尊敬的用戶您好，這是來自FT中文網的溫馨提示：如您對更多FT中文網的內容感興趣，請在蘋果應用商店或谷歌應用市場搜尋「FT中文網」，下載FT中文網的官方應用。
FT stories don’t tend to involve Moo Deng and Hawk Tuah Girl. The only one that does is this morning’s sixth most-read on FT.com:
英國《金融時報》的報導通常不涉及Moo Deng和鷹圖阿女孩(Hawk Tuah Girl)。唯一涉及的是今天早上FT.com上閱讀量排名第六的文章：
Cryptocurrencies representing a euthanised grey squirrel, a Thai pygmy hippopotamus and a cartoon dog have exploded in value since last month’s US presidential election, as Donald Trump’s victory triggers a surge in speculation in so-called memecoins.
自上個月美國總統選舉以來，代表被安樂死的灰松鼠、泰國侏儒河馬和卡通狗的加密貨幣價值飆升，因爲唐納•川普(Donald Trump)的勝利引發了對所謂模因幣的投機熱潮。
It’s a fun story, but is it really about financial markets? There are familiar terms, like market value and liquidity, and the familiar theme of extraordinary popular delusion. Bigwigs from legitimate businesses are quoted to the effect that things gone too far. “Memecoins are little more than frothy assets representing the market’s over-exuberance,” say “critics, including some of the biggest figures in the crypto industry.”
這是一個有趣的故事，但它真的與金融市場有關嗎？其中有一些熟悉的術語，比如市值和流動性，還有一個熟悉的主題，即非同尋常的大衆妄想。合法企業的大人物被引用說事情已經過頭了。「批評者，包括加密行業的一些大人物，說『迷因幣不過是代表市場過度狂熱的泡沫資產』。」
That’s all fine and good, but unless memecoins are securities, why should we care?
這都很好，但除非迷因幣是證券，否則我們爲什麼要在意呢？
The US Securities and Exchange Commission takes the view that many crypto tokens are securities, and should trade only within the confines of US securities law. And under the leadership of Chair Gary Gensler, SEC actions against crypto companies have been based on one clear and easy-to-apply rule: don’t try anything. Consumer protection is by prohibition. The SEC’s pursuit of Coinbase, for example, would seem to send the message that crypto trading is bad even if there’s US-grade levels of regulatory compliance at the corporate level.
美國證券交易委員會(SEC)認爲，許多加密代幣是證券，應該只在美國證券法的框架內交易。在主席加里•根斯勒(Gary Gensler)的領導下，美國證券交易委員會對加密公司的行動基於一個明確且易於執行的規則：不要嘗試任何事情。消費者保護是透過禁止來實現的。例如，美國證券交易委員會對Coinbase交易所的追訴似乎傳達了這樣一個資訊：即使在公司層面達到美國級別的監管合規，加密交易仍然是不被認可的。
Memecoins are in effect exploiting a loophole in that regulatory perspective, which was framed around the last-but-one crash, when everyone was getting bilked by DeFi and Web3 vapourware. As Gensler said in a 2022 speech:
模因幣實際上是在利用監管視角中的一個漏洞，這個視角是圍繞倒數第二次崩盤而制定的，當時每個人都被去中心化金融和Web3的虛擬產品欺騙。正如根斯勒在2022年的一次演講中所說：
Of the nearly 10,000 tokens in the crypto market, I believe the vast majority are securities. . . In general, the investing public is buying or selling crypto security tokens because they’re expecting profits derived from the efforts of others in a common enterprise.
在加密市場上近一萬種代幣中，我相信絕大多數都是證券。總體而言，投資者購買或出售加密證券代幣是因爲他們期望從共同企業中他人的努力中獲利。
No one talks much about common enterprise projects any more. Selling tokens on the claim that the money will be used to build or maintain something is, the SEC says, creating unauthorised investment securities. Selling tokens that lack common enterprise and involve no effort from anyone are more like caricatures of investment securities, so they slip below the regulatory threshold. The Howey Test is difficult to apply to a mark in a ledger that has the same name as an internet-famous hippo and relates to nothing.
