation rather than a one-size-fits-all method,a sentiment echoed in the diverse regulatory regimes explored in the report.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches6Regulatory approaches,outcome

40、s and unintended consequences1This section examines nine jurisdictions digital asset regulatory approaches,highlighting important industry issues,initial policy outcomes and unintended consequences.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches7To examine lessons learned in the di

41、gital assets regulatory landscape,a comprehensive view of current approaches is needed.The jurisdictions chosen for examination have regulations at an advanced stage of development,allowing for the impacts of their implementation to be observed.These are:the European Union,Gibraltar,Hong Kong,Japan,

42、Singapore,Switzerland,the United Arab Emirates,the United Kingdom and the United States of America(Figure 2).For each jurisdiction,there are four subsections:“general approach”,“approach by topic”,“outcomes”and“unintended consequences”,each designed to explore different elements of the regulatory la

43、ndscape.“General approach”describes the overarching regulatory methodology of a given region.Within“approach by topic”,the report analyses four of the industrys most pressing issues:anti-money laundering(AML)and know your customer(KYC);regulatory and technical sandboxes;decentralized finance(DeFi);a

44、nd privacy and security.While evaluating the selected jurisdictions,these topics emerged as the most prominent,with each region adopting a unique regulatory approach to address them.The additional rationale for their inclusion is discussed below:AML and KYC:Effective AML and KYC measures are mission

45、-critical to the integrity of the digital assets ecosystem as they help promote a transparent and safe environment.Regulatory and technical sandboxes:Sandboxes play a pivotal role by allowing companies to test products under oversight,promoting responsible innovation while ensuring compliance with e

46、xisting and upcoming standards.DeFi:DeFis goal of altering the existing paradigm of centralization has significant implications for how users interact with technology applications and introduces novel regulatory challenges in the future.Privacy and security:Robust measures protect consumers assets a

47、nd data from threats and build a secure digital assets landscape and increase consumer trust.In the“outcomes”and“unintended consequences”segments,the report analyses the results of digital assets policies that have been evident to date,as well as any unexpected results stemming from the regulatory f

48、rameworks in place.Nine jurisdictions assessedFIGURE 2United KingdomEuropean UnionUnited Arab EmiratesJapanSingaporeUnited States of AmericaSwitzerlandGibraltarHong Kong SAR,China The jurisdictions chosen for examination have regulations at an advanced stage of development,allowing for the impacts o

49、f their implementation tobe observed.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches81.1 European Union General approach The European Union is one of the largest markets with advanced digital asset regulation.In 2023,the EU finalized the comprehensive Markets in Crypto-Assets(MiCA)

50、regulation,an important piece of the EUs digital finance strategy,providing legal clarity on privacy,security and transparency for digital assets,which does not include non-fungible tokens(NFTs)and decentralized digital assets.6 MiCA requires all issuers to create a white paper for assets,subject to

51、 approval and licensing,with non-compliance leading to fines.7 The regulation,effective from 30 June 2024 for stablecoins and fully effective by the end of 2024,aims to harmonize regulations among member states,replacing existing domestic laws,while the implementation is delegated to respective juri

52、sdictional authorities for enforcement.8 MiCA focuses on investor protection and market integrity,primarily addressing crypto-asset service providers(CASPs)and certain types of tokens.It also includes rules for stablecoins,mandating governance and reserve management,and compliance with relevant exis

53、ting legislation.9It is important to distinguish between crypto-assets that fall under MiCA and financial instruments in digital form that fall under the existing securities regulations(e.g.Markets in Financial Instruments Directive MiFID).The EUs Digital Operational Resilience Act(DORA)and the DLT

54、Pilot Regime provide the legal framework for trading and settlement of other digital assets under MiFID II(effective since 2018),facilitating cross-border expansion and mitigating regulatory arbitrage.10 With these advances,the EU will be the worlds largest market with legal and regulatory clarity f

55、or digital assets.Approach by topic Anti-money laundering(AML)and know your customer(KYC)In 2021,the EU presented several proposals for strengthening AML protections,including establishing a new entity called the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Authority(AMLA).11 Many

56、 of these proposals are currently in development and,subject to discussions,working towards agreements.12,13As a member of the Financial Action Task Force(FATF),the EU aligns with Travel Rule regulations.14 The revised Transfer of Funds Regulation(TFR)mandates capturing all transaction information,r

57、egardless of size,with a threshold of 1,000 for self-hosted wallets.MiCA requires CASPs to comply with KYC and AML rules,performing enhanced due diligence for customers from high-risk countries.It is important to clarify here that these AML protections are not crypto-specific,and that the TFR applie

58、s exclusively to service providers,and therefore explicitly excludes obligations for providers of hardware and software or providers of self-custody wallets that do not have control over the crypto-assets.As such,AML and KYC remain key elements of the upcoming regulations.Regulatory and technical sa

59、ndboxesMiCA is generally supportive of regulatory and technical sandboxes.In 2023,the EU launched the European Blockchain Regulatory Sandbox,which will run for three years,with cohorts of 20 The European Union is one of the largest markets with advanced digital asset regulation.Digital Assets Regula

60、tion:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches9blockchain use cases.15 When it comes to digital securities,the launch of the DLT Pilot Regime is dedicated to allowing companies to experiment with distributed ledger technology(DLT).16 Portugal,an EU member country,also has a unique Technological Free Z

61、one regulatory sandbox for encouraging the development and experimentation of new technology applications.17,18 Decentralized finance(DeFi)MiCA explicitly carves out DeFi from the upcoming regulation,as per recital 22:“Where crypto-asset services are provided in a fully decentralised manner without

62、any intermediary,they should not fall within the scope of this Regulation.”19 However,the regulation calls for several studies of components of the DeFi ecosystem,decentralized protocols and applications.The European Securities and Markets Authority(ESMA)recently published a report,Decentralised Fin

63、ance in the EU:Developments and Risks,to inform the future of MiCA.20 Additionally,the European Commission is expected to prepare a report by December 2024 that examines the DeFi market.Privacy and securityMiCA will require identity verification of asset holders,and mandates that trading platforms m

64、ust not allow users to trade assets with full anonymization.Additionally,the Travel Rules identity requirements,to which the EU subscribes,will include supervision of financial transactions.21 The EU has also enacted the General Data Protection Regulation(GDPR),which is seen as one of the most compr

65、ehensive privacy and security laws in the world.Authorities are evaluating how GDPR and MiCA will work together.22 OutcomesThe intention of the MiCA regulation is for regulation to be harmonized across Europe,as the law is binding and directly applicable in all EU member states.Proponents argue that

66、 it avoids regulatory fragmentation,safeguards consumer protections and facilitates cross-border expansion for CASPs,which will mitigate regulatory arbitrage.The European Blockchain Regulatory Sandbox has led to mixed opinions.Some stakeholders have given positive feedback about the ability to run i

67、nnovative experiments,establish best practices alongside regulators and collaborate with authorities effectively.However,the sandbox has also been criticized by industry participants for its narrow scope of permitted use cases,which has resulted in a relatively limited pool of applicants.European au

68、thorities have been able to instil increasing confidence on the topic of KYC and AML with the takedown of cryptocurrency mixers such as ChipMixer and Bitzlato,which enabled money laundering.23,24Other outcomes include the growth of inward investment into the EU by international digital asset firms,w

69、hich are early signs of increased market development.Unintended consequences Some aspects of digital assets have been excluded from regulation,while others are being seen as overly prescriptive.MiCA has been criticized for excluding technology applications such as central bank digital currencies(CBD

70、Cs),utility tokens,DeFi and NFTs,leading to potential unintended consequences.Other aspects of MiCA can be seen as being too strict,such as stablecoin reserve requirements.Also,the mandated transparency conflicts with digital asset anonymity,raising privacy concerns.Industry players are urging the E

71、U to consider alternative compliance methods that better protect privacy.Lastly,the Data Acts provisions for interrupting or terminating smart contracts have faced backlash from blockchain advocacy groups,who view these controls as overreaching.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional

72、Approaches101.2 Gibraltar General approachGibraltar has established itself as a prominent centre for blockchain and digital assets.In January 2018,the territory pioneered legislation for DLT,the first jurisdiction to do so worldwide,emphasizing regulation,reputation and quick market implementation.I

73、t is widely recognized for its efforts in advancing blockchain technology and ensuring sustainability and security within the industry.To operate in Gibraltar,cryptocurrency companies must obtain a licence from the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission(GFSC)under the Financial Services Act of 2019

74、.The GFSC reviews applications and may grant a licence if certain criteria are met.Gibraltar has clear regulatory frameworks such as the Financial Services Regulations of 2020,which regulate firms such as cryptocurrency exchanges and wallet providers.Taxation under the Gibraltar Companies Act of 201

75、4 exempts dividends,capital gains and income generated from digital asset transactions if they occur outside Gibraltar.25 This tax framework is attractive for companies and investors focused on blockchain-related activities,significantly reducing the tax burden on cross-border digital asset transact

