On August 15, 2023, Singapore finalized its final regulatory framework for stablecoin, becoming one of the first jurisdictions in the world to bring stablecoin into the local regulatory system. As a crypto promising land, Singapore has never stopped exploring and working on the regulation of the crypto industry. In this article, we will elaborate and analyze the development of Singapore's crypto legislation and important decrees.

Key Insights

♦ Singapore initially embraced the crypto industry with an attitude of financial openness, but since the downfall of many crypto giants in 2022, the regulatory policies of MAS have tended to tighten up, maintaining a friendly but not lax attitude towards crypto assets, especially unfavorable to the speculative trading behavior of the crypto market.

♦ On August 15, 2023, MAS finalized its regulatory framework for stablecoin, setting out detailed requirements on regulatory scope, reserves, and redemption periods, such as that reserves backing stablecoin must hold low-risk and highly liquid assets, and that these reserves must equal or exceed the value of stablecoin in circulation at all times. This regulatory framework is good news for large corporations and banks and unfriendly to SMEs with high compliance costs.

♦The Payment Service Act (PSA) comes into effect in January 2020, and the requirements involving cryptocurrencies are mainly in the area of e-money and digital payment tokens (DPTs), such as Bitcoin and ETH, which are both DPTs, and stablecoin, which is not e-Money. The supervisory framework applicable to stablecoin will be decided according to the actual situation.MAS takes a different regulatory approaches, e.g. eMoney focuses on consumer protection while DPT focuses on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing.

♦ Singapore's policies related to crypto exchanges are also getting more stringent. In July this year, MAS said it would require DPT service providers to place client assets in the custody of statutory trusts by the end of this year to help minimize the risk of damage to client assets and to facilitate the recovery of client assets in the event of DPT service provider insolvency, preventing a repetition of the tragedy of the FTX.MAS will also restrict DPT service providers from providing lending and collateral services to their retail clients.

1. Background

As some of the world's largest economies, such as China, the United States and the United Kingdom, continue to tighten their crypto regulations, a large number of crypto companies have chosen to move to Singapore, which has become a safe haven for the crypto industry, with many of the industry's biggest names, including Ether founder Vitalik Buterin and CoinSecure founder Zhao Changpeng, having moved or residing in the country. Initially, Singapore had the courage to swim against the tide of "financial openness", with regulators expressing a friendly and open attitude towards cryptocurrencies and the blockchain industry, and attracting many crypto firms through its friendly regulatory environment and low-tax policies, but at the same time, it also fostered potentially illegal activities and financial risks, especially since the start of the crypto winter in 2022. Crypto Winter 2022, Singapore, once a crypto hotspot, has begun to revisit cryptocurrencies and blockchain, and regulatory policies have been repeatedly tightened. We can clearly observe the subtle shift in Singapore's attitude from the regulatory policy trajectory below.

Since 2014, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), as Singapore's central bank and integrated financial regulator, has been constantly alerting investors to the significant risks associated with virtual currency trading and providing the necessary regulation of the web3 industry.In August 2017, the MAS gave its opinion that ICOs are subject to existing securities laws designed to protect investors if the tokens are structured as securities. In a consumer advisory issued jointly with the Ministry of Commerce on August 10, 2017, MAS also advised investors to conduct due diligence to understand the potential risks of ICOs and investment schemes involving digital tokens. However, at the time, while the MAS regulated virtual currency intermediaries in Singapore specifically for potential money laundering and terrorist financing risks, it said that it would not otherwise regulate virtual currencies per se.In an interview with Bloomberg in October 2017, Ravi Menon, Managing Director of the MAS, had said, "So far, I don't see a desire to regulate cryptocurrencies on the basis of that." On November 14 of the same year, MAS issued Guidelines for the Offering of Digital Tokens, which stipulate that digital tokens will be regulated by the Monetary Authority if they are Capital Markets Products (CMP) under the Securities and Futures Act (SFA), and that Capital Markets Products (CMP) include securities, bonds, derivative contracts, collective investment schemes, etc. In December 2017, as the price of Bitcoin soared from US$1,000 to nearly US$20,000, and there was a growing market appetite and sentiment for cryptocurrencies, the MAS further emphasized at this time that the public should proceed with "extreme caution" and be aware of the significant risks that accompany such investments. In particular, the MAS warned that the surge in cryptocurrency prices is likely to be driven by speculative activity, and therefore the risk of a sharp price decline is high, and that there are no regulatory safeguards in place for cryptocurrency investments.On January 14, 2019, Singapore passed the Payment Services Act (PSA), and the PSA bill puts in place the Account Issuance, Domestic Remittances, cross-border remittances, merchant payments, e-Money issuance, digital payment token DPT services and currency exchange, which are the seven types of payment services under the scope of payment license regulation.

Singapore's regulatory policies have tightened in recent years. 2022 saw the collapse of the algorithmic stablecoin TerraUSD, crypto lending firms Voyager Digital, Celsius Network and BlockFi, and crypto giants such as Singapore-based crypto hedge fund Three Arrows Capital and later FTX, fall. With Temasek losing $275 million on its investment, and over 4% of Singapore's citizens having traded on FTX, these extreme events have undoubtedly clouded Singapore's image and come close to posing a systemic risk. MAS is also determined to combat the evil doers who disrupt the market order, and will never allow any irresponsible behavior or innovation to undermine its credibility, after all, credibility is crucial to Singapore's financial system, and Singapore's orderly and stable policy is the main reason why people like to start a business in Singapore. In January 2022, MAS introduced measures to restrict crypto practitioners to market and advertise cryptocurrency services in public places, and practitioners can only do so on their own social media platforms and prohibited from describing cryptocurrency transactions in a manner that downplays the risks.On October 26, 2022, approximately two weeks before FTX filed for bankruptcy on November 11, 2022, MAS issued two consultation papers proposing measures to mitigate the risk to consumers in cryptocurrency transactions ("Digital Payment Token Services Consultation Paper on Proposed Regulatory Measures), as well as proposed measures to support the development of stablecoin in Singapore's digital asset ecosystem (Consultation Paper on Proposed Regulatory Approach to Stablecoin-Related Activities). On August 15, 2023, MAS announced the final version of its regulatory framework for stablecoin, making it one of the first jurisdictions in the world to bring stablecoin into the local regulatory system, and its regulatory framework will most likely be the basis for the future template and trend for other countries and regions regarding stablecoin regulatory regulations. In addition, Singapore's policies on crypto exchanges have also become more stringent. In July, the Monetary Authority (MAS) said it would require digital payment token (DPT) service providers to place client assets in the custody of statutory trusts by the end of this year to help reduce the risk of damage to client assets and to facilitate the recovery of client assets in the event of DPT service provider insolvency, preventing a repeat of the tragedy of FTX. MAS will also limit the lending and collateralization services provided by DPT service providers for their retail clients. While this measure has not yet been formally decreed, and Binance has proposed a variety of flexibility measures in its eight-page feedback letter and reminded the authorities of the risks associated with third-party custodians, increasingly stringent requirements for DPT service providers are the order of the day. Below is a detailed analysis of stablecoin regulation and the PSA Order.

2. Regulations of Stablecoins

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) defines stablecoins as a crypto-asset designed to maintain a stable value relative to a specific asset (usually a unit of fiat currency or commodity or commodities), a pool of assets, or a basket of assets. In addition, like other cryptocurrencies, stablecoin is an instrument that can be transferred on a peer-to-peer basis, either using a private crypto wallet for peer-to-peer transfers or through a third-party service provider. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) released a consultation paper on e-money and digital payment tokens (DPTs) on December 23, 2019, which was an early attempt by MAS to regulate stablecoins used as payment instruments. Subsequently, on October 26, 2022, MAS issued a consultation paper on the proposed regulatory policy for stablecoins, in which the MAS stated that, if well regulated, stablecoins have the potential to play a reliable role as a digital medium of exchange. Under the Payment Services Act (PSA), stablecoins are considered DPTs. Therefore, entities that provide stablecoin trading and/or facilitate stablecoin exchange services would fall within the scope of regulated DPT services. As the PSA had not previously introduced regulatory measures to ensure that stablecoins maintain a high degree of value stability and any associated stabilization mechanisms, on August 15, 2023, MAS formally published a regulatory framework for stablecoins along with feedback on the aforementioned consultation paper. In June this year, the UK passed a law giving regulators the ability to oversee stablecoins, but there are no specific rules yet. Meanwhile, Hong Kong is conducting a public consultation on stablecoins and aims to introduce regulation next year. Singapore, on the other hand, has led other regions to become one of the first countries in the world to formally incorporate stablecoins into its own regulatory system, which has significant implications.

2.1 Scope of Regulation

In the consultation paper, MAS categorizes stablecoins into single currency linked stablecoins (SCS) and non-SCS (e.g., stablecoins linked to a basket of currencies or other assets/commodities). Stablecoins pegged to a single currency have a stronger use case for payments and settlements. This response clarifies that the regulatory scope of the Singapore Stablecoin Framework only includes Singapore Stablecoins pegged to the Singapore Dollar or G10 currencies issued in Singapore, and that other types of Stablecoins (such as Algorithmic Stablecoins) will not be prohibited from being issued, used or circulated in Singapore. These stablecoins, including those issued outside Singapore or pegged to other currencies or assets, will continue to be subject to the existing DPT regulatory regime. Currencies are symbols of national sovereignty that other countries do not have the authority to regulate, and it is an important regulatory innovation for MAS to include stablecoins pegged to G10 currencies in its scope of regulation.

In addition, MAS has included "stablecoin issuance services," an additional regulated payment service that refers to the necessary activities of a stablecoin issuer, including the safekeeping of stablecoins issued by the issuer and the management of reserve assets backing the stablecoin. To its credit, MAS has been very flexible in categorizing stablecoin issuers into bank and non-bank SCS. With respect to non-bank SCS issuers, SCS issuers with SCS circulating up to S$5 million are not required to comply with the requirements under the SCS framework, and any SCS issuer that anticipates or intends to have its total SCS circulating in excess of S$5 million and wishes to have its SCS accredited, is required to comply with the requirements under the SCS Framework and apply for an MPI license to carry out "stablecoin issuance services". For bank stablecoin issuers, MAS recognizes that there are differences in the value stabilization mechanisms used for fully reserve asset-backed stablecoins and tokenized deposits (which are bank liabilities), and therefore MAS will exclude bank tokenized deposits from the SCS regulatory framework. Banks would also be required to issue 100% asset-backed stablecoins, but it is important to note that banks are not required to apply for an MPI license. MAS will retain the flexibility to treat certain tokens as stablecoins if the bank SCS issuer designs tokens that meet the same criteria under the SCS regulatory framework.

2.2 Reserve requirements

MAS requires that at all times the SCS issuer's reserve assets be valued at at least 100% of the outstanding SCS circulating size and that the issuer is prohibited from providing other non-issuance services (e.g., lending, betting, trading digital payment tokens) or holding shares in any other entity, which is intended to guard against and mitigate the risk of the SCS issuer. That being said, the above prohibited activities can in fact still be carried out from other related entities (e.g. sister companies in which the SCS issuer has no shares). All reserve assets used to back SCS must be held in segregated accounts, isolated from self-owned assets that are not part of the reserve assets. In addition, MAS has agreed that it may allow assets to be held in custody by overseas custodians, provided that such custodians have a minimum credit rating of "A-" and have a MAS-regulated branch in Singapore to provide custody services.

In terms of the composition of reserve assets, reserves are only allowed to be invested in cash, cash equivalents and bonds with a remaining maturity of not more than three months, where cash equivalents exclude money market funds. Actions like USDC investing 90% of its assets in money market funds and USDT investing in some commercial paper do not satisfy MAS regulatory requirements. Stablecoin issuers Tether and Circle have both welcomed the new rules. Reserve assets are subject to annual audits and monthly independent validation, with monthly reports to be published on issuers' websites.

For redemptions, SCS issuers regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) must return the face value to holders within five business days. The redemption timeframe aims to strike a balance between remaining responsive to user requests and ensuring that issuers have sufficient time to conduct redemptions in an orderly manner under various stressful situations. Redemption conditions, if any, must be reasonable and must be disclosed in advance.

It is also worth noting that if an issuer wishes its stablecoin to be recognized as a "MAS-regulated stablecoin" under the SCS framework, its SCS can only be issued in Singapore, and is not permitted to be issued in more than one jurisdiction. MAS is of the view that, given that regulation of stablecoins globally is in its infancy, it is difficult to establish regulatory equivalence and cooperation with other jurisdictions, and therefore difficult to monitor and determine the adequacy and availability of reserve assets held in overseas jurisdictions that could be used for redemption requests in another jurisdiction.

The official document released by MAS provides a good summary of the regulatory framework for stablecoins below:

In terms of the existing regulatory framework, one of the controversial points at this point in time is the requirement for SCS issuers to only issue stablecoins in Singapore, where some stablecoins have now become globally-available stablecoins, issued in different regions and on different public chains. If issuers fulfill the above requirements of MAS, they may lose their competitiveness in the market. MAS has indicated that it will continue to monitor global regulatory and technological developments relating to stablecoins and may consider establishing formal regulatory cooperation mechanisms with other jurisdictions as stablecoin regulation matures.

Taken together, the finalization of the Stablecoin regulatory framework will provide greater clarity and certainty to Stablecoin issuers with respect to SCS regulatory requirements in Singapore, and serves as a model for global Stablecoin regulation in a far-reaching way. Given the evolving nature of stablecoins and the continuing development of the global stablecoin regulatory environment, the MAS has indicated that it will continue to monitor developments in the stablecoin space with a view to bringing other types of tokens under the SCS framework. Although compliant stablecoins can effectively avoid risks, boost user confidence and maintain financial stability, the compliance cost is still quite high to successfully issue compliant stablecoins in Singapore. It is a good measure for strong banks and large companies as their moat is further deepened and their competitive advantage is obvious, especially since banks do not need an MPI license to issue stablecoins; and for SMEs, especially start-ups, issuing compliant stablecoins is a good measure. For small and medium-sized enterprises, especially start-ups, the possibility of issuing compliant stablecoins is further reduced, and the current regulatory policy is not friendly. The application process for an MPI license can take 1-2 years, and the number of enterprises that can really get a license is not high.

3. Payment Service Act

The Payment Service Act (PSA), which came into effect in January 2020, regulates payment systems and payment service providers in Singapore. Payment services are a fast-growing industry, with new payment solutions making digital payments faster, cheaper and more convenient, however, they also bring new risks, so MAS saw the need to review and update its payments regulatory framework, which combines the requirements previously contained in the Payment Services (Operations) Act and the Singapore Currency and Payments Regulations into a single piece of legislation. The Payment Services Act expands MAS's regulatory scope to address new risks posed by existing payment services and to include new payment services. Through a modular and risk-based approach to regulation, the Payment Services Act establishes a flexible regulatory framework that can effectively mitigate the impact of payment service provider failures while facilitating the advancement of the payments industry in Singapore.

Under the Payment Services Act, any entity providing any type of payment service needs to be licensed before it is authorized to carry on the business of providing that type of payment service, unless otherwise exempted. The Act provides for seven types of payment services, which in relation to crypto-assets include "digital payment token services" (DPT) and e-money. Under MAS, the appropriate anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) requirements will be enforced on the relevant licensees through notices to be published under the MAS Act. Upon the commencement of the MAS Act, all payment-based token issuers or exchange service providers in Singapore will be required to meet the AML/CFT requirements.

3.1 DPT Services

Under the PSA, a "digital payment token" (DPT) is any digital representation of value (excluding digital representations of value) that:

• Is expressed in units;

• Is not denominated in any currency and is not pegged to any currency by its issuer;

• is a medium of exchange accepted by a section of the public as payment for goods or services or in satisfaction of a debt;

• can be transferred, stored or traded electronically;

• meets other characteristics specified by the Authority. Entities providing DPT services are required to obtain a Standard Payment Institution License or a Major Payment Institution License. DPT services include direct transaction services for DPTs (e.g. purchase, sale, fiat currency exchange, DPT services include direct DPT trading services (e.g. purchase, sale, fiat currency exchange, cryptocurrency exchange) as well as services facilitating the trading of DPTs (e.g. exchanges, custodians, wallet services etc.).

3.2 Electronic Money (eMoney) Services

Electronic Money (eMoney) is monetary value stored in electronic form, which is essentially an electronic form of legal tender with the following characteristics:

• It is denominated in, or pegged to, legal tender;

• Has been pre-paid so that payment transactions can be carried out through a payment account;

• Is accepted by a person other than the issuer;

• represents a claim against the issuer. According to the MAS distinction: (1) eMoney is a digital manifestation of a single fiat currency (e.g., the digital RMB), whereas a DPT does not need to be pegged to any fiat currency; and (2) eMoney is a claim against its issuer, whereas a DPT is not, and DPTs don't even need to be issued by the issuer (e.g., Bitcoin and Ether). In addition, MAS specifically mentions that stablecoins are not part of e-Money and that the regulatory framework applicable to stablecoins will be determined on a case-by-case basis.MAS takes into account that the two different payment services, eMoney and DPT, are subject to their own distinctive risks and therefore take a different regulatory approach to the two, e.g., eMoney focuses on consumer protection whereas DPT focuses on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing.

According to the PSA, entities providing e-money issuance services need to obtain a standard payment institution license or one of the main payment institution licenses. An electronic money issuance service is the issuance of electronic money to any subject for the purpose of enabling that subject to carry out payment transactions. For e-money issuance services alone, if the total value of e-money issued in a single day exceeds S$5 million (based on a one-year average), a major payment institution license is required, otherwise a standard payment institution license is sufficient.

On January 17, 2022, MAS issued Guidelines on the Provision of DPT Services to the Public, stating that DPT is high risk and not suitable for public participation, and requiring DPT service providers to avoid publicizing DPT services in public places or on mass social media, and to promote their DPT services only on their company websites and apps, and on their social media accounts.In April 2022, Singapore's Parliament considered and passed the Financial Services and Markets Bill (FSM), which requires digital token issuers and service providers to obtain valid financial licenses and imposes higher anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing requirements.2022 On October 26, 2022, Singapore released a public consultation paper on regulatory measures for DPT services, with plans to further refine regulatory policies for DPT services to reduce risks in DPT transactions and protect investors. From the above rules and subsequent development, it can be seen that from 2022 onwards, MAS's regulatory policy on DPT is getting tighter, affected by the drastic fluctuation of the crypto industry, MAS will also introduce stricter measures to combat financial crimes, and the regulatory focus will continue to be in the direction of anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing.

4. Summary

Singapore's crypto regulatory policy in recent years has changed from its previous over-the-top open stance, maintaining a friendly but not lax attitude towards crypto assets, especially not optimistic about the speculative trading behavior of the crypto market. What Singapore is optimistic about and welcomes is responsible digital asset innovation. The government has been conducting investor education, suggesting risks and discouraging involvement of personal investors as a way to provide proper guidance, especially since the fall of many crypto giants in 2022. In order to avoid repeating the mistakes of FTX, Singapore's requirements for centralized exchanges and other DPT service providers have become more stringent, and its newly confirmed stablecoin regulatory framework is not exactly SME-friendly too. However, it is worth recognizing that MAS has been making effective attempts to regulate the crypto industry, rather than adopting a negative or one-size-fits-all attitude, and the increasingly perfect and transparent regulatory system has shown crypto practitioners a path to compliance. Singapore's provisions are also extremely flexible and innovative, and the stablecoin regulatory framework serves as a model for the global regulatory system. All in all, Singapore remains one of the more crypto-friendly countries globally in the near future.

2023年8月15日，新加坡确定了针对稳定币的最终监管框架，成为全球首批将稳定币纳入本地监管体系的司法管辖区之一。作为加密热土，新加坡从未停止对加密行业监管的探索和努力。本文将详细阐述和剖析新加坡加密立法的发展历程和重要法令。

核心观点

♦ 新加坡起初以金融开放的态度拥抱加密行业，但自2022年众多加密巨头倒台以来，MAS的监管政策趋于收紧，对加密资产保持着友好但不宽松的态度，尤其不看好加密市场的投机交易行为。

♦ 2023年8月15日，MAS最终确定稳定币监管框架，对监管范围、储备金和赎回期等方面提出详细要求，如支持稳定币的准备金必须持有低风险和高流动性资产，这些储备金在任何时候都必须等于或超过流通中的稳定币的价值。此监管框架对大型企业和银行是利好消息，对中小企业不友好，合规成本很高。

♦ 《支付服务法》（Payment Service Act, PSA）于2020年1月生效，涉及加密货币的要求主要在电子货币和数字支付代币（DPT）方面，比特币和以太币等均属于DPT，稳定币不属于e-Money，会根据实际情况决定稳定币适用的监管框架。MAS对两者采取不同的监管方式，如eMoney重点关注消费者保护而DPT则重点关注反洗钱和反恐融资。

♦ 新加坡针对加密交易所的相关政策也愈加严格。今年7月，MAS表示将要求DPT服务提供商在今年年底前将客户资产交由法定信托机构保管，帮助降低客户资产受损的风险，并在DPT服务提供商破产时便于收回客户资产，防止FTX的悲剧重演。MAS还将限制DPT服务提供商为其零售客户提供借贷和抵押服务。

1、背景详述

随着全球一些经济大国，如中国、美国和英国在加密监管方面不断收紧政策，大量加密公司选择涌入新加坡发展，新加坡俨然成为了加密行业的避风港，包括以太坊创始人Vitalik Buterin和币安创始人赵长鹏在内的许多行业大佬均移居或常驻于此。起初，新加坡勇气可嘉，以“金融开放”的态度逆流而上，监管机构对加密货币和区块链行业表达了极其友好和开放的态度，也通过其友好的监管环境和低税收等政策吸引了众多加密企业，但同时也助长了潜在的违法活动与金融风险，尤其自2022年加密寒冬开始，曾经的加密热土新加坡开始重新审视加密货币和区块链，监管政策也一再收紧。从下文的监管政策发展轨迹我们可以清晰地观察到新加坡态度的微妙转变。

自2014年以来，新加坡金融管理局（Monetary Authority of Singapore，MAS）作为新加坡的中央银行和综合金融监管机构，便不断就与虚拟货币交易相关的重大风险对投资者做出提醒，对web3行业进行必要监管。2017年8月，MAS提出意见称，如果代币以证券形式构建，ICO则必须遵守旨在保障投资者利益的现行证券法。在2017年8月10日与商业事务部联合发布的消费者咨询中，MAS还建议投资者进行尽职调查，以了解涉及数字代币的ICO和投资计划的潜在风险。不过，当时新加坡金管局虽然专门针对潜在的洗钱和恐怖主义融资风险对新加坡的虚拟货币中介机构进行了监管，但表示除此之外不会对虚拟货币本身进行监管。2017年10月，新加坡金管局常务董事Ravi Menon在接受彭博社采访时曾表示："到目前为止，我还没有看到想要监管加密货币的依据。”同年11月14日，MAS发布《数字代币发售指南》，指南规定如果数字代币属于《证券和期货法》（Securities and Futures Act, SFA）规定的资本市场产品（Capital Markets Products，CMP），则将受到金融管理局的监管，资本市场产品（CMP）包含证券、债券、衍生品合约、集体投资计划等。2017年12月，比特币价格从1000美元飙升至近20000美元，市场对加密货币的追捧和情绪日益高涨，此时新加坡金管局进一步强调，公众应 "极其谨慎"行事，并了解此类投资所伴随的重大风险。新加坡金管局特别警告说，加密货币价格的飙升很可能是由投机活动推动的，因此价格急剧下降的风险很高，而且加密货币投资没有监管保障措施。2019年1月14日，新加坡通过了《支付服务法》（Payment Services Act，PSA），PSA法案将账户发行、国内汇款、跨境汇款、商户支付、电子货币e-Money发行、数字支付代币DPT服务和货币兑换这七类支付服务纳入支付牌照监管范围。

新加坡的监管政策近年来不断收紧。2022年算法稳定币TerraUSD崩溃，加密借贷公司Voyager Digital、Celsius Network 和 BlockFi、以及总部位于新加坡的加密对冲基金Three Arrows Capital和后来的FTX等加密巨头纷纷倒下，淡马锡投资亏损2.75亿美元，新加坡超4%的公民在FTX进行过交易，这些极端事件无疑为新加坡的形象蒙上了阴霾，险些带来系统性风险。新加坡金管局也下决心打击扰乱市场秩序的作恶者，绝不允许任何不负责任的行为或创新破坏其信誉，毕竟信誉对新加坡金融体系至关重要，新加坡有序且稳定的政策是大家喜欢在新加坡创业的主要原因。2022年1月，新加坡金管局出台措施，限制加密从业者在公共场所推销和宣传加密货币服务，从业者只能在自己的社交媒体平台上做宣传，并禁止以淡化风险的方式描述加密货币交易。2022年10月26日，即FTX于2022年11月11日申请破产前约两周，新加坡金管局发布了两份咨询文件，提出了降低加密货币交易中损害消费者风险的建议措施（《数字支付代币服务建议监管措施咨询文件》），以及支持稳定币在新加坡数字资产生态系统中发展的建议措施（《稳定币相关活动建议监管方法咨询文件》）。2023年8月15日，MAS宣布了稳定币最终版监管框架，成为全球首批将稳定币纳入本地监管体系的司法管辖区之一，其监管框架也极有可能成为未来其他国家和地区关于稳定币监管法规的模版和趋势。此外，新加坡针对加密交易所的相关政策也愈加严格。今年7月，金融管理局表示，它将要求数字支付代币（DPT）服务提供商在今年年底前将客户资产交由法定信托机构保管，帮助降低客户资产受损的风险，并在DPT服务提供商破产时便于收回客户资产，防止FTX的悲剧重演。MAS还将限制DPT服务提供商为其零售客户提供借贷和抵押服务，虽然这一措施尚未形成正式法令，币安也在其长达8页的反馈意见书中提出了多种灵活变通的措施并提醒当局关于第三方托管机构的风险问题，但对DPT服务商要求越发严格已是大势所趋。下文就稳定币监管和PSA法令做详细分析。

2、稳定币监管

金融稳定委员会（FSB）将稳定币定义为加密资产，是旨在保持相对于特定资产（通常是法定货币或商品的单位或商品）、资产池或一篮子资产的稳定价值的加密资产。此外，与其他加密货币一样，稳定币是一种可以通过点对点方式进行转移的工具，可以使用私人加密钱包进行点对点转账，或通过第三方服务提供商进行转账。新加坡金融管理局于2019年12月23日发布了一份关于电子货币和数字支付代币（DPT）的咨询文件，该文件是MAS对于监管用作支付工具的稳定币的一次早期尝试。后来到2022年10月26日，MAS发出关于稳定币的拟议监管政策咨询文件，在咨询文件中金管局表示，如果受到良好监管，稳定币有潜力发挥可靠的数字交换媒介作用。根据《支付服务法》（PSA），稳定币被视为DPT。因此，提供稳定币交易和/或促进稳定币兑换服务的实体将属于受监管的DPT服务范围。由于之前PSA没有出台监管措施来确保稳定币保持高度的价值稳定性和任何相关的稳定机制，因此在2023年8月15日，MAS正式发布了稳定币监管框架以及对上述咨询文件的反馈。今年6月，英国通过了一项法律，赋予监管机构监督稳定币的能力，但目前还没有具体的规则。与此同时，香港正在就稳定币进行公众咨询，并争取在明年引入监管。新加坡则已领先其他地区成为全球首批正式将稳定币纳入本国监管体系的国家，意义重大。

2.1 监管范围

在咨询文件中，MAS将稳定币划分为与单一货币挂钩的稳定币 (SCS) 和非SCS（如与一篮子货币或其他资产/商品挂钩的稳定币。与单一货币挂钩的稳定币在支付和结算方面具有更强的使用价值。此次回应则明确了新加坡稳定币框架的监管范围仅包括与新加坡元或在新加坡发行的G10货币挂钩的新加坡稳定币，其他类型的稳定币（如算法稳定币）不会被禁止在新加坡境内发行、使用或流通。这些稳定币，包括在新加坡境外发行或与其他货币或资产挂钩的新加坡稳定币，将继续受现行的DPT监管制度约束。货币是国家主权的象征，他国本无权管理，而MAS能将同G10货币挂钩的稳定币也纳入其监管范围，是一项重要的监管创新。