現在幾乎沒有人再談論共同企業項目了。美國證券交易委員會表示，聲稱出售代幣所籌資金將用於建設或維護某物，這實際上是在成立未經授權的投資證券。出售缺乏共同企業且不需要任何人付出努力的代幣更像是投資證券的諷刺畫，因此它們低於監管門檻。很難將Howey測試應用於一個在賬本中與網路知名河馬同名且與任何事物無關的標記。
Gensler’s exit in January, when memePOTUS is inaugurated, is widely predicted to mean pro-crypto regulation. There are two ways to read that:
人們普遍預測，根斯勒將在1月memePOTUS就職時離任，這將意味著支援加密貨幣的監管。對此有兩種解讀方式：
US securities laws are rejigged to make crypto a conventional asset class that’s integrated into the mainstream financial system, which would add all sorts of regulatory costs and frictions.
Crypto continues to do what it does and US regulators are instructed to look the other way. This would be exciting and would make a lot of people rich, though it would also make a lot of people poor, so it;s impossible to say if it’s bad or not.
美國的證券法律被重新調整，使加密貨幣成爲一種傳統資產類別，並融入主流金融體系，這將增加各種監管成本和摩擦。
加密貨幣繼續按照其方式運作，而美國監管機構被指示對其視而不見。這將是令人興奮的，並且會讓很多人變得富有，但同時也會讓很多人變得貧窮，因此很難說這到底是好還是壞。
In scenario one, memecoins could be in trouble. They are very unlikely to be classified as securities, and the recent resurgence is pretty much irrelevant to the integrity of capital markets, but that’s no reason to pursue two-tier regulation. Even the most pro-crypto lobbyist may see some risks in letting shitcoin shenanigans run rampant when trying to give bitcoin the same status as T-bills.
在第一種情境中，迷因幣可能會遇到麻煩。它們被歸類爲證券的可能性很小，最近的復甦幾乎與資本市場的完整性無關，但這並不是推行雙重監管的理由。即使是最支援加密貨幣的遊說者，在試圖賦予比特幣與國庫券相同地位時，也可能會看到放任劣質幣惡作劇氾濫的一些風險。
In scenario two, memecoins are pretty much unaffected. The chances of a novelty token being classified as a security moves from vanishingly small to zero and the current nonsense can continue for as long as people find entertainment in it. Of the two scenarios, this feels the most plausible.
在第二種情境中，迷因幣幾乎不受影響。新奇代幣被歸類爲證券的可能性從微乎其微變爲零，只要人們覺得有趣，當前的胡鬧就可以繼續。在這兩種情境中，這種情境似乎最爲可信。
The SEC’s consumer-protection-by-prohibition regime failed because it started in the wrong place. It was a mistake to lump crypto in with capital markets based on their superficial similarities.
美國證券交易委員會透過禁止來保護消費者的制度失敗了，因爲它的出發點是錯誤的。將加密貨幣與資本市場混爲一談，僅僅因爲它們的表面相似性，這是一個錯誤。
It’s reasonable for a regulator to ban any crypto tokens that could be mistaken for investment securities. But the hostile environment that created has hindered any possibility of useful innovation in the mainstream, while ignoring the growth of a home-brew gambling industry where all the cards are crimped and all the dice are capped.
監管機構禁止任何可能被誤認爲投資證券的加密代幣是合理的。然而，這種敵對環境阻礙了主流中任何有用創新的可能性，同時忽視了一個自制賭博行業的成長，在這個行業中，所有的牌都被做了手腳，所有的骰子都被動了手腳。
Any government that wanted to stop its citizens putting wagers on digital Jenga would be better served by giving the task to different types of regulators.