76、ions.Approach by topic Anti-money laundering(AML)and know your customer(KYC)The GFSC sets KYC and AML principles,requiring firms to maintain records,monitor systems and report suspicious activities while allowing adaptation to evolving challenges.This regulatory framework aims to balance effective o

77、versight with the need for innovation and growth in the financial sector.26 Regulatory and technical sandboxesGibraltars regulatory sandboxes allow companies to test new products in a controlled environment,ensuring compliance and reducing risks before market launch.The GFSC oversees these initiativ

78、es,ensuring that the products are tested within strict regulatory parameters to safeguard consumer interests and maintain market stability.27 Decentralized finance(DeFi)Gibraltars proactive DeFi regulation by the GFSC ensures flexibility,transparency,security and consumer protection while avoiding o

79、verly prescriptive rules.28 The GFSCs regulatory sandbox plays a significant role in this approach,allowing DeFi projects to test their products and services in a controlled environment.Furthermore,the GFSC collaborates closely with industry stakeholders to stay updated on technological advances and

80、 emerging trends in DeFi,ensuring that regulations remain relevant and effective.Privacy and securityThe GFSC mandates stringent data protection and cybersecurity measures for blockchain businesses,ensuring compliance with international standards such as GDPR.Additionally,the Proceeds of Crime Act p

81、rovides thorough guidelines on security and privacy,facilitating a stable commercial setting for businesses.29 Moreover,it provides clear guidelines on risk management and the safeguarding of customer assets to prevent data breaches and unauthorized access.This proactive regulatory stance helps buil

82、d trust and creates a secure environment for digital asset transactions in Gibraltar.30OutcomesThere has been an influx of companies to Gibraltars digital assets ecosystem on account of its favourable regulatory environment.The presence of digital asset firms in the country is expanding,with more en

83、tities establishing operations there.Additionally,Gibraltars regulatory framework has attracted international businesses,bolstering economic growth and positioning the territory as a competitive hub for digital assets.Moving forward,the country aims to continue enhancing its regulatory landscape to

84、sustain growth and attract more blockchain innovators.Unintended consequencesGibraltars straightforward regulatory compliance processes have the potential to attract firms seeking regulatory arbitrage opportunities.Specifically,the ease of acquiring DLT provider licences and lower operational costs

85、in Gibraltar have significantly reduced the barriers to entry.This could attract less desirable market players and intensify regulatory arbitrage practices,as companies look to benefit from Gibraltars more accommodating regulatory environment.There has been a lack of harmonization of Gibraltars regu

86、latory practices with other economies in the region.The possibility of regulatory arbitrage exists in these gaps between jurisdictions and there needs to be a greater focus on cross-border cooperation on these regulatory requirements.Gibraltars tax framework is attractive for companies and investors

87、 focused on blockchain-related activities,significantly reducing the tax burden on cross-border digital asset transactions.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches111.3 Hong Kong SAR,China General approach In Hong Kong,the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau(FSTB)of t

88、he Hong Kong government issued the Policy Statement on Development of Virtual Assets31 in October 2022,setting out the vision and policy direction for the regulation of virtual/digital asset activities under the“same activity,same risks,same regulation”principle.In June 2023,the Hong Kong government

89、 further established the high-level Task Force on Promoting Web3 Development.Premised on a balance between appropriate regulation and promoting development,the task force will provide recommendations on the sustainable and responsible development of virtual/digital assets and Web3 in Hong Kong.The F

90、STB and financial regulators,including the Hong Kong Monetary Authority(HKMA)and Securities and Futures Commission(SFC),aim toestablish a facilitating environment that puts in place timely and necessary guardrails to mitigate actual and potential risks in accordance with international standards.Appr

91、oach by topic Anti-money laundering(AML)and know your customer(KYC)Under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance(AMLO)and the Securities and Futures Ordinance(SFO),the SFC plays a pivotal role in setting clear mandates and guidelines for KYC and AML/CFT regulations applic

92、able to virtual/digital asset-related activities.32 For instance,all SFC-licensed corporations and SFC-licensed VA trading platforms33 are required to adhere to AML/CFT regulations specifically tailored to virtual/digital assets,ensuring stringent compliance measures are in place.In addition to KYC

93、obligations that address AML/CFT risks,an SFC-licensed corporation dealing in virtual/digital assets or an SFC-licensed VA trading platform is required to,among other things,conduct a virtual/digital asset knowledge assessment for each retail client.The SFC provides comprehensive guidelines on other

94、 important areas relevant to the operations of SFC-licensed VA trading platforms,such as safe custody of assets,avoidance of conflicts of interest,admission of high liquidity and large-cap virtual/digital assets for retail trading and prevention of market-manipulative and abusive activities,as well

95、as accounting and auditing,risk management and cybersecurity requirements.These aim to facilitate compliance and ensure transparency within the virtual/digital asset market,and serve as a roadmap for market participants,helping them navigate regulatory requirements and maintain compliance standards.

96、34 For stablecoin issuers,a proposed regulatory regime will set out AML/CFT requirements and require issuers to have in place adequate systems of control for preventing or combatting possible money laundering and terrorist financing,including customer due diligence measures,transaction monitoring an

97、d Travel Rule requirements in compliance with the standards set by the FATF.Addressing these challenges will be key to Gibraltar sustaining its reputation as a trustworthy and innovative hub for digital assets.In the future,Gibraltar will wish to strike a balance between its appealing regulatory fra

98、mework and strong enforcement measures to curb potential abuses.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches12 Regulatory and technical sandboxesThe SFC has offered a regulatory sandbox since 2017.The sandbox seeks to provide a confined regulatory environment for qualified firms

99、 to operate regulated activities before fintech is used on a fuller scale.VA trading platforms are expected to enter the sandbox upon being licensed.35 For the HKMA,among its full suite of sandboxes administered since 2016,a sandbox for stablecoin issuers was launched in March 2024 that enables the

100、HKMA to communicate supervisory expectations and guidance to institutions that plan to issue stablecoins in Hong Kong.It also provides a means for the HKMA to obtain feedback from sandbox participants on proposed regulatory requirements.36Intermediaries may approach the SFC and the HKMA to discuss t

101、heir plans on virtual/digital asset-related activities and seek clarification of regulatory requirements.Decentralized finance(DeFi)Hong Kongs regulators critically assess DeFi services or activities to understand the arrangements and examine the actual substance of the DeFi arrangements.Specificall

102、y,DeFi activities are scrutinized through the existing regulatory framework and requirements under the AMLO and the SFO that apply to regulated financial activities.This balances innovation with regulatory integrity,addressing financial stability and protecting investors.In the banking sector,there

103、is growing interest in exploring the DLT that underlies the VA ecosystem with a view to incorporating it into traditional financial market operations.In light of this,the HKMA provided relevant guidelines in 2024 on the most important risk-management considerations when banks use DLT-based solutions

104、.37 Privacy and securityHong Kongs regulatory approach to virtual/digital assets emphasizes robust privacy and security measures.Overall,personal data privacy is well safeguarded by the Personal Data(Privacy)Ordinance,which gives statutory effect to internationally recognized data protection princip

105、les and establishes the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data as an independent statutory authority to monitor data privacy protection in Hong Kong and take enforcement actions where necessary.For virtual/digital assets,the HKSAR government prioritizes consumer data protection in line

106、 with FATF standards to ensure the responsible growth of Hong Kongs landscape.The HKSAR government also encourages continuous improvement and adaptation of cybersecurity technologies,ensuring that the virtual/digital assets sector remains resilient to evolving threats.The guidelines on AML/CTF promu

107、lgated by the SFC require financial institutions to assess the adequacy and robustness of data privacy and security controls of the VA transfer counterparty in the VA transaction as part of the due diligence process.In addition,to ensure that clients virtual/digital assets are adequately safeguarded

108、,intermediaries in Hong Kong are required,among other things,to partner only with SFC-licensed VA trading platforms in providing VA dealing services.The SFC and the HKMA have also imposed standards on digital assetcustody on licensed VA trading platforms38 andbanks39 in line with international pract

109、ices.Under the proposed regulatory regime for stablecoin issuers,licensees will be required to maintain reserve assets that fully back the stablecoins in circulation,as well as provide a legal right for holders to redeem the stablecoins at par at all times,thus ensuring user protection.In addition,i

110、ssuers will be required to have in place robust cybersecurity measures to address both existing cyber risks and emerging risks that are unique tothe blockchain and VA ecosystem.OutcomesHong Kong is renowned for having developed a dynamic and adaptable environment for virtual/digital assets.This is a

111、ttributed to the comprehensive and clear regulatory system in Hong Kong.The licensing regime for VA service providers in 2023 is one of the first to not only comply with international AML/CTF requirements as stipulated by the FATF but also provide full regulatory requirements on investor protection,

112、which has been recognized by the International Monetary Fund.On investor education,through the publicity campaigns and educational programmes created by the SFC,the Investor and Financial Education Council(IFEC)and the HKMA,Hong Kong is strengthening the knowledge and understanding of virtual/digita

113、l assets among investors and heightening awareness of digital asset-related regulatory obligations among industry professionals.With these efforts,Hong Kong is reinforcing its intention to work with and attract well-meaning industry players.40 Further,with its sandbox for stablecoin issuers and effo