此外，MAS将"稳定币发行服务”也纳入了监管范围，这项额外的受监管支付服务指稳定币发行商所从事的必要活动，包括保管发行商发行的稳定币和管理支持稳定币的储备资产。值得肯定的是，MAS非常灵活地将稳定币发行商分为银行和非银行SCS。关于非银行的SCS 发行商，不要求SCS流通量不超过500万新元的SCS发行商遵守SCS框架下的要求，任何预计或打算其SCS流通总量超过500万新元，并希望其SCS获得认可的SCS发行商，都必须符合SCS框架的要求，申请MPI牌照，以开展 "稳定币发行服务"。对于银行稳定币发行商，新加坡金管局承认，完全准备金资产支持的稳定币和代币化存款（属于银行负债）所使用的价值稳定机制存在差异，因此，MAS将把银行代币化存款排除在SCS监管框架外。银行也必须发行100%资产抵押的稳定币，但需要注意的是，银行并不需要申请MPI牌照。如果银行SCS发行人设计的代币符合SCS监管框架下的同等标准，新加坡金融管理局将保留将某些代币视为稳定币的灵活性。

2.2 储备金要求

MAS要求在任何时候，SCS发行商的储备资产估值都至少为未偿付SCS流通规模的100%，且发行商被禁止提供其他非发行服务（如借贷、押注、交易数字支付代币），也不能持有任何其他实体的股份，这样做的目的是防范和降低SCS发行商的风险。尽管如此，上述被禁止活动其实仍可从其他相关实体（如SCS发行商没有股份的姊妹公司）进行。用于支持SCS的所有储备资产必须存放在独立账户中，与不属于储备资产的自有资产进行账户隔离。此外，新加坡金管局还同意可允许由海外托管人托管资产，条件是这些托管人的最低信用评级为 "A-"，并在新加坡设有受MAS监管的分行，以提供托管服务。

在储备资产构成上，储备金只被允许投资于现金、现金等价物和剩余到期日不超过三个月的债券，其中的现金等价物不包括货币市场基金。类似USDC将90%的资产投向货币市场基金，以及USDT投资一些商业票据的行为，都是不满足MAS监管规定的。稳定币发行商Tether和Circle都对新规则表示欢迎。储备资产须接受年度审计，并每月进行独立验证，月度报告将在发行商网站上公布。

赎回方面，受新加坡金融管理局监管的SCS发行商必须在五个工作日内将面值退还给持有人。赎回时限旨在保持对用户要求的响应，并确保发行商在各种压力情况下有足够时间有序地进行赎回，从而在两者之间取得平衡。赎回条件（如有）必须合理且须提前披露。

另外值得注意的是，如果发行商希望其稳定币在SCS框架下被认可为 "新加坡金管局监管的稳定币"，其SCS只能在新加坡发行，而不允许在多个司法管辖区发行。MAS认为，鉴于全球范围内的稳定币监管尚处于起步阶段，很难与其他司法管辖区建立监管等效与合作关系，因此很难监测和确定海外司法管辖区持有的储备资产是否充足和可用，而这些储备资产可能会被用于另一司法管辖区的赎回请求。

MAS发布的官方文件对稳定币监管框架做了一个很好的总结如下：

就现有监管框架来看，目前比较有争议的一点是SCS发行商只能在新加坡发行稳定币的要求，目前一些稳定币已经成为全球通用稳定币，在不同地区和不同公链上发行。若发行商履行MAS的上述要求，则可能会丧失其市场竞争力。新加坡金管局表示将继续关注与稳定币有关的全球监管和技术发展，随着稳定币监管的逐渐成熟，可能会考虑与其他司法管辖区建立正式的监管合作机制。

综合来看，稳定币监管框架的最终确定将使稳定币发行商对新加坡的SCS监管要求更加清晰和明确，对全球稳定币监管起到了示范作用，意义深远。鉴于稳定币不断演变的性质和全球稳定币监管环境的持续发展，新加坡金管局表示将继续关注稳定币领域的发展，以期将其他类型的代币纳入SCS框架。虽然合规稳定币可以有效规避风险，提升用户信心，维持金融稳定，但要成功在新加坡发行合规稳定币，合规成本还是相当高的，对于实力雄厚的银行和大公司来讲是利好措施，因为其护城河进一步加深，竞争优势明显，尤其是银行发行稳定币不需要MPI牌照；而对于中小企业，尤其是初创企业来讲，发行合规稳定币的可能性被进一步降低，目前的监管政策并不友好，申请MPI牌照动辄耗时1-2年，真正能拿到牌照的企业数量也并不多。

3、《支付服务法》

《支付服务法》（Payment Service Act, PSA）于2020年1月生效，对新加坡的支付系统和支付服务提供商进行监管。支付服务是一个快速发展的行业，新的支付解决方案使数字支付更快、更便宜、更方便，但也带来了新的风险，因此新加坡金融管理局认为有必要审查并更新其支付监管框架，它将之前《支付服务（运营）法》和《新加坡货币与支付条例》中的要求合并为一项法律。《支付服务法》扩大了新加坡金管局的监管范围，以应对现有支付服务带来的新风险，并纳入新的支付服务。通过模块化和基于风险的监管方法，《支付服务法》建立了一个灵活的监管框架，可以有效减轻支付服务提供商失败的影响，同时促进新加坡支付行业的进步。

根据《支付服务法》，任何提供任何类型支付服务的实体都需要获得许可证，才有权开展提供该类型支付服务的业务，除非另有豁免。该法案规定了七种类型的支付服务，其中和加密资产有关的包括 "数字支付代币服务"（DPT）和e-money。根据MAS的规定，反洗钱和打击资助恐怖主义（AML/CFT）的适当要求将通过根据《新加坡金融管理局法》发布的通知对相关持牌人实施。在《支付服务法》生效后，新加坡所有支付型代币发行商或兑换服务商都必须满足反洗钱和打击资助恐怖主义行为的要求。

3.1 DPT服务

根据PSA，"数字支付代币"（DPT）是指任何价值的数字表示（不包括被排除在外的价值数字表示），并且：

• 以单位表示；

• 不以任何货币计价，其发行者也不将其与任何货币挂钩；

• 是部分公众所接受的交易媒介，作为货品或服务的付款或清偿债务的付款；

• 可以电子方式转让、储存或交易；

• 符合管理局规定的其他特征。 提供DPT服务的主体需要获取标准支付机构牌照（Standard Payment Institution License）或主要支付机构牌照（Major Payment Institution License）。DPT服务包括DPT的直接交易服务（如购买、出售、法币兑换、币币兑换）以及为交易DPT提供便利的服务（如交易所、托管机构、钱包服务等）。

3.2 电子货币（eMoney）服务

电子货币（eMoney）是以电子形式存储的货币价值，其本质上是法定货币的电子形式，具备如下特征：

• 以法定货币计价，或与法定货币挂钩；

• 已预先支付，以便通过支付账户进行支付交易；

• 被发行人以外的人接受；

• 代表着对发行人的一项债权。 根据MAS的区分：（1）eMoney是单一法定货币的数字表现形式（如数字人民币），而DPT不需要与任何法定货币挂钩；（2）eMoney是一项对其发行人的债权，而DPT则不是，DPT甚至不需要发行人来发行（如比特币和以太币）。此外，MAS特别提到稳定币不属于e-Money，会根据实际情况决定稳定币适用的监管框架。MAS考虑到eMoney和DPT两种不同的支付服务都面临各自不同的风险，因此对两者采取不同的监管方式，如eMoney重点关注消费者保护而DPT则重点关注反洗钱和反恐融资。

根据PSA的规定，提供电子货币发行服务的主体需要取得标准支付机构牌照或主要支付机构牌照之一。电子货币发行服务即向任何主体发行电子货币，目的是让该主体能够进行支付交易。仅就电子货币发行服务而言，如果一天之内发行的电子货币总价值超过500万新加坡元（按照一年平均值计算），则需要取得主要支付机构牌照，否则取得标准支付机构牌照即可。

2022年1月17日，MAS发布《向公众提供DPT服务之指南》，指出DPT具有高风险性，不适合公众参与，要求DPT服务商避免在公共场所或大众社交媒体上宣传DPT服务，只能在公司网站和应用及社交账号上推广其DPT服务。2022年4月，新加坡议会审议通过《金融服务与市场法案》(FSM)，要求数字代币发行方和服务提供方需取得有效的金融牌照，并提出了更高的反洗钱、反恐怖主义融资要求。2022年10月26日，新加坡发布了针对DPT服务监管措施的公众咨询文件，计划进一步细化对DPT服务的监管政策，以降低DPT交易中风险和保护投资者。从上述细则和后续发展可以看出，从2022年开始，MAS对DPT的监管政策日益收紧，受到加密行业剧烈波动的影响，MAS也将推出更加严格的措施打击金融犯罪，监管侧重点也会继续在反洗钱和打击恐怖融资方向。

4、总结

新加坡近几年的加密监管政策一改往日超前的开放姿态，对加密资产保持着友好但不宽松的态度，尤其不看好加密市场的投机交易行为，新加坡看好且欢迎的是负责任的数字资产创新。政府层面一直在进行投资者教育，提示风险，不鼓励散户参与，以此进行正确引导，尤其自2022年众多加密巨头倒台以来，为避免重蹈覆辙FTX的覆辙，新加坡对中心化交易所等DPT服务商的要求愈发严格，其最新确认的稳定币监管框架对中小企业来讲也不算友好。但值得肯定的是，MAS一直在对加密行业做监管方面的有效尝试，而不是消极或一刀切的态度，日益完善透明的监管体系也为加密从业者指明了合规路径，其条款制定也极具灵活性和创新性，稳定币监管框架为全球监管体系起到了模版和示范作用。综合来讲，在近期的未来几年，从全球范围来看，新加坡依然是对加密较为友好的国家之一。

Recently, the Telegram bot venue has risen out of nowhere, and the price of Unibot tokens has skyrocketed 10 times, causing a new round of FOMO sentiment in the crypto market. In this article, we will do an in-depth analysis of the whole landscape, explain in detail the business performance of the representative projects, explore potential investment opportunities, and make necessary tips on risks.

*This article is only for research and discussion, there may be bias and errors in facts, data, and opinions, and does not constitute any investment advice, and does not assume legal responsibility.

Key Insights

♦ Based on Telegram's huge number of daily active users, Telegram bots let users realize simple functions directly through the mobile terminal. Main defi features include trading, sniping, copy trading, airdrop farming, and so on, which successfully cater to the needs of players chasing meme coins. Also, Telegram bots can introduce new users to the crypto space.

♦The recent triggering point of the track is the Unibot. Its token market capitalization accounts for more than 70% of the overall venue, and the transaction volume and number of transactions are also far ahead of other competitors; the pioneer project Maestro Bots has an advantage in terms of the number of users; the cumulative total agreement revenue of the DEX bots has reached $28.7M, and Maestro's cumulative agreement revenue of $8M is ranked first.

♦ The vast majority of Unibot's protocol revenue comes from transaction tax, which reflects the speculative behavior of UNIBOT tokens and is not sustainable. Due to the recent decline in the proportion of tax, the protocol revenue also shows a downward trend, and the bots transaction fee is the real revenue of the protocol. Although the current project's annualized P/E is only 4.17, the token price has reached $186, and Unibot protocol income would still decline further. Therefore it is no longer a good time for investment at this stage.

♦ Risks of the bots mainly include security risks, such as robot access to private keys, data leakage or attacks leading to asset loss, thus limiting the size of capital that the ecosystem can accommodate; in addition, bots rely on algorithms and historical data to make trading decisions, and have a slower reaction time to sudden changes or unexpected events in the market, which may result in decision-making errors and investment losses. Users need to exercise caution when using these applications.

Report Outline

1、Landscape Overview

2. Analysis of Representative Projects

2.1 Unibot

2.2 Maestro Bots

2.3 Banana Gun

3、Potential Risks

4、Summary

1. Landscape Overview

Telegram bots are essentially automated scripts that respond to specific commands sent or keywords triggered by users in Telegram chats, and are typically built on APIs provided by cryptocurrency exchanges, market data aggregators, or custom trading algorithms.Telegram bots interact with these APIs to obtain data, execute trades, and provide information to users. The main functions on the defi side include trading, sniping, copy trading, airdrop farming, etc. The user experience is better, and simple functions can be realized directly through the mobile terminal, and the operating steps are easier compared to other defi apps, which is very appealing to defi users. In addition, Telegram's monthly active users have exceeded 800 million, and low-threshold defi bots are very likely to introduce new users to the crypto space.

According to data reported by Binance Research, the cumulative cryptocurrency trading volume associated with Telegram bots has exceeded $190 million as of early August 2023; on July 23, the daily trading volume of cryptocurrencies backed by bots hit an all-time high of $10 million, with more than 6,000 unique users per day. The growing popularity of meme coins in recent months contribute a lot to the rise bots. Meme coins have become the story of overnight riches, and the smart money wallet addresses that have made a hundred or even a thousand times the amount of coins have also been sought after, and the low-net-worth players hope to analyze the historical trading behavior of meme coins by searching for such wallet addresses and imitate them in the future. Telegram bots fulfill this need by allowing users to quickly access token information, accurately snipe meme coins, monitor smart money wallet addresses across the web, and providing one-click followers to copy trades. In addition, to address the pain points in the transaction process such as transaction speed, transaction slippage and MEV attacks, Telegram bots provide limit orders, custom slippage, private transactions and other functions to achieve faster speed and avoid transactions by sandwich attacks.

1.1 Typical Use Cases

• Providing real-time market data and news: Telegram cryptobots are one of the sources of information for users, providing real-time updates on cryptocurrency prices, market trends, and breaking news events. These bots make it easy for users to access information efficiently and stay up-to-date without having to navigate through multiple websites or apps.

• Trading Signals and Analysis: Many Telegram bots are designed to provide trading signals and technical analysis to help users make informed trading decisions. By analyzing market indicators and price patterns, these robots can help traders identify potential entry and exit points.

• Portfolio Management: Telegram bots can provide portfolio tracking features that allow users to monitor holdings, evaluate profits and losses, and receive performance reports.

• Peer-to-peer trading: Some Telegram bots enable peer-to-peer (P2P) cryptocurrency trading within Telegram, which allows users to buy and sell cryptocurrencies directly to each other, eliminating the need for intermediaries such as exchanges.

• Payment services: Telegram bots also facilitate cryptocurrency payments and transactions, and companies can integrate these bots into their own Telegram channels or groups to receive payments for products or services offered.

1.2 Steps to set up a bot

Step 1: Create Bot: Developers can use the BotFather tool to create bots on Telegram, generating the API tokens needed for the bot to run;

Step 2: Integrate APIs, bot developers integrate APIs from cryptocurrency exchanges or other relevant sources to access real-time market data and execute trades;

Step 3: Command mapping, where the developer defines specific commands that the bot can recognize and respond to, e.g., "/price BTC" might trigger the bot to fetch the current price of Bitcoin;

Step 4: User authorization, some advanced bots may require users to authorize their exchange accounts to enable trading or portfolio management functionality.

1.3 Business Performance

The recent trigger for the pipeline has been Unibot which, according to CoinMarketCap, accounted for more than 70% of the overall track's total market capitalization as of August 14th.

According to Dune's data, as of August 14th, the DEX bots had 78,238 unique users, with a total transaction volume of $265,299,823, and 449,162 transactions have been completed. Among them, the number of users of the pioneering project Maestro, which was established back in June 2022 but has always had less than 1k users, has grown all the way up to 5k+ since March this year; followed by Unibot, whose number of users soared to 1.5k+ in July since the project was established in May this year.

From the perspective of daily trading volume, the top ranked is Unibot, followed by Banana Gun. The peak appeared on July 23 with the total daily trading volume of more than $10 million, of which Unibot's daily trading volume amounted to $7.6 million. Now the trading volume has dropped back after a rapid rise, and today's total daily trading volume has fallen back to about $5.8 million.

In terms of trades, the gap between Unibot and second-ranked Banana Gun isn't quite wide, with Unibot currently at 7,585 daily trades compared to Banana Gun's 6,976.

1.4 Protocol Revenue

There are two dominant ways in which DEX bots convert adoption rates into agreement revenues. One is by charging a percentage fee on each transaction, and the other is by charging a purchase or sales tax on each purchase or sale transaction involving the bot's native tokens. As you can see, simply looking at the protocol revenue numbers does not give a true picture of the size of the project's transaction volume, the analysis of which will be detailed in the analysis of Unibot below. According to Binance Research, the cumulative total agreement revenue for the DEX bot track has now reached $28.7M, with Maestro's cumulative agreement revenue a distant second in the track at around $8M.

The following section provides a specific analysis of the raceway faucet projects.

2. Analysis of Representative Projects

2.1 Unibot

2.1.1 Project Introduction

Unibot is a bot project that provides Defi trading on Telegram, released on ethereum on May 17, 2023, and aims to provide the fastest Uniswap sniping service, allowing DeFi users to buy and sell tokens on Uniswap V3 directly through Telegram. More specifically, Unibot is Diamond Protocol's LLP platform for Uniswap V3. Since its launch in May 2023, the platform has become hugely popular, with the number of users and transactions rising dramatically in a short period of time. According to the official website, it is 6 times faster than Uniswap, with a total volume of $173,484,372. Users can try it out for free, but each purchase and sale transaction is subject to a secondary 1% transaction fee on top of the Uniswap transaction fee. The ultra-fast speed of Unibot is due to its advanced algorithms and robust infrastructure, including private nodes for sniping, private trading options for buying and selling tokens, wallet monitoring, and a token tracker.UNIBOT's tools include:

• Fast buying and selling platform;

• Mirror sniping, which enables users to copy transactions from other wallets;

• Token release channel, which provides real-time information about newly deployed tokens;

• Method sniping, which allows users to enter 3 token addresses to snipe at release;

• Multi-wallet management and PNL analysis of the value of tokens held by users.

Unibot highlights mainly include:

• The use of interface is beginner friendly and easy to operate, users can complete the transaction through the mobile Telegram;

• Unibot has private nodes, which accelerates the transaction speed, improves the transaction efficiency, and improves the user experience closer to a centralized product.

2.1.2 Team and Financing

Unibot is an anonymous team, with the only known information being that its founder Ayden previously worked at Apple, and the other founder works for a machine learning startup based in the Bay Area of California. A crypto VC, Theia Blockchain, is known to have invested in Unibot, but the exact amount of the investment was not disclosed.

2.1.3 Tokenomics

Unibot's native token is UNIBOT, with a maximum supply of 1,000,000 tokens, and the project was launched with all tokens in full circulation without dilution, and the tokens are used to pay for transaction fees and to receive rewards from holders. The price trend since the token's launch is shown below:

According to feixiaohao, on August 15, the number of UNIBOT token holding addresses is 5,840. The top 100 token addresses accounted for more than 50% ,among which addresses holding positions of more than 1% are 12, which shows that whales still have a strong control over the tokens.

The project levies a 5% tax on UNIBOT token transactions, of which 1% goes to the LP , 1-2% is allocated to token holders, and the remaining 2% is used for team and operational expenses. Holding 10 or more UNIBOT tokens (no pledge required) entitles holders to the following benefits:

• A 20% reduction in commission for swaps traded through Unibot;

• Enjoy a revenue share that includes 40% of the bot's transaction fees, and 1% of the UNIBOT Token transaction tax, and 2% of the token transaction tax for those who participate in the token migration before September;

• Access to the Unibot Telegram holder channel where alpha can be discussed, new features proposed and access to a dedicated support channel. The more UNIBOT tokens you hold, the more rewards you can receive.

2.1.4 Business Performance

Transaction Data Unibot trading volume peaked at $7.63M on July 23rd, and the average daily trading volume has dropped back to $4.6M in the last 7 days.

In terms of the source of trading volume, the top pair is UNIBOT-WETH, which is 3.4 times the volume of the second-place pair. Excluding the UNIBOT pair, the RLB-WETH pair accounted for 42.7% of the trading volume, and RLB is the native token of Rollbit Lottery; in addition, there are also mainstream and meme coins such as $BITCOIN, $jim, $COCO, which shows that Unibot is indeed suitable for tapping into new and popular projects, but it is not yet known if such tokens can bring trading volume to Unibot on a sustainable basis. However, it is not yet known whether such tokens can continue to bring trading volume to Unibot.

User Data

As of August 14, the cumulative number of unique users of the project reached 9,954, and the number of daily active users was 1,584. The user data began to surge after mid-July, and it still remains at a high level.

Protocol Revenue

The peak of the protocol fee appeared on July 23, with a single-day protocol revenue of 337.54 ETH, while the protocol revenue on August 13 had fallen to 61.14 ETH, a drop of more than 80%.

As for the composition of the protocol revenue, the bot transaction fee on July 23 was 38.42 ETH, and about 300 ETH of the fee was generated by the UNIBOT token transaction tax, which accounted for 89% of the total fee; the current tax revenue still accounts for 67% of the revenue, and the transaction fee accounted for only 33% of the fee.

In summary, the vast majority of the previous protocol revenue comes from the transaction tax, which reflects the speculative behavior of the UNIBOT token and is not sustainable. Due to the recent decline in the proportion of taxes, the protocol revenue has also shown a downward trend, while the bot transaction fees are the real income of the protocol, although the growth rate has accelerated since August, it still can't inhibit the downward trend of the project's revenue. The author believes that although the current project annualized P/E is only 4.17, but the token price has reached as high as $186, and the Unibot protocol revenue will still further decline, this stage is not a good time to enter the investment.

2.2 Maestro Bots

2.2.1 Project Introduction

Maestro Bots is a Telegram-based set of defi robots, founded in July 2022, mainly including multi-chain (BSC + ETH) sniper robot, wallet tracker and whale bot. The overall function is similar to Unibot. In addition to the basic functions of trading, mirror sniping and copying transactions, its special features include:

• Support for multi-chain transactions, including BSC, ETH and ARB;

• Receive instant notifications of whale transactions directly on Telegram, and Whale/Wallet Watch can notify users of large changes in wallets they wish to follow;

• The ability to track wallets right in Telegram with quick price alerts, and the ability to view cryptocurrency balances in BSC and ETH wallets at any time without switching apps or leaving Telegram;

• Maestro Buy Bot allows users to monitor the buying, selling and price changes of up to two tokens for free. Providing the cryptocurrency community with the right tools at high speed, versatility and accessibility. In terms of business model, Maestro Bots charge a 1% transaction fee for each transaction, and has also launched a $200/month VIP community service - Premium Sub, which allows you to get some "wealth codes" after entering the VIP community. After entering the VIP community, you can get some "wealth codes", access to faster robots and simulators and other more powerful features and tools. Currently, Maestro has not yet issued coins, and there is no revenue sharing or referral reward for users.

2.2.2 Team

Maestro Bots is developed by Gearlay Technologies Inc. The team is located in Canada and currently consists of four members, including two developers responsible for maintaining and updating the product, a marketer, and a designer/community manager responsible for providing information to users and collecting feedback.Gealay mainly provides BaaS (Bots-as-a Service) services and provides developers with a robot SDK . The disclosed member information is Abbas Abou Daya, the founder, with extensive past work experience in the development field.

2.2.3 Business Performance

User Data

According to Dune's statistics, the number of users of the project was 2,931 on August 14, although the project has been established for more than a year, the number of users did not exceed 1,000 on a single day before May this year until April 2023. The number of users began to surge, with the highest point appearing at 3,699 on May 22, and it has been maintained in the range of 2k-3k so far with 90% from ethereum. Much of the reason for the large increase in users comes from the fact that Unibot has sparked the bot venue, allowing Maestro Bots to get back in the spotlight as well, and the fact that it has yet to coin, drawing continued attention from speculators.

Protocol Revenues

Since Maestro Bots does not have incentives or revenue sharing rewards for its users, all fees collected by the Agreement become revenue directly. According to Defi Llama, as of August 14, 2023, the cumulative revenue from the Protocol is $18.85M, with a significant increase in revenue starting in May of this year, in line with the growth trend in the number of users, which is around $1M per week.

In summary, Maestro Bots product features are more complete, and the number of users and protocol revenue are still maintained at a high level.

2.3 Banana Gun

2.3.1 Project Introduction

Banana Gun is also a Telegram bot, the project was just established in June this year. Main features include sniping upcoming tokens and purchasing tokens that are already online, and it only supports Ethereum at the moment.Banana Gun Bot divides its services into two different levels, level 1 services are more limited, such as manual purchases, and it will charge a 0.5% transaction fee; and level 2 services charge a 0.85% transaction fee, including more advanced features such as automatic sniping. The product features a user-friendly interface with anti-rug function. There is no revenue sharing on fees, and referral rewards are only open for some KOLs.

2.3.2 Business Performance

Transaction Data

As of August 16th, Banana Gun's transaction volume reached $83,698,214, with an average daily transaction volume of $1,115,976, with the peak occurring on August 4th, when the daily transaction volume reached $4M, and the average number of transactions per day was 2,674. The volume indicator is second only to Unibot in the Telegram Bots track, but the gap is relatively large.

User Data

Banana Gun has 438 daily active users and 6,254 cumulative users, which is a gap compared to Unibot and Maestro bots. Nearly 80% of the project's users are returning users, with intermittent growth in new users.

Protocol Revenue

As of August 15, Banana Gun generated a total of 263.95 ETH in transaction fee revenue, which is about $481,708, with an average daily transaction fee revenue of $6,512. Such a low income is due to its low rates as well as low daily users.

In summary, Banana Gun launched late, the product design interface and features are similar to Unibot, and has not yet issued tokens. It is still doubtful whether its product features and the future price of tokens can beat up Unibot. In the case of the current hot Telegram bot venue, short-term speculation can be appropriately concerned.

3. Potential Risks

Telegram bot tools in the pursuit of transaction speed and ease of use at the same time, may sacrifice security and privacy protection. Potential risks should not be ignored.

Some bots' smart contracts have not yet passed security audits or have been exposed to many problems during audits. For example, Quantstamp's security audit of UniBot found a number of security issues and risks, including exchange calculation problems, vulnerability to sandwich attacks, lack of re-entry protection, solvency dependent on the keeper, and a lack of checking and logging of variable updates. Additionally, bots accessing private keys when users create a new wallet or connect to an existing wallet can be risky, and although bots claim to delete private keys after configuration is complete, there is no way to determine if the private key has actually been deleted, and a data breach or attack could have disastrous consequences for bot users, resulting in the loss of assets to hackers. Addressing these issues is critical to improving the security of bot use, and users need to exercise caution when using these applications. To be on the safe side, users can connect a separate wallet for the bot and transfer only small amounts of money. Additionally, some fraudsters use bots for criminal activities, such as malicious actors creating fake bots to steal users' funds or personal information. Users are advised to only use bots from trusted sources and to double-check the legitimacy of bots before authorizing access to any account.

Additionally, because Telegram bots typically require users to provide account access in order to perform portfolio management or trading, privacy protections may not be favorable. While most legitimate bots prioritize security, users should exercise caution before granting access. And bots, which rely on algorithms and historical data to make trading decisions, are slow to react to sudden market changes or unforeseen events, which may result in poor decision-making and investment losses.

We can see from the roadmaps of some bot projects the measures and solutions the projects have taken or plan to take to address the above risks.

• Open source: Telegram bots should be open source and security vetted, so that users can learn about the bot's trading strategy or jerk airdrop strategy through the code rather than the project's description;

• Enhanced security: Telegram bot is in dire need of measures to protect private keys to build a more secure operating environment, such as the use of MPC (Multiparty Computing) technology when storing private keys and signing transactions.

4.Final Thoughts

Undeniably, Telegram bot has become an important part of the crypto community, providing users with convenient and efficient crypto services. At this stage, Telegram bot is very suitable to become a powerful tool for degen players, which facilitates users to complete crypto transactions and investments on the mobile side, and the UI design sector is friendly to beginners, which is helpful to attract non-native crypto users to try to enter the crypto field. However, the track is still at a very early stage. It is difficult to judge where the venue is going and whether it will continue to be explosive. More Telegram users need to be converted into Telegram bot users in the future. At this stage, the main contributor to the transaction volume of the track is Unibot, other projects with more serious homogenization of functions and the moat is weak.$UNIBOT price has reached a high level, and now is not a good time to buy-in, and other robotic projects that have not issued tokens can be focused on short-term if they take advantage of the trend. And the potential security risks of Telegram robots will also limit the size of the funds that can be accommodated. Users must pay attention to the risks of Telegram bots, do a good job of back-testing, and remain vigilant against potential scams, and at this stage the robotics track is not mature enough under the premise of not recommended to invest a large amount of money in trading.