任何希望阻止其公民在數字積木遊戲上下注的政府，最好將這項任務交給不同類型的監管機構。
And perhaps the newly pro-crypto US will take the lead? We’re one high-profile rugpull away from public sentiment turning, with industry grandees like CZ already preparing for the backlash. With the SEC soon to be bypassed, it’s within the realms of possibility that Trump’s government introduces federal legislation that mandates some form of crypto exchange licensing on top of the US’s state-level patchwork of gambling regulations.
或許新近支援加密貨幣的美國將會引領潮流？我們距離一次引人注目的騙局僅一步之遙，公衆情緒可能會因此轉變，行業大佬如CZ已經在爲可能的反彈做準備。隨著美國證券交易委員會即將被繞過，川普政府有可能在美國州級賭博法規的基礎上，推出聯邦立法，要求某種形式的加密貨幣交易所許可。
It’d be a useful reclassification. Tokenised assets would be regulated by whichever regulators are already responsible for those assets, whereas tokens without assets would be gaming chips. Consumer protection would move into the realm of gambling-related harm. Instead of saying the PEPE token has the market value equal to Sainsbury’s, we could say it’s worth a third of a Super Bowl sportsbook. Neither comparison is perfect, but the latter is probably more informative than the former.
這將是一次有益的重新分類。代幣化資產將由已經負責這些資產的監管機構進行監管，而沒有資產的代幣將被視爲遊戲籌碼。消費者保護將轉向與賭博相關的危害領域。與其說PEPE代幣的市場價值等同於塞恩斯伯裏，不如說它相當於超級碗體育博彩的三分之一。兩者的比較都不完美，但後者可能比前者更具資訊性。
In the meantime, the most useful thing we can do is stop thinking of memecoins as securities. They’re not securities. They’re not going to be securities any time soon. They’re tokens for MMOG games of chicken.
與此同時，我們能做的最有用的事情就是不再將模因幣視爲證券。它們不是證券。它們在短期內也不會成爲證券。它們是大型多人在線(MMOG)「膽小鬼」遊戲的代幣。
There’s a common assumption that chicken is a stupid game played by stupid people. That may be true at the margin, but most of the players are acting rationally. They have rightly deduced that their chances of getting out in time are improved by choosing a funny name, or wash-trading a tiny free float up to some absurd valuation, or tapping the virtual boiler rooms, or whatever the hell GOAT is. Even those arriving late can profit if, for example, an influential media organisation puts the memecoin on its homepage and pulls in more punters willing to try their luck.
人們普遍認爲，「膽小鬼遊戲」是愚蠢的人玩的愚蠢遊戲。這在某些情況下可能成立，但大多數玩家的行爲是理性的。他們正確地推斷出，透過選擇一個有趣的名字，或透過洗售少量自由流通股以達到荒謬的估值，或利用虛擬鍋爐房，或不管GOAT是什麼，他們逃脫的機會會更大。即使是那些遲到的人也能獲利，例如，如果一個有影響力的媒體組織將這個迷因幣放在其主頁上，並吸引更多願意碰碰運氣的投機者。
This keeps working because most financial news doesn’t reference Moo Deng and Hawk Tuah Girl. It’s mostly about securities, which are by design quite boring.
這之所以一直有效，是因爲大多數金融新聞沒有提到Moo Deng和鷹圖阿女孩。金融新聞主要涉及證券，而證券本身設計得相當無聊。
Once we stop thinking about memecoins as if they’re securities and treat them like any other gambling market, the parasitical attention cycle should be broken. But for that to happen, you’ll have to stop clicking on stories like this one. It’s your fault we keep doing this, basically.
一旦我們不再將迷因幣視爲證券，而是像對待其他賭博市場一樣對待它們，這種寄生性的關注循環就會被打破。但要實現這一點，你必須停止點擊像這樣的報導。基本上，我們一直這樣做都是因爲你。
Further reading
延伸閱讀
— 安然現在正在社群媒體上發佈訊息