114、rts on various digital asset-related activities,Hong Kong is seeking to develop a collaborative environment among regulators and industry participants,encouraging the creation of products that are both innovative and compliant.This approach enhances the transparency and robustness of the digital ass

115、ets ecosystem,which ultimately furthers Hong Kongs commitment to regulatory clarity and user protections.In the banking sector,there is growing interest in exploring the DLT that underlies the VA ecosystem with a view to incorporating it into traditional financial market operations.Digital Assets Re

116、gulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches13Unintended consequences There have been some unintended consequences of Hong Kongs efforts to regulate virtual/digital assets.While the SFC and the HKMA have implemented regulations for the intermediaries and exchanges concerned,licensed VA trading p

117、latforms are currently not allowed to offer digital asset futures contracts or related derivatives.41 Acknowledging the importance of such products to institutional investors,the SFC has undertaken to conduct a separate review,while these products could currently be offered by other market participa

118、nts with the requisite licences.Although the SFC has indicated that the scale of VA trading platform operations is not expected to be small,given the nature of the business activities,increased operational costs could create barriers for new entrants in the blockchain space.42,43Licensed VA trading

119、platforms are also not allowed to make arrangements to use client assets for generating returns(e.g.proof-of-stake staking activities,a popular method for earning rewards with digital assets,are excluded).This may pose challenges to some industry players and affect the growth of VA trading platforms

120、.In line with international practices,the licensing requirements asstatutorily stipulated are activity-based,not entity-based.There may be room for additional clarity as towhether certain companies(e.g.play-to-earn,NFT and utility token businesses)need tobe licensed.1.4 Japan General approach Japans

121、 Financial Services Agency(FSA)plays a pivotal role in shaping policies and enforcing regulations,while the Japan Virtual Currency Exchange Association(JVCEA)and the Japan Security Token Offering Association(JSTOA)contribute to creating rules and policies tailored to their respective areas of oversi

122、ght.The FSA serves as the primary point of contact for digital asset regulations,ensuring consistency and coherence in regulatory oversight.44 It has spearheaded amendments to the Payment Services Act(PSA),establishing the legal status of tokens based on their functions and uses.45 Moreover,self-reg

123、ulatory organizations play an important role in guiding new industry players through the licensing process and navigating the complex business landscape in Japan.46 Lastly,Japan has the worlds first international stablecoin passportability regime in which regulatory equivalence for regulated foreign

124、-issued stablecoins is supported.Approach by topic Anti-money laundering(AML)and know your customer(KYC)Japan maintains strict KYC and AML regulations for digital asset exchanges and businesses.These regulations require companies to conduct thorough KYC verification of their customers and implement

125、AML measures to prevent illicit financial activities.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches14Registration under the PSA ensures strict KYC/AML adherence and customer asset segregation.Doing this reduces the balance-sheet exposure risks to which customers may be subject whe

126、n storing their assets on a given platform.47 Regulatory and technical sandboxesTo encourage innovation in the sector,Japan offers regulatory and technical sandboxes,with a special focus on stablecoin-specific sandboxes.Through these environments,stablecoin issuers have the opportunity to collaborat

127、e directly with regulatory authorities and gain insights into compliance requirements.By focusing on stablecoins,Japan aims to show its forward-thinking approach to regulatory oversight,acknowledging the unique characteristics and potential impact of stablecoins on the financial landscape.In order t

128、o help maintain healthy collaboration with the private sector,Japans sandbox structure is detailed,transparent and readily available to market players.48 Decentralized finance(DeFi)Japan has recognized the transformative potential of DeFi and remains cautious about its regulatory implications.Japan

129、mandates that DeFi companies obtain licences from the FSA and comply with existing financial regulations,ensuring DeFi platforms adhere to the same standards as traditional financial institutions,mitigating risks.Privacy and securityJapans approach to privacy and security has been informed by early

130、lessons from significant security breaches,such as the Mt.Gox and Coincheck hacks.49 These incidents served as wake-up calls for regulators and industry participants in Japan.To mitigate the risks,Japan requires cryptocurrency exchanges to segregate investors assets from exchange assets,reducing los

131、s risks from breaches or insolvency.This measure and others like it demonstrate the governments commitment to proactively addressing potential issues of privacy and security within the digital assets ecosystem.50 OutcomesThe regulatory approach in Japan has fostered a healthy and predictable relatio

132、nship between the public and private sectors,enabling new companies to navigate the compliance requirements effectively.The FSA has led the charge,ensuring consistency in and coherence of regulatory oversight by amending the PSA based on new developments.51 Registration procedures outlined in the PS

133、A ensure the segregation of customer assets from company holdings,and ultimately provide greater transparency and protection for investors.52 By mandating this separation,Japan enhances consumer protections and instils greater confidence in the security of digital assets exchanges.Further,by reactin

134、g to past incidents,and implementing robust security measures,Japan mitigates risks associated with digital asset custodians and safeguards the interests of its customers in the space.Unintended consequences Even with Japans forward-thinking approach,unintended consequences have emerged.The countrys

135、 token listing process,although aimed at ensuring compliance and investor protection,initially faced challenges,with a lengthy pipeline of listings awaiting approval.However,the FSA and JVCEA have responded by streamlining the approval process,balancing AML and CFT measures with efforts to promote i

136、nnovation among new companies seeking approval.53Despite these efforts,regulated entities operating in Japan report significant compliance costs,leading some companies to exit the Japanese market.54 Companies have expressed concern regarding the record-keeping rules and capital requirements,which th

137、ey perceive as overly burdensome.Balancing regulatory oversight with the need to promote innovation remains a priority for Japanese regulators as they continue to refine their approach to digital assets regulation.To mitigate risks,Japan requires cryptocurrency exchanges to segregate investors asset

138、s from exchange assets,reducing loss risks from breaches or insolvency.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches15General approach In recent years,Singapore has become a digital asset hub in Asia,building on its reputation as a leading fintech centre.55 The Monetary Authority

139、 of Singapore(MAS)is the primary regulator of digital assets.Principle legislation includes the Payment Services Act 2019(PS Act)and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2022.56,57 The MAS has issued a proposed regulatory framework under the PS Act for digital payment token(DPT)service providers,s

140、uch as cryptocurrency exchanges,which implements various operational requirements and customer protection measures.Under this proposal,which was amended in April 2024 and is taking effect in stages,DPT service providers are required to obtain a licence to offer their services in Singapore.Platforms

141、are prohibited from offering retail customers margin trading or any incentives to trade.As a condition of listing a cryptoasset,platforms must disclose potential conflicts of interest,publish the criteria that govern the listing and establish customer dispute procedures.The clear guidance offered by

142、 the MAS,combined with other influencing factors in the jurisdiction such as low tax rates,established financial infrastructure and high cryptocurrency adoption among the population,has led to the region generally being viewed favourably by industry players.58 Globally,the MAS is also viewed as a le

143、ader in cross-border cooperation,frequently partnering with other nations to advance international conversations on digital assets.59Approach by topic Anti-money laundering(AML)and know your customer(KYC)Singapore has been a member of the Financial Action Task Force(FATF)since 1992 and complies with

144、 FATF recommendations on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing.60 MAS implemented the Travel Rule through its 2019 Notice on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism.61 1.5 Singapore Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches

145、16The countrys KYC requirements include the disclosure by both the originator and the beneficiary customer of personally identifiable information(PII)for transactions greater than or equal to SGD 1,500($1,130).Additionally,Singapores national digital identity programme,Singpass,provides digital iden

146、tity for both citizens and businesses.62 The MAS has also consulted on a proposed regulatory approach for stablecoin-related activities,which outlines the AML and CFT requirements for stablecoin issuers in Singapore.63 Regulatory and technical sandboxesThe MAS has a fintech regulatory sandbox that,c

147、ontingent on approval into the sandbox,enables innovative market players to experiment with their new financial products and services,which could include blockchain-related use cases.64 The sandboxs framework sets boundaries and the duration of experiments,providing a structured pathway for new fina

148、ncial technology applications to develop and comply with regulatory standards.Once the sandbox period ends,entities must be compliant with requirements.Decentralized finance(DeFi)While the MAS has begun experimenting with various initiatives and has warned consumers about the risks of DeFi,regulatio

149、n on this topic is still in development given the complexity,nature of transactions and protocol governance considerations.DeFi is regulated under the Securities and Futures Act and the Payment Services Act,but these do not fully address all DeFi activities.Privacy and security The MAS released guid

150、ance to strengthen consumer protections and deter speculative investing,recommending that businesses check customers knowledge and user risk profiles before offering certain incentives.65 It issued guidelines that ban cryptocurrency advertisements in public areas and on websites accessible to member

151、s of the general public.These measures aim to protect consumers by minimizing their exposure to high-risk investment products.66MAS has also ordered investor protection measures such as mandating that certain customers assets be kept in a trust,and not allowing service providers to“facilitate lendin