最近Telegram机器人赛道异军突起，Unibot代币价格已暴涨10倍，引起加密市场新一轮FOMO情绪。本文将对机器人赛道做深入剖析，详细解读代表项目的业务表现，挖掘潜在投资机会，并就风险点做出必要提示。

*本文仅作为研究讨论，可能存在事实、数据、观点上的偏颇和错误，不构成任何投资建议，不承担法律责任。

核心观点

♦ Telegram机器人基于Telegram庞大的日活用户，使用户可以直接通过移动端实现简单功能，defi方面的主要功能包括交易代币(Trading)、新币狙击(Sniping)、复制交易(Copy trading)、撸空投(Airdrop farming)等，迎合了追捧meme币的玩家需求，也极有可能为加密领域引入新的用户。

♦ 近期该赛道的引爆点是Unibot项目，该代币市值占整体赛道市值总量的70%以上，交易量和交易次数也遥遥领先于其他竞品；先驱项目Maestro Bots则在用户数方面占据优势；DEX机器人赛道的累计协议总收入已达$28.7M，Maestro的累计协议收入排名第一，约为800万美元。

♦ Unibot协议收入绝大部分来源于交易税，而交易税体现的是UNIBOT代币的投机行为，收入并不可持续，而由于最近税费占比的下降，协议收入也呈现出下降趋势，机器人交易费用才是协议的真实收益。虽然目前的项目年化P/E仅为4.17，但代币价格已高达$186，而Unibot协议收入仍会进一步下降，现阶段入场投资已不是好的时间点。

♦ 机器人赛道的风险点主要包括安全风险，如机器人访问私钥，数据泄露或攻击导致资产流失，从而限制了赛道可容纳的资金规模；另外机器人依赖于算法和历史数据进行交易决策，对于市场的突然变化或意外事件反应速度较慢，可能会造成决策失误和投资损失。用户在使用这些应用程序时需谨慎行事。

报告大纲

1、赛道全景概览

2、代表项目分析

2.1 Unibot

2.2 Maestro Bots

2.3 Banana Gun

3、潜在风险点

4、总结

1、赛道全景概览

Telegram机器人本质上是自动脚本，可以响应用户在Telegram聊天中发送的特定命令或触发的关键字，通常基于加密货币交易所、市场数据聚合器或自定义交易算法提供的API而构建。Telegram机器人通过与这些API交互来获取数据、执行交易并向用户提供信息，defi方面的主要功能包括交易代币(Trading)、新币狙击(Sniping)、复制交易(Copy trading)、撸空投(Airdrop farming)等，用户体验较佳，可以直接通过移动端实现简单功能，和其他defi应用相比，操作步骤更加简便，这对defi入门用户有着极大的吸引力。此外，Telegram的月活用户已超8亿，低门槛的defi机器人极有可能为加密领域引入新的用户。

根据Binance Research报告数据，截至2023年8月初，与Telegram机器人相关的累计加密货币交易量已超1.9亿美元；7月23日，机器人支持的加密货币日交易量创下了1000万美元的历史新高，日独立用户数超过6000人。Telegram机器人赛道近几个月的日益火热，主要得益于今年以来meme币的爆火。meme币成就了以小搏大一夜暴富的故事，靠meme币赚了百倍甚至千倍币的smart money钱包地址也受到追捧，低净值玩家希望通过寻找这类钱包地址来分析其历史交易行为，并在未来进行模仿，Telegram机器人便很好地满足了这一需求，允许用户快速获取代币发布信息，精准狙击meme币，全网监控smart money钱包地址，并提供一键跟单功能来复制交易。另外针对交易过程中的交易痛点，如交易速度、交易滑点和MEV 攻击，Telegram机器人能够提供限价单、自定义滑点，和私人节点交易等功能实现更快的速度，并避免交易受到三明治攻击。

1.1 典型用例

• 提供实时市场数据和新闻：Telegram加密机器人是用户的信息来源之一，能够提供有关加密货币价格、市场趋势和重大新闻事件的实时更新。这些机器人能够方便用户高效获取信息，无需浏览多个网站或应用程序，即可随时随地了解最新信息。

• 交易信号和分析：许多Telegram机器人旨在提供交易信号和技术分析，帮助用户做出明智的交易决策。通过分析市场指标和价格模式，这些机器人可以帮助交易者确定潜在的进入和退出点。

• 投资组合管理：Telegram机器人能够提供投资组合跟踪功能，允许用户监控所持资产、评估盈亏并接收业绩报告。

• 点对点交易：一些Telegram机器人可在Telegram内实现点对点（P2P）加密货币交易，该功能允许用户直接相互购买和出售加密货币，省去了交易所等中介机构。

• 支付服务：Telegram机器人还为加密货币支付和交易提供便利，公司可以将这些机器人集成到自己的Telegram频道或群组中，为所提供的产品或服务接收付款。

1.2 设置机器人步骤

第一步：创建机器人：开发者可以使用BotFather工具在Telegram上创建机器人，生成机器人运行所需的API令牌；

第二步：集成API，机器人开发者集成加密货币交易所或其他相关来源的API，以访问实时市场数据并执行交易；

第三步：命令映射，开发者定义机器人可以识别和响应的特定命令，例如，"/price BTC "可能会触发机器人获取比特币的当前价格；

第四步：用户授权，一些高级机器人可能会要求用户授权其交易所账户，以启用交易或投资组合管理功能。

1.3 业务数据

近期该赛道的引爆点是Unibot项目，根据CoinMarketCap的数据，截至8月14日，该代币市值占整体赛道市值总量的70%以上，

根据Dune的数据显示，截至8月14日，DEX机器人赛道的独立用户数达78,238，总交易量为$265,299,823，已完成449,162次交易。其中，先驱项目Maestro的用户数占据了绝对优势，该项目早在2022年6月便已成立，但用户数一直不到1k，自今年3月份以来，其用户数已一路增长至5k+；其次是Unibot，自项目于今年5月成立至今，用户数在7月飙升至1.5k+。

从日交易量的角度来看，排名第一的为Unibot，其次是Banana Gun，峰值出现在7月23日，总日交易量超1000万美元，其中Unibot的日交易量达760万美元，如今的总日交易量已跌至580万美元左右，交易量在快速上升后已出现回落。

交易次数方面，Unibot和排名第二的Banana Gun之间的差距则没有十分悬殊，目前Unibot的日交易次数为7,585，而Banana Gun的日交易次数则为6,976。

1.4 协议收入

DEX机器人将采用率转化为协议收入有两种主流方式，一种是对每笔交易收取一定比例的手续费，另一种是对涉及机器人原生代币的每笔买卖交易收取购买或销售税。由此可见，单纯看协议收入的数字无法真实体现出项目的交易量大小，这一点会在下文对Unibot的分析中详述。根据Binance Research的数据，目前DEX机器人赛道的累计协议总收入已达$28.7M，Maestro的累计协议收入在赛道内遥遥领先，约为800万美元。

下文就赛道龙头项目做具体分析。

2、代表项目分析

2.1 Unibot

2.1.1 项目介绍

Unibot是一个在Telegram上提供Defi交易的机器人项目，2023年5月17日在以太坊主网上发布，旨在提供最快的Uniswap狙击服务，允许DeFi用户直接通过Telegram在Uniswap V3上买卖代币。更具体地说，Unibot是钻石协议（Diamond Protocol）为 Uniswap V3设计的LLP平台。自 2023 年 5 月推出以来，该平台大受欢迎，用户数量和交易量在短时间内大幅上升。根据官网数据，其交易速度为Uniswap的6倍，目前总交易量达$173,484,372，用户可以免费试用，但每次买卖交易需在Uniswap交易费的基础上被二次收取1%的交易费。Unibot之所以能从众多竞争者中脱颖而出，主要是因为其先进的算法和强大的基础设施所带来的超快速度，包括用于狙击的私有节点、用于买卖代币的私有交易选项、钱包监控以及代币追踪器。UNIBOT的工具包括：

• 快速买卖平台；

• 镜像狙击（mirror sniping），用户能够复制其他钱包的交易；

• 代币发布渠道，提供有关新部署代币的实时信息；

• method sniping，允许用户输入3个代币地址，以便在发布时进行狙击；

• 多钱包管理和用户所持代币价值的PNL分析。

Unibot项目亮点主要包括：

• 使用界面新手友好，操作便利，用户通过移动端Telegram即可完成交易；

• Unibot拥有私人节点，加快了交易速度，提高了交易效率，改善了用户体验，比较接近于中心化产品。

2.1.2 团队和融资情况

Unibot为匿名团队，唯一可知的信息是其创始人Ayden之前在苹果工作，另一位创始人则在一家位于加利福尼亚湾区的机器学习初创公司工作。已知一家加密VC Theia Blockchain投资了Unibot，但具体投资金额没有披露。

2.1.3 代币模型

Unibot的原生代币为UNIBOT，最大供应量为100万枚，该项目在推出时便将所有代币完全流通无稀释,代币效用为支付交易手续费和获取持有者奖励。自代币发行以来的价格走势如下：

根据非小号8月15日数据，UNIBOT持币地址数为5840，排名前100的持币地址持仓占比超50%，持仓占比超1%的地址数有12个，由此可见，大户对于代币的控制力还是很强的。

项目对UNIBOT代币交易征收5%的税费，其中1%给LP ，1-2%分配给代币持有者，剩下的2%用于团队和运营费用。持有10个或更多UNIBOT代币（无需质押）可享受以下优惠：

• 通过Unibot进行掉期交易，手续费减免20%；

• 享受收入分成，包括机器人交易费用的40%，和UNIBOT代币交易税费的1%，在9月份之前参与代币迁移的用户可获得2%的代币交易税费；

• 可以访问Unibot Telegram持有者频道，并在该频道讨论alpha、提议新功能并访问专用支持频道。 持有UNIBOT代币越多，可获得的奖励越多。

2.1.4 业务数据分析

交易数据

Unibot交易量在7月23日达到峰值$7.63M，近7日日均交易量已回落至$4.6M。

从交易量的来源来看，排名第一的交易对是UNIBOT-WETH，是第二名交易量的3.4倍。排除掉UNIBOT交易对后，RLB-WETH交易对的交易量占42.7%，RLB是Rollbit彩票的原生代币；此外交易量排名靠前的还有$BITCOIN、$jim、$COCO等主流币和meme币等，说明Unibot的确适合挖掘新项目和热门项目，但此类代币是否能为Unibot持续带来交易量尚不可知。

用户数据

截至8月14日，项目的累计独立用户数达9954人，日活用户数为1584，用户数据在7月中旬后开始激增，目前依然维持在高位。

协议收入

协议费用峰值出现在7月23日，单日协议收入达337.54ETH，而8月13日的协议收入已跌至61.14ETH，跌幅达80%以上。

而从协议收入的组成来看，7月23日机器人交易费用为38.42 ETH，约有300 ETH的费用由UNIBOT代币交易税产生，占比高达89%；目前税费收入占比依然高达67%，交易费用占比仅为33%。

综上来看，之前协议收入绝大部分来源于交易税，而交易税体现的是UNIBOT代币的投机行为，收入并不可持续，而由于最近税费占比的下降，协议收入也呈现出下降趋势，而机器人交易费用才是协议的真实收益，虽然自8月以来增速有所加快，但依然无法抑制项目收入的下降趋势。作者认为虽然目前的项目年化P/E仅为4.17，但代币价格已高达$186，而Unibot协议收入仍会进一步下降，现阶段入场投资已不是好的时间点。

2.2 Maestro Bots

2.2.1 项目介绍

Maestro Bots是基于Telegram的一套defi机器人，成立于2022年7月，主要包括多链（BSC + ETH）狙击机器人（sniper bot）、钱包追踪器（wallet tracker）和巨鲸机器人（whale bot）,整体功能和Unibot大同小异，除了交易、镜像狙击和复制交易等基础功能外，其特色功能包括：

• 支持多链交易，包括BSC、ETH和ARB；

• 可以直接在Telegram中接收巨鲸交易的即时通知，鲸鱼/钱包观察能在用户希望关注的钱包发生巨大变动时通知用户；

• 在Telegram中即可跟踪钱包，并快速发出价格警报，无需切换应用程序或离开Telegram，即可随时查看BSC和ETH钱包中的加密货币余额；

• Maestro Buy Bot允许用户免费监控最多两种代币的买入、卖出和价格变化。以高速、多功能性和高可访问性为加密货币团体提供合适的工具。 商业模式方面，Maestro Bots对用户的每笔交易收取1%的交易费用，此外还推出了200美金一个月的VIP社群服务——Premium Sub，进入到VIP社群后可以得到一些“财富密码”,获得更快的机器人和模拟器等更强大的功能和工具服务。目前Maestro尚未发币，对用户既没有收入分成，也没有推荐奖励。

2.2.2 团队情况

Maestro Bots由Gearlay Technologies Inc.开发，团队位于加拿大，现有4名成员，包括两名开发人员负责维护和更新产品，一名市场营销人员和一名设计师/社区经理负责向用户提供信息并收集反馈。Gealay主要提供BaaS（Bots-as-a-Service）服务，为开发者提供机器人SDK 。已披露的成员信息是创始人Abbas Abou Daya，过往在开发领域有丰富的工作经验。

2.2.3 业务表现

用户数据

根据Dune的统计，8月14日项目用户数为2931，虽然项目成立已有一年多的时间，但在今年5月之前单日用户数没有超过1000，直到2023年4月用户数开始激增，最高点出现在5月22日的3699，至今一直维持在2k-3k的范围内，且其中90%的用户来自以太坊。用户数大幅增加的大部分原因来自Unibot引爆了机器人赛道，使得Maestro Bots也得以重新受到关注，加上其尚未发币，引来投机者的持续关注。

协议收入

由于Maestro Bots并未针对用户有激励机制和收入分配奖励，协议收取的所有费用直接成为收入。根据Defi Llama的统计数据，截至2023年8月14日，协议累计收入为$18.85M，在今年5月开始收入大幅上升，和用户数的增长趋势保持一致，每周收入在$1M左右。

综上来看，Maestro Bots产品功能较为完善，用户数和协议收入仍维持在高位，不确定是否会继续增长，尚未发币，可以继续关注。

2.3 Banana Gun

2.3.1 项目介绍

Banana Gun也是一个Telegram机器人，项目在今年6月刚成立，主要功能包括狙击即将发布的代币和购买已经上线的代币，目前仅支持以太坊。Banana Gun Bot将其服务分为两个不同等级，1级服务比较有限，如手动购买，会收取0.5%的交易费；2级服务收取0.85%的交易费，包括自动狙击等更高级的功能。产品特色是用户使用界面友好，具有anti-rug功能，费用上没有收入分成，推荐奖励仅针对部分KOL开放。

2.3.2 业务表现

交易数据

截至8月16日，Banana Gun的交易量达$83,698,214，日均交易量为$1,115,976，峰值出现在8月4日，日交易量达到了$4M，日均交易次数为2674。交易量指标在Telegram Bots赛道仅次于Unibot，但差距比较悬殊。

用户数据

Banana Gun的日活用户数为438，累计用户数为6254人，和Unibot及Maestro bots相比有一定差距，项目近80%的用户为回头客，新用户间断性增长。

协议收入

截至8月15日，Banana Gun共产生交易费收入263.95ETH，约为$481,708，日均交易费收入为$6,512，这样的低收入是由于其低费率以及低日活用户导致的。

综上来看，Banana Gun推出时间较晚，产品设计界面和功能都和Unibot大同小异，目前尚未发币，对其产品功能及未来币价是否能跑赢Unibot存疑，在目前Telegram机器人赛道依旧火热的情况下，短期投机可以适当关注。

3、潜在风险

Telegram机器人工具在追求交易速度和使用便利的同时，可能会牺牲安全性和隐私保护等，潜在风险不容忽视。

有些机器人的智能合约尚未通过安全审计，或在审计时已暴露出许多问题，比如Quantstamp对UniBot进行安全审计时发现了一些安全问题和风险，包括交换计算问题、易受三明治攻击、缺乏重入保护、偿付能力依赖于保持器、变量更新缺少检查和日志记录等。此外，机器人在用户创建新钱包或连接现有钱包时会访问私钥，可能存在风险，虽然机器人声称会在配置完成后删除私钥，但无法确定私钥是否真的已被删除，数据泄露或攻击可能会给机器人用户带来灾难性的后果，导致资产流失给黑客。解决这些问题对于提高机器人使用的安全性至关重要，用户在使用这些应用程序时需谨慎行事。安全起见，用户可以为机器人连接一个单独的钱包，并且只转入小额资金。此外，一些诈骗者也会利用机器人进行犯罪活动，比如恶意行为人会创建虚假机器人来窃取用户的资金或个人信息。建议用户只使用可信来源的机器人，并在授权任何账户访问之前仔细检查机器人的合法性。

此外，由于Telegram机器人通常要求用户提供账户访问权限，以便进行投资组合管理或交易，可能会不利于隐私保护。虽然大多数合法机器人都将安全放在首位，但用户在授予权限前应谨慎行事。且机器人是依赖于算法和历史数据进行交易决策的，对于市场的突然变化或意外事件反应速度较慢，可能会造成决策失误和投资损失。

我们可以从一些机器人项目的路线图中看到项目为应对上述风险已采取或计划采取的措施和解决方案。

• 开源：Telegram机器人应该开源并进行安全审查，用户可以通过代码而不是项目方的描述来了解机器人的交易策略或撸空投的策略；

• 增强安全性：Telegram bot亟需措施保护私钥来构建更安全的运行环境，比如在存储私钥和签署交易时，可以使用MPC（多方计算）技术。

4、总结

不可否认，Telegram机器人已成为加密社区的重要组成部分，为用户提供了便捷高效的加密服务，现阶段的Telegram机器人很适合成为degen玩家的强大工具，方便用户在移动端完成加密交易和投资，且UI设计界面对新手友好，有利于吸引非原生加密用户尝试进入加密领域。但目前赛道仍处于极早期阶段，很难判断赛道走势如何，是否会持续火爆，未来需要将更多的Telegram用户转换为Telegram bot的用户。现阶段赛道交易量的主要贡献者是Unibot，其他项目功能同质化较为严重，护城河薄弱，相关代币如$UNIBOT价格已到高位，现在并不是入场的好时机，其他未发币的机器人项目若趁势发币可以短期关注，适当投机。且Telegram机器人潜在的安全风险也会限制赛道可容纳的资金规模。用户必须注意Telegram机器人的风险，做好充分背调，对潜在骗局保持警惕，现阶段机器人赛道不够成熟的前提下不建议投入大额资金交易。

Worldcoin, a proof-of-personhood crypto UBI project founded by the CEO of OpenAI, raised $115 million in a Series C funding round in May of this year led by Blockchain Capital and followed by a16z and others. There has been a lot of controversy about this project. Is Worldcoin crypto-colonialism as the critics claim? This article will delve into the fundamentals of the project and dissect it on its potential risk points. *This article is for research and discussion only, and may contain bias and errors in facts, data, and opinions, and does not constitute any investment advice and is not legally liable.

Key Insights

♦ Worldcoin combines a proof-of-personhood mechanism realized through iris recognition and cryptography, a global UBI experiment through free distribution of WLD tokens, which helps to promote privacy protection, fight against sybil attack, provide a reliable solution for distinguishing between humans and AIs, and even promote the global democratic process.

♦ What makes the Worldcoin project unique is that it utilizes sophisticated biometrics technology by scanning a user's iris with a dedicated hardware called Orb to capture each individual's unique biometric traits and information, and converting the biometric picture into an unbreakable string of hash values made up of letters and numbers, which Worldcoin calls the "Iris Code" (Iris Code), Orb and Worldcoin protocols are being progressively open-sourced, and ZK-SNARK encryption technology helps protect privacy.

♦ Risk points for the Worldcoin project exist primarily in the risk of proof-of-personhood fraud, where a number of scenarios result in the failure of iris-recognition identity proofing mechanisms, and in compliance and ethical risks, particularly the early concentration on acquiring user data in third-world countries for the purpose of training AI recognition technology, which is detrimental to the privacy protection of early adopters.

Report Outline

1. Project Overview

2. What Problems does Worldcoin Solve?

3. Core Products

4. Tokenomics

5. Risk Analysis

6. Summary

1. Project Overview

Worldcoin was founded in 2019 by Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI. Due to the explosion of OpenAI, Altman's crypto project Worldcoin is also back in the spotlight. The creation of Worldcoin is inspired by the concept UBI (Universal Basic Income) in economics. It realizes a fair distribution of wealth by sending tokens for free. Due to the need to differentiate between people and robots in the process of sending tokens and to ensure that each one of them is irreducible, it is important to use proof-of-personhood technology and ZK cryptography to help realize this. Worldcoin can be understood as a large-scale experiment in UBI worldwide. If the experiment is successful, Worldcoin will provide a reliable solution for distinguishing between humans and AI while protecting privacy, promoting the global democratic process and pointing out a potential path for AI-funded UBI, thus contributing to the progress of economics and human society.

The way the project works is that users first have to download the World App to obtain a World ID, which is stored by the World App, enabling users to use it across multiple platforms and services.The World App allows users to exchange tokens through decentralized exchanges and connect to dApps through WalletConnect. Additionally, the system allows other developers to create their own clients without a license, meaning there can be a variety of apps that support World ID. worldcoin scans irises for proof of personality via the hardware Orb, and once verified by the Orb, each individual receives a World ID as a privacy-protecting proof of identity. With World ID, users can collect a certain amount of Wordcoin (WLD) per week as permitted by law. Additionally, World IDs can be used for human authentication for other services (e.g., to prevent user manipulation when voting).In October 2021, Worldcoin closed a $25 million Series A led by a16z, valued at $1 billion, with other investors including Digital Currency Group, Coinbase Ventures, and Multicoin, among others; in May 2023, Tools for Humanity, the studio behind Worldcoin, raised $115 million in a Series C funding round led by Blockchain Capital and followed by a16z and others. Such a financing achievement is particularly dazzling in the crypto bear market. What makes Worldcoin highly favored by capital?

2. What problem does Worldcoin solve?

2.1 UBI

From the macro perspective of economy and finance, Worldcoin is a UBI project, which makes users equally own the same amount of wealth by sending tokens for free, and after the value of the project is gradually recognized, the price of the tokens in the hands of the users will rise, thus bringing value to everyone and redistributing the wealth in the age of artificial intelligence. UBI (universal basic income) is an economic concept first proposed in the 16th century by British philosopher and statesman Thomas More in his most famous work Utopia. UBI programs are generally funded by the government, with each adult citizen receiving a certain amount of money on a regular basis to alleviate poverty. UBI has returned to the forefront in recent years with the rapid growth of industrialization and automation, which has cut labor costs while also creating a serious unemployment problem.

Proponents of UBI argue that a guaranteed basic income from the government can help ensure that those left behind by the economic transformation avoid poverty, even if the income provided by the government is not enough to make ends meet, theoretically supplementing their income from low-wage or part-time jobs. UBI has received a lot of attention in the first phase of the 2020 presidential campaign after Andrew Yang, an American entrepreneur and former Democratic candidate, made it a cornerstone of his campaign. Yang's so-called "Freedom Dividend" (Freedom Dividend) would give every American over the age of 18 a monthly check for $1,000, and those enrolled in federal assistance programs would be able to continue to receive those payments or opt for the "Freedom Dividend." And the $1,000 per month "Freedom Dividend" would cost the federal government about 50 percent of its 2021 budget. The American Rescue Plan, signed by Biden on March 11, 2021, is a $1.9 trillion pandemic relief program targeting all eligible adults in the U.S. Eligible taxpayers will also be able to receive the same payments for each of their children; single taxpayers must have adjusted gross incomes of $75,000 or less to qualify; married filing jointly couples must have an adjusted gross income of $150,000 or less; and for heads of household, the adjusted gross income must be $112,500 or less.

Whereas opposition to UBI has centered on its high cost, and recent studies have shown only a weak link between UBI and unemployment. For example, a 2016 analysis by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University found that "cash transfer" programs in developing countries have little discernible impact on employment behavior; and there is little evidence that replacing traditional benefits with UBIs would actually increase employment, as some proponents claim. A recent two-year experiment in Finland showed that UBI recipients were no more likely to find a new job than a control group.

While there remains considerable debate about the significance of UBI, Worldcoin's ambitious vision of helping everyone access the global financial system by building the world's largest and fair digital identity and currency system, thereby enabling everyone to access a basic income, remains exciting, independent of government, national borders, race, and gender, and almost the closest thing to a purely utopian attempt at idealism.

2.2 Proof of Personhood

On a technical level, Worldcoin utilizes Proof of Personhood (PoP) to achieve its ultimate vision, which in itself has significant implications for distinguishing between humans and robots, preventing Sybil attacks, anti-fraud, and anti-centralization of power in today's world of advanced artificial intelligence.Vitalik's latest report on Proof of Personhood explains it as follows. Simply defined, a proof-of-personhood system creates a list of public keys, and the system guarantees that each public key is controlled by a unique human. In other words, if you are a human, you can put one key on the list, but you cannot put two keys on this list, whereas if you are a robot, you cannot put any key on the list. A large number of applications already exist that prove human uniqueness mainly by resorting to government-backed identity systems such as credit cards and passports, but this is also extremely damaging in terms of privacy. The Worldcoin project, on the other hand, as a high-risk project for global UBI, has constructed a highly secure proof-of-personality system to prevent users from re-registering. Compared to other proof-of-personality mechanisms, Worldcoin is unique in that it utilizes sophisticated biometrics technology, scanning a user's iris with a specialized piece of hardware called an Orb to capture each individual's unique biometric features and information, and converting the biometric picture into an unbreakable string of alphanumeric hash values, which Worldcoin calls the "Iris Code". By comparing it with the data in the database, if it is tested as a new registered user, a new World ID is saved to the Worldcoin database and a crypto wallet with a QR code is generated, through which the user can access free Worldcoin tokens.

From the perspective of decentralization, Orb is realizing open source gradually, biological information will be deleted after generating the hash value, and the Worldcoin protocol will be built on Optimism and Polygon, and the current protocol is also open source status:

Decentralized implementations could be incentivized through grants from the Worldcoin Foundation, or through a token-based reward mechanism for each successful user verification, similar to the verification rewards on the first layer of the chain. To enable the development of devices similar to Orb, Orb hardware shares a source code license, and firmware-only organizations can purchase Orb hardware from TFH (Tools for Humanity, the makers of Orb) under a license granted by the Foundation, which helps reduce the reliance on TFH for firmware development, improves censorship resilience, and empowers people to decide which organization they trust to perform the development. There is also a need to be able to verify the legitimacy of a biometric authentication device (i.e., that it is not a fake) and to verify that it is running a specific firmware (e.g., when Orb claims not to store biometric data, it really doesn't), and one of the ways to do this is by integrating an authentication mechanism into TFH's World App or other protocol-compatible application, where the device has to sign an application-generated a challenge letter and verified against a set of known public keys.

From a privacy perspective, Worldcoin uses ZK-SNARK zero-knowledge proofs, where instead of signing directly with a private key (whose corresponding public key is in the database), a user can use ZK-SNARK to prove that they have a private key, whose corresponding public key is somewhere in the database, without revealing the specific private key they have. In addition, Orb also only computes a hash of the iris scan locally. This hash is not a regular hash like SHA256, but a specialized algorithm based on a machine-learning Gabor filter that handles the inaccuracies inherent in any biometric scan and ensures that successive hashes of the same person's iris have similar outputs. While iris scans have the potential to leak some other data such as gender, ethnicity, health status, etc., the extent of the leakage is far less than what many centralized data collection systems currently in use (e.g., street cameras) are capable of capturing.

3. Core Products

3.1 Worldcoin Protocol

Worldcoin is a decentralized protocol designed based on the blockchain, which was deployed on Polygon in its beta phase, with the current version running on Optimism, ethereum's L2 network, and is highly scalable. From a technical implementation perspective, the core of the protocol combines Orb-based uniqueness verification with the Semaphore anonymous set membership proof, thus allowing issuers to determine whether a user has claimed their WLD tokens without having to collect additional information about the user.The Semaphore anonymous set- membership protocol is an open source project originally developed by the ethereum foundation and extended by worldcoin. semaphore is unique in that it takes the basic privacy encryption design used in anonymous voting and cryptocurrency and makes it available as a standalone library. Semaphore takes a minimalist approach to implementation, while providing practitioners with maximum freedom to design their own protocols based on it.

In the Wordcoin protocol, the user creates a Semaphore key pair (hereafter referred to as a World ID key pair) on their smartphone, and once registration is initiated, Orb associates the public key with the user's iris code, which according to the project whitepaper is currently used for the sole purpose of uniqueness checking. If the check is successful, the World ID public key is inserted into an identity set maintained by a smart contract on the ethereum blockchain, and the updated state is then bridged to Optimism and Polygon PoS so that the World ID can be used directly on those chains. Upon registration, users can prove to a third party that they are in this identity set in a trustless and private way, and therefore prove their unique identity. Since the scheme is private, it is often necessary to tie this proof to a specific behavior (e.g., applying for a WLD or voting on a proposal). In the above scheme, the wallet creates a Groth16 proof for proving that the user knows the private key of one of the public keys in the on-chain identity set and action. By design, this provides strong anonymity for the size of the entire set. As long as the private key is not compromised, it is not possible to know the public key or any information related to the enrollment, including the iris code, only that the enrollment has been successfully completed. It is also impossible to learn that two proofs come from the same person if the scheme is used for different applications.

