本文作者是倫敦政治經濟學院全球事務研究所客座研究員烏斯曼·曼登。原文摘自2018年3月23日的國際貨幣金融機構官方論壇評論（OMFIF Commentary），OMFIF是一家總部位於倫敦的全球金融智庫。
作者指出在G20召開期間，中央銀行和財政部門之間對於加密貨幣的理解產生了分歧，前者認為認為難以與私人部門討論某種形式的貨幣共存問題，因為這有違它們一貫擁有的發行本國唯一法定貨幣的主權貨幣發行權，也有人警告，監管機構傾向根據以往經驗判斷形勢，並採取過時措施化解危機，缺乏對未來危機的前瞻意識。福利視頻：19plus.me
最後，作者總結道，加密貨幣已走過漫漫長路，不僅改變了人們對政府在貨幣生產中擔任的角色的看法，還改變了對貨幣本身意義的看法。迄今為止，這仍是加密貨幣的最大貢獻。
中文譯文如下：
G20激烈討論“備受矚目的”加密貨幣
中央銀行小心提防，財政部門包容寬鬆
烏斯曼·曼登
翻譯：劉家志
審校：陸可凡
2018年3月23日
G20集團財長和央行行長會議在布宜諾斯艾利斯召開，會議結果對加密貨幣利好。會議前，人們曾擔心會宣佈加強監管，但G20委託金融穩定委員會進一步研究該議題並在7月份彙報結果。
數位參會代表評論說，加密貨幣是“熱門話題”，但政府對它的理解“遠遠落後”。與會者的意見分為兩派：一方認為應採取更嚴格的措施，而另一方認為應採取更溫和的態度。意見分歧不在國與國之間，而在中央銀行和財政部門之間，而後者持較溫和的態度。
G20表示，加密貨幣正受到最高政治層面的重視。在應採取監管措施方面確實達成了一定共識，但也有意見認為不應扼殺貨幣創新。也有意見認為應注意將加密貨幣視作加密資產，以確保不會與法定貨幣混淆。
將加密貨幣視作加密資產，等同於表示官方貨幣不應受到來自私人部門的競爭。這將從根本上阻礙加密貨幣獲得真正的貨幣地位。中央銀行會認為難以與私人部門討論某種形式的貨幣共存問題，因為這有違它們一貫擁有的發行本國唯一法定貨幣的主權貨幣發行權。儘管貨幣關係並非沒有思考的餘地，但數家中央銀行似乎高度警惕其特權受到損害。
中央銀行並不熱衷引入數字貨幣。一位中央銀行家表示，鑑於歐元區困難重重，對數字歐元“不予考慮”。有意見指出，引入數字貨幣的動機不應僅僅由發達經濟體的考量所左右。一位新興市場的中央銀行家強調，他們希望在貨幣方面佔據“尖端”地位，並熱切希望充分利用相關技術。
G20會議公報稱，加密資產缺乏主權貨幣的關鍵屬性。某些情況下，加密資產可能會有財務穩定性問題。一名中央銀行家反覆強調，貨幣“是你需要信任的東西”。幾位代表指出，因為加密貨幣的規模相對較小，不會有系統性風險。旨在打擊資助恐怖主義和洗錢行為的金融行動特別工作組將審查加密貨幣的標準。消費者保護也是一大問題。
金融穩定委員會在3月13日致G20的一封信中警告稱，如果行為、市場完整性和網絡防衛方面沒有實質性改進，加密貨幣的使用範圍擴大和關聯性提高，會通過信任效應產生金融穩定風險。有代表表示，加密貨幣及其應用應該與傳統金融流程一樣受到監管。
但也有人警告，監管機構傾向根據以往經驗判斷形勢，並採取過時措施化解危機，缺乏對未來危機的前瞻意識。其他人重申，各國間不應出現“監管套利”，凸顯國際合作在該問題的重要地位。
加密貨幣已走過漫漫長路，不僅改變了人們對政府在貨幣生產中擔任的角色的看法，還改變了對貨幣本身意義的看法。迄今為止，這仍是加密貨幣的最大貢獻。
烏斯曼·曼登，倫敦政治經濟學院全球事務研究所客座研究員。
英文原文如下：
G20 debates 'hot' cryptocurrencies
Central banks defensive, finance ministries relaxed
OusmèneMandeng
Fri 23 Mar 2018
The G20 meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors in Buenos Aires was good for cryptocurrencies. There had been some concern beforehand that onerous regulation would be announced, but the G20 deferred to the Financial Stability Board to study the topic more and report back in July.
Several representatives commented that cryptocurrencies were a 'hot topic' and that governments were 'far behind' when it comes to understanding them. Participants were split between adopting more restrictive measures and a more benign attitude. Views were divided, not so much along country lines but between central banks and ministries of finance, with the latter being more relaxed.
The G20signalled that cryptocurrencies are being taken seriously at the highest political level. There was some agreement that regulatory measures are needed, but it was felt that monetary innovations should not be stifled unduly. Care was taken to label cryptocurrencies as crypto-assets to make sure there is no mix-up with fiat currencies.
The crypto-asset label is tantamount to the notion that official currencies should not be subject to competition from private actors. This represents a fundamental obstacle to treating cryptocurrencies as currencies. Central banks will find it difficult to engage with non-official entities to discuss some form of cohabitation. It would require reneging on their customary rights to issue sovereign currencies that are the sole legal tender in their countries. There is room for rethinking monetary relationships, but several central banks appeared highly defensive of their privileges.
The introduction of digital currencies by central banks did not feature prominently. One central banker indicated that, with the difficulties in the euro area, there are 'no plans' for a digital euro. It was pointed out that motivations for introducing digital currencies should not be guided only by considerations in advanced economies. A central banker from an emerging market stressed that they wanted to be 'cutting edge' on currency matters and were keen to exploit technological possibilities.
The communiqué of the G20 meeting reads, 'Crypto-assets lack the key attributes of sovereign currencies. At some point they could have financial stability implications.' One central banker reiterated the notion that a currency 'is something you need to trust'. Several representatives indicated that cryptocurrencies do not represent systemic risks, owing to their relatively small size. The Financial Action Task Force, which works on combatting terrorist financing and money laundering, is to review standards for cryptocurrencies. Consumer protection was the other big concern.
In a letter to the G20 on 13 March, the FSB had warned that 'wider use and greater interconnectedness could, if it occurred without material improvements in conduct, market integrity and cyber resilience, pose financial stability risks through confidence effects'. Other representatives said cryptocurrencies and related applications should have no regulatory advantages over conventional processes.
Yet there were also warnings that regulators have a tendency to fighting the 'last war' and put in place measures to solve the 'last crisis' instead of future ones. Others repeated that there should be no 'regulatory arbitrage' between countries, highlighting the importance of international co-operation on the issue.
Cryptocurrencies have come a long way and have already transformed thinking about the role of governments in the production of money and the meaning of money itself. To date, this remains the greatest contribution of cryptocurrencies.
Ousmène Jacques Mandeng is a Visiting Fellow in the Institute of Global Affairs at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
內容整理 葉禕然
監製 商倩
閱讀更多 少年團土豆君 的文章