152、g and staking of DPTs by their retail customers”.67 Outcomes Due to the regulatory clarity provided,Singapore is viewed as an emerging leader in digital assets regulation and has attracted companies looking to expand their presence in the country.This is particularly apparent on topics including tok

153、en issuance procedures,wallet issuer rules and protocols for exchanges.68 Overall,the rules outlined in the PSA and the governments focus on consumer awareness have bolstered investor confidence in the industry as well as a relatively transparent business environment in which companies can operate.6

154、9Specifically,the countrys fintech regulatory sandbox provides a predictable regulatory sandbox environment for market players to test their new products,and its framework around DPTs gives relevant guidance to DeFi market players.An additional example of Singaporean regulatory leadership is the dev

155、elopment,co-creation and promotion of“lighthouse projects”that the MAS showcases at the annual Singapore Fintech Festival.Unintended consequences While Singapore is generally viewed as digital asset-friendly,it does have strict rules in the market.70 Several criticisms by industry players have thus

156、surfaced.For example,there was opposition to the proposed MAS consumer protections measures that ban lending and staking:71 the Blockchain Association Singapore(BAS)argued that these regulations seemed too extreme and advocated reconsideration of the measures,stating that a primary incentive for ind

157、ividuals to hold on to their digital assets is the interest they earn and that there may be an unintended consequence of“pushing people to seek out unregulated offshore firms to lend their tokens to”.72,73 Proponents of the ban argue that although regulating digital payment token service providers m

158、ight result in fewer of these players operating in the country,it would ultimately reduce risks for consumers in the long run.Due to the regulatory clarity provided,Singapore is viewed as an emerging leader in digital assets regulation and has attracted companies looking to expand their presence in

159、the country.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches171.6 Switzerland General approach Due to the fact that Swiss legislation is principle-based and technology-agnostic,most of its existing legal provisions may also be applied to virtual assets.Switzerland does not provide f

160、or comprehensive,stand-alone virtual assets regulation.Therefore,there are only a very few targeted regulatory instruments specifically designed for virtual assets that mainly focus the transfer of such assets from a civil law perspective.Furthermore,Swiss legislators introduced a specific framework

161、 for a DLT trading facility.Other than that,the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority(FINMA)issued guidance on how to handle virtual assets within the given legal framework in practice;for example,with regard to the scope of the Banking Act or the AML Act.Important frameworks include the Fina

162、ncial Services Act(FinSA),the Financial Institutions Act(FinIA),the Anti-Money Laundering Act(AMLA),the Financial Market Infrastructure Act(FMIA)and guidelines for initial coin offerings(ICOs),facilitating investment and industry growth.74,75The clarity and predictability of Switzerlands regulatory

163、framework has attracted investors and digital asset companies seeking a stable jurisdiction for their operations.76 The countrys favourable tax laws have further bolstered its attractiveness,leading prominent companies such as blockchain labs and foundations to establish their headquarters there.Mor

164、e than 1,000 blockchain businesses have chosen Switzerland as their base,reflecting the countrys status as a leading hub for blockchain innovation.77Approach by topic Anti-money laundering(AML)and know your customer(KYC)Switzerland demonstrates a proactive stance on KYC and AML regulations,with FINM

165、A and the Swiss Federal Council leading the way.Their progressive approach is evidenced by specific amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering Ordinance(AMLO)and supplemental guidelines issued by FINMA as to the scope of the AML Act.Switzerlands AML legislation provides clarity and guidance on AML requ

166、irements for entities operating in the digital assets space.These regulations mandate robust KYC procedures to verify the identities of customers and ensure compliance with AML standards.There have been several advances in AML legislation and in May 2024,the Federal Council adopted a dispatch on str

167、engthening the anti-money laundering framework.78 Regulatory and technical sandboxesSwitzerlands approach to promoting innovation in the digital assets sector is highlighted by FINMAs regulatory and technical sandboxes.These offer a controlled environment in which start-ups and established companies

168、 exploring blockchain-based offerings can test products and services while engaging with regulators to ensure compliance,mitigating risks and ensuring consumer protection.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches18 Decentralized finance(DeFi)Switzerland adopts a technology-ne

169、utral stance on decentralized finance(DeFi),prioritizing compliance and regulatory clarity.FINMA oversees DeFi projects under the same regulatory frameworks as other financial institutions,focusing on transparency,security and AML.DeFi platforms must adhere to the FMIA and FinSA for market integrity

170、 and consumer protection.Privacy and securitySwitzerlands regulatory landscape emphasizes privacy and security,enforced through the Swiss Data Protection Act(DPA)and aligned with GDPR.Companies are encouraged to adopt cryptographic techniques and secure protocols to protect data integrity and privac

171、y,ensuring secure transactions.This includes using secure smart contracts and decentralized networks to minimize the risk of data tampering and fraud.OutcomesSwitzerlands proactive approach,guided by bodies such as FINMA and the Swiss Federal Council,underscores the countrys commitment to maintainin

172、g a secure and transparent financial ecosystem.By applying existing legal provisions to virtual assets,consumer and investor confidence have increased,ultimately supporting the market integrity of its digital assets ecosystem.Regarding sandboxes,by providing a structured environment for experimentat

173、ion,FINMA enables companies to explore innovative blockchain solutions within a supportive regulatory environment.Through these regulatory and technical sandboxes,Switzerland is actively promoting collaboration between industry stakeholders and regulators,driving the development of cutting-edge tech

174、nology applications while safeguarding investor interests and financial stability.This approach has positioned Switzerland as a leading hub for digital assets innovation globally,attracting entrepreneurs and businesses seeking a conducive environment for technological advancement.Unintended conseque

175、nces While Switzerlands regulatory approach to digital assets has been lauded for its innovation-friendly environment,it has also faced challenges,such as crypto-related crimes.A new regulatory environment may inadvertently attract bad actors that could facilitate scams and illicit activities,damagi

176、ng the countrys ecosystem.79Like other countries at the forefront of crypto regulation,Switzerland runs the risk of failing to ensure regulatory reciprocity between Swiss-based operators and their EU counterparts.Cooperation and regulatory development with other jurisdictions should be the focus of

177、attention as development continues.Exploring these challenges can support Switzerlands role as a key player in cryptocurrency innovation,developing an environment that is inclusive and accessible to all participants.As a result,regulatory efforts are needed to navigate the complexities associated wi

178、th these activities in the future.Switzerland adopts a technology-neutral stance on decentralized finance(DeFi),prioritizing compliance and regulatory clarity.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches191.7 United Arab Emirates General approachThe UAE promotes a business-frien

179、dly climate for digital assets.80 The central bank does not license cryptocurrencies and they cannot be used as legal tender;however,they can be owned and traded.81,82In Dubai,the Dubai Financial Services Authority(DFSA)serves as a long-standing regulator for the Dubai International Financial Centre

180、(DIFC)and has created a new regulator,the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority(VARA).83 In 2022,UAEs Law No.(4),Regulating Virtual Assets in the Emirate of Dubai,established VARA with the aim of positioning the country as a pioneering force in the digital assets arena.84 The ultimate goal of VARA is

181、to balance growth with security in order to promote responsible and sustainable growth of the digital assets ecosystem.It addresses a number of regulatory concerns,which has provided clarity for new and existing market players and defines virtual assets clearly.85 In March 2024,the DIFC announced th

182、e enactment of its Digital Assets Law.86 Alongside this,its new Law of Security and amendments to existing legislation are designed to provide clarity to investors and help ensure the zone keeps up with technological developments.In Abu Dhabi,it is worth noting that the Abu Dhabi Global Market(ADGM)

183、was among the first regulators in the world to require authorized exchanges to pre-clear any tokens they wished to list with the regulator first prior to making the tokens available to the public.Approach by topic Anti-money laundering(AML)and know your customer(KYC)The main driver of AML compliance

184、 in the UAE remains the central bank,which in conjunction with other relevant regulators has issued common UAE-wide guidance on AML.87 VARA emphasizes the importance of KYC and AML protocols for market players in its jurisdiction.It does this by mandating licences for any company that is an intermed

185、iary between digital assets and fiat,offers borrowing or lending services and facilitates the transfer of virtual assets,among other activities.Further,VARA requires virtual assets service providers(VASPs)to maintain effective AML and CFT protocols relevant to their virtual asset activities.88 For i

186、nternational players,the DFSA provides AML/CFT guidance.Regulatory and technical sandboxesThe UAE has established regulatory and technical sandboxes for market players,which aim to provide clear insights for companies that plan to launch products in the jurisdiction.In conjunction with its sandbox e

187、nvironments,the UAE also promotes active dialogue between public and private sectors in the space.89 Decentralized finance(DeFi)As part of its strategy to become a prominent regional hub,the UAE has fostered a cooperative atmosphere that supports a broad spectrum of Digital Assets Regulation:Insight

188、s from Jurisdictional Approaches20decentralized finance applications with the aim of attracting DeFi companies to not only do business in the country but also be headquartered there.90 Privacy and securityThe UAE has implemented stringent customer and data protection measures for VASPs.VARA requires