3.2 Orb

As mentioned above, Orb, originally developed by Tools for Humanity (TFH), is the first biometric imaging device customized for the Worldcoin project to verify a person's identity and uniqueness in a secure and privacy-preserving manner. Anyone with a World ID-compatible wallet, such as TFH's World App, can register a World ID on Orb by visiting a Worldcoin operator location or a community expert accessing Orb. According to the project's July blog data, Worldcoin verified more than 40,000 people per week over the past six months of the beta phase. More than 2 million people have signed up for World IDs. More than 150,000 people have already verified World IDs in countries such as Spain, and the project will triple the size of its current operations in the coming months.

The Worldcoin project said that the biometric information will remain only on the Orb and will be removed when the company finishes training its artificial intelligence neural network to recognize irises and detect fraud. Until then, it's unclear how the data is handled.

4. Tokenomics

4.1 General Overview

WLD tokens finished ICO on July 24, 2023, and are now online on Binance, OKX and other first-tier exchanges. the ICO price was $0.15, and the price on August 5 was $2.14, and the recent price trend is as follows:

During the pre-launch phase of the project from May 2021 to July 2023, more than 2 million people verified World IDs at Orb in more than 30 different countries.These users were allocated more than 43 million WLD tokens before the tokens went live.

The total supply of WLD tokens is 10 billion tokens, with a supply ceiling fixed at 10 billion WLD for 15 years after the issuance of the tokens.After 15 years, management may decide to implement an inflation rate of up to 1.5% per annum, if it deems necessary for the long-term sustainability of the agreement. The tokens are to be used as governance tokens only.

4.2 Token allocation

WLD tokens are allocated as follows:

As can be seen, in addition to the 75% of tokens allocated to the general community, the percentage of tokens allocated to TFH and the initial development team has been increased to 25% from the previously announced 20%. According to the whitepaper, TFH has increased the allocation of funds due to the fact that developing and advancing the project has been much more complex and costly than TFH initially anticipated, with hardware development and manufacturing being particularly expensive and requiring additional funding from TFH investors, as well as a challenging market environment. Such an allocation ratio to some extent caters to the demands of investors; after all, as an early stage project, investors need other benefits to be secured in order to continue to push the project forward when its business and profitability model is still unclear.

4.3 Token Unlocking Cycle

The chart below shows the WLD unlocking schedule for 15 years:

Team and investor tokens are contractually locked for 12 months upon token issuance and then unlocked on a daily average basis over the following 24 months. The tokens that have been claimed by ordinary users will not be locked.

5.Risk Analysis

Since its inception, the Worldcoin program has been questioned to varying degrees from various perspectives such as technical security, privacy protection, and business development, etc. Some of the risks do not only exist in the Worldcoin program, but also in proof-of-personality systems in general. For example, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted, "Don't catalog eyeballs. Don't use biometrics for anti-fraud. In fact, don't use biometrics for anything. The human body is not a ticket punching machine."

Others have questioned the company's supposed fairness, as 20% of the coins have already been distributed: 10% to full-time Worldcoin employees and another 10% to investors such as a16z. Here we analyze the following mainly on the most fundamental and major risk points.

5.1 Risk of identification fraud

The occurrence of the following scenarios may lead to the failure of the iris recognition identity proofing mechanism:

• Verification device sabotage: third parties submit false verifications by sabotaging the hardware or spoofing the verification process;

• Identity theft: device operators or third parties manipulate individuals to authenticate or sabotage their phones to access their credentials (including governments);

• Identity sale: individuals decide to sell their credentials to fraudsters;

• Issuer fraud: organizations that develop firmware for authentication devices secretly generate identities;

• 3D-printed dummies: people can use AI to generate photos of dummies or even 3D-printed dummies that are credible enough to be accepted by the Orb software. As long as there are groups that do this, they can generate an infinite number of identities. Some of the above will be found in more than just the Worldcoin project, but are prevalent in methods of using biometrics for proof of personality. According to the Worldcoin whitepaper, it has now taken the following steps to make these attacks more costly.

• Biometric Authentication Device Audit: An audit of Orb's hardware, software, and deceptive security, as well as an investigation into specific statements such as "no image data is retained without explicit consent" to increase trust in the integrity of the World ID.

• Vulnerability Bounty Program: All organizations operating whitelisted authenticated hardware must participate in a public vulnerability reward program that covers hardware, software, and deception security. The community is iterating on the design of the Vulnerability Bounty Program, which will be available soon.

• Face Verification: As part of the verification process, signed and encrypted face images can be transmitted to a user's phone. Users can then authenticate themselves against that image in an app, a method similar to FaceID that makes it difficult for someone else's credentials to pass authentication. In addition to face recognition, the phone also requires live detection to prevent spoofing attacks. Consumer phones have lower security guarantees that this validity detection was actually performed and spoofed compared to custom hardware such as Orb (because consumer phones do not have sufficiently advanced cameras and because it is difficult to create a trustworthy execution environment on an individual's phone to ensure computational integrity). As mobile zero-knowledge proof capabilities improve, it is possible to compute authentication and validity checks in zero-knowledge proofs on a user's cell phone, thereby improving security assurance.

• Iris authentication: similar to face authentication, iris authentication performs biometric authentication and validity checks based on a template. By requiring people to return to the biometric authentication device, the security assurance that the validity check has not been spoofed or bypassed is improved, but at the cost of convenience. If both face authentication and iris authentication are possible, developers can choose the level of security they need for their application.

• Recovery: victims of social fraud and identity theft should be able to recover their proof of identity through Orb using only biometrics. From a game-theoretic point of view, this would also make it unprofitable to buy other people's IDs.

• Anomaly Detection: Metadata about Orbs could be made publicly available for decentralized anomaly detection to inform decisions about which Orbs to vet in person. However, which data to publish needs to be carefully considered to protect the privacy of verifiers. Community input is likely to be necessary to strike a balance.

• Revocation: If a firmware version of a verified device is deemed insecure, or if an Orb is found to be fraudulent, the certificate of verification may be revoked retroactively to eliminate potentially fraudulent identities, in accordance with the Foundation's governing regulations. Ultimately, a separate adjudicating body may be required. If any genuine and legitimate individuals are affected, they can be re-verified at Orb.

• EXPIRATION: Versions of World ID may become useful as biometric authentication devices and their security standards evolve. Over time, older World IDs may become obsolete to improve security, similar to the expiration of a passport.

Worldcoin does a relatively good job of security and fraud prevention compared to other proof-of-personality programs, and its use of specialized hardware Orb is inherently more difficult to spoof than ordinary hardware (such as a user's personal cell phone). Another point worth noting is that there have been many previous cases of African users registering for World ID and then having their identities resold by intermediaries. In the short term, the sale of accounts will remain difficult to prevent, as most of the world doesn't even know about ID protocols, and in third-world countries, locals are more than happy to scan their eyes for a few dollars, or even a few tens of dollars, which can be a significant amount of money to live on. And in the long run, if more people understand what ID protocols are, and the program allows users to re-register, the profitability of selling IDs will be extremely compressed, because the person who sold you the ID can just go ahead and re-register and cancel the ID they just sold you. From this perspective, combining UBI with proof of personality is indeed one of the easiest ways to get more people to understand IDs and incentivize people to sign up.

5.2 Compliance and Moral Hazard

Prior to the launch of the Worldcoin token, the business rollout targeted third-world countries to avoid compliance risks, but the way the business was expanded was still widely questioned and even called "crypto colonialism". After all, everyone has this question: why Worldcoin targeted low-income communities from the beginning instead of cryptocurrency enthusiasts or communities? Payal Arora, digital anthropologist and author of The Next Billion Users, says, "It's a race to see who can get the most data in an AI-driven economy." Since Europe and the United States have stricter data protection laws, which means that Worldcoin has little access to the training data they need from nationals in those regions, they've had to look to the developing world. Carrying out these kinds of data collection operations in places that lack funding and legal protection is both cheap and easy for project parties. Pete Howson, a senior lecturer studying international development at Northumbria University, categorizes Worldcoin's actions as a form of crypto-colonialism: "Blockchain and cryptocurrency experiments are being imposed on vulnerable communities, essentially because ...... these people can't fight back." Hausen explains, "What's even more damaging about the crypto version of data colonialism than other forms of data colonialism is that the core principle of blockchain - decentralization - allows for very limited accountability on the part of the project when things go wrong." The ethos of "Do Your Own Research" is simply impractical for many in developing regions. Similarly, large economic disparities mean that in Kenya, less than half a dollar is enough incentive for someone to want to participate in an experiment, whereas in Norway or the US, incentives clearly cost more than that.

While Worldcoin has recognized that this data collection is problematic and intends to stop doing so, it does not offer the same privacy protections to these early 450,000 users. As noted in MIT Technology Review's report on Worldcoin last year, Worldcoin prides itself on its privacy protection protocols while clearly violating the privacy of many. Perhaps for Worldcoin, the test user base in developing countries is largely not its end users. Instead, their eyes, bodies, and life patterns are merely the raw material for Worldcoin's neural network.

In response to this question, the authors believe that the training of algorithms does require a large amount of data, and as a startup, there is no excuse for choosing low-cost access, Worldcoin's privacy protocol has been improved, and the protocols and Orb are gradually open-sourced, and very detailed technical documentation can be found in the whitepaper released to dispel any doubts; moreover, it is undeniable that Worldcoin's incentives are not the same. In addition, it is undeniable that Worldcoin's incentives do allow locals to earn some money and receive tokens on a regular basis, but to truly popularize the knowledge of proof of personality, there is still a long way to go, and before that the project will continue to be distrusted by a variety of questions, including the disposal of regulations from the local government.

6. Summary

Worldcoin, as a UBI product combining DID, wallet and tokens, has been questioned in many aspects and even added with conspiracy theories, but it is still undeniable that the project has great significance and promotes the proof of personality and UBI experiments. In terms of innovation in proof-of-personality systems, iris recognition may sound and feel unintentional at first glance, but the Orb and Worldcoin protocols are being progressively open-sourced, and specific technical documentation is available in their publicly available whitepapers, and based on the analysis above, iris recognition sits a little better than other proof-of-personhood mechanisms in terms of privacy protection and decentralization, not to mention that crypto proof-of-personhood systems themselves are naturally superior to centralized, government-manipulated identity systems. The combination of proof-of-personhood and UBI is also unique to this project, as the incentives of UBI are more easily understood and accepted by the general public, and early users did receive tokens and other rewards, plus now that the tokens have gone live and the price is transparent, the profitability of account sales and other profit margins has been continually squeezed. But there's no denying that there's still a long way to go to popularize PoP knowledge, and the way Worldcoin collects user data may continue to be challenged by local regulations. We're curious to see how far Worldcoin can go, and if it does succeed, it will be invaluable in reshaping the financial and crypto ecosystems.

Worldcoin是OpenAI的CEO创立的一个以人格证明为基础的加密UBI项目，在今年5月的C轮融资中筹集了1.15亿美元，其中Blockchain Capital领投，a16z等跟投。关于此项目一直存在较大争议，Worldcoin是否如批判所说是加密殖民主义？本文将深入探讨项目的基本面，并就其潜在风险点进行剖析。 *本文仅作为研究讨论，可能存在事实、数据、观点上的偏颇和错误，不构成任何投资建议，不承担法律责任。

核心观点

♦ Worldcoin结合了通过虹膜识别实现的人格证明机制和加密技术，是一次通过免费发放WLD代币进行的全球性UBI实验，有助于推动隐私保护，对抗女巫攻击，为区分人类和AI提供可靠的解决方案，甚至推动全球民主进程。

♦ Worldcoin项目的独特之处在于它利用复杂的生物识别技术，通过一个名为Orb的专用硬件来扫描用户的虹膜以获取每个人独一无二的生物特征和信息，并将生物特征图片转换为无法破解的一串由字母和数字组成的哈希值，Worldcoin将其称之为“虹膜密码”（Iris Code），Orb和Worldcoin协议正在实现逐步开源，ZK-SNARK加密技术则有助于保护隐私。

♦ Worldcoin项目的风险点主要存在于人格证明欺诈风险，即一些情况导致的虹膜识别身份证明机制的失效；以及合规和道德风险，尤其是早期集中在第三世界国家获取用户数据以训练人工智能识别技术，不利于早期用户的隐私保护。

报告大纲

1、Worldcoin项目概述

2、Worldcoin解决了什么问题

3、核心产品

4、代币模型

5、风险点分析

6、总结

1、Worldcoin项目概述

Worldcoin由OpenAI的CEO Sam Altman于2019年创立。由于OpenAI的爆火，Altman的加密项目Worldcoin也重新被大家关注，其灵感来自于经济学上的UBI（全民基本收入），通过免费发送代币Worldcoin来实现财富的公平分配，由于在发送代币的过程中需要区分人和机器人，并保证每个人的不可重复性，所以要利用人格证明技术和ZK加密技术来帮助实现，可以将Worldcoin理解为一次全球范围的UBI大型实验。如果实验成功，Worldcoin将在保护隐私的同时，为区分人类与人工智能提供可靠的解决方案，推动全球民主进程，并为人工智能资助的UBI指出一条潜在的道路，从而为经济学和人类社会的进步做出贡献。

项目的运作方式是用户首先要下载World App来获取World ID，World App会存储World ID，使用户能够在多个平台和服务中使用它。World App允许用户通过去中心化交易所交换代币，并通过WalletConnect与dApps连接。此外，该系统允许其他开发者创建自己的客户端且无需许可，这意味着可以有各种应用程序来支持World ID。Worldcoin通过硬件Orb来扫描虹膜进行人格证明，一旦通过Orb验证，每个人就会获得一个World ID作为保护隐私的身份证明。通过World ID，在法律允许的情况下，用户每周可以领取一定数量的Wordcoin（WLD）。另外，World ID还可以用于其他服务的人类身份验证（例如在投票时防止用户操纵）。2021年10月，Worldcoin完成了由a16z牵头的2500万美元A轮融资，估值 10 亿美金，其他投资者包括Digital Currency Group、Coinbase Ventures和Multicoin等；2023年5月，Worldcoin背后的工作室Tools for Humanity在C轮融资中筹集了1.15亿美元，Blockchain Capital 领投，a16z 等跟投。这样的融资成绩在加密熊市中显得格外耀眼，Worldcoin凭什么备受资本青睐？

2、Worldcoin解决了什么问题？

2.1 UBI

从经济和金融的宏观角度来看，Worldcoin是一个UBI项目，通过免费发送代币的方法使得用户平等地拥有相同金额的财富，并在项目价值逐渐被认可后，用户手中的代币价格也会随之上涨，从而为大家带来价值，重新分配了人工智能时代的财富。UBI（Universal Basic Income）是一个经济学上的概念，比较类似于普惠金融，最早于16世纪由英国哲学家和政治家托马斯莫尔在其最著名的作品《乌托邦》中提出。UBI计划一般由政府出资，每个成年公民都能定期获得一定数额的资金以减轻贫困。近几年随着工业化和自动化的快速发展，在削减人力成本的同时也带来了严重的失业问题，UBI也重回视野。

UBI的支持者认为，政府保证基本收入可以帮助确保那些被经济转型抛在后面的人避免贫困，即使政府提供的收入不足以维持生活，理论上也可以补充他们从低工资或兼职工作中获得的收入。美国企业家、前民主党候选人Andrew Yang将UBI作为其竞选活动的基石之后，UBI在2020年总统竞选的第一阶段受到了广泛关注。杨所谓的 "自由红利"（Freedom Dividend）将为每个18 岁以上的美国人每月发放1000美元的支票，参加联邦援助计划的人可以继续领取这些款项，也可以选择 "自由红利"。 而每月1000美元的 "自由红利 "将花费联邦政府2021年大约50%的预算。拜登于2021年3月11日签署的《美国救援计划》是一项价值1.9 万亿美元的大流行病救济方案，目标对象为美国所有符合条件的成年人，符合条件的纳税人还可以为其每个子女领取相同的款项，单身纳税人的调整后总收入必须在75,000美元或以下才有资格领取；共同申报的已婚夫妇调整后总收入必须在150,000美元或以下；对于户主，调整后总收入必须在112,500美元或以下。

而对UBI的反对声主要集中在高昂的成本，而且最近的研究表明，UBI与失业之间只有微弱的联系。例如，麻省理工学院和哈佛大学的研究人员在2016年进行的一项分析发现，发展中国家的"现金转移"项目对就业行为几乎没有明显影响；而且几乎没有证据表明，用UBI取代传统福利金会像一些支持者所说的那样真正增加就业。最近在芬兰进行的一项为期两年的实验表明，UBI领取者找到新工作的可能性并不比对照组高。

虽然对UBI的意义依然存在较大的争议，但Worldcoin通过建设全球最大且公平的数字身份和货币体系来帮助每一个人进入全球金融体系，从而使每个人获取基本收入的宏大愿景依然令人兴奋，这无关政府、国界、种族和性别，几乎是最接近于纯粹乌托邦式的理想主义尝试。

2.2 人格证明

从技术层面来看，Worldcoin利用人格证明（Proof of Personhood）来实现最终愿景，在人工智能十分发达的今天，人格证明技术本身对于区分人类和机器人、防止女巫攻击、反诈骗和反权力中心化都有十分重大的意义。V神在最新关于人格证明的报告中对其进行了简单定义，即人格证明系统创建了一个公钥列表，系统保证每个公钥都由唯一的人类控制。换句话说，如果你是人类，你可以把一个密钥放在列表上，但你不能把两个密钥放在此列表上，而如果你是机器人，你不能把任何密钥放在列表上。目前已有的大量应用主要是通过借助政府支持的身份系统（如信用卡和护照）来证明人类唯一性，但这对隐私方面的损害也是极大的。而Worldcoin项目作为全球UBI的高风险项目，构建了一个高度安全的人格证明系统来防止用户重复注册。同其他人格证明机制相比，Worldcoin的独特之处在于它利用复杂的生物识别技术，通过一个名为Orb的专用硬件来扫描用户的虹膜以获取每个人独一无二的生物特征和信息，并将生物特征图片转换为无法破解的一串由字母和数字组成的哈希值，Worldcoin将其称之为“虹膜密码”（Iris Code）。通过和数据库中的数据比对，如果检验为新的注册用户，则会新增一个World ID保存到Worldcoin数据库中，并生成一个带有二维码的加密钱包，用户通过这个钱包可以获取免费的Worldcoin代币。

从去中心化的角度来看，Orb正实现逐步开源，在生成哈希值后生物信息就会被删除，且Worldcoin协议会搭建在Optimism和Polygon上，目前协议也是开源状态：

去中心化的实现可以通过世界币基金会的赠款来进行激励，或者通过基于代币的奖励机制对每次成功的用户验证进行激励，类似于第一层链上的验证奖励。为了能够开发与Orb类似的设备，Orb硬件共享源代码许可，只开发固件的组织可以根据基金会授予的许可证从TFH（Tools for Humanity，Orb的生产商）购买Orb硬件，这有助于减少固件开发对TFH的依赖、提高抗审查能力以及授权人们决定他们信任哪个组织来执行开发。此外，还需要能够验证生物识别验证设备的合法性（即它不是假冒的），并验证它是否运行了特定的固件（例如，当Orb声称不存储生物识别数据时，它的确没有存储），验证的方法之一是在TFH的 World App或其他协议兼容的应用程序中集成验证机制，设备必须签署由应用程序生成的挑战书，并根据一组已知的公开密钥进行验证。

从隐私保护的角度来看，Worldcoin使用了ZK-SNARK零知识证明，用户不需要直接用私钥（其对应的公钥就在数据库中）进行签名，而是可以用ZK-SNARK证明他们拥有私钥，而其对应的公钥就在数据库中的某个地方，同时又不会泄露他们拥有的具体私钥。此外，Orb也只在本地计算虹膜扫描的哈希值。这个哈希值并不是像SHA256那样的常规哈希值，而是一种基于机器学习的Gabor过滤器的专门算法，用于处理任何生物识别扫描中固有的不精确性，并确保对同一个人的虹膜进行的连续哈希值具有相似的输出。虽然虹膜扫描有可能会泄露一些其他数据，如性别、种族、健康状况等，但其泄漏程度是远远小于目前使用的许多中心化数据收集系统（如街头摄像头）所能捕捉到的数据的。

3、核心产品

3.1 Worldcoin协议

Worldcoin是基于区块链设计的去中心化协议，该协议的测试阶段部署在Polygon上，当前版本在以太坊的L2网络Optimism上运行，具有高度可扩展性。从技术的实现角度来看，协议的核心是将基于Orb的唯一性验证与Semaphore匿名集合成员证明相结合，从而允许发行方确定用户是否已认领其WLD代币，而无需收集用户的其他信息。Semaphore匿名集合成员协议（Semaphore anonymous set-membership protocol）是一个开源项目，最初由以太坊基金会开发，并由Worldcoin进行了扩展。Semaphore的独特之处在于其采用了匿名投票和货币中的基本隐私加密设计，并将其作为一个独立的库提供。Semaphore采用了最简约的实现方式，同时为实践者在此基础上设计自己的协议提供了最大的自由度。

在Wordcoin协议中，用户在智能手机上创建一个Semaphore密钥对（以下简称World ID密钥对），开始注册后，Orb会将公钥与用户的虹膜代码关联起来，而根据项目白皮书的说法，虹膜代码目前唯一的用途就是用于唯一性检查。如果检查成功，World ID公钥就会插入以太坊区块链上由智能合约维护的身份集，更新后的状态随后会被桥接到Optimism和Polygon PoS，这样World ID就可以在这些链上直接使用。用户注册后，可以以一种无需信任和私密的方式向第三方证明自己在此身份集合中，并因此证明自己的独特身份。由于该方案是私密的，因此通常需要将此证明与特定行为（如申请WLD或对提案进行投票）挂钩。在上述方案中，钱包会创建一个Groth16证明用于证明用户知道链上身份集和行动中某个公钥的私钥。从设计上讲，这为整个集合的大小提供了很强的匿名性。只要私钥不泄露，就不可能知道公开密钥或与注册有关的任何信息，包括虹膜代码，只能知道注册已成功完成。如果方案用于不同的应用，也不可能得知两个证明来自同一个人。

3.2 Orb

如上文所述，Orb最初由Tools for Humanity（TFH）开发，是首个为Worldcoin项目定制的生物识别成像设备，用于以安全和保护隐私的方式验证人的身份和独特性。任何拥有兼容World ID的钱包（如TFH的World App）的人，都可以通过访问Worldcoin运营商地点或社区专家访问Orb，在Orb上注册 World ID。根据项目7月的blog数据，在过去六个月的测试阶段，Worldcoin每周验证了40,000多人，目前已有超200万人注册了World ID。在西班牙等国家，已经有超过15万人验证了 World ID，在未来几个月内，该项目将把现有的运营规模扩大到3倍。

Worldcoin项目方表示，生物识别信息将只保留在球体上，当公司完成人工智能神经网络的训练，能够识别虹膜并检测欺诈行为时，生物识别信息就会被删除。在此之前，暂时还不清楚这些数据是如何处理的。

4、代币模型

4.1 代币总览

WLD代币于2023年7月24日进行ICO，现已上线币安、OKX等一线大所，ICO价格为$0.15，8月5日当日价格为$2.14，近期价格走势如下：

从2021年5月到2023年7月的项目预启动阶段，超过200万人在30多个不同国家的Orb验证了World ID。这些用户在代币上线前已分配到超过4300万个WLD代币。

WLD代币总供应量为100亿枚，代币发行后的15年内，供应上限固定为100亿WLD。15年后，如果管理层认为对协议的长期可持续发展有必要，可决定执行每年最高1.5%的通货膨胀率。代币仅用作治理代币。

4.2 代币分配

WLD代币分配比例如下：

从中可以看出，除了分配给大众社区的75%代币外，分配给TFH和初始开发团队的代币比例已从之前宣布的20%增加到了25%。根据白皮书的说法，由于开发和推进项目比TFH最初预计的要复杂得多，成本也更高，硬件开发和制造尤其昂贵，需要TFH投资者提供额外资金，再加上充满挑战的市场环境，TFH不得不增加资金分配。这样的分配比例一定程度上迎合了投资人的诉求，毕竟作为一个早期项目，在项目的商业和盈利模式仍不明朗时，投资人需要其他利益保障来继续推进项目的发展。

4.3 代币解锁周期

下图为15年的WLD解锁时间表：

团队和投资者代币在代币发行后即按合同锁定12个月，然后在随后的24个月内按日平均解锁。而普通用户已认领的代币不会被锁定。

5、风险点分析

Worldcoin项目成立至今，从技术安全、隐私保护、业务开展等多个角度受到了不同程度的质疑，有些风险不光存在于Worldcoin项目中，而是普遍存在于人格证明系统里。比如美国国家安全局（NSA）告密者Edward Snowden在推特上所说："不要编目眼球。不要将生物识别技术用于反欺诈。事实上，什么都不要用生物识别技术。人体不是打票机"。

其他人则对该公司所谓的公平性表示质疑，因为20%的币已经分配完毕：10%分配给了Worldcoin的全职员工，另外10%分配给了a16z等投资者。在此我们主要就最根本和最主要的风险点分析如下。

5.1 身份证明欺诈风险

下列情况的出现可能会导致虹膜识别身份证明机制的失效：

• 验证设备破坏：第三方通过破坏硬件或欺骗验证过程提交虚假验证；

• 身份盗窃：设备运营商或第三方操纵个人进行验证或破坏其手机以访问其凭证（包括政府在内）；

• 身份出售：个人决定将其凭证出售给欺诈者；

• 发行方欺诈：为验证设备开发固件的组织秘密生成身份；

• 三维打印的假人：人们可以利用人工智能生成假人的照片或甚至三维打印的假人，其可信度足以让Orb软件接受。只要有这样做的团体，他们就能生成无限多的身份。 以上有些情况不止会出现在Worldcoin项目中，而是普遍存在于利用生物识别技术进行人格证明的方法中。根据Worldcoin白皮书，其目前已采取下列措施使这些攻击的代价更高。

• 生物识别验证设备审计：对Orb的硬件、软件和欺骗性安全进行审计，并对"未经明确同意不保留图像数据"等特定声明进行调查，从而提高对World ID完整性的信任度。

• 漏洞悬赏计划： 所有运营白名单验证硬件的机构都必须参与一项公共漏洞奖励计划，该计划涵盖硬件、软件和欺骗安全。社区正在反复推敲漏洞赏金计划的设计，该计划将很快推出。

• 人脸验证： 作为验证过程的一部分，经过签名和加密的人脸图像可以传输到用户的手机上。然后，用户可以在应用程序中根据该图像进行身份验证，这种方法类似于FaceID，使他人的证书难以通过身份验证。除了人脸识别外，手机还需要进行活体检测，以防止欺骗攻击。与Orb等定制硬件相比，消费类手机对这种有效性检测是否确实进行过、是否被欺骗的安全保证较低（因为消费类手机的摄像头不够先进，而且很难在个人手机上创建一个可信的执行环境来确保计算的完整性）。随着移动零知识证明能力的提高，有可能在用户手机上的零知识证明中计算身份验证和有效性检查，从而提高安全保证。

• 虹膜认证：与人脸认证类似，虹膜认证也是根据模板进行生物识别认证和有效性检查。通过要求人们回到生物识别验证设备前，提高了有效性检查未被欺骗或绕过的安全保证，但也付出了便利性的代价。如果人脸认证和虹膜认证都能实现，开发人员就可以根据自己的应用选择所需的安全级别。

• 恢复：社会欺诈和身份盗窃的受害者应能仅使用生物识别技术通过Orb恢复他们的身份证明。从博弈论的角度来看，这也将使购买其他人的身份证明无利可图。

• 异常检测： 可以公开Orbs的元数据，用于分散式异常检测，为决定亲自审核哪些Orbs 提供信息。不过，公布哪些数据需要慎重考虑，以保护验证者的隐私。社区的意见很可能是取得平衡的必要条件。

• 撤销： 如果验证设备的某个固件版本被认为不安全，或者某个运营组织被发现是欺诈性的，则可以根据基金会的管理规定，追溯性地撤销验证证书，以消除潜在的欺诈性身份。最终，可能需要一个单独的裁决机构。如果有任何真实合法的个人受到影响，他们可以在 Orb 重新验证。

• 过期：随着生物识别验证设备及其安全标准的发展，World ID的版本可能会变得有用。随着时间的推移，旧的World ID可能会被淘汰，以提高安全性，这与护照过期类似。