189、 secure storage and transmission practices to protect customer data and prevent breaches and unauthorized access.91 VASPs are able to ensure that they are complying with security and privacy measures through the countrys robust sandbox environment ahead of product launches.92Outcomes The UAEs approa

190、ch to digital assets regulation has resulted in positive outcomes for both consumers and businesses,creating a healthy business environment that encourages investment and innovation.93 This has led to a number of industry leaders expanding their operations into the jurisdiction in recent years.94The

191、 sandbox environment in the UAE has helped position the country as a favourable landscape for companies building a variety of products including wallets,decentralized autonomous organizations(DAOs),utility tokens,NFTs and decentralized applications(dApps).95 Unintended consequencesAlthough VARA has

192、established itself as a leading authority in the country,regulatory fragmentation across the UAEs seven emirates has created complexities and compliance challenges for businesses as well as differences in treatment between onshore and offshore players.This fragmentation can lead to inconsistencies i

193、n the application and enforcement of regulations,making it difficult for companies to maintain uniform compliance standards.As a result,businesses could face increased operational costs and legal uncertainties.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches211.8 United Kingdom Gene

194、ral approachThe digital assets regulatory framework under development in the United Kingdom primarily focuses on creating stable market conditions,enhancing investor protections and providing an environment that fosters innovation.The regulation distinguishes between digital securities and unbacked

195、cryptoassets and stablecoins,which is where most of the new regulation is coming into effect.The Financial Conduct Authority(FCA)regulates digital assets under broader financial services legislation.96 Notably,the Financial Services and Markets Act of 2023 provides extensive guidance on financial ma

196、tters,including the treatment of digital asset settlements.The UK is currently considering further regulatory action in order to protect consumers and support innovation in its jurisdiction.97 In October 2023,the UKs Law Commission suggested the establishment of a distinct property category for digi

197、tal assets,proposed a technical oversight group and supported the applicability of existing common law to digital asset issues.98 The government is currently evaluating these recommendations.Most recently,His Majestys Treasury(HMT)issued a consultation response to the future financial services regul

198、atory regime for cryptoassets.This response provides an overview of the governments position on trading venues,custody,staking and other important issues.99For the regulation of fiat-backed stablecoins,the UK strives to provide predictability for market participants by incorporating them into existi

199、ng legislation,as outlined in Discussion Paper 23/4 on Regulating Cryptoassets Phase 1:Stablecoins.100Approach by topic Anti-money laundering(AML)and know your customer(KYC)The financial promotion rules for cryptoassets offer detailed guidelines for businesses wishing to offer financial promotions,w

200、hile managing a customers journey which includes performing relevant KYC and AML checks.101,102 The intended goal of such new licensing requirements is to provide a safe and predictable environment in which companies can operate.Regulatory and technical sandboxesIn order to promote a conducive envir

201、onment for innovation,the UK has established regulatory sandboxes,allowing industry participants to test and develop new products.The UKs permanent Digital Sandbox and Digital Securities Sandbox aim to provide a controlled environment for testing digital asset products.103,104The Digital Securities

202、Sandbox is specifically designed to ensure the responsible development of new technology products,such as DLT.It enables market players to work directly with members of the FCA and the Bank of England to make the necessary adjustments to their products in essential topic areas such customer protecti

203、ons.105 Decentralized finance(DeFi)Aiming to be a leading regulated jurisdiction,HMT is focused on regulating DeFi through its Future Financial Services Regulatory Regime for UK regulation distinguishes between digital securities and unbacked cryptoassets and stablecoins,which is where most of the n

204、ew regulation is coming into effect.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches22Cryptoassets response,which emphasizes its aim of maintaining a balanced approach to challenges in DeFi regulation.106 The government is currently working through a set of consultation requests wit

205、h industry players before bringing forth any prescriptive frameworks.As part of its focus on DeFi,the UK aims to prioritize eliminating regulatory arbitrage as a focus area in the future.Privacy and security Collaboration between the FCA and the UKs Prudential Regulation Authority(PRA)is aimed at bu

206、ilding a transparent set of norms for digital asset custodians,particularly concerning staking and lending,emphasizing risk identification and consumer protection.107 The FCA has laid out strict rules on cryptocurrency advertisements,emphasizing the need for clarity to protect consumers from mislead

207、ing claims.Regulations require crypto-related ads to be fair,not to be misleading and to be accompanied by the appropriate set of risk warnings.108Outcomes The financial promotion rules for cryptoassets help companies to expand their operations in the country due to the regulatory transparency on AM

208、L and KYC measures.They enhance consumer trust and have played a role in attracting large firms to operate in the jurisdiction.As businesses have adapted their procedures to meet these standards,the digital assets market has become more resilient in the UK.The alignment of major companies with these

209、 comprehensive regulatory standards has promoted a safer investment climate,potentially driving further institutional investment and supporting sustainable growth in the digital assets ecosystem within the country.The UKs forward-thinking approach to DeFi has attracted more companies.109 The FCA is

210、exploring a regulatory sandbox specifically for DeFi projects to promote innovation while ensuring compliance.The Treasury aims to deliver similar regulatory outcomes across centralized crypto services and DeFi equivalents to mitigate regulatory arbitrage risks.110Unintended consequencesThe UK faces

211、 challenges in making decisions in the digital assets space because of the multiple agencies that are attempting to create regulations,including HMT,FCA,PRA and the Bank of England.The additional licence requirements resulting from the Financial Services Markets Act were met with varied reactions fr

212、om industry players.This has the potential to deter start-ups and newcomers from entering a market that requires greater capital commitments upfront.Some overly stringent regulations may even cause companies to withdraw.1111.9 United States of America General approachThe United States has a fragment

213、ed approach to digital assets regulation,with a host of different regulatory agencies involved such as the Securities and Exchange Commission(SEC),the Commodities Futures Trading Commission(CFTC),the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation(FDIC)and the Department of the Treasury,among others.Various p

214、ieces of federal legislation have been proposed over the past few years,all of which aim to establish jurisdictional boundaries and provide clarity to regulatory bodies as to how digital assets should be regulated.Recent examples have focused on two main aspects of digital assets:stablecoins and mar

215、ket structure.Related to stablecoins,the Lummis-Gillibrand Payment Stablecoin Act in the US Senate aims to establish a thorough set of regulations for the issuance of stablecoins and the management of the associated reserves and market structure;in addition,the McHenry Payment Stablecoin Act has pas

216、sed the US House of Representatives.On the latter,the House of Representatives passed the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act(FIT 21),which provides a regulatory framework for the operation of digital assets markets.112 The bill is poised to advance to the Senate for further

217、 consideration.Additionally,both the House of Representatives and Senate passed House Joint Resolution 109 in the hope of overturning the SECs Staff Accounting Bulletin(SAB)No.121,which mandates that custodians holding digital assets on behalf of customers recognize a liability on their balance shee

218、ts,potentially raising the level of capital required from banks that decide to custody digital assets.113,114 This marked the first time that both chambers of the US legislature passed digital asset-relevant legislation.President Joe Biden vetoed the resolution,citing potential risks to consumer and

219、 investor protections,keeping SAB-121 in effect.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches23Although some of the federal regulation has not yet been implemented,the US approach has benefitted in some cases from a federated model in which major financial centres such as New Yor

220、k can advance the digital assets environment.Approach by topic Anti-money laundering(AML)and know your customer(KYC)AML and KYC policies in the United States include several key regulations.The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network(FinCEN)within the Department of the Treasury mandates that digital as

221、set exchanges and administrators must register as money service businesses(MSBs)and comply with AML requirements,including implementing thorough KYC procedures to verify customer identities.115 The United States also adheres to the FATF Recommendations,which set international standards on AML and KY

222、C for VASPs,ensuring that VASPs implement adequate KYC procedures and comply with the Travel Rule.116 Regulatory and technical sandboxesSeveral states have regulatory sandbox programmes that can benefit blockchain initiatives,including Arizona,Florida,Hawaii,Nevada,North Carolina,Utah,West Virginia

223、and Wyoming.117 Arizona and Wyoming in particular have made progress.Arizona established a regulatory sandbox in 2018,allowing fintech companies to test innovative products with reduced regulatory burdens.118 Wyoming,known for its crypto-friendly stance,has also developed a progressive sandbox to en

224、courage blockchain innovation.119 On a federal level,the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau(CFPB)introduced a digital sandbox to encourage innovation in financial products and services.The sandbox allowed entities to experiment with compliance solutions under the supervision of the CFPB,ensuring t

225、hat consumer protections were maintained during the testing phase.120 However,to date there has not been widespread use of the CFPBs sandbox.Decentralized finance(DeFi)The United States has approached DeFi regulation in several ways,focusing on transparency,consumer protection and market integrity.F

226、ATF guidance,adopted by the country,recommends that DeFi protocols adhere to AML and KYC standards.Also,the SEC and the CFTC attempted to apply existing securities and commodities laws to DeFi platforms,requiring registration and compliance with financial regulations and filing enforcement actions i

227、n the absence of guidance.A key component of FIT21 is the way that it promotes innovation in a host of industries by creating a pathway to compliance for decentralized networks.For example,FIT21 provides a route for the digital assets of computational networks and even social networks to receive app

228、ropriate and safe regulatory treatment that matches the Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches24technology;this would address important open questions of DeFi regulation while ensuring that innovation can thrive across industries.Privacy and securityThe United States takes

229、 a multifaceted approach to privacy and security policies.The SEC,FinCEN and CFTC enforce strict guidelines to ensure compliance and protect users data.The SEC mandates that blockchain and crypto companies adhere to the same privacy and security standards as traditional financial institutions,requir

230、ing comprehensive protections to prevent data breaches and ensure the confidentiality of user information.121Additionally,the Federal Trade Commission(FTC)enforces consumer protection laws that apply to digital assets,ensuring that companies maintain transparent privacy policies and secure user data

231、 against unauthorized access.122 Outcomes Due to a lack of federal-level regulatory guidance,states have taken the lead on building and implementing the appropriate policies,which has helped companies navigate growth in these regions.States such as Wyoming have also passed progressive legislation re

232、cognizing decentralized autonomous organizations(DAOs)as legal entities,further bolstering innovation and investment in the digital assets sector.In addition,Wyoming has passed a series of blockchain-friendly laws,such as recognizing the legal status of digital assets and creating a new type of bank

233、,special purpose depository institutions(SPDIs),specifically for handling digital assets.This legal clarity has attracted several blockchain businesses to certain states.123The US is an important digital assets market and the countrys laissez-faire approach has promulgated the advent of tokenized mo

234、ney market funds and dollar dominance of the stablecoin segment.In addition,while some in crypto perceive the US to be too heavy-handed when it comes to combatting illicit finance,others believe that the tougher approach has ultimately been a positive for the industry.The US has also been a leader i

235、n enabling industry participation and dialogue.Unintended consequences In 2022,devastating consumer losses and multiple bankruptcies highlighted weaknesses in the industry,underscoring the urgent need for a more comprehensive regulatory framework.124 Total cryptoasset-related fundraising grew sixfol

236、d,from approximately$3 billion in 2020 to$22.63 billion for 2023.However,the share of such fundraising deals that take place in the United States has fallen every year.Numerous reports attribute this decline to ongoing regulatory uncertainty in the US relative to other jurisdictions.125 In the absen

237、ce of regulatory clarity,companies have pointed to an unworkable“regulation by enforcement”approach,which industry players argue inhibits their ability to grow predictably in the country.This is despite digital asset companies actively petitioning for more concrete rules and regulations and increase

238、d clarity.126,127 Industry voices highlight a lack of clarity regarding which regulatory bodies have jurisdiction in certain circumstances,causing several market leaders to expand their presence overseas.128 Such industry voices view greater coordination among regulatory entities as a necessity for

239、improving regulation in the US.Due to a lack of federal-level regulatory guidance,states have taken the lead on building and implementing the appropriate policies,which has helped companies navigate growth inthese regions.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches25Recommendat

240、ions2Jurisdictional analyses revealed insights that can be beneficial for policy-makers,regulators and private-sector leaders as they aim to shape effective digital asset environments.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches26In conducting the jurisdictional analysis,certain

241、 recommendations surfaced for policy-makers,regulators and private-sector leaders working to shape digital asset environments that meet their goals.Particular topics and suggestions arose regularly in conversations with public-and private-sector stakeholders.Since these recommendations are influence

242、d by several jurisdictions,they can provide guidance on a jurisdictionally agnostic basis.By relying on existing data points,public-sector leaders can build and implement policies that have the greatest chance of achieving their intended objectives,as well as avoiding familiar pitfalls.The recommend

243、ations below result from jurisdictional analysis to date,and directly address the four aforementioned key topics:anti-money laundering(AML)and know your customer(KYC);regulatory and technical sandboxes;decentralized finance(DeFi);and privacy and security.2.1 Anti-money laundering(AML)and know your c

244、ustomer(KYC)recommendationsTechnology-enhanced solutionsPolicy-makers and regulators as well as private-sector stakeholders should explore the adoption of technology-enhanced solutions to meet AML and KYC requirements in the jurisdictions.Technology-enhanced solutions can help jurisdictions achieve

245、their specific goals in relation to preserving consumer data rights and ecosystem security.To simplify implementation and reduce costs,technology solutions for KYC processes that are employed for other financial use cases should be considered.This can include the use of digital identity verification

246、 methods and blockchain technology to streamline processes while enhancing accuracy and security.For example,the use of privacy-preserving KYC solutions that leverage cryptographic techniques such as zero-knowledge proofs to validate user identities without exposing personal data has proven useful f

247、or enhancing AML and KYC goals.Additionally,artificial intelligence(AI)and advanced analytics platforms have been effective in monitoring and detecting suspicious activities.Specifically,real-time analytics platforms that uncover anomalies and identify illicit activities have proven effective in ser

248、ving as a deterrent for bad actors.Global cooperationTo date,jurisdictions have generally taken a fragmented approach to cross-border AML and KYC policy creation and implementation for existing financial use cases.For digital asset regulation in particular,given the increasingly international make-u

249、p of industry players and the nature of borderless blockchains,public-sector leaders globally must strengthen international cooperation in this topic area.In order to facilitate cooperation,there must be open dialogue between regulators and the digital assets industry to share best practices and cha

250、llenges in AML and KYC compliance.Additionally,collaborative efforts must not only be between industry players and the public sector domestically,but also include international collaboration.This will enable comprehensive AML and KYC oversight globally and significantly enhance the regulatory landsc

251、ape for all parties.There is a crucial role for standard-setters as the development of global standards is a key pillar for enhancing certainty and consistency of regulatory approaches.Training and compliance programmesAML and KYC policies that have proven effective often emphasize thorough training

252、 and compliance programmes.These policies call for ongoing education on the importance of AML and KYC,emerging financial crime trends and the tactical use of new tools to remain compliant.Additionally,effective regulations in this arena frequently mandate that digital asset service providers regular

253、ly update and train their staff on AML and KYC regulations.129 This ensures that their technology application stacks and employee knowledge remain up-to-date with evolving financial crime methods,ultimately enhancing overall compliance and security in the digital assets ecosystem.For digital asset r

254、egulation in particular,given the increasingly international make-up of industry players and the nature of borderless blockchains,public-sector leaders globally must strengthen international cooperation in AMLand KYC.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches272.2 Regulatory a

255、nd technical sandbox recommendations Clear sandbox objectives and support mechanismsIn various jurisdictions,the sandboxes that achieve their intended objectives are designed with specific goals and criteria for participation.This helps ensure that sandbox initiatives are focused,are driven by clear

256、 objectives and offer high value for public-and private-sector participants.Having a timeline or specific steps to receive regulatory approval can provide structure and clear milestones.However,timebound sandboxes might not be suitable for all companies,as some products require more time than others

257、 to achieve their objectives.A flexible approach is necessary to accommodate these variations and ensure that the sandbox can adapt to different needs.In addition,support mechanisms such as providing hands-on regulatory guidance for participants can also help innovators navigate the regulatory lands

258、cape while testing new products and services in a controlled environment.Insights gained from sandbox experiments should inform and adjust regulatory frameworks,ensuring that they remain relevant and conducive to innovation.It is also crucial that sandboxes include a clear path to implementation onc

259、e the sandbox concludes.Regulators need to consider carefully how sandboxes will provide a route to long-term sustainability for the businesses that participate in them;otherwise,they risk deterring innovative actors from participating.Collaborative ecosystemsEffective sandboxes foster collaborative

260、 environments in which public-sector officials and innovators can share insights,challenges and feedback.They should also improve transparency and feedback mechanisms within the sandboxes to ensure that start-ups receive timely and constructive responses,facilitating better development and regulator

261、y compliance.In addition,government leaders should encourage cross-border collaboration on sandbox initiatives to harmonize regulatory approaches and share lessons learned.International cooperation can help address the cross-jurisdictional nature of digital assets and ensure consistent regulatory st

262、andards.Diverse and broad networksThroughout the jurisdictions analysed,sandboxes often have mechanisms for sharing insights and feedback,leading to practical policy and regulatory outcomes.Cross-border collaboration on sandbox initiatives can also harmonize regulatory approaches and ensure consiste

263、nt standards.To maximize the benefits of sandboxes,policy-makers and regulators should prioritize creating enabling environments for a diverse pool of candidates.By including diverse participants,this helps ensure a wide range of products and challenges are explored.Establishing international networ

264、ks for cross-border testing enhances learning and facilitates knowledge transfer,while improving transparency and feedback mechanisms ensures timely responses for start-ups,aiding in regulatory compliance.Moreover,specialized sandboxes for technology applications are essential to regulate uncharted

265、activities and prevent market fragmentation.Regulators need to consider carefully how sandboxes will provide a route to long-term sustainability for the businesses that participate in them;otherwise,they risk deterring innovative actors from participating.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Juri

266、sdictional Approaches282.3 Decentralized finance(DeFi)recommendationsSandbox-first approachJurisdictions that show signs of progress in addressing the rapidly evolving DeFi ecosystem are those that address its complexity through a nimble,sandbox-first approach.The success of regulatory sandboxes hig