Worldcoin和其他人格证明项目相比，在安全性和防欺诈方面做的相对好一些，而且其采用专业的硬件Orb本身就比普通硬件（如用户个人手机）更难欺骗。另外值得注意的一点是，之前有许多非洲黑人用户注册了World ID后，中介再将其身份转售出去的事情。短期内出售账号的行为仍然很难防范，因为世界上大多数人甚至不知道身份证明协议，在第三世界国家，当地人十分乐于扫描一下眼睛来得到几美金，甚至几十美金，这在当地是一笔不小的生活补助了。而长期来看，如果有更多人了解了什么是身份证明协议，且项目允许用户重新注册，那么出售ID的盈利空间便会被极度压缩，因为把ID卖给你的人可以直接去重新注册，注销刚刚卖给你的身份证。从这个角度出发，将UBI和人格证明相结合的确是最容易让更多人去理解身份证明并激励大家注册的方式之一。

5.2 合规和道德风险

在Worldcoin代币发行之前，其业务推广瞄准了第三世界国家，以规避合规风险，但业务拓展的方式仍然受到了广泛的质疑，甚至被称为“加密殖民主义”，毕竟大家都有这样的疑问，即为什么世界币一开始就瞄准了低收入社区，而不是加密货币爱好者或社区呢？数字人类学家、《下一个十亿用户》（The Next Billion Users）一书的作者Payal Arora说："这是一场在人工智能驱动的经济中谁能获得最多数据的竞赛。”由于欧洲和美国有着更严格的数据保护法，这意味着Worldcoin几乎无法从这些地区的国民中获得他们所需要的训练数据，因此他们不得不将目光投向发展中国家。在缺乏资金和法律保护的地方开展此类数据收集行动，对项目方来讲既便宜又容易。诺桑比亚大学研究国际发展的高级讲师Pete Howson将Worldcoin的行为归类为一种加密殖民主义："区块链和加密货币实验被强加给弱势社区，本质上是因为......这些人无法反抗。”豪森解释说：“与其他形式的数据殖民主义相比，加密版本的数据殖民主义危害更大的是，区块链的核心原则——去中心化，使得当事情出错时，项目方的责任非常有限。”“Do Your Own Research”的精神对于发展中地区的许多人来说根本不切实际。同样，巨大的经济差距意味着在肯尼亚，不到半美元的激励就能让人愿意参与实验，而在挪威或美国，激励成本显然不止这个数字。

虽然Worldcoin已认识到这种数据收集存在问题，并打算停止这样的行为，但它并没有为这些早期的45万用户提供同样的隐私保护。正如MIT Technology Review去年对Worldcoin的报告中所提到的，Worldcoin在明显侵犯了许多人隐私的同时却又以自己的隐私保护协议为荣。也许对于Worldcoin来说，发展中国家的测试用户群在很大程度上并不是其最终用户。相反，他们的眼睛、身体和生活模式只是Worldcoin神经网络的原料。

对于这一问题，作者认为算法的训练的确需要大量数据，而作为一家初创企业，选择低成本的获取渠道也无可厚非，Worldcoin的隐私协议也已不断完善，且协议和Orb都在逐步实现开源，在其发布的白皮书中也可以查阅到非常详细的技术文档来打消相关疑问；此外，不可否认的一点是，Worldcoin的激励措施的确让当地人挣到了一些钱，也定期收到了代币，只是要真正将人格证明知识普及大众，依然任重道远，而在此之前项目一定会持续受到不被信任的各种质疑，包括来自当地政府的法规处置等。

6、总结

Worldcoin作为一款结合了DID、钱包和代币的UBI产品，虽然在许多方面饱受质疑，甚至被加上了阴谋论的说法，但依然不可否认，项目对人格证明和UBI实验具有重大的意义和推动作用。在人格证明系统的创新上，虹膜识别乍听上去感觉别有意图，但Orb和Worldcoin协议正在实现逐步开源，具体的技术文档都可以在其公开的白皮书中查阅到，且根据上文分析，虹膜识别在保护隐私和去中心化方面坐的比其他人格证明机制要好一些，更不用说加密人格证明系统本身天然优越于中心化的由政府操纵的身份系统。而将人格证明和UBI结合也是这个项目的独特之处，因为UBI的激励方式更容易被大众所理解和接受，早期用户也的确得到了代币和其他奖励，加上现在代币已上线，价格透明化，账号出售等盈利空间已被不断压榨。但不可否认的是，人格证明知识的普及依然任重而道远，且Worldcoin收集用户数据的方式可能会持续受到当地法规的挑战。我们十分好奇Worldcoin能走多远，如果真的成功，它对重塑金融和加密生态将具有不可估量的意义。

The European Union has adopted and implemented the MiCA regulation in May 2023 as a unified regulatory framework for crypto assets across EU member states, which can directly radiate the large crypto asset market of 27 countries and 450 million EU population. Compared with the United States, which has fired frequent shots at crypto giants and carried out enforcement activities this year, but has been slow to make legislative moves, the EU has actively legislated and established a sound regulatory framework and system, which has served as a model for global crypto regulation. This article is our third report on the topic of global crypto regulation, following the series of articles on Hong Kong and U.S. regulation. We will make a compendium of the EU's regulatory framework and system for the crypto market, as well as analyzing and interpreting its impact and significance.

Key Insights

♦ The EU has launched a digital finance package for the cryptocurrency market with the aim of exploring a European route to promote crypto, ensure financial stability and provide protection to investors and consumers. In addition to the MiCA proposal, the package includes a Digital Finance Strategy, a Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) covering crypto-asset service providers, and a pilot proposal for the large-scale adoption of Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), which fills the gaps in the EU's existing legislation and ensures that the current legal framework does not pose barriers to the use of new digital financial instruments, while ensuring that these new technologies and products fall within the scope of financial regulation.

♦ The Transfer of Funds Regulation (TFR) is also noteworthy in that it requires CASPs to conduct KYC checks on the source of funds and beneficiaries of cryptocurrency transactions, and in the event of investigations into money laundering and terrorist financing, CASPs will be obliged to provide this information to the competent authorities. The point of contention of this bill is data privacy protection, and it still needs to be scrutinized whether excessive data collection is effective in combating financial crimes.

♦ Even for startups, the EU legislation is good news: MiCA's legislative status is high enough to apply to all EU member states, so for crypto service providers, they only need to comply with one regulatory framework to operate in 27 EU member states with 500 million consumers, which greatly reduces compliance costs; and MiCA is likely to serve as a model law that will further accelerate the adoption of appropriate legislation by all countries. MiCA is likely to serve as a model law, further accelerating the adoption of appropriate legislation to end the "Wild West" of the crypto world.

♦ The EU legislation style is gradual and flexible, adjusting the rules in line with the reality, which will not overly stifle innovation, but also effectively protect the rights and interests of all participants in the crypto market, attracting more traditional large organizations to enter the market under the conditions of lawful compliance, and maintaining the stability of the financial market.

Report Outline

1. Background

2. An Overview of MiCA

2.1 Regulatory Subjects and Scope

2.2 Regulatory Framework and Details

2.3 Significance and Impact

3. Other EU Crypto Bills

4. Summary

1. Background

2022 is a landmark year for policy and regulatory developments in the crypto industry. The U.S. Congress debated bipartisan legislative proposals to govern the cryptocurrency market, and regulators from Singapore to the U.K. enacted rules to protect consumers from fraud and misleading advertisements in the cryptocurrency market; in addition, the collapse of Terra accelerated the legislative process to address the risks associated with stablecoins, and the demise of FTX renewed the discussion of the search for regulation that would require urgent regulatory intervention to ensure the stability of cryptocurrency trading platforms and reduce opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. After the crypto industry's darkest moment in 2022, EU regulators and policymakers have continued to explore the cryptocurrency space as regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies around the world become clearer. In order to strive for a world-leading position in the crypto wave, and to help revitalize local economies and find new growth points and drivers, the EU is encouraging crypto innovations while also improving a unified regulatory framework across EU members. Compared to the U.S., where the authorities have frequently taken enforcement actions against crypto companies but have been slow to push for legislation, the EU has taken a big step ahead by establishing an advanced and relatively complete regulatory system, providing increasingly clear standards and requirements for crypto market participants, which will help accelerate the transition of the global crypto market from the stage of "barbaric growth" to the "era of legal system".

2. An Overview of MiCA

On May 16, 2023, the Council of the European Union adopted a regulation on the Markets in Crypto-assets Regulation (MiCA), which brings crypto-assets, crypto-asset issuers, and crypto-asset service providers into the regulatory framework, establishing for the first time a legal framework for the industry at the EU level by improving legislative transparency and providing a clear regulatory framework to better protect the legitimate interests of all participants in the crypto market, combat illegal money laundering and other criminal activities using crypto, and maintain financial stability. Considering the global nature of the cryptocurrency market, MiCA is undoubtedly a step forward compared to the current situation where national legislation is only implemented in some member states. Binance CEO CZ tweeted and commented, "The European Parliament's vote in favor of implementing MiCA means that one of the world's largest markets is introducing tailored crypto regulations to protect users and support innovation. Details matter, but overall we see this as a pragmatic solution to the challenges we all face together. There are now clear rules of the game for cryptocurrency exchanges operating in the EU. We are ready to adapt our business over the next 12-18 months to make it fully compliant."

The European Commission presented the MiCA proposal on September 24, 2020, which is part of the Digital Finance Package and aims to explore European routes to promote crypto, ensure financial stability and provide protection to investors and consumers. In addition to the MiCA proposal, the package includes the Digital Finance Strategy, the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) covering crypto-asset service providers, and a pilot proposal for the large-scale adoption of Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), which fills the gaps in the EU's existing legislation and ensures that the current legal framework does not pose barriers to the use of new digital financial instruments, while ensuring that these new technologies and products fall within the scope of financial regulation. The Council of the European Union adopted a negotiating mandate for MiCA on November 24, 2021, and tripartite talks between the co-legislators began on March 31, 2022, with a provisional agreement reached on June 30, 2022.The formal adoption of the regulation in May is the final step in the legislative process.MiCA will be formally implemented on December 30, 2024, after an 18-month transition period.

2.1 Regulatory Subjects and Scope

MiCA is regulated at the EU level by the European Banking Authority (EBA) and the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), while the European Central Bank (ECB) will be one of the regulators; at the national level, each member state will designate a regulator to cooperate with MiCA. Bank will act as one of the regulators for stablecoins; at the national level, each member state will designate a regulator to work with MiCA on the ground.

MiCA defines crypto-assets as "representations of value or rights in digital form that can be transferred and stored electronically using distributed ledger technology or similar technology". The regulation distinguishes between "cryptocurrencies" and "tokens. "MiCA also imposes requirements on crypto-asset issuers and crypto-asset service providers (CASPs). CASPs must provide complete and transparent information about the crypto assets they issue and comply with disclosure and transparency rules. Crypto asset service providers must register and implement security measures and comply with anti-money laundering regulations.

MiCA provides a regulatory framework for digital assets using decentralized ledger technology (DLT).The main crypto assets covered by MiCA are: a. Asset-Referenced tokens (ARTs), which are crypto-assets designed to maintain a stable value by being linked to the value of several fiat currencies, one or more commodities, one or more crypto-assets, or a combination of these assets. This category includes all crypto assets that do not qualify as "electronic money tokens", such as Digix (DGX), which is backed by an equivalent amount of physical gold stored in a secure vault; b. Electronic-money tokens (EMTs), which maintain a stable value by reference to the value of fiat currencies. The difference between ART and EMT lies in the underlying asset that backs the price. ART is backed by a non-cash asset or basket of currencies, whereas EMTs are backed by a single currency, which makes them more similar to the concept of an electronic currency. c. Crypto-assets that are not considered as ART or EMT, such as "utility tokens", which are intended to provide digital access to a good or service, are available on the DLT, and are accepted only by the issuer of that token. Such crypto-assets are generally not considered financial instruments under the securities laws of many countries, unlike securities-based tokens.

MiCA's regulatory scope excludes the DeFi industry and NFTs, which, according to the definition provided by the European Central Bank, are a new way of delivering financial services that eschews traditional centralized intermediaries in favor of relying on automated protocols. These emerging industries either already have their own regulation based on their nature, such as security tokens, or they are unique and require further analysis by legislators to configure a regulatory framework that can appropriately address the risks. Rather than using the industry term "NFT", MiCA has adopted a substance-over-form approach to describe such crypto-assets, i.e., their value and attributes are attributable to each individual crypto-asset. The properties are attributed to the uniqueness and functionality of each crypto-asset, and the value of each crypto-asset cannot be measured by the same market-based price comparison tool or uniform asset. As a result, Fractionalized NFTs will not be considered unique, non-homogenous cryptoassets; at the same time, excessive issuance of NFTs will also be considered to be homogenous in nature and may be subject to MiCA regulation. The European Commission will be mandated to submit a report 18 months after MiCA comes into force to assess the potential for regulating NFTs. In any case, MiCA is certainly a big step towards strong consumer protection, while minimizing the risk these markets could pose to financial stability. Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are also outside the scope of MiCA.

2.2 Regulatory Framework and Details

MiCA contains 126 provisions and its regulatory framework consists mainly of:

• Transparency and disclosure requirements for crypto-asset issuance and trading access;

• Authorization and regulation of crypto-asset service providers and issuers;

• Rules for the operation, organization and governance of Asset-Referenced Tokens (ARTs), Electronic-Money Tokens (EMTs) and other crypto-asset service providers;

• Crypto-asset consumer protection rules;

• Measures to prevent market abuse and ensure the integrity of the crypto-asset market.

MiCA establishes harmonized requirements for the offering and placing on the market of most crypto-assets, as well as requirements for Cryptocurrency Asset Service Providers (CASPs). Under MiCA, CASPs in the EU will face extensive compliance requirements, which will increase transparency, minimize the potential for market chain reactions, and reduce user risk. Crypto-asset services include the operation of trading platforms, the safekeeping and management of crypto-assets on behalf of third parties, the conversion of crypto-assets into funds/other crypto-assets, the execution of orders for crypto-assets, the placing of crypto-assets, the provision of crypto-asset transfer services to third parties, the provision of crypto-asset advice, and the management of portfolios of crypto-assets.In order to avoid any conflict with the existing EU financial regulatory framework, MiCA would not apply to European financial institutions that are already regulated European financial institutions, such as credit institutions, investment firms, market makers, e-money institutions, asset management firms, etc. CASPs will be required to demonstrate their

• Stability and soundness;

• Ability to protect user funds;

• Compliance with prudential standards;

• Implementation of controls to ensure that they do not engage in proprietary trading;

• Avoidance of conflicts of interest;

• The ability to protect against market abuse and manipulation.

In addition, stablecoin issuers will face strict reserve and disclosure requirements to ensure that token holders are protected from bank runs. As MiCA is very comprehensive in providing clear rules for market participants, it is expected that in 2023, an increasing number of CASPs will seek to register in Europe to take advantage of MiCA's benefit of allowing entities registered in one EU member state to "pass" their services across Europe without having to obtain approval from regulators in all 27 member states.

MiCA requires issuers of ARTs and EMTs to incorporated as a legal entity in the EU and to publish their white papers containing investor information prior to issuance; issuers must also build up sufficient liquidity reserves on a 1:1 basis and meet other regulatory requirements. The European Banking Authority (EBA) will have supervisory responsibility for issuers of significant ART and EMT. For stablecoins, ARTs are subject to stricter regulatory requirements than EMTs, as ARTs are considered more likely to pose a potential threat to monetary stability in the EU. Prior to a public offering or trading on an exchange, an issuer is required to register in an EU member state and apply to the local regulator for approval (prior approval). The issuance application must contain: (i) detailed information about the issuer, including its organizational structure, business model, governance model, internal control measures, and means of risk control, its own capital requirements, conflicts of interest, reserves of assets held, assets held; (ii) a legal opinion on the ART; (iii) the issuer's organizational documents; and (iv) the ART white paper.ART issuers are also required to comply with periodic reporting obligations to the regulator with respect to clients traded, amounts traded, reserves, etc., after obtaining approval for the issuance.

2.3 Significance and Impact

MiCA will provide regulatory certainty and stronger protections for consumers in the cryptocurrency market while supporting innovation; MiCA establishes mechanisms to ensure that stablecoins are truly stable, requiring greater market transparency and preventing participants from creating excessive risk while ensuring that assets held in custody are truly protected; MiCA also seeks to mitigate the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies, with the mining of some cryptocurrencies requires the use of high-powered equipment that consumes large amounts of energy that may come from fossil fuels such as coal, and the industry also requires large amounts of computer components and generates e-waste; MiCA aims to lay the groundwork for broader regulatory efforts, including initiatives such as the Digital Operations Resilience Act (DORA), the DLT pilot regime, and the Transfer of Funds Regulations (TFR).

3. Other EU Crypto Bills

While MiCA is far-reaching as the cornerstone of the EU's system of crypto regulations, there are far more EU regulations for the crypto industry. Several other rules that have helped shape the EU's body of crypto regulations are outlined here.

DORA, the Digital Operational Resilience Act

DORA establishes uniform requirements for the security of the networks and information systems of companies and organizations operating in the financial sector, as well as of important third parties (such as credit institutions, investment firms, and crypto service providers) that provide them with ICT (information and communication technology)-related services (e.g., cloud-based platforms or data analytics services) DORA establishes a regulatory framework for digital operational resilience, whereby all companies must ensure that they can resist, respond and recover from all types of ICT-related disruptions and threats. These requirements are the same in all EU Member States, with the core objective of preventing and mitigating cyberthreats.The DORA proposal was formally adopted in November 2022 and will be passed into national law by each EU Member State. In the meantime, the relevant European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs), such as the European Banking Authority (EBA), the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), and the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA), will develop technical standards that all financial services organizations, from banking and insurance to asset management, will be required to comply with. National authorities will conduct compliance monitoring and enforce regulations where necessary. "DORA is in fact the cornerstone of our work on digital finance in the EU," European Finance Commissioner Mairead McGuinness told members of parliament in November. "Financial institutions are increasingly dependent on technology. More and more people and businesses are managing their finances online. It is therefore crucial to protect the financial system from cyber-attacks and cyber-fraud."

DLT Pilot Regime

DLT refers to digital systems that record transactions of assets (such as Bitcoin), where transaction details are recorded in multiple places simultaneously.DLT allows information to be stored in a secure and accurate manner, ensuring that record management is not subject to manipulation. The European Union's MiCA includes regulation of DLT-based cryptoassets such as stablecoins. The DLT Pilot Regime, launched on March 23, 2023, is a regulatory sandbox that allows traditional financial participants and market newcomers to experiment with tokenized financial instruments and innovative markets based on decentralized technology, with the aim of allowing firms to leverage DLTs without legislative constraints and to develop trading and settlement functionality for DLT financial instruments. trading and settlement functionality. As part of the program, firms can apply for exemptions from certain requirements of the Markets in Financial Instruments Regulation (MiFIR), the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II) and/or the Central Securities Depositories Regulation (CSDR). The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) will act as regulator for the pilot regime.

TFR, Transfer of Funds Regulation

The "Travel Rules" require CASPs to conduct KYC checks on the source and beneficiary of funds for cryptocurrency transactions, with information on the source and beneficiary of the assets traveling with the transaction and stored on both sides of the transfer. CASPs will be obliged to provide this information to the competent authorities in the event of an investigation into money laundering and terrorist financing. Unlike the original proposal, the agreement now excludes private non-custodial wallets operated by unregulated CASPs, which means that private wallets and person-to-person transfers made without a service are not regulated under the Travel Rules. In addition, cryptocurrency transfers of more than €1,000 between exchanges and individually owned non-custodial wallets must be reported to national authorities, while non-provider-custodied cryptocurrency peer-to-peer wallets are exempt from these rules.

The regulation is a response to the increasing use of cryptocurrencies for money laundering and terrorist financing. Crypto assets are often used for these illicit purposes because they allow for the quick and anonymous transfer of funds. By requiring information on the source and beneficiary of the funds, authorities will be able to track these transactions and investigate any suspicious activity. Controversy over the TFR has centered on data protection, with the public fearing that by collecting information on a large number of cryptocurrency users it will be open to hackers and that over-collecting information on users won't necessarily help much in the fight against terrorism.The TFR's approach to data protection will be guided by the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is regarded as one of the most robust data protection regulations in the world. Under the TFR, data should be shared with authorities upon request, but will not be automatically transferred to them.

Anti-Money Laundering Rules (AML)

The EU Parliament voted in favor of three important anti-money laundering (AML) legislations in March this year, and cryptocurrency payments for goods and services over €1,000 will have to comply with AML laws. The legislation expands the definition of a Crypto Asset Service Provider (CASP) to include NFT platforms in its regulatory scope, which also closes the regulatory gap in MiCA in the NFT space.The definition of a Crypto Asset Service Provider (CASP) is more loosely defined in MiCA, and whether or not the Defi protocol will fall under AML regulation will depend on whether or not the DeFi protocol can be shown to be centrally controlled. If it is indeed decentralized, it will not be considered a CASP, which means it will not fall under AML.

In addition to the AML rules, MiCA has a separate anti-money laundering companion regulation for crypto assets, which has been voted on by Parliament. This AML companion regulation has an exclusion for so-called P2P transactions, and the text defines a P2P transaction as one that is not backed by a crypto-asset service provider (CASP). As a result, transactions using the DeFi protocol will be excluded if the DeFi protocol is sufficiently decentralized.

DAC8

On May 16, 2023, EU Member States reached a political agreement through the Economic and Financial Affairs Committee (ECOFIN) on new tax transparency rules applicable to all service providers facilitating crypto-asset transactions for EU resident clients. These new reporting requirements on crypto-assets, e-money and central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will come into force on January 1, 2026 through the EU DAC8.DAC8 will introduce disclosure and reporting obligations for cryptocurrency intermediaries facilitating transactions for EU clients, placing tax reporting requirements on crypto-asset service providers.DAC8 is part of the series of EU tax measures ( DAC), initially implemented by Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (DAC).DAC8 will adapt the Crypto Asset Reporting Framework (CARF), which establishes a set of model rules on the reporting and exchange of crypto transaction information, and will be based on the EU's objective of promoting global tax transparency in the digital marketplace, and will be aligned with the EU's existing Regulation on Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA). According to a briefing from the European Parliament, a crypto reporting framework could potentially add up to €2.4 billion per year to EU tax revenues. From 2026, companies offering crypto services will need to report their clients' domestic and cross-border transactions to national authorities.

4. Summary

The adoption of MiCA is of extremely important and far-reaching significance to the development of the EU and the global crypto industry. Previously, there was no unified crypto regulatory framework in the EU countries except for the AML regulations, and nowadays, for crypto service providers, they only need to comply with one regulatory framework, and they can operate in 27 EU member states countries with 500 million consumers, and the cost of compliance has been greatly reduced. Moreover, it is likely that MiCA will play the role of a model law. Although the rapid development of crypto technology disrupts the traditional industry, it is also used for terrorism, money laundering and other criminal activities. Legislation in the crypto industry in many countries around the world has been halting, holding a wait-and-see attitude, or directly across-the-board, completely rejecting the opportunity for such a development, and the adoption and implementation of MiCA will provide a reference for the legislation of other countries, which will also prompt some countries to change their negative attitudes towards cryptocurrencies. In addition to MiCA, other EU crypto laws complement each other. Although the EU has a very strict regulatory attitude toward stable coins and has introduced more regulations for centralized exchanges, which may cause many crypto service providers that have been growing wildly to face a variety of compliance restrictions, the positive significance of the legislation and regulation is still greater than the negative significance, and a regulated and protected crypto market will attract more traditional large institutions to enter the market, as well as more traditional large institutions. More traditional large institutions will be attracted to the market, and the EU's harmonized regulatory framework allows startups to choose to domicile in the EU to receive legal protections and encourage innovation, and face modest compliance costs. With the successive launch of the EU's Digital Finance Strategy package, the style of EU's crypto legislation is progressive, constantly adapting the rules to real situations, and flexible, so that the iron fist of regulation does not strike too hard and stifle innovation. Meanwhile, EU can also manage to protect the rights and interests of all parties involved in the crypto market, and safeguard the stability of the financial market.

欧盟已于2023年5月通过并实施MiCA法规作为欧盟各成员国统一的加密资产监管框架，可以直接辐射27个国家以及4.5亿欧盟人口的加密资产大市场。同美国在今年向加密巨头频繁开炮，开展执法活动，却迟迟没有立法动作相比，欧盟积极立法，建立完善的监管框架与体系，为全球加密监管起到了示范作用。本文是我们继香港、美国监管系列文章后，推出的全球加密监管主题的第三篇报告，将对欧盟加密市场监管框架和体系做出梳理，并对其影响和意义进行分析和解读。

核心观点

♦ 欧盟针对加密货币市场推出了数字金融一揽子计划，旨在探索欧洲路线，促进加密技术发展，确保金融稳定，向投资者和消费者提供保护。除MiCA提案外，该一揽子方案还包括数字金融战略、涵盖加密资产服务提供商的《数字运营弹性法》（DORA），以及针对大规模采用分布式账本技术（DLT）的试点提案，这弥补了欧盟现有立法的不足，确保现行法律框架不会对新数字金融工具的使用构成障碍，同时确保这些新技术和产品属于金融监管范围内。

♦ 《资金转移条例》（TFR）同样值得关注，它要求CASP对加密货币交易的资金来源和受益人进行KYC检查，如果对洗钱和恐怖主义融资进行调查，CASP将有义务向主管当局提供这些信息。此法案的争议点在于数据隐私保护，过度收集数据对打击金融犯罪是否有效仍需要推敲。

♦ 即使对于初创企业，欧盟的立法也是利好消息。MiCA的立法位阶足够高，适用于全欧盟成员国，对于加密服务提供商来说，只需遵守一个监管框架，就能在拥有5亿消费者的27个欧盟成员国运营，合规成本大大降低；而且MiCA很可能会起到示范法的作用，进一步加快各国通过适当立法结束加密世界“狂野西部”的现状。

♦ 欧盟立法风格循序渐进，结合现实调整细则，十分灵活，既不会过度扼杀创新，也能有效保护加密市场各方参与者的权益，吸引更多传统大机构在合法合规的条件下入场，维护金融市场稳定。

报告大纲

1、背景概述

2、MiCA详述

2.1 监管主体和范围

2.2 监管框架和细则

2.3 意义及影响

3、欧盟其他加密法案

4、总结

1、背景概述

2022年是加密行业政策和监管发展具有里程碑意义的一年。美国国会两党就管理加密货币市场的立法提案展开了辩论，从新加坡到英国的监管机构都制定了保护消费者免受加密货币市场欺诈和误导性广告之害的规则；此外，Terra的轰然倒塌加速了解决稳定币相关风险的立法进程，而FTX的消亡则再次激发了人们寻求监管的讨论，即需要采取紧急监管干预措施，以确保加密货币交易平台的稳定性并减少监管套利的机会。在经历了2022年加密行业的至暗时刻后，随着世界各国针对加密货币监管框架的日益清晰，欧盟监管机构和政策制定者也在加密货币领域不断探索。为了争取到加密浪潮中的世界领先地位，重新帮助地方经济焕发生机，找到新的增长点和驱动力，欧盟在鼓励加密创新的同时，也在不断完善欧盟各成员统一的监管框架，相比于美国当局频繁针对加密公司进行执法行动而迟迟不推动立法的行为，欧盟已领先一大步，建立起先进且相对完善的监管体系，为加密市场的参与者提供了日益清晰的标准和要求，有助于加快全球加密市场从“野蛮生长”阶段向“法制时代”的过渡。

2、MiCA详述

2023年5月16日，欧盟理事会通过了一项关于加密资产市场（The Markets in Crypto-assets Regulation，MiCA）的法规，将加密资产、加密资产发行商和加密资产服务提供商纳入监管框架，首次为该行业制定了欧盟层面的法律框架，通过提高立法透明度并提供明确的监管框架来更好地保护加密市场各方参与者的合法利益，打击利用加密技术的非法洗钱等犯罪活动，维护金融稳定。考虑到加密货币市场的全球性质，与目前仅在部分成员国实行国家立法的情况相比，MiCA无疑是一种进步。币安首席执行官赵长鹏发推文评论称：“欧洲议会投票支持实施MiCA，这意味着世界上最大的市场之一正在引入量身定制的加密法规，以保护用户和支持创新。细节很重要，但总体而言，我们认为这是应对我们共同面临挑战的务实解决方案。对于在欧盟运营的加密货币交易所，现在有明确的游戏规则。我们已准备好在未来12-18个月内对业务进行调整，以使其完全合规”。

欧盟委员会于2020年9月24日提出了 MiCA 提案，该提案属于数字金融一揽子计划的一部分，旨在探索欧洲路线，促进加密技术发展，确保金融稳定，向投资者和消费者提供保护。除MiCA提案外，该一揽子方案还包括数字金融战略、涵盖加密资产服务提供商的《数字运营弹性法》（DORA），以及针对大规模采用分布式账本技术（DLT）的试点提案，这弥补了欧盟现有立法的不足，确保现行法律框架不会对新数字金融工具的使用构成障碍，同时确保这些新技术和产品属于金融监管范围内。欧盟理事会于2021年11月24日通过了关于MiCA的谈判授权，共同立法者之间的三方会谈于2022年3月31日开始，并于2022年6月30日达成临时协议。5月份正式通过的法规是立法程序的最后一步。MiCA经过18个月的过渡期后，将于2024年12月30日正式实施。

2.1 监管主体和范围

MiCA在欧盟层面的监管主体是欧洲银行管理局（European Banking Authority, EBA）和欧洲证券及市场管理局（European Securities and Markets Authority, ESMA），而欧洲央行（European Central Bank）则将作为稳定币的监管机构之一；在国家层面则由每个成员国指定的监管机构配合MiCA落地。

MiCA将加密资产定义为 "可使用分布式分类账技术或类似技术以电子方式转移和存储的价值或权利的数字形式的表示"。该条例区分了"加密货币"和"代币"。MiCA还对加密资产发行商和加密资产服务提供商(CASPs)提出了要求。加密资产发行商必须提供有关其发行的加密资产的完整而透明的信息，并遵守披露和透明度规则。加密资产服务提供商必须注册并执行安全措施和遵守反洗钱规定。

MiCA为使用去中心化分类账技术（DLT）的数字资产提供了一个监管框架。MiCA 涵盖的主要加密资产有：

a. 与资产挂钩类代币（ARTs），此类加密资产旨在通过与几种法定货币、一种或几种商品、一种或几种加密资产或这些资产的组合的价值挂钩来保持自身稳定的价值。这一类别包括所有不符合"电子货币代币"条件的加密资产，比如Digix (DGX)，便是由储存在安全保险库中的等量实物黄金提供支持的；

b. 电子货币代币(EMT)，通过参考法定货币的价值来保持稳定的价值。ART与EMT的区别在于支持价格的底层资产的配置。ART使用非现金资产或一篮子货币作为支撑，而EMT使用单一货币，这使它们更接近电子货币的概念；

c. 不被视为ART或EMT的加密资产，如 "效用代币"，其目的是提供对某种商品或服务的数字访问，可在DLT上使用，且仅被该代币的发行方所接受。根据许多国家的证券法，与证券类代币不同，此类加密资产通常不被视为金融工具。

MiCA的监管范围不包括DeFi行业和NFT。根据欧洲中央银行提供的定义，DeFi 是一种提供金融服务的新方式，它摒弃了传统的中心化中介，转而依赖于自动化协议。这些新兴行业要么已经根据其性质有了自己的监管，如安全代币，要么它们具有特殊性，立法者需要进行进一步分析，以配置一个能适当应对风险的监管框架。而MiCA并未使用行业常用的术语“NFT”，而是秉持“实质大于形式”（a substance-over-form approach）的原则来描述这类加密资产，即其价值属性是归功于每个加密资产的独特性和功能性，每个加密资产的价值都无法被同一市场比价手段或者统一资产来衡量。因此，碎片化NFT（Fractionalizad NFT）将不被认为是独特、非同质化的加密资产；同时，NFT的发行量过大也会被认为是存在同质化的性质，可能受到MiCA规制。欧盟委员会将被授权在 MiCA 生效18个月后提交一份报告，以评估监管NFT的潜在可能。无论如何，MiCA无疑是朝着强有力的消费者保护迈出的一大步，同时也将这些市场可能对金融稳定造成的风险降到了最低。中央银行数字货币（CBDCs）也不属于MiCA的范围。

2.2 监管框架和细则

MiCA包含126项条款，其监管框架主要包括：

• 加密资产发行和交易准入的透明度和披露要求；

• 加密资产服务提供商和发行方的授权和监管；

• 与资产挂钩代币（Asset-Referenced Tokens）、电子货币代币（Electronic-Money Tokens）和其它加密资产服务提供商的运营、组织和治理规则；

• 加密资产消费者保护规则；

• 防止市场滥用和确保加密资产市场完整性的措施。

MiCA 对大多数加密资产的发售和投放市场制定了统一要求，并对加密货币资产服务提供商（CASP）提出了要求。根据 MiCA，欧盟的CASP将面临广泛的合规要求，这将提高透明度，最大限度地降低市场连锁反应的可能性，并减少用户风险。加密资产服务包括交易平台的运营、代表第三方保管和管理加密资产、将加密资产兑换为基金/其他加密资产、执行加密资产订单、配售加密资产、向第三方提供加密资产转让服务、提供加密资产建议和加密资产投资组合管理,为了避免与现行欧盟金融监管框架的冲突，MiCA将不适用于已经纳入监管的欧洲金融机构，如信贷机构、投资公司、做市商、电子货币机构、资产管理公司等。 CASPs将被要求证明其：

• 稳定性和健全性；

• 保护用户资金的能力；

• 遵守审慎标准；

• 实施控制措施，确保不参与自营交易；

• 避免利益冲突；

• 防范市场滥用和操纵的能力。

此外，稳定币发行商还将面临严格的准备金和披露要求，以确保代币持有者免受银行挤兑的影响。由于MiCA非常全面地为市场参与者提供了明确的规则，预计在2023年，越来越多的CASP将寻求在欧洲注册，以利用MiCA的利好，即允许在一个欧盟成员国注册的实体在欧洲各地 "通行 "其服务，而无需获得所有27个成员国监管机构的批准。

MiCA要求ART和EMT的发行商在欧盟成员国内注册法律实体（incorporated as a legal entity in the EU），并在发行之前发布其白皮书，其中将包含投资者信息；发行商还必须按照1/1的比例建立足够的流动性储备，并满足其他监管要求。欧洲银行管理局 (EBA) 将对重大ART和EMT的发行人负有监管责任。对于稳定币，ART比EMT受到更严格的监管要求，因为ART被认为更可能会对欧盟的货币稳定构成潜在威胁。在公开发行或在交易所交易之前，发行人就需要在欧盟成员国内注册，并向当地监管机构的申请批准（prior approval），发行申请必须包含：（i）发行人详细资料，包括组织架构、商业模式、治理模式、内控措施以及风控手段、自有资金要求、利益冲突、持有资产储备、资产托管等等；（ii）关于ART的法律意见书；（iii）发行人组织文件；（iv）ART白皮书。ART发行人在获得发行批准之后，还需要定期向监管机构履行关于交易客户、交易金额、储备金等等的报告义务。

2.3 意义及影响

MiCA将为加密货币市场的消费者在支持创新的同时提供监管确定性和更有力的保护，MiCA建立了确保稳定币真正稳定的机制，要求提高市场透明度，防止参与者制造过高的风险，同时确保托管的资产得到真正的保护；MiCA还寻求减轻加密货币对环境的影响，一些加密货币的挖矿行为需要使用大功率设备，而这些设备消耗的大量能源可能来自煤炭等化石燃料，且该行业还需要大量的计算机组件，并产生电子垃圾。MiCA旨在为更广泛的监管工作奠定基础，包括《数字运营弹性法》（DORA）、DLT试点制度和《资金转移条例》（TFR）等举措。

3、欧盟其他加密法案

MiCA作为欧盟加密法规体系的基石影响深远，而欧盟针对加密行业的法规远非这一个。在此概述其他几个帮助塑造了欧盟加密法规体系的规则。

《数字运营弹性法》（DORA, Digital Operational Resilience Act）

DORA为在金融领域运营的公司和组织以及为其提供ICT（信息通信技术）相关服务（如云平台或数据分析服务）的重要第三方（如信贷机构、投资公司以及加密服务提供者）的网络和信息系统的安全性制定了统一要求。DORA 建立了一个数字运营弹性监管框架，所有公司都必须确保能够抵御、应对和恢复各类与ICT 相关的中断和威胁。这些要求在欧盟所有成员国都是相同的,其核心目标是预防和减轻网络威胁。DORA提案已于2022年11月正式通过，并将由各欧盟成员国通过成为各国法律。与此同时，相关的欧洲监管机构（ESA），如欧洲银行管理局（EBA）、欧洲证券和市场管理局（ESMA）以及欧洲保险和职业养老金管理局（EIOPA），将制定从银行、保险到资产管理等所有金融服务机构都必须遵守的技术标准。各国主管机构将在必要时进行合规监督并执行法规。“DORA 实际上是我们在欧盟数字金融工作的基石，”欧洲金融委员Mairead McGuinness在11月对议会成员说。“金融机构越来越依赖技术。越来越多的人和企业在网上管理他们的财务。因此，保护金融系统免受网络攻击和网络欺诈至关重要。”

DLT试点制度（DLT Pilot Regime)

DLT指的是记录资产（如比特币）交易的数字系统，交易细节同时记录在多个地方。DLT允许以安全、准确的方式存储信息，确保记录管理不受操纵。欧盟的MiCA包括对稳定币等基于DLT的加密资产的监管。2023年 3月23日推出的"DLT试点制度"是一个监管沙盒，允许传统金融参与者和市场新人尝试代币化金融工具和基于去中心化技术的创新市场，旨在允许企业在不受立法限制的情况下利用DLT，并开发DLT金融工具的交易和结算功能。作为该计划的一部分，企业可以申请豁免《金融工具市场法规》（MiFIR）、《金融工具市场指令二》（MiFID II）和/或《中央证券存管机构法规》（CSDR）的某些要求。欧洲证券和市场管理局 (ESMA) 将作为试点制度的监管机构。

《资金转移条例》（TFR, Transfer of Funds Regulation）

"旅行规则"要求CASP对加密货币交易的资金来源和受益人进行KYC检查，资产来源和受益人的信息与交易一起旅行，并存储在转账的双方。如果对洗钱和恐怖主义融资进行调查，CASP将有义务向主管当局提供这些信息。与最初的建议不同，现在的协议不包括不受监管的CASP经营的私人非托管钱包，这意味着在没有服务上的情况下进行的私人钱包和个人对个人的转账不属于"旅行规则"的监管范围。此外，在交易所和个人所有的非托管钱包之间进行的超过1000欧元的加密货币转账必须向国家当局报告，非供应商托管的加密货币点对点钱包不受这些规则的约束。

该法规是对越来越多地利用加密货币洗钱和资助恐怖主义行为的回应。加密资产经常被用于这些非法目的，因为它们可以快速、匿名地转移资金。通过要求提供资金来源和受益人的信息，当局将能够追踪这些交易并调查任何可疑活动。对TFR的争议主要集中在数据保护上，民众担心通过收集大量加密货币用户的信息会让黑客有机可乘，且过度收集用户信息也不一定对打击恐怖主义有太大作用。TFR的数据保护方法将遵循欧盟的《通用数据保护条例》（GDPR），该条例被认为是全球最健全的数据保护条例之一。根据TFR，数据应根据要求与当局共享，但不会自动移交给当局。

反洗钱规则（AML）

欧盟议会于今年3月投票赞成了三项重要的反洗钱（AML）立法，超过1000欧元的商品和服务的加密货币支付必须遵守反洗钱法。该立法扩大了加密资产服务提供商（CASP）的定义，将NFT平台也纳入其监管范围，这也弥补了MiCA在NFT领域的监管空白。MiCA 中对加密资产服务提供商（CASP）的定义比较宽松，而Defi协议是否会落入AML的监管范围将取决于DeFi协议是否能被证明是集中控制的。如果它确实是去中心化的，就不会被视为CASP，也就意味着它不属于反洗钱的范围。

除了AML规则外，MiCA还有一个单独的加密资产反洗钱配套法规，该法规已经由议会表决通过。该反洗钱配套法规对所谓的P2P交易有一个除外条款，该文本将P2P交易定义为不是由加密资产服务提供商 (CASP) 支持的交易。因此，如果DeFi协议足够分散，则使用DeFi协议进行的交易将被排除在外。

税务报告（DAC8）

2023年5月16日，欧盟成员国通过经济和金融事务委员会（ECOFIN）就新的税收透明度规则达成政治协议，适用于所有为欧盟居民客户的加密资产交易提供便利的服务提供商。这些关于加密资产、电子货币和中央银行数字货币（CBDC）的新报告要求将通过欧盟 DAC8指令于2026年1月1日生效。DAC8将对为欧盟客户交易提供便利的加密货币中介机构引入披露和报告义务，对加密资产服务提供商的税务报告提出了要求。DAC8是欧盟一系列税收措施（DAC）的一部分，最初是由关于税收领域行政合作的第 2011/16/EU号指令（DAC）实施的。DAC8将调整《加密资产报告框架》（CARF），该框架建立了一套关于加密交易信息报告和交换的示范规则，将以欧盟促进数字市场全球税收透明度的目标为基础，将与欧盟现有的《加密资产市场监管条例》（MiCA）共同运行。根据欧洲议会的简报，一个加密报告框架可能每年为欧盟的税务增加高达24亿欧元的收入。从2026年起，提供加密服务的公司将需要向国家当局报告其客户的国内和跨境交易。

4、总结

MiCA的通过对欧盟及全球加密行业的发展都具有极其重大而深远的意义，此前欧盟各国除了AML反洗钱规定外，并没有统一的加密监管框架，而如今对于加密服务提供商来说，只需遵守一个监管框架，就能在拥有5亿消费者的27个欧盟成员国国内运营，合规成本大大降低；而且MiCA很可能会起到示范法的作用，加密技术的快速发展在颠覆传统行业的同时，也为恐怖主义和洗钱等犯罪活动提供了空间和便利，全球许多国家对加密行业的立法也止步不前，持观望态度，或是直接一刀切，完全摈弃这样的发展机会，MiCA的通过和实施为其他国家的立法提供了参考，也能促使一些国家转变对待加密货币的消极态度。除MiCA法案外的其他欧盟加密法律相辅相成，互为补充，虽然欧盟对于稳定币的监管态度十分严格，针对中心化交易所也出台了较多规定，可能会使之前野蛮生长的许多加密服务提供商面临各种各样的合规限制，但立法和监管的积极意义依然大于消极意义，受到监管和保护的加密市场会吸引更多传统大机构入场，欧盟统一的监管框架使得初创企业选择注册在欧盟能够得到法律保护和鼓励创新，且面临的合规成本也不高。随着欧盟的数字金融战略（Digital Finance Strategy）一揽子计划陆续推出，欧盟的加密立法循序渐进，不断根据现实情况调整细则，具有灵活性，既不至于监管铁拳出击太过而扼杀创新，也能不断总结监管经验教训，保护加密市场参与者的各方权益，维护金融市场稳定。

Since 2023, traditional and crypto giants such as Goldman Sachs, Siemens and Binance have been actively laying their groundwork in the RWA venue. Why is RWA, which is not a new concept, receiving renewed attention? Will short-term FOMO trigger the next round of bull market? This article will provide a comprehensive introduction to RWA, as well as in-depth thoughts on the opportunities and challenges of the RWA, an overview of the RWA ecosystem, and predictions on its future development trends.

Key Insights

♦ RWA (Real World Assets) is the process of converting the ownership (and any associated rights) of real-world tangible or intangible assets into digital tokens, i.e., by bringing their value to the blockchain to facilitate direct user transactions without the need for intermediary involvement.

♦ In the long term, RWA is a bridge connecting TradFi and Defi, and by utilizing the advantages of blockchain, it solves the pain points of traditional finance, improves transparency and efficiency, reduces costs, improves the efficiency of capital allocation and liquidity, and achieves de-intermediation; in the short term, the main reason for RWA's return to the spotlight is the fact that the high returns of the Defi protocols have become unsustainable, and the yield of the 1-year U.S. bond has risen to the 5% level,therefore, there is a desperate need for investors to find new platforms to boost their returns.

♦ RWA is still facing challenges such as unclear regulatory framework and low adaptability of public chain, and its trust requirements are completely different from Defi's native crypto protocols, which urgently needs compliance policies to promote traditional assets to be deployed on the chain with more confidence.

♦ RWA ecosystem has a wide variety of projects, but the top protocols are mainly debt ones, which is also the most promising segment among RWA venue, and may lead to "Yu'ebao" projects in the crypto market; while other underlying assets, such as agriculture crops, will be exposed to the risk of unstable returns.

Outline

1. Background

2. Introduction to RWA

   2.1 What is RWA?

   2.2 What problems does RWA solve?

   2.3 How does RWA work?

   2.4 Potential Risks and Challenges

3. RWA Ecosystem Analysis

4. Summary and Future Trends

1. Background

Following the release of Hong Kong's new crypto policy, the Exploration Unleashed: Web3 and RWAs Summit hosted by Dubai's RWA project BG Trade in Hong Kong on July 7, 2023, once again kicked off a fervent discussion on RWA-related topics, and since the first half of 2023, the traditional and crypto industries' focus on the RWA has been heating up.

First, Goldman Sachs announced the official launch of its digital asset platform GS DAP, which has helped the European Investment Bank issue a €100 million two-year digital bond; then Hamilton Lane, a private equity firm with $857B in AUM, tokenized a portion of its $2.1 billion equity fund on Polygon to sell to individual investors; Germany's third largest market cap listed company and electrical engineering giant Siemens also debuted a €60 million digital bond on Polygon, which was issued under Germany's Electronic Securities Act (eWpG) and purchased by DekaBank, DZ Bank, and Union Investment. By issuing the bond on the blockchain, Siemens no longer needs paper certificates and central clearing agencies, but can sell the bond directly to investors. Bonds can be sold directly to investors without the need for a bank to act as an intermediary; Swift is working with Chainlink and more than a dozen major financial institutions and financial intermediary services to explore how companies can leverage the existing Swift infrastructure to efficiently direct the transfer of tokenized value across a range of public and private blockchain networks, with participants including Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ), BNP Paribas, Bank of New York Mellon, Citibank, Clearstream Banking, Euroclear, Lloyds Banking Group, SIX Digital Exchange (SDX), and the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), the Chainlink CCIP will provide connectivity and interoperability between public and private blockchain networks. In addition, a number of crypto-friendly government agencies are actively testing the waters of RWA. In addition to the Hong Kong government, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has announced a pilot project called Project Guardian, with JPMorgan Chase and DBS Bank as partners in the pilot, which uses a forked licensed version of the Aave lending protocol and Uniswap exchange running on Polygon's mainnet, JPMorgan Chase executed the first DeFi transaction on-chain, exchanging a $100,000 tokenized SGD deposit (the first time a bank has ever issued a tokenized deposit) for a tokenized JPY issued by SBI Digital Asset Holdings.

Crypto-native head institutions are also making moves in the RWA space. In April, Binance announced that it had become a node operator for the Layer1 blockchain Polymesh, an institutional-grade blockchain tailored for regulated assets such as security-based tokens, as well as MakerDAO, which is the DeFi project making the most headway in terms of RWA adoption. Currently, the protocol has over $680 million worth of RWAs backing the decentralized stablecoin DAI.OG-level DeFi protocols such as Aave and Maple Finance are also actively pursuing innovations related to the RWA space.

2. Introduction to RWA

2.1 What is RWA?

RWA (Real World Assets) is the process of converting the ownership of real-world tangible or intangible assets (and any associated rights) into digital tokens, i.e., by bringing their value onto the blockchain so as to facilitate direct transactions without the need for an intermediary.RWAs can be either tangible or intangible assets, with tangible assets including real estate, artwork, and precious metals, etc., and intangible assets including stocks and bonds, intellectual property, investment funds, synthetic assets, etc. RWAs, also known as "tokenized securities" or "security tokens," have a number of unique attractions for investors, such as the ability for investors to take partial ownership of assets for greater accessibility, lower investment thresholds, the ability to trade previously illiquid assets, and the fact that transactions are recorded on an immutable, decentralized ledger, thus enabling greater transparency. In addition, blockchain protocols allow for automated compliance, helping to reduce compliance costs.

RWA is not a new concept. The scope of STO a few years ago focused on bond financing for enterprises, but the market size did not achieve a breakthrough in the long run; in 2020, MakerDAO formally incorporated RWA into its strategic focus, and in addition to issuing the stablecoin DAI, MakerDAO passed a proposal to use RWA as a form of collateral in the form of tokenized real estate, invoices, and accounts receivable, in order to expand the issuance of DAI. MakerDAO is said to derive around 70% of its December 2022 revenues from RWA; Aave followed closely behind, announcing a live RWA marketplace at the end of 2021, also allowing collateralized lending of real assets. The RWA concept has been lukewarm, despite the addition of headline protocols to the layout. It wasn't until the entry of traditional and crypto giants this year that RWA was brought back into the limelight.

2.2 What problems does RWA solve?

2.2.1 Long term: bridging Tradfi and Defi

RWA is the bridge between TradFi and Defi, and in the long term, the drive to bring real world assets onto the chain comes from the needs of both the traditional financial world and the Defi space.

From TradFi's perspective, traditional finance is currently facing the following pain points: a.There exists a huge intermediary system in traditional finance. While intermediaries like regulation, third-party back-adjustment and credit bureaus, aggregators, and other intermediaries do provide strong security and trust support for the operation of the entire financial system, they also largely sacrifice market efficiency and increase operational costs; b. Many assets in traditional financial markets remain globally fragmented, and investment thresholds for assets like real estate and private placements are also very high, requiring unaffordable capital support, and the global allocation of capital is very inefficient, less liquid and more costly. The application of RWA in the field of Defi can well solve the above pain points: a. Improve efficiency: Blockchain's distributed ledger improves reconciliation efficiency, and Atomic settlement allows users to deliver assets at the same time as payment, eliminating the delay of T+2 settlement; b. Reduced costs: Autonomous protocols that are automatically executed reduce the need for intermediaries. Using blockchain-based record keeping, bond issuance costs can be reduced by up to 90% and fundraising costs by up to 40%; c. Improved transparency: Public chains allow for real-time auditing, improving the ability to verify the quality of asset collateral and systemic risk exposure, and public dashboards showcasing on-chain activity effectively reduce disputes around record-keeping; d. Built-in Compliance: Complex compliance rules can be programmed directly into tokens and applications that provide token services, and dApps can implement privacy-protecting KYC tools to comply with regulations while protecting users' privacy without the need to hire a separate compliance team to do the consulting, dramatically reducing compliance costs and risks; e. Improve market liquidity: The private market, as a less liquid market, is largely inaccessible to individual investors with trillions of dollars worth of assets in it due to restrictions such as high investment thresholds and policies. Tokenizing assets in the private market (e.g., pre-IPO stocks, real estate, carbon credits) can improve the accessibility of that market.

And from Defi's perspective, the DeFi ecosystem has proven to be extremely resilient even in the face of extreme adverse market volatility, rapid deleveraging events, and the collapse of centralized cryptocurrency institutions such as FTX, despite the public's mixed views on cryptocurrencies. According to DefiLlama, as of July 12, the DeFi ecosystem had a total TVL of $44.61B (peaked at $248B) and billions of dollars in daily trading volume. However, the main factors preventing DeFi from growing further globally are that, at present, DeFi is mostly an internal circular economy with little connection to the real-world global economy of traditional businesses and services, and that DeFi's historically rapid growth has been attributed in large part to a game of capital wheeling and unsustainably high yields fueled by inflationary token rewards, which is the equivalent of playing supercomputers with a Minesweeper. Defi's pure potential is untapped. As Hong Kong government official Leung Hon-king puts it, "Is Web3 trading in virtual currencies only?The answer is no. Our goal is to be able to have Web3 empower and serve the real economy. The trading volume of virtual currencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum is too small, only $1 trillion. Our goal, which is a trillion-dollar business opportunity, is to use tokenization to increase the liquidity of all types of assets, including bonds, real estate and alternative assets."

2.2.2 Short term: providing a new platform for revenue growth

Since the explosion of the DeFi protocols in 2020, they have been a driving force in attracting users and traders to the cryptocurrency space.Experiments within DeFi have provided innovative financial applications such as decentralized automated market makers, stablecoins, lending, insurance, swaps, synthetic assets and derivatives. As asset prices rise and new users join, DeFi's total TVL soars to a peak of $248 billion in December 2021.The Defi protocol drives growth by temporarily increasing yields primarily by offering users token rewards for the protocol's native tokens (e.g., Compound rewards lenders with COMP tokens). Such high returns are unsustainable in a bear market in 2022 as token prices fall and interest in cryptocurrencies wanes. Stablecoin USDC's historical borrowing rate peaked in December 2020, with Aave peaking at 18% and Compound at 8%. Today, their yields have fallen to 0.05% and 2.21%, respectively. By comparison, the 1-year U.S. bond currently yields 5.35% and investors are not exposed to potential agreement risk. So for the crypto market and crypto investors who favor higher yields, RWA is one of the few tracks that can be backed by solid returns.

2.3 How does RWA work?

According to Binance's RWA research report, the process of RWA is divided into three stages: (1) off-chain normalization; (2) information bridging; and (3) RWA protocol demand and supply.

a. Off-chain normalization

Before proceeding with asset tokenization, assets must first be normalized off-chain, including clarifying the value of the asset, the asset owner, and the legal procedures to protect the relevant property rights.

b. Information Bridging

The information related to the economic value and ownership of real assets is stored in the blockchain ledger after being uploaded to the chain, which mainly includes: Tokenization: Information collected during the off-chain normalization phase is converted into code and represented by metadata in the form of digital tokens. This metadata ensures complete transparency of the economic value and ownership of the asset through the blockchain. As mentioned earlier, this process is referred to as "tokenization." Regulation and Compliance: Different regulatory policies exist for assets that require some type of regulatory oversight or are considered securities, and tokens can have compliance built in;

c. Demand and Supply of RWA Protocols

The RWA-focused DeFi protocol drives the entire process of tokenizing real-world assets. On the supply side, the DeFi protocol oversees the formation of RWAs. On the demand side, the DeFi protocol facilitates investor demand for RWAs. In this way, most DeFi protocols that specialize in RWAs serve both as a starting point for RWA formation and provide a market for the final RWA product.

2.4 Potential Risks and Challenges

While RWA can offer many benefits to institutions and investors, there are a number of challenges and prerequisites to realization that must be considered for its potential to be truly realized.

a.Regulatory Clarity: A major impediment faced by many financial institutions interested in asset tokenization is the lack of regulatory clarity. Certain jurisdictions, such as the EU, Switzerland, the UK and Japan, have made tangible progress in establishing clear frameworks, while others, such as the US, are still largely in the process of discovery;

b. Permissions: In order to comply with existing and upcoming financial regulations around blockchain and asset tokenization, token issuers must typically add permissions by implementing KYC/AML checks (e.g., during issuance/redemption or at the time of transfer);

c. Identity: The need for fine-grained permission control requires robust solutions to determine user identity and risk profile. DID and other privacy-preserving identity solutions are a prerequisite for most institutions to venture into RWA tokenization.

d. Cross-chain: The expanding multi-chain ecosystem has resulted in institutions having to access more and more chains in order to access/issue RWAs. Solutions such as the Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP) enable institutions to not only connect their existing back-end systems to the blockchain, but also connect RWAs across chains.

e. Proof of Reserve: Since RWAs represent off-chain assets, DeFi applications have limited knowledge of their true collateral. Oracle solutions such as Chainlink Proof of Reserve address this challenge by providing on-chain collateralization data such as TrueUSD.

3. RWA Ecosystem Analysis

Although RWA still has a long way to go in realizing high PMF, the ecosystem has become sizable as the attention of the organization and the market increases:

(Source: Unreal RWA Primer)

Depending on the underlying assets, RWA programs mainly include: a. Fixed income, mainly based on U.S. bonds, stocks, real estate, art and other assets, Treasuries/Treasury ETFs are currently the largest proportion of RWA, this category is also an area of focus, although the stablecoin type of projects have been oligopolistic, but the "crypto market Yu'ebao" is still possible to take advantage of the segmentation; b. Loans, the underlying assets mainly include personal home mortgages, corporate loans, car mortgages, etc. c. Equity, which accounts for a relatively small portion of the RWA ecosystem, partly because most of the underlying assets in the equity market can be traded in traditional financial markets and are subject to strict legal regulation.

On a data level, according to rwa.xyz, as of July 13, 2023, the cumulative borrowing volume of RWA lending agreements reached $4.4 billion, with an active borrowing of $540 million (peaking at $1.4 billion in July 2022, excluding MakerDAO), and then, as a result of the continuous withdrawal of institutions, some lending agreements experienced bad debts, leading to a continuous decline and has not yet to rebound:

The average APR is now 11.08%, with the active borrowing volume of each category accounted for as follows:

A few representative projects are briefly introduced here.

3.1 MakerDAO

MakerDAO is a DeFi stablecoin project that has arguably made the greatest strides in RWA adoption. Currently, the protocol has over $680 million worth of RWA backing the decentralized stablecoin DAI. By introducing RWA as collateral, MakerDAO was able to expand the market issuance of DAI, strengthen the stability of its peg, and increase the protocol's revenues (approximately 70% of MakerDAO's revenues in December 2022 come from RWA).The majority of MakerDAO's RWA collateral (approximately $500 million) is U.S. Treasuries managed by Monetalis (MIP65). These assets provide the agreement with a source of income from otherwise idle USDC collateral.MakerDAO has also launched a vault backed by $100 million worth of loans from a Philadelphia-based community bank called Huntingdon Valley Bank (HVB).HVB has utilized MakerDAO to support the growth of its existing business as well as investments around real estate and other related verticals, and participated as the first commercial loan between a U.S.-regulated financial institution and a decentralized digital currency. In another vault, Société Générale borrowed $7 million from MakerDAO, a position backed by €40 million worth of AAA-rated bonds as OFH tokens.

3.2 Ondo Finance

Ondo Finance was the most high-profile RWA project in the first half of the year, securing a $20 million Series A round led by Founders Fund and Pantera Capital in April.Ondo Finance tokenizes short-term U.S. Treasuries, investment-grade bonds, and high-yield corporate bonds.Ondo also launched Flux Finance, a DeFi lending protocol for borrowing stablecoins against tokenized U.S. Treasuries, including USDC, FRAX, DAI, and USDT, with average borrowing rates currently around 5%. However, the overall development direction of the project is centralization and compliance, and the subsequent probability is that it will only adopt blockchain technology, but will not pursue decentralization like crypto-native projects. Its governance token $ONDO is mainly used to pay platform fees, lending collateral, voting governance and ecosystem incentives.

3.3 Goldfinch

Goldfinch is a DeFi credit platform founded in 2020 by a former Coinbase employee. It issues cryptocurrency loans to users without requiring them to own cryptocurrency collateral themselves.According to its whitepaper, Goldfinch's lending model relies on four core participants: borrowers, backers, liquidity providers, and vetters.Goldfinch's lending model is close to that of traditional banks. The borrower is the participant seeking financing, and at the beginning of the lending process, the borrower proposes a pool of borrowers, which determines the terms of the loan, such as interest rate and repayment schedule. The borrower pool is then evaluated by the backers, who decide whether to provide first-loss capital. If approved, the borrower can continue to borrow and repay through the borrower pool.Goldfich currently has $101 million in active loan volume and no bad loans at this time. Compared with traditional credit institutions, Goldfich's model lowers the threshold for borrowing and can help users with lower credit ratings to obtain loans to a certain extent; however, because no collateral exists, its senior pool is also exposed to a certain degree of default risk.

3.4 RealT

RealT tokenizes real estate, and its underlying assets are real estate in the states of Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Toledo, and Florida, U.S.A. RealT lowers the threshold of investment by selling partial ownership of real estate, enabling investors to gain access to real estate investment opportunities. To tokenize a property, it is first necessary to confirm the value and ownership of the property off-chain, which requires RealT to commission a third-party agency to appraise the property, confirm ownership, and design a response to changes in the property's equity (e.g., in the event of a tenant's non-payment of rent, or if the property is repossessed by a mortgage, etc.). The data about the property is then tokenized and uploaded to the chain via Oracle.RealT does not tokenize a real-world physical asset, but rather shares in a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that holds title to the property, the right to the property's income, and other property covenants, in accordance with the ERC-20 standard protocol. In addition, RealT has built in KYC technology into the protocol to bring in investors and sellers in a legally compliant manner. However, real estate RWA projects are heavily influenced by real-world real estate market prices.

Overall, although there are more types of projects in the RWA venue, they are mainly stablecoin-based credit lending projects, which have higher risks than other lending protocols and do not really bring off-chain assets onto the chain, making the development space of RWA too limited, while other physical-based projects have not seen significant development. And except for debt and real estate, other RWA projects generally face the problem of poor standardization and liquidity of underlying assets, such as crops and cash crops, the growth cycle and income will be affected by weather, climate and other uncontrollable factors, increasing the volatility of investment returns and delivery cycle. We suggest focusing on debt projects, for example, MakerDAO and Ondo Finance have launched investment products based on U.S. bond yields, which may become the "Yu'ebao" in the crypto market.

4. Summary and Future Trends

RWA is extremely innovative as a solution to connect TradFi and Defi, and may even disrupt the status quo of traditional finance with huge space for imagination, providing unprecedented convenience and accessibility for global mass investors, and RWA is also very likely to trigger the investment interests of non-web3 natives; however, the overall venue is still in the immature and very early stage, and we are skeptical that short-term FOMO will continue to fuel the crypto market, and there is still a lack of a well-suited public chain and a clear regulatory framework to support the development of RWAs. The major RWA protocols are deployed on Ethereum, and while they can enjoy crypto-native network effects, public chain information is open and transparent and not subject to any regulatory constraints, and many RWA protocols, especially those that bring securities or credit-based assets onto the blockchain, are subject to regulations and limit their protocols to entities that have gone through a rigorous KYC/KYB process; operationally, the token standards and permissionless transparency may not be appropriate for RWA protocols; public chains are scrutinized on the public ledger, and certain RWA markets may have sensitive information that should be kept confidential. From a regulatory compliance perspective, a clearer framework could help give traditional practitioners greater confidence in uploading assets onto the chain to access global liquidity.

In terms of trust requirements, given that RWA relies on real-world assets, it may never be the same as the DeFi native ecosystem, which deals only with crypto-native assets. Most institutions will not feel comfortable deploying trillions of dollars worth of assets on the blockchain without the necessary precautions and protections to mitigate operational and regulatory risks; meanwhile, trust-less DeFi protocols are likely to continue to exist that can focus on crypto-native assets as a sandbox for financial experimentation and a decentralized alternative to financial services, thus contributing to changes in the global financial system by delivering tremendous value.

2023年以来，传统和加密巨头如高盛、西门子和币安都在RWA赛道积极布局，并非新概念的RWA为何会重新收到关注？短期FOMO能否引爆下一轮牛市？本文将对RWA做全面介绍，并深入思考RWA赛道面临的机遇与挑战，概述RWA生态情况，并对其未来发展趋势做出预测。

报告要点

♦ RWA(Real World Assets）是将现实世界中有形或无形资产的所有权（以及任何相关权利）转换为数字代币的过程，即通过将其价值映射到区块链上以方便用户直接进行交易而无需中介参与。

♦ 长期来看，RWA是连接TradFi和Defi的桥梁，通过利用区块链的优势，解决传统金融的痛点，提高透明度和效率，降低成本，提升资本配置效率和流动性，实现去中介化；短期来看，RWA重回视野的主要原因是Defi协议的高回报已不可持续，而1年期美债收益率已升至5%的水平，资本迫切地需要寻找到新的收益增长平台。

♦ RWA目前仍面临监管框架不清晰、公链适配度低等挑战，其信任要求和Defi原生加密协议完全不同，亟需合规政策出台推动传统资产更放心地上链。 

♦ RWA生态项目种类繁多，但头部协议以债权类为主，此细分赛道也最具潜力，有可能跑出加密市场的“余额宝”项目；而其他底层资产如农作物等则面临收益不稳定的风险。

报告大纲

1、背景

2、RWA介绍

2.1 什么是RWA？

2.2 RWA解决了什么问题？

2.3 RWA运作方式

2.4 潜在风险与挑战

3、RWA生态分析

4、总结及未来展望

1、背景

继香港针对加密市场的新政发布后，2023年7月7日，迪拜RWA项目BG Trade主办的Exploration Unleashed: Web3 and RWAs峰会在香港举办，再次掀起RWA相关主题的热切讨论，而自2023年上半年以来，传统和加密行业对RWA赛道的关注一直热度不减。

首先是高盛宣布旗下数字资产平台GS DAP正式上线，该平台已帮助欧洲投资银行发行了1亿欧元的两年期数字债券；随后，AUM达$857B的私募股权公司Hamilton Lane在Polygon上将其21亿美元股权基金的一部分代币化，向个人投资者出售；德国市值第三大上市公司、电气工程巨头西门子也在Polygon上首次发行6000万欧元的数字债券，此债券根据德国电子证券法（eWpG）发行，并由DekaBank、DZ Bank和Union Investment购买，通过在区块链上发行债券，西门子不再需要纸质全球证书和中央清算，可以直接向投资者出售债券，而无需银行作为中介；Swift正与Chainlink以及十多家主要金融机构和金融中介服务机构合作，探讨企业如何利用现有的Swift基础设施，在一系列公共和私有区块链网络上高效指导代币化价值的转移，参与者包括澳大利亚和新西兰银行集团有限公司（ANZ）、法国巴黎银行、纽约梅隆银行、花旗银行、清流银行、欧洲清算所、劳埃德银行集团、SIX数字交易所（SDX）以及存管信托与清算公司（DTCC），Chainlink CCIP将提供公共和私有区块链网络之间的连接和互操作性。此外，一些对加密友好的政府机构也在积极试水RWA，除香港政府外，新加坡金融管理局(MAS)宣布了名为“守护者计划”(Project Guardian)的试点项目，摩根大通和星展银行为试点的合作方，该计划使用了Polygon主网上运行的Aave借贷协议和Uniswap交易所的分叉许可版本，摩根大通在链上执行了第一笔DeFi交易，即用10万美元的代币化新加坡元存款（银行首次发行代币化存款）换取了SBI数字资产控股公司发行的代币化日元。

加密本土头部机构也在RWA领域动作频频。4月，币安宣布成为Layer1区块链Polymesh节点运营商，而Polymesh是专为证券型代币等受监管资产而量身打造的机构级区块链；此外，MakerDAO是DeFi项目中在RWA采用方面取得进展最大的一个。目前，该协议有价值6.8亿美元以上的RWA支持去中心化的稳定币DAI。Aave、Maple Finance等老牌DeFi协议也在积极进行RWA领域的相关创新。

2、RWA介绍

2.1 什么是RWA？

RWA(Real World Assets）是将现实世界中有形或无形资产的所有权（以及任何相关权利）转换为数字代币的过程，即通过将其价值映射到区块链上以方便用户直接进行交易而无需中介参与。RWA可以是有形或无形资产，有形资产包括房地产、艺术品和贵金属等，无形资产包括股票和债券、知识产权、投资基金、合成资产等。RWA也被称为"代币化证券"或“证券代币"，对投资者具有一些独特的吸引力，比如投资者可以掌握资产的部分所有权来实现更高的可获取性、更低的投资门槛，能够交易以前流动性较差的资产，以及因为交易记录是在不可变的、去中心化的分类账本上，从而实现了更高的透明度。此外，区块链协议还可以实现自动合规，有助于减少合规成本。

RWA并不是一个新概念。几年前的STO范围主要集中企业的债券融资，但市场规模在长期并没有实现突破；2020年，MakerDAO正式将RWA 纳入战略重点，除了发行稳定币 DAI，MakerDAO通过了RWA作为代币化房地产、发票和应收账款形式的抵押品的提案，以扩大DAI的发行。据悉，MakerDAO 2022 年12月约70%的收入来自RWA；Aave紧跟其后，于2021底宣布上线RWA市场，同样允许真实资产的抵押借贷。尽管有头部协议的布局加持，但RWA的概念一直不温不火。直至今年传统和加密巨头的入场，才让RWA重回视野。

2.2 RWA解决了什么问题？

2.2.1 长期：打通Tradfi和Defi的桥梁

RWA是连接TradFi和Defi之间的桥梁，从长期来看，将现实世界的资产映射上链的驱动力来自于传统金融世界和Defi领域两方面的需求。

从TradFi的角度来看，传统金融目前面临着以下几个痛点：

a. 传统金融存在着庞大的中介系统，虽然像监管、第三方背调和信用机构、撮合商等中介的确为整个金融体系的运作提供了强大的安全和信任支持，但也很大程度上牺牲了市场效率，增加了运营成本；

b. 传统金融市场中的许多资产依然是全球割裂的，且像房地产、私募等资产投资门槛也很高，需要不菲的资本支持，全球资金配置效率很低，流动性较差、成本也较高。

RWA在Defi领域的应用可以很好地解决以上痛点：

a. 提高效率：区块链的分布式账本提升了对账效率，原子级结算（Atomic settlement）使得用户在付款的同时交付资产，消除了T+2结算的延迟；

b. 降低成本： 自动执行的自主协议减少了对中介机构的需求。使用基于区块链的记录保存，债券发行成本最多可降低90%，筹资成本最多可降低40%；

c. 提高透明度：公链可进行实时审计，提高了验证资产抵押品质量和系统性风险敞口的能力，而且展示链上活动的公共仪表板有效减少了围绕记录保存的争议；

d. 内置合规性：复杂的合规规则可以直接被编程到代币和提供代币服务的应用程序中，且dApp可实施隐私保护的KYC工具，从而在保护用户隐私的同时遵守相关法规，而无需另外聘请合规团队做咨询，极大地降低了合规成本和风险；

e. 提高市场流动性：私募市场作为流动性较差的市场，由于投资门槛高和政策等限制，普通个人投资者基本无法访问其中价值数万亿美元的资产。将私募市场的资产（如IPO前的股票、房地产、碳信用额度）代币化，能够提高该市场的可访问性。 

而从Defi的角度来看，尽管公众对加密货币的看法不一，但DeFi生态系统已经证明，即使在面临市场剧烈波动、快速去杠杆化事件以及FTX等中心化加密货币机构倒闭的极端恶劣情况下也具有极高的韧性。根据DefiLlama的数据，截至7月12日时，DeFi生态系统总TVL达$44.61B（峰值时为$248B），日交易量数十亿美元。然而，阻碍DeFi在全球范围内进一步发展的主要因素是：目前，DeFi大部分是内部循环经济，与现实世界的全球传统企业和服务经济几乎没有联系，DeFi历史上的快速增长在很大程度上归因于资本轮动游戏以及通胀性代币奖励助长的不可持续的高收益率，这就相当于用超级计算机玩扫雷游戏，Defi纯粹的潜力尚未开发。正如港府官员梁瀚璟所述：“Web3的交易对象是不是只是虚拟货币呢？答案是否定的。我们的目标是能够让Web3赋能和服务实体经济。比特币、以太币等虚拟货币的交易量太小，只有1万亿美元而已。我们的目标，是利用代币化的方法，提高包括债券、房地产及另类资产在内的各类资产的流动性，这是一个百万亿美元级的商机。”

2.2.2 短期：提供新的收益增长平台

自2020年DeFi协议爆发以来，它们一直是吸引用户和交易者进入加密货币领域的推动力。DeFi内的实验提供了创新的金融应用，如去中心化的自动做市商、稳定币、借贷、保险、掉期、合成资产和衍生品。随着资产价格上涨和新用户的加入，DeFi的总TVL在2021年12月飙升至2480亿美元的峰值。Defi协议主要通过向用户提供协议原生代币的代币奖励（如Compound用COMP代币奖励贷款人）来暂时提高收益率，从而推动增长。在2022年的熊市中，随着代币价格下跌以及人们对加密货币的兴趣减弱，这样的高回报是不可持续的。稳定币USDC的历史借贷利率在2020年12月达到顶峰，Aave的峰值为18%，Compound为8%。如今，它们的收益率已分别降至0.05%和2.21%。与之相较，目前1年期美债收益率为5.35%，且投资者无需承担潜在的协议风险。所以对于加密市场和偏向高收益的加密投资者来说，RWA是少数可以有坚实的收益支持的赛道。

2.3 RWA运作方式

根据币安RWA的研究报告，RWA的流程分为三个阶段：（1）链下规范化；（2）信息桥接；（3）RWA 协议需求和供应。

a. 链下规范化

进行资产代币化之前，首先必须在链下对资产进行规范化，包括明确资产的价值、资产所有者以及保护相关产权的法律程序。

b. 信息桥接

与现实资产的经济价值和所有权相关的信息上链后会被存储在区块链账本中，主要包括：

代币化： 在链下规范化阶段收集的信息被转化为代码，并由数字代币的元数据表示。该元数据可通过区块链保证资产经济价值和所有权的完全透明度。如前所述，这一过程被称为 "代币化"；

监管与合规： 对于需要某种类型的监管监督或被视为证券的资产存在不同的监管政策，而代币可以内置合规性；

c. RWA 协议的需求和供应

专注于RWA的DeFi协议推动了现实世界资产代币化的整个流程。在供应端，DeFi协议监督RWA的形成。在需求端，DeFi协议促成了投资者对RWA的需求。通过这种方式，大多数专门研究RWA的DeFi协议既可以作为RWA形成的起点，也可以为RWA最终产品提供市场。

2.4 潜在风险与挑战

虽然RWA可以为机构和投资者带来诸多好处，但要真正实现其潜力，还必须考虑一些挑战和先决条件的实现。

a. 监管清晰度： 许多对资产代币化感兴趣的金融机构面临的主要阻碍是缺乏清晰的监管。某些司法管辖区，如欧盟、瑞士、英国和日本，在建立明确的框架方面取得了切实的进展，而其他司法管辖区，如美国，在很大程度上仍处于探索当中；

b. 许可： 为了遵守围绕区块链和资产代币化的现有和即将出台的金融法规，代币发行人通常必须通过实施KYC/AML检查（如在发行/赎回期间或转让时）来增加权限；

c. 身份： 细颗粒度权限控制的需求需要强大的解决方案来确定用户身份和风险状况。DID和其他保护隐私的身份解决方案是大多数机构涉足RWA代币化的先决条件。

d. 跨链： 多链生态系统不断扩大，导致机构必须接入越来越多的链才能访问/发行RWA。跨链互操作性协议（CCIP）等解决方案使机构不仅能够将现有的后端系统连接到区块链，还能将RWA跨链连接起来。

e. 储备证明（Proof of Reserve）： 由于RWA代表链下资产，DeFi应用对其真实抵押品的了解有限。Chainlink储备证明等Oracle解决方案通过提供链上抵押数据（如TrueUSD）来应对这一挑战。

3、RWA生态分析

虽然RWA在实现高PMF的路上依然任重道远，但随着机构和市场对其关注度的只增不减，目前生态已小有规模：

(Source: Unreal RWA Primer)

根据底层资产种类不同，RWA项目主要包括：

a. 固收类，主要基于基于美债、股票、房地产、艺术品等链下资产，国债/国债ETF是目前占比最大的RWA，这一类别也是可以重点关注的领域，虽然稳定币类的项目已寡头林立，但“加密市场余额宝”类的细分赛道仍有机可乘；

b. 贷款类，底层资产主要包括个人住房抵押贷款、企业贷款、汽车抵押贷款等；

c. 权益类，这部分在RWA生态中的市场占比相对较小，原因之一是大部分权益类市场的底层资产都能够在传统的金融市场进行交易，且极大受限于严格的法律监管。

从数据层面来看，根据rwa.xyz的统计，截至2023年7月13日，RWA借贷协议累计借款量达到44亿美元，活跃借款额为5.4亿美元（峰值为2022年7月份的14亿美元，不包含MakerDAO），后来由于机构不断撤资，一些借贷协议出现了坏账，导致借款数量持续下滑，目前仍未反弹：

现平均APR为11.08%，其中各个种类的活跃借款量占比如下：

现就几个代表性项目做简单介绍。

3.1 MakerDAO

MakerDAO是一个DeFi稳定币项目，可以说在RWA采用方面取得了最大的进展。目前，该协议有价值6.8亿美元以上的RWA支持去中心化的稳定币DAI。通过引入RWA作为抵押品，MakerDAO能够扩大DAI的市场发行量，加强其挂钩稳定性，并增加协议收入（2022年12月MakerDAO约70％的收入来自RWA）。MakerDAO的大部分RWA抵押品（约5亿美元）是由Monetalis（MIP65）管理的美国国债。这些资产为协议提供了原本闲置的USDC抵押品的收益来源。MakerDAO还推出了一个保险库，由费城一家名为Huntingdon Valley Bank (HVB)的社区银行提供的价值1亿美元的贷款支持。HVB利用MakerDAO支持其现有业务的增长以及围绕房地产和其他相关垂直领域的投资，并作为美国监管的金融机构和去中心化数字货币之间的首次商业贷款参与。在另一个保险库中，法国兴业银行（Société Générale）从MakerDAO借款700万美元，该头寸由价值4000万欧元的AAA级债券作为OFH代币支持。

3.2 Ondo Finance

Ondo Finance是今年上半年最受瞩目的RWA项目，在4月获得了Founders Fund和 Pantera Capital领投的2000万美元的A轮融资。Ondo Finance对短期美国国债、投资级债券和高收益公司债券进行了代币化。Ondo还推出了Flux Finance，这是一个DeFi借贷协议，用于以代币化的美国国债为抵押借入稳定币，包括USDC、FRAX、DAI、USDT，目前平均借贷利率为5%左右。但项目整体的发展方向为中心化和合规，后续大概率仅采用区块链技术，但并不会像加密原生项目那样追求去中心化。其治理代币$ONDO主要用于支付平台手续费、借贷抵押、投票治理和生态激励。

3.3 Goldfinch

Goldfinch是一个DeFi信贷平台，于2020年由Coinbase前员工创立。它向用户发放加密货币贷款，而不要求用户本身拥有加密货币抵押品，根据其白皮书，Goldfinch的借贷模式依赖于四个核心参与者：借款人、支持者、流动性提供者和审核者。Goldfinch的借贷模式和传统银行很接近。借款人是寻求融资的参与者，在借贷流程开始时，借款人提出借款人池，由借款人池确定贷款条款，如利率和还款计划。借款人池随后由支持者评估，支持者决定是否提供首损资本。如果获得批准，借款人可以通过借款人池继续借款和还款。Goldfich目前拥有1.01亿美元的活跃贷款额，暂未出现坏账。同传统信贷机构相比，Goldfich的模式降低了借款门槛，在一定程度上可帮助信用评级较低的用户获得借款；但因为不存在抵押品，其高级池也会存在一定的违约风险。

3.4 RealT

RealT将房地产代币化，其底层资产为美国底特律、克利夫兰、芝加哥、托莱多和佛罗里达等州的房地产。RealT通过出售房产的部分所有权，降低了投资门槛，是投资者能够获得房地产投资的机会。要将房产代币化，首先需要需要在链下确认房产价值和所有权，这需要 RealT 委托第三方机构对房产进行评估、对所有权进行确认、设计房产权益的变更的应对措施（如出现租户不付租金、房产被抵押回收等情形）。之后，该房产的相关数据将被代币化，并通过Oracle传输上链。RealT并非对现实世界的实物资产代币化，而是根据ERC-20 标准协议，对特殊目的载体（SPV）的股份进行代币化，该SPV持有房产所有权、房产收益权等财产契约。此外，RealT 还在协议中内置了KYC技术，以合法合规地引入投资者和卖家。但房地产类RWA项目受现实世界房地产市场价格影响较大。

整体来看，RWA赛道虽然项目种类较多，但主要还是基于稳定币的信用借贷类项目，此类项目风险高于其它借贷协议，也并未真正把链下资产带入链上，使得RWA赛道发展过于局限，而其他基于实物的项目未见明显发展。且除债权和地产类的其他RWA项目普遍面临底层资产标准化和流动性较差的问题，如农作物和经济作物的生长周期和收益会受天气、气候等不可控因素的影响，增加投资收益的波动性和交付周期。我们建议重点关注债权类项目，如MakerDAO和Ondo Finance都推出了基于美债收益率的投资产品，或许会成为加密市场中的“余额宝”。

4、总结及未来展望

虽然RWA作为连接TradFi和Defi的方案极具创新性，甚至可能颠覆传统金融现状，想象空间巨大，为全球大众投资者提供了前所未有的便利性和可达性，RWA也极有可能成为非web3原住民的链上投资标的；但整体赛道依然处于不成熟的极早期，我们对短期FOMO持续引爆加密市场持怀疑态度，目前依然缺乏非常适配的公链以及清晰的监管框架助力发展。主要的RWA协议部署在以太坊上，虽然可以享受到加密原生网络效应，但公链信息是公开透明的，不受任何监管限制，许多RWA协议，尤其是那些将证券或基于信用的资产带入区块链的协议，都需要遵守法规，并将其协议限制在经过严格的KYC/KYB流程的实体范围内；在操作上，已建立的代币标准和无需许可的透明度可能不适合RWA协议；公链在公共分类账上进行审查，而某些RWA市场可能存在应予以保密的敏感信息。从监管合规的角度来看，更清晰的框架有助于给予传统从业者更强的信心将资产上链，从而获取全球流动性。

鉴于RWA依赖于现实世界的资产，在信任要求方面，其可能永远不会与仅处理加密原生资产的DeFi生态系统相同。如果没有必要的预防和保护措施来降低运营和监管风险，大多数机构都不会放心在区块链上部署价值百万亿美元的资产；与此同时，无需信任的DeFi协议也很可能继续存在，这些协议可以专注于加密原生资产，作为金融实验的沙盒和金融服务的去中心化替代方案，从而为全球金融体系的变革提供巨大的价值。

What are the highlights of the zero-knowledge proof and zkEVM technology behind zkSync Era, which has soared all the way to its current $734M TVL since its mainnet launch on March 24, 2023? How is the ecosystem filled with free riders developing? This article will provide a comprehensive explanation of zkSync's fundamentals and an analysis of the existing competitive landscape.

Key Takeaways

♦ zkEVM successfully combines Ethereum virtual machines and zero-knowledge proofs to verify data correctness using zero-knowledge proofs published on layer 1 blockchains such as ethereum, increasing throughput and reducing costs while ensuring security.

♦ In March 2023, Matter Labs team launched the zkSync Era mainnet, which is the world's first zkEVM mainnet open to all users and is a milestone development in the zk rollup space.

♦ Compared to op rollups, zkSync Era is more secure and more efficient in settlement. zkSync Era relies purely on mathematical calculations, while op rollups rely on game theory and incentives to ensure the certainty of their transactions; op rollups require a 7-day settlement period, while zkSync Era offers hourly settlement (the current withdrawal delay time is 21h).

♦ zkSync Era ecosystem is still at very early stage, although its TVL has reached $734M, which is behind to Arbitrum One and OP Mainnet, but most of the users are free riders, and most of the projects in the ecosystem are defi ones. Moreover, no unique innovation is seen in the existing projects.

Report Outline

1. Background

2. zkEVM

3. zkSync

4. Ecosystem Overview

5. Competitive Landscape

6. Summary

1.Background

Ethereum scaling solutions are blossoming, and the most compelling ones are Layer2 solutions, among which Vitalik Buterin is most optimistic about the rollup solution. In our report "Arbitrum -- King of Optimistic Rollup", we have introduced the Layer2 venue and the two categories of rollup solutions, op rollups and zk rollups, and we have also analyzed the representative project of op rollups in detail. The key disadvantage of the zk rollups solution compared to the op rollups is the inability to achieve EVM compatibility and equivalence, which makes it impossible to execute smart contracts. This is critical to the widespread adoption of layer2 networks. But 2023 has seen a milestone in zk technology when zkEVM addressed this pain point and cleared some key hurdles for the development of zk rollups.

In March 2023, Matter Labs launched the zkSync Era mainnet, the world's first zkEVM mainnet open to all users, which has soared to today's TVL of $734M since launch, behind only to Arbitrum One and OP. In this paper, we will take a closer look at the current status of zkEVM, zkSync products and ecosystem, and make an analysis of the competitive landscape.

2.zkEVM

2.1 What is zero-knowledge proofs?

zkEVM is a virtual machine on Ethereum that verifies the correctness of data by generating zero-knowledge proofs. The following is a brief introduction to zero-knowledge proofs to help readers understand zkEVM better.

Zero-knowledge proofs refer to the process by which a prover convinces a verifier of the truth of data without revealing any useful information to the verifier. Zero-knowledge proofs can be interactive, where the prover proves the truth of the data once for each verifier, or non-interactive, where the prover creates a proof that can be verified by anyone who uses it. Zero-knowledge proofs are currently implemented in several ways, such as zk-SNARKS, zk-STARKS, PLONK, and Bulletproofs. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages in terms of proof size, prover time, and verification time.

Zero-knowledge proofs include three basic features:

• Integrity: if the data is true, an honest verifier can trust that the honest prover does have the correct information;

• Reliability: If the data is wrong, no dishonest prover can convince an honest verifier that he has the correct information.

• Zero-knowledgeability: if true, the verifier knows nothing except that the data is true from the prover.

We can use the famous example of cave path to help understand the concept of zero-knowledge proofs. Imagine a cave with only one entrance and two paths inside the cave (path 1 and path 2), which are connected by a door, and a password to pass through the door. A wants to prove to B that she knows the password to open the door, but does not want to reveal the password to B. Therefore, B needs to stand outside the cave, and A enters the cave by one of the paths, while B does not know which path she has chosen. Then, B assigns A to return to the cave entrance from one of the randomly chosen paths. If A initially chooses to go to the door from path 1, but B tells her to come back from path 2, the only way to do so is to go through the door where the password must be known. This proof process can be repeated multiple times in order to fully prove that A really knows the password to the door and did not just happen to pick the same path by accident. Once this step is completed, B can be very confident that A knows the password to the door, and at the same time A does not have to reveal what the password is to B.

Bringing the cave path example to a real computer, imagine a computer circuit that passes in data and outputs a value on a parabola. If the user can give the correct answer to a point on the parabola in succession, then it can be sure that he knows what the parabolic function is, because the probability of successfully guessing the correct answer gets lower and lower with each round.

2.2 How does zkEVM work?

The definition of zkEVM can be understood as a virtual machine that supports zero-knowledge proof computing and is EVM compatible, but it is not easy to actually combine zero-knowledge proof and Ethereum virtual machine because the two are separate technologies developed by themselves, and they must overcome inherent problems and challenges to work together, such as the fact that EVM uses a stack-based architecture that follows the last-in, first-out (LIFO) principle, where the last data added to the call stack is the first to be removed. The last data added to the call stack is the first to be deleted. This model is simple and easy to use. However, when creating zkEVM, a register-based model, where data is stored in virtual CPU registers, is more efficient for the high-performance and zero-knowledge computations that zkEVM typically requires.

The work flow of zkEVM is shown in the following diagram:

zkEVM replicates the Ethereum environment as a zk rollup, bringing the experience and existing tools of Ethereum developers to a secure and highly scalable layer2, thus enabling developers to seamlessly migrate existing dApps and smart contracts to the new environment or easily build new applications. zkEVM consists of three parts: an execution environment, a proving circuit, and a verifier contract.

a. Execution Environment

EVM executes smart contracts and calculates the state of the Ethereum network after each new block is added to the chain. It can parse Solidity code written by humans, translate it into computer-readable bytecode, and then update the ethereum state. zkEVM gives specific rules for changing the state and defines the smart contracts that developers can write.

zkEVM is a new type of EVM that can run smart contracts. It accepts the initial state, computes the transactions, and outputs a new, updated state and an accompanying zero-knowledge proof. Since zkEVM is an ethereum-based EVM, developers are able to easily port ethereum dApps and tokens to zkEVM.

b. Proof Circuit

As mentioned above, zero-knowledge proofs are a way for provers to prove to verifiers that they have knowledge about a piece of information without revealing the actual information through encryption. zkEVM's proof circuit can then generate zero-knowledge proofs for verifying and validating transactions, proving that user transactions are computationally correct and that the new state is correct.

c. Validator Contracts

On Ethereum, each transaction must be verified by each node. And zk rollup, as an extended solution for layer2, is able to "rollup" a large number of transactions and verify their correctness using zero-knowledge proofs published on the first layer blockchain such as Ethereum, thus increasing the throughput and reducing the cost while ensuring security. Zk rollup submits to the validator smart deployed on the bottom layer (i.e. layer1) contracts to submit proofs of validity. They use the submitted zero-knowledge proofs to check if the output based on the initial state is correct and to verify that the updated state is correct without having to process each transaction separately.

2.3 zkEVM Classification

Vitalik Buterin, the founder of Ether, classified zkEVMs as follows:

In general, types with lower numbers are more compatible with the Ethereum infrastructure, while types with higher numbers have faster proof time.

Type 1 (fully equivalent to Ether)

Type 1 does not change any part of the current Ethereum system, making it easier to generate zero-knowledge proofs. This makes them fully compatible with all native Ethereum applications and allows tools such as block explorers and execution clients to be reused. However, some parts of the Ethereum protocol require extensive computation to generate zero-knowledge proofs, resulting in long proof times for zkEVMs.

Type 2 (EVM Full Equivalence)

Type 2 zkEVMs are intended to be fully compatible with existing Ethereum applications, but with some minor modifications to make proof generation faster and development easier. While proof time is faster compared to Type1, the actual experience is still very slow. Representative projects of this type are Scroll and Polygon Hermez.

Type 2.5 (EVM equivalent except for gas costs)

Increasing the gas cost of a particular operation helps reduce the proof time for some very difficult proof generation scenarios, but may break some applications and require developer modifications.

Type 3 (almost EVM equivalent)

Type 3 zkEVM sacrifices some of the features of EVM to make application development and proof generation easier, such as changes to pre-compilation, VM memory, stacks, and smart contract code. While most ethereum applications will work in this environment, there is still the possibility that they will need to be rewritten.

Type 4 (High-Level Language Equivalent)

Type 4 zkEVMs write code in a high-level programming language (such as Solidity or Vyper) and compile it into a language that is friendly to zero-knowledge proofs. In essence, they are equivalent to high-level languages, but not actual EVMs. This makes proof generation much faster and reduces costs. The zkSync Era, which will be discussed in this paper, falls into this category.

3.zkSync

3.1 Core Products

3.1.1 zkSync Lite

zkSync Lite (previously named zkSync 1.0) was an early version of zkSync, launched in June 2020, which did not support deployment of smart contracts, was not EVM compatible, and was only used as a trustless protocol for making scalable, low-cost payments on Ethereum. Due to the challenges of achieving EVM compatibility, zkSync decided to launch the product in phases at that time, with zkSync Lite being the first phase. zkSync Lite's key advantages are simple implementation, low transaction fees, and high transaction efficiency. Despite the fact that zkSync Lite does not support the deployment of smart contracts, the zkSync product at the time still had over $80 million in TVL. However, it is worth noting that the TVL does not fully reflect the true activity of the Lite network, as a large number of free riders may lock in funds on Lite in exchange for rewards due to future airdrops and token incentives. In terms of daily transaction volume, zkSync Lite is clearly not performing as well as other L2 solutions - after all, smart contracts are at the core of dApp development and Lite's lack of support for smart contract deployment is a considerable limitation. The next phase of zkSync's product lifecycle aims to bridge this gap. The zkSync Era has now replaced the zkSync Lite.

3.1.2 zkSync Era

zkSync Era (previously known as zkSync 2.0) is an upgraded version of zkEVM from Matter labs that supports easy deployment and execution of smart contracts on EVM with only a few code changes, making the developer experience as close as possible to using Ethereum, where they can port EVM-compatible dApps to zkSync Era and achieve lower gas fees and higher transaction throughput, while also inheriting the security and decentralization of Ethereum. Compared with solutions of op rollups series (such as Arbitrum), the main differences and comparisons are as follows.

a. zkSync Era is more secure. op rollups assume that all transactions are valid, and then use a game theory approach to incentivize users to point out fraudulent or invalid transactions through fraud proofs. In contrast, zkSync Era confirms the absence of fraudulent transactions by generating proofs of validity. In essence, this means that zkSync Era relies purely on mathematical calculations, while op rollups rely on game theory and incentives to ensure the certainty of their transactions. Therefore, we believe that zkSync Era has a higher level of security.

b. zkSync Era has higher settlement efficiency. Due to the game theory and fraud proof mechanism mentioned above, op rollups require a 7-day settlement period, which also means that users cannot withdraw their assets immediately, but need to wait for at least a week. While LPs can help solve this problem, this creates additional security risks and does not work for institutions or giant whales, as the LP fees reduce their revenue. In contrast, zkSync Era does not have this problem and offers hourly settlement (the current delay in withdrawing funds is 21h).

3.2 Risks

From a technical point of view, Matter Labs has always put security at the forefront of its mind when developing products, but the pursuit of security may affect the degree of decentralization, and the team currently remains in control of sequencer and scalability (upgradability) to maintain adequate performance and security standards. This means that if the sequencer is down or censored, the entire network is down; and the code that secures the system can be changed by the team without notice to the community, and the team can change the verifier contract without notice. The Matter Labs team is working to improve this issue, but there is still a long way to go.

3.3 Milestones and Roadmap

3.3.1 Milestones

2020.6 zkSync 1.0 was released.

2022.10 Baby Alpha version of the mainnet went live.

2023.2 Fair Onboarding Alpha version of the mainnet went live, which was the first fully open source zkEVM on the Ethereum to be able to deploy registered projects on the mainnet. zkSync 2.0 was renamed zkSync Era, zkSync 1.0 was renamed zkSync Lite.

2023.3 zkSync Era mainnet went live and was open to all users - the world's first zkEVM mainnet open to all.

3.3.2 Roadmap

The 2023 Matter Labs team has not yet updated its roadmap since the launch of the zkSync Era mainnet, but based on its previously published roadmap and recent statements by its founders in interviews, it can be inferred that its future developments include:

• Layer3. After implementing and improving Layer2 scalability, developer and user experience, zkSync will build the Layer3 Hyperchain prototype on top of Layer2 and develop related developer tools;

• Decentralization. Anthony Rose, head of engineers at Matter Labs, mentioned on a recent podcast that the key question their team is working on is "How do we decentralize?" . Their plan is to decentralize the sequencer first, and then the verifier, as the sequencer and verifier are two important components that make up the infrastructure of the zkSync era, currently operated by Matter Labs.

3.4 Team

The team behind zkSync is Matter Labs, based in Berlin and founded in 2018, with Linkedin showing that the team currently has 94 members, including experienced engineers and researchers, with the following distribution of personnel:

CEO: Alex Gluchowski graduated from Technical University of Berlin majoring in computer science. He has 13 years of experience in software development and entrepreneurship, and is a CTO-type CEO.

COO: Zoé Gadsden, also an angel investor, worked at Google for more than 2 years before joining Matter Labs, mainly responsible for supporting startups.

Head of BD: Omar Azhar, who previously spent 8 years in technology consulting at Ernst & Young.

In addition, Ankur Rakshit, former CFO of Matter Labs, left in May 2023, and Steve Newcomb, former CPO and CMO, also left in May 2023, for unknown reasons. According to Matter Labs' website, the team is still actively recruiting new members to join. As far as the existing team is concerned, the core members are experienced in technology and marketing, the team size is not too lean and still expanding, and the members are mainly in the technology development and BD categories, with a relatively reasonable distribution, which can be helpful to ecosystem construction and further expansion.

3.5 Financing

According to Crunchbase statistics, Matter Labs has raised $258M in 4 rounds of funding.

2022.11 Series C $200M Blockchain Capital, Dragonfly

2021.11 Series B $50M a16z

2021.2 Series A $6M Union Square Ventures

2019.9 Seed Round $2M Placeholder

4.Ecosystem Overview

4.1 TVL

According to L2BEAT, as of July 3, zkSync Era had a TVL of $734M and a Daily TPS of 9.92.

As you can see from the chart trend, since the launch of zkSync Era Mainnet in March 2023, the TVL rose to $240M in April, then stagnated at that level until May, and then shot up all the way to the current $734M. zkSync Era currently ranks third in TVL of layer2 venue, accounting for 7.36% of the total TVL, behind only to Arbitrum One and OP Mainnet, and ranks first in TVL in zk rollup field.

4.2 Ecosystem Projects

From the perspective of ecosystem projects, according to Defillama's data, the projects on the zkSync ecosystem are mainly in the Defi category, with the top 5 projects being DEX, followed by several lending protocol projects, while the TVL of the top 10 projects accounts for more than 70% of the total ecosystem TVL. The top 10 Defi projects are also not unique and innovative.

Among them, SyncSwap's TVL occupies 40% of the entire zkSync Era ecosystem TVL.As a DEX, it mainly has the functions of trading, liquidity mining and launchpad (not yet online), with product features of highly customizable, combinable and using multiple pool models. Its native token, SYNC, is the protocol's governance and utility token with 100,000,000 in total, which has not yet been issued. The token model is still under design and plans to adopt the veToken governance token model to maintain the project's sustainable and stable development.

iZumi is a multi-chain Defi protocol that provides a one-stop liquidity service (LaaS). iZumi has launched three on-chain liquidity products, LiquidBox, iZiSwap and iUSD. LiquidBox first offers programmable liquidity service (LaaS) on Ethereum via Uniswap V3. As Uniswap V3 was deployed on the rest of the Ethereum Layer 2 ecosystem, LiquidBox was also successfully deployed on Arbitrum & Polygon. iZUMi Finance then launched iZiswap on BNB Chain with the innovative Discrete Liquidity AMM (DL-AMM) model, which is based on the Uniswap V3 centralized liquidity model upgraded to implement an AMM mechanism supporting discrete liquidity at each price point, providing a CEX-like trading experience for DEX users. iZiswap has been deployed on zkSync Era. iZUMi also successfully launched iZUMi Bond USD (iUSD) and iZUMi Bond, and supports Bond Farming, which brings stable income to on-chain investors. The platform token IZI was launched in December 2021 and has been live on exchanges such as bybit, kucoin and gate, experiencing a longer decline and a significant rebound in zksync after its launch in April this year.

Mute, a DEX platform, aims to build a liquidity hub for all zkSync-based protocols. Mute's main products include Mute Switch - which is an AMM DEX with limit orders, a farming platform and Bond platform.

Velocore's product type as a DEX platform is more in line with the above, offering lending functions in addition to basic trading and liquidity pools. Velocore is the first DEX product in the zkSync ecosystem to adopt the ve(3,3) governance token model, whose tokens were made available on its own launchpad platform on April 3 and 4, 2023. The private sale hard cap was 90 ETH and the public sale hard cap was 450 ETH, raising prices of 0.0000207 ETH and 0.0000229 ETH, which translates to about $0.037/$0.041, rising up to about 6 times. The current price is around $0.03.

Maverick is a combinable decentralized financial infrastructure consisting of Maverick AMM, boosted positions, and voting escrow. MAV is the native utility token of the Maverick protocol, with governance and voting capabilities. The project has raised $17,460,000 from three rounds of token sales, of which 360,000,000 of the total MAV token supply of 2,000,000,000 has been sold.

4.3 Number of Unique Addresses

According to the data on Dune, there are currently over 1 million unique addresses on the zkSync ecosystem, but in terms of address balance, over 60% of addresses have a balance of less than 0.1 ETH and 30% have a balance of only 0.1-1 ETH.

This reflects the influence of zkSync's airdrop and token issuance expectations, which have gathered a large number of free riders on its ecosystem and do not yet have the strength to attract large amounts of money.

5、Competitive Landscape

As the most representative project in the zkSync Era field, the competitive comparison between zkSync Era and op rollup have been elaborated in detail in our Arbitrum's report. Here we focus on the competitive landscape within the zk rollups. Many similar projects have adopted zkEVM, but except for zkSync Era, Polygon zkEVM and StarkNet, none of the other zkEVM projects have launched their mainnet yet. Based on data from L2Beats and Dune, we compare data from several projects that have gone live on the main network as follows (data as of July 3, 2023):

zkSync Era TVL 728M Daily TPS 9.92

zkSync Lite TVL 84.02M Daily TPS 1.11

Starknet TVL 71.07M Daily TPS 1.75

Polygon zkEVM TVL 40.55M Daily TPS 0.68

As you can see from the above, Era's TVL and TPS are already way ahead, with a TVL almost 20 times higher than Polygon zkEVM, which is perhaps highly correlated with Era's rumored airdrop and token incentives. Below is a specific description of the projects that have gone live on the mainnet.

Starknet, as a zk rollup layer2 chain, uses its own language Cairo, which is not compatible with EVM and belongs to Type 4 classification. Starknet uses Warp to transfer Solidity to Cairo, which is still under development to lower the threshold for developers to enter the Starknet ecosystem, and its EVM incompatibility puts it far behind zkSync Era. StarkNet and zkSync have key technical differences. zkSync is based on zk-SNARK cryptography, which can validate data without revealing it; StarkNet uses zk-STARKs, a variant of zk-proofs where computational data can be batched off-chain and performed off-chain before on-chain validity is confirmed, helping to speed up its computation and thus improve scalability.

Polygon zkEVM is also a zk-rollup solution. Due to flaws in Polygon's sidechain design, Polygon began actively exploring zk rollup solutions in order to better inherit the security of Ethereum. A few days after zkSync Era launched its mainnet, Polygon zkEVM was launched on March 28, 2023. The key difference between the two is that zkSync Era implements EVM compatibility, while Polygon zkEVM implements EVM equivalence. zkSync Era compiles and converts popular EVM languages such as Solidity, Vyper, and Yul via an LLVM-based compiler; while Polygon zkEVM implements Solidity's migration natively without the need for additional compilers or rewriting code. In addition, Polygon zkEVM combines the benefits of zkSTARKS and zkSNARKS with a product line that includes

• Polygon Miden (a STARK-based rollup).

• Polygon Nightfall (a privacy-focused rollup).

• Polygon Zero (a zk-rollup with recursive proof generation)

• Polygon ID (a web3 identity solution leveraging zk technology).

As the product line continues to grow, along with the rich resources of Polygon's existing ecosystem, it will help to further enable the network effect of Polygon zkEVM in the future.

6.Summary

In the very crowded Layer2 venue, the development and implementation of zkEVM is a milestone progress for zk rollup solutions, and the whole blockchain world will be substantially developed as a result. zkSync Era, as one of the representative projects, is the world's first zkEVM mainnet open to all users. Despite its dazzling technical highlights, the potential risks cannot be ignored such as the risk of centralization in technology. Furthermore, the entire technology and ecosystem is still in its infancy, and although TVL is soaring, we suspect that most of them are free riders locking up funds for potential airdrop and token opportunities; the current ecosystem is dominated by defi-type projects, and the top 5 DEX projects are not unique or innovative, so there is an urgent need for the emergence of eco-native star projects, and the development of zk technology is difficult and the cycle is long. zkSync Era has a lot of potential, but also a long way to go. We expect the zk venue and ecosystem to become more prosperous and dynamic, and Mochain will keep an eye on this area.

zkSync Era自2023年3月24日主网上线以来，TVL便一路飙升至现在的$734M，备受瞩目，其背后的零知识证明和zkEVM技术有何亮点？羊毛党聚集的生态究竟发展如何了？本文将对zkSync的基本面做出全面阐述，并就现有的竞争格局做出分析。

报告要点

♦ zkEVM成功将以太坊虚拟机和零知识证明结合起来，利用发布在以太坊等第一层区块链上的零知识证明来验证数据正确性，增加了吞吐量，降低了成本，同时保证了安全性。

♦ 2023年3月，Matter Labs团队打造的zkSync Era主网上线，这是世界上第一个面向所有用户开放的zkEVM主网，对zk rollup领域是里程碑式的发展。

♦ 和op rollup相比，zkSync Era更安全且结算效率更高，zkSync Era纯粹依靠数学计算，而op rollups则依靠博弈论和激励机制来确保其交易的确定性；op rollups需要7天的结算期，而zkSync Era提供以小时为单位的结算（目前提取资金的延迟时间为21h）。

♦ zkSync Era生态目前仍处于极早期阶段，虽然TVL已达$734M，仅次于Arbitrum One和OP Mainnet，但大多为羊毛党，整个生态项目类别单一，以defi为主，现有项目未见独特创新之处，亟需原生明星项目的出现。

报告大纲

1、背景概述

2、zkEVM

3、zkSync项目介绍

4、生态概览

5、竞争格局

6、总结

1、背景概述

以太坊扩容方案百花齐放，最引人注目的便是Layer2解决方案，其中V神最看好的便是rollup方案。在我们的报告《写在Arbitrum空投之后——详述OP系王者的巅峰之道》中，关于Layer2赛道以及rollup的两个派系op rollup和zk rollup已有详细介绍，我们也已详细剖析了op系代表项目Arbitrum的基本面情况，提及到和op rollup方案相比，zk rollup方案的关键劣势在于无法实现EVM兼容性和等效性，以致于无法执行智能合约。EVM兼容的layer2网络可以无需修改底层合约逻辑来直接运行程序，这一点对于layer2网络的广泛采用至关重要。但2023年见证了zk技术的里程碑式发展，zkEVM解决了这一痛点，也为zk rollup的发展扫清了一些关键性的障碍。

2023年3月，Matter Labs推出的zkEVM—— zkSync Era主网上线，这也是世界上第一个面向所有用户开放的zkEVM主网，上线后的TVL已飙升至如今的$734M，仅次于Arbitrum One和OP主网，这进一步奠定了zkSync系列产品以及zk rollup方案在Layer2赛道的地位。本文将对zkEVM、zkSync产品及生态现状进行深入研究，并对赛道竞争格局做出分析。

2、zkEVM

2.1 什么是零知识证明（zero-knowledge proofs)？

zkEVM是以太坊上的虚拟机，通过生成零知识证明（zero-knowledge proofs）来验证数据的正确性。下面对零知识证明先做简要介绍以帮助读者了解zkEVM。

零知识证明指证明者（prover）在不向验证者（verifier）透露任何有用信息的情况下让验证者相信数据的真实性。零知识证明可以是交互式的，即证明者面对每个验证者都要证明一次数据的真实性；也可以是非交互式的，即证明者创建一份证明，任何使用这份证明的人都可以进行验证。零知识证明目前有多种实现方式，如zk-SNARKS、zk-STARKS、PLONK以及Bulletproofs。每种方式在证明大小、证明者时间以及验证时间上都有自己的优缺点。 零知识证明包括三个基本特征：

• 完整性：如果数据为真，则诚实的验证者可以相信诚实的证明者确实拥有正确的信息；

• 可靠性：如果数据有误，则任何不诚实的证明者都无法说服诚实的验证者相信他拥有正确的信息。

• 零知识性：如果为真，则验证者除了从证明者那里得知数据为真以外，什么都不知道。

我们可以借用著名的山洞入口举例帮助理解零知识证明的概念。想象一个山洞只有一个入口，洞里面有两条路（路径1和路径2），这两条路由一扇门连接，要说出密码才能通过这扇门。A希望向B证明她知道开门的密码，但不想将密码透露给B。因此，B需要站在山洞外，A从其中一条路走进山洞，而B并不知道她选了哪条路。接着，B指定A从其中一条随机选择的路回到山洞入口。如果A最初选择从路径1走到门口，但B让她从路径2回来，唯一的方法就是穿过那扇门，而穿过门必须知道密码。为了充分证明A真的知道门的密码，而不是运气好刚好选到了同一条路，这个证明过程可以被重复多次。这一步操作完成后，B就可以非常确信A知道门的密码，与此同时A也不用向B透露密码是什么。

将上述山洞路径的例子带入到实际的计算机中，则可以想象有这样一种计算机电路，传入数据，并输出某一抛物线上的值。如果用户能够对抛物线上的某一点连续给出正确答案，那么就可以确信他知道这条抛物线函数是什么，因为每一轮成功猜出正确答案的概率会越来越低。

2.2 zkEVM如何运作？

zkEVM的定义可以理解为支持零知识证明计算和EVM兼容的虚拟机，但要真正将零知识证明和以太坊虚拟机结合起来并不容易，因为二者本身是单独开发的技术，要结合起来一起工作则必须克服先天性的问题和挑战，比如说，EVM使用基于堆栈的架构，遵循后进先出（LIFO）原则，最后加入到调用堆栈的数据最先被删除。这种模式很简单，也很容易使用。然而，在创建zkEVM时，基于寄存器的模型，即数据存储在虚拟CPU寄存器中，对于zkEVM通常需要的高性能计算和零知识计算来说，会更加有效。

zkEVM的具体运作方式如下图所示：

zkEVM将以太坊环境复制为zk rollup，将以太坊开发者的经验和现有的工具带到安全且高度可扩展和的layer2，从而使开发人员能够无缝迁移现有的dApps和智能合约到新环境中，或轻松地建立新的应用程序。zkEVM由三部分组成：执行环境（execution environment），证明电路（proving circuit），和验证合约（verifier contract）。

a.执行环境

EVM执行智能合约，并在每个新区块被添加到链上后计算以太坊网络的状态。它能够解析人类编写的Solidity代码，将其翻译成计算机可读的字节码，然后再更新以太坊状态。EVM对改变状态的具体规则给出了规范，并定义了开发者可以编写的智能合约。

zkEVM是一种新型的可以运行智能合约的EVM。它接受初始状态，计算交易，并输出一个全新的、更新后的状态和一个附带的零知识证明。由于zkEVM是基于以太坊的EVM，所以开发者能够轻松地将以太坊的dApps和代币移植到zkEVM上。

b. 证明电路

如上文所述，零知识证明是证明者向验证者通过加密后证明他们拥有关于某一信息的知识而不透露实际信息的一种方式。zkEVM的证明电路便能产生零知识证明，用于验证和确认交易，证明用户交易计算正确，新状态正确。

c. 验证器合约

在以太坊上，每笔交易都必须由每个节点进行验证。而zk rollup作为一个layer2的扩展解决方案，它能够 "rollup "一大批交易，并利用发布在以太坊等第一层区块链上的零知识证明来验证其正确性，从而增加了吞吐量，降低了成本，同时保证了安全性。Zk rollup会向部署在底层（即layer1）的验证器智能合约提交有效性证明。他们使用提交的零知识证明来检查基于初始状态的输出是否正确，并验证更新的状态是否正确，而不必单独处理每笔交易。

2.3 zkEVM分类

以太坊创始人Vitalik Buterin将zkEVM分类如下：

一般来说，数字较低的类型与以太坊基础设施更兼容，而数字较高的类型有更快的证明时间。

Type 1（完全等同于以太坊） Type1不改变当前以太坊系统的任何部分，使其更容易生成零知识证明。这使得它们与所有以太坊原生应用程序完全兼容，并使区块探索者和执行客户端等工具能够被重用。然而，以太坊协议的某些部分需要大量的计算来生成零知识证明，导致zkEVMs的证明时间很长。

Type 2（EVM完全等效） Type2 zkEVM旨在与现有的以太坊应用程序完全兼容，但做了一些小的修改，以使证明生成更快，开发更容易。虽然证明时间和Type1相比更快，但实际体验依然非常慢。这一类型的代表项目是Scroll和Polygon Hermez。

Type 2.5（除去gas成本的EVM等效） 增加特定操作的gas成本有助于缩短一些很困难的证明生成场景的证明时间，但可能会破坏一些应用，需要开发人员进行修改。

Type 3（几乎EVM等效） Type 3 zkEVM牺牲了EVM的一些功能，以使应用开发和证明生成更容易，例如对预编译、虚拟机内存、堆栈和智能合约代码的处理方式的改变。虽然大多数以太坊应用程序将在这种环境下工作，但依然有可能需要被重写。

Type 4（高级语言等效） 第4类zkEVM采用高级编程语言（如Solidity或Vyper）编写代码，并将其编译为一种对零知识证明友好的语言。从本质上讲，它们等同于高级语言，但不是实际的EVM。这使证明的生成速度快得多，并降低了成本。本文即将讨论的zkSync Era便属于这一类别。

3、zkSync项目介绍

3.1 核心产品

3.1.1 zkSync Lite

zkSync Lite（之前名为zkSync 1.0）是zkSync的早期版本，于2020年6月推出，此版本不支持部署智能合约，不兼容EVM，仅作为一个用于在以太坊上进行可扩展、低成本支付的无信任协议。由于实现EVM兼容极具挑战，zkSync当时决定分阶段推出产品，zkSync Lite即为第一阶段。zkSync Lite的关键优势是执行简单，交易费用低廉，且交易效率较高。尽管zkSync Lite不支持部署智能合约，但当时的zkSync产品依然有超过8000万美元TVL。然而，值得注意的是，TVL并不能完全反映Lite网络的真实活动，因为由于未来空投和代币的激励，大量羊毛党用户可能会在Lite上锁定资金以换取奖励。在日常交易量方面，zkSync Lite的表现明显不如其他L2解决方案要差，毕竟智能合约是dApp开发的核心，而Lite不支持智能合约部署对其是一个相当大的限制。zkSync产品生命周期的下一阶段旨在弥补这一差距。现在的zkSync Era已取代了zkSync Lite。

3.1.2 zkSync Era

zkSync Era（之前名为zkSync 2.0）是Matter labs推出的的zkEVM升级版，支持在以太坊虚拟机上轻松部署和执行智能合约，而只需修改少量代码，使得开发者体验尽可能地接近于使用以太坊，他们可以将兼容EVM的dApps移植到zkSync Era上，并实现更低的gas费和更高的交易吞吐量，同时还继承了以太坊的安全性和去中心化。和op rollups系列的解决方案（如Arbitrum）相比，主要区别和对比如下。

a.zkSync Era更安全。Op rollups假设所有交易都是有效的，然后使用博弈论的方法，激励用户通过欺诈证明来指出欺诈或无效的交易。而zkSync Era通过产生有效性证明来确认没有欺诈性交易。从本质上讲，这意味着zkSync