267、hlights the potential for collaborative innovation in DeFi.Regulatory sandboxes provide a controlled environment in which developers can experiment with digital assets and decentralized protocols.This approach facilitates the development of guidelines and regulations that are both practical and forw

268、ard-looking for industry players who aim to innovate in the space.Sandboxes ultimately help ensure that regulatory measures keep pace with technological advances in DeFi,creating a dynamic and compliant ecosystem.Risk mitigationPolicy-makers and regulators that have demonstrated advances in DeFi reg

269、ulation have begun to work directly and alongside DeFi platforms to ensure appropriate disclosure of risks to users.DeFi applications include a wide array of use cases,some of which provide access to social media protocols,while others facilitate access to decentralized identify-management systems.T

270、hese applications pose different risks depending on their use case.Policy for DeFi should be calibrated to the risks posed by specific DeFi application.This may include consistent and clear communication about the risks of using specific DeFi applications and protocols and the potential for loss whe

271、n interacting with applications that take custody of user funds or involve some form of financial consideration.Consistent and clear communication is needed about the risks of participating in DeFi protocols,the potential for loss when interacting with these types of products and the nascent nature

272、of many players in this ecosystem.Developing a clear,effective regulatory framework for DeFi is critical.Implementing licensing models that account for the decentralized nature of DeFi has enabled progress.These models should increasingly consider the unique characteristics of DeFis underlying techn

273、ology applications and prioritize regulating the services that sit on top of these protocols rather than the infrastructure itself.This approach,which focuses on the governance structures and DeFi operational models,helps ensure transparency and accountability within DeFi platforms,mitigating risks

274、and ultimately protecting consumers.Parameter definitionsWhere policies have achieved their aims,policy-makers have worked with industry players to create definitions for DeFi activities and establish an appropriate regulatory framework.It is important to ensure that different definitions of“decentr

275、alization”are accounted for,as there are various interpretations based on the activity levels of DeFi players.In general,legacy financial regulation was written with an issuer or entity-centric framework.While this made sense for cases in which there was an identifiable business with a centralized m

276、anagement team,for decentralized digital assets,such entity-centric frameworks do not align with the technology.Policy-makers and regulators should therefore explore the possibility of achieving the crucial aims of protecting consumers,maintaining market integrity and promoting innovation by calibra

277、ting requirements and parameter definitions for decentralized networks.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches292.4 Privacy and security policy recommendationsConsumer-focusedEffective security and privacy-related policies generally embody a consumer-centric approach.Since

278、individual consumers may take on risk when engaging in the space,end users should be considered the key stakeholder group requiring protecting through policies.Effective policies implement education campaigns to raise awareness about the importance of security practices in the digital asset space.Th

279、ese initiatives might include workshops,online courses,communication with the public to increase awareness and partnerships with academic institutions to ensure that retail consumers can access crucial information.By developing a culture of security awareness,such policies help build a more resilien

280、t and informed user base,ultimately reducing the risk of security breaches and fraud in the digital asset space.Clear and consolidatedA common feature of successful security and privacy policies is the establishment of a central authority within a jurisdiction to oversee digital asset regulations,wh

281、ich can help clarify guidelines and minimize the potential for regulatory arbitrage.While not a requirement for success,having one authoritative body means that security protocols and standards can be uniformly applied in digital asset platforms.Further,having a centralized authority within a jurisd

282、iction can simplify operations for companies implementing privacy and security technology applications.In line with this,there should be international cooperation to align policies in different jurisdictions.The presence of a dedicatedregulatory body can lead tomore proactive updates to security and

283、 privacy policies,addressing emerging threats and technological advances promptly.This may apply not just to security and privacy policies but potentially also to digital assets policy development as a whole because it can provide consistency and transparency.Technology-enabledForward-looking polici

284、es often use enhanced analytic tools that can provide policy-makers with data when monitoring and enforcing rules(e.g.real-time risk alerts).It is important to require digital asset companies to undergo regular security audits and compliance checks to mitigate potential risks appropriately.Encouragi

285、ng the use of privacy-preserving technology applications that protect user identities as well as their financial information helps build comprehensive and resilient policy.Moreover,technology alone cannot preserve privacy;proper data management is crucial,particularly in deciding what information sh

286、ould be recorded on blockchains.Encouraging the use of privacy-preserving technology applications thatprotect user identities as well as their financial information helps build comprehensive andresilient policy.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches30ConclusionThere is a n

287、eed for comprehensive,adaptable regulations that meet the differing needs of individual jurisdictions and for ongoing publicprivate dialogue to ensure effective and future-ready frameworks.The increasing complexity of the digital assets regulatory landscape underscores the importance of comprehensiv

288、e regulation in the years to come.Policy-makers and regulators face a demanding road ahead as they attempt to devise adaptable strategies,prepare for upcoming industry challenges and maintain a transparent regulatory environment.By analysing the regulatory landscape across nine jurisdictions in whic

289、h progress has been made,this report uncovers valuable lessons and provides public-sector leaders with important insights as they build and implement new rules.In this critical period for digital asset regulation,it is also important for public-sector leaders to focus on select key topic areas.Four

290、of the industrys most pressing issues as discussed in the report are anti-money laundering(AML)and know your customer(KYC);regulatory and technical sandboxes;decentralized finance(DeFi);and privacy and security.Finally,the ongoing dialogue between public-sector authorities and private-sector partici

291、pants ensures that regulations are not only responsive to current demands but also adaptable to future developments.A well-defined and flexible regulatory framework,informed by diverse experiences,is paramount because it provides the clarity necessary for the industry.By engaging with a variety of s

292、takeholders,policy-makers and regulators can better navigate the complexities inherent in this fast-paced industry.The thoughtful integration of global insights and company-specific data into regulatory practices can enhance the agility of regulatory frameworks in the future.This proactive stance no

293、t only prepares the market for immediate shifts but also sets a strong foundation for the future.Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches31ContributorsAcknowledgementsSteering CommitteeJeremy Allaire Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,Circle Internet FinancialRodolphe Baro

294、ukh Deputy Head of Savings and Financial Markets,French TreasuryArmel Castets Deputy Director of International Corporate Finance and Foreign Trade,French TreasuryDenelle DixonChief Executive Officer and Executive Director,Stellar Development FoundationBrad GarlinghouseChief Executive Officer,RippleB

295、adr Salim A.Al OlamaAdviser to His Excellency the Chairman,Abu Dhabi Department of Economic Development,Abu Dhabi Investment OfficeMichael SonnensheinChief Executive Officer,Grayscale Investments(June 2023May 2024)Itay TuchmanChief Executive Officer,Consello Digital(AugustNovember 2023)Working Group

296、 and ReviewersCharles Adkins President,Hedera Council,Hedera HashgraphOlaiya Ajadi Head of Government Relations and Regulatory Strategy,UK,Middle East and Africa,London Stock Exchange Group Moritz Baier-Lentz Partner,Head of Gaming and Interactive Media,Lightspeed Venture Partners Justin Banon Co-Fo

297、under,Boson ProtocolAnna Baranowska Executive Director,Compliance Products and Services,Julius BaerChloe Barz Director,International Government and External Affairs,Robinhood MarketsLauren Belive Head,Public Policy and Government,RippleNuntapun Bhensook Assistant Director,Digital Currency Policy and

298、 Development Unit,Bank of ThailandLee Brenner Head of Public Policy for Digital Assets,Goldman SachsAuthorsShawn DejLead,Blockchain and Digital Assets,World Economic ForumSandra WaliczekLead,Blockchain and Digital Assets,World Economic ForumThe World Economic Forum wishes to extend special thanks to

299、 Sarah Hubbard for her research efforts and related contributions to this report.World Economic Forum Matthew BlakeHead,Centre for Financial and Monetary Systems,World Economic ForumDrew PropsonHead,Technology and Innovation in Financial Services,World Economic ForumDigital Assets Regulation:Insight

300、s from Jurisdictional Approaches32Tara Burchmore Economic Policy Fellow,Office of Senator Gillibrand,US SenatePaul Chan Mo-PoFinancial Secretary of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Dominique Chaubon Deputy Head of the French Treasury Office in New York,Embassy of FranceE

301、zechiel CopicDirector,Digital Currency Policy,VisaDante Disparte Chief Strategy Officer and Head,Global Policy,Circle Internet FinancialSam Dreiman Policy and Government Relations,RippleMaria Jos Escribano Banking and Finance Lawyer,BBVAZiyang Fan Head,International Government Relations Policy,PayPa

302、lRichard FennerDirector,Government Relations,EuroclearHerv Franois Partner,Blockchain/Digital Assets fund,Investcorp Holdings(April 2023May 2024)Dan GallagherChief Legal Compliance and Corporate Affairs Officer,Robinhood MarketsCdric GarcinHead of French Department of Treasury and Economic Affairs i

303、n New York,Embassy of FranceCarlota Giralt Castellano Digital Regulation,BBVARobert Grant Vice-President,Global Head of Public Policy,Ripple(August 2023April 2024)Carole House Senior Fellow,Atlantic Council and Executive in Residence,Terranet VenturesMichael Horowitz Chief Executive Officer,Seal Sto

304、rage TechnologyJohn Hubbard Chief of Staff,Grayscale InvestmentsSarah Hubbard Senior Fellow,Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation,Harvard UniversityJae JangSenior Policy Advisor to Congressman French Hill,US House of RepresentativesWookyung Jung Policy Analyst,Tech and Innovation,Inter

305、national Criminal Police Organization(INTERPOL)Candace Kelly Chief Legal Officer,Stellar Development FoundationPeter KerstensAdviser,Financial Sector Digitalization and Cybersecurity,European CommissionDevina KhannaEconomic Policy Adviser,US House of RepresentativesAmy Kim Policy Lead,Blockchain,Cry

306、pto and Digital Currencies,PayPalKlaus Lober Chair of the Central Counterparties(CCP)Supervisory Committee,European Securities and Markets AuthorityRoss MacKayChief Operating Officer,CasperLabsMrinal Manohar Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder,CasperLabsTimothy Massad Senior Fellow,Director,Harva

307、rd Kennedy School Digital Assets Policy Project,Harvard UniversityCongressman Patrick McHenryChairman,House Financial Services Committee,US House of RepresentativesJohn Nahas Vice-President of Business Development,AvalancheKatey Neate Chief Risk Officer,Securities Servicing and Digital,BNYMadan Ober

308、oi Executive Director,Technology and Innovation,International Criminal Police Organization(INTERPOL)Yannick Oberson Executive Director,Head Governmental Affairs International,UBSBryan Pellegrino Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer,LayerZero LabsDigital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdiction

309、al Approaches33Pablo Portugal Senior Public Affairs Director,Regulatory,Compliance and Public Affairs,Euroclear Stratos Pourzitakis Senior Policy Manager,HSBCJohnna PowellManaging Director,Technology Research and Innovation,Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation(DTCC)Monica Ramirez de ArellanoHea

310、d of Strategy,Digital Assets,BNYJennifer Rosenthal Vice-President,Communications,Grayscale InvestmentsNilmini Rubin Chief Policy Officer,Hedera HashgraphAmando Russo Director of Communications,Crypto Council for InnovationCraig Salm Chief Legal Officer,Grayscale InvestmentsClifford Sarkin Chief of S

311、trategic Relations,CasperLabs Lee Schneider General Counsel,AvalancheJirayut(Topp)Srupsrisopa Group Chief Executive Officer,Bitkub Capital Group HoldingsJohn Stackhouse Senior Vice-President,Royal Bank of CanadaTakaya Sugina Section Chief,Macroeconomic and Market Analysis Office,Financial Services A

312、gencyAnne Termine Deputy General Counsel,Head of Policy,Regulatory and Litigation,Yuga LabsJiten Varu Head of Web3 EMEA,AmazonSheila Warren Chief Executive Officer,Crypto Council for InnovationJohn Whelan Managing Director of Digital Investment Banking,Banco SantanderZack Yang Co-Founder,FOMO PayBry

313、an Zhang Co-Founder and Executive Director,Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance,University of Cambridge Judge Business SchoolAdditionally,the authors would like to thank the policy-makers,regulators and industry leaders not listed here who shared their valuable insights and time through working

314、group meetings,individual dialogues and written feedback.ProductionLaurence DenmarkCreative Director,Studio MikoAlison MooreEditor,Astra ContentCharles PhillipsEditor,Astra ContentOliver TurnerDesigner,Studio MikoDigital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches34Endnotes1.CoinMarket

315、Cap.Todays cryptocurrency prices by market cap.Retrieved September 9,2024,from https:/ for International Settlements.(2024).Annual economic report No.147:Embracing diversity,advancing together results of the 2023 BIS survey on central bank currencies and crypto.https:/www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap14

316、7.pdf3.Forbes.(2024,July 26).Cryptocurrency prices today by market cap.https:/ 4.Atlantic Council.(n.d.).Cryptocurrency Regulation Tracker.Retrieved July 30,2024,from https:/www.atlanticcouncil.org/programs/geoeconomics-center/cryptoregulationtracker/5.Bank for International Settlements.(2024).Annua

317、l economic report No.147:Embracing diversity,advancing together results of the 2023 BIS survey on central bank currencies and crypto.https:/www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap147.pdf 6.European Securities and Markets Authority.(n.d.).Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation(MiCA).Retrieved July 30,2024,from ht

318、tps:/www.esma.europa.eu/esmas-activities/digital-finance-and-innovation/markets-crypto-assets-regulation-mica 7.European Union.(2023).Regulation(EU)2023/1113 of the European Parliament and of the Council.https:/eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R11138.Shah,P.(2024).Europes b

319、lossoming admiration for crypto.CME Group.https:/ 9.European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority.(n.d.).Digital Operational Resilience Act(DORA).Retrieved July 30,2024,from https:/www.eiopa.europa.eu/digital-operational-resilience-act-dora_en 10.European Union.(2023).Regulation(EU)2023/111

320、3 of the European Parliament and of the Council.https:/eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32023R1113 11.European Commission.(2021,July 20).Anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism legislative package.https:/finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/anti-money-launde

321、ring-and-countering-financing-terrorism-legislative-package_en12.European Commission.(n.d.).Overview of anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism.Retrieved July 30,2024,from https:/finance.ec.europa.eu/financial-crime/overview-anti-money-laundering-and-countering-financing-terr

322、orism_en 13.European Parliament.(April 24,2024).New EU rules to combat money laundering adopted Press release.https:/www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240419IPR20586/new-eu-rules-to-combat-money-laundering-adopted 14.FATF.(2022,June 30),Targeted update on implementation of the FATF Standar

323、ds on virtual assets and virtual asset service providers.http:/www.fatf-gafi.org/publications/fatfrecommendations/documents/targeted-update-virtual-assets-vasps.html 15.European Commission.(n.d.).European Blockchain Sandbox:European blockchain regulatory sandbox for distributed ledger technologies.R

324、etrieved July 30,2024,from https:/ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/display/EBSI/Sandbox+Project 16.Ibid.17.Portugal Digital.(2022).Technological Free Zones(ZLT).https:/portugaldigital.gov.pt/en/accelerating-digital-transition-in-portugal/testing-and-incorporating-new-technologies/technolog

325、ical-free-zones-zlt/18.European Blockchain Sandbox.(2024,June).Best practices report 1st Cohort,Part B.https:/ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/display/EBSISANDCOLLAB/Best+practices+report+2023+-+Part+B?preview=/753860727/753860735/European%20Blockchain%20Sandbox%20-%20Best%20practices%20re

326、port%20-%20Part%20B%20-%20Jun.2024.pdf19.European Union.(2023).Regulation(EU)2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on markets in crypto-assets and amending Regulations(EU)No 1093/2010 and(EU)No 1095/2010 and Directives 2013/36/EU and(EU)2019/1937.https:/eur-lex.europ

327、a.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A32023R1114 20.European Securities and Markets Authority.(2023).Decentralised finance in the EU:Developments and risks.https:/www.esma.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-10/ESMA50-2085271018-3349_TRV_Article_Decentralised_Finance_in_the_EU_Developments_and_

328、Risks.pdf 21.Weinstein,G.(2023,April 25).European Union outpaces unfocused United States in crypto regulation,but MiCA Article 68 raises concerns.Forbes.https:/ 22.European Union.(2021).Summary of the opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Regulation on Markets in C

329、rypto-assets,and amending directive(EU)2019/1937.EUR-Lex.https:/eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52021XX0823(02)&from=EN 23.Europol.(2023,March 15).One of Darkwebs largest cryptocurrency laundromats washed out.https:/www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/one-of-darkweb

330、s-largest-cryptocurrency-laundromats-washed-out Digital Assets Regulation:Insights from Jurisdictional Approaches3524.Europol.(2023,January 23).Bitzlato senior management arrested.https:/www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/bitzlato-senior-management-arrested25.Global Legal Insights.(2024

331、).Blockchain and cryptocurrency laws and regulations 2024:Gibraltar.https:/ Intelligence.(n.d.).AML/CTF compliance in Gibraltar.Retrieved August 15,2024,from https:/arctic- 27.International Comparative Legal Guides(ICLG).(2024).Gibraltar:Comparative Legal Guides:Fintech.https:/ 1).Gibraltar will foc

332、us on stablecoins and DeFi lending after market turmoil.CoinDesk.https:/ of Gibraltar.(2021,March 22).Proceeds of Crime Act 2015(Transfer of Virtual Assets)Regulations 2021.https:/www.gibraltarlaws.gov.gi/uploads/legislations/proceeds-of-crime/2021s194/2021s194.pdf#viewer.action=download 30.CMS Law.

333、(n.d.).CMS expert guide to crypto regulation:Gibraltar.Retrieved August 15,2024,from https:/cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/cms-expert-guide-to-crypto-regulation/gibraltar31.Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region(2023).Policy Statement on Development of Virtual Assets in Hong Kong.https:/gia.info.gov.hk/general/202210/31/P2022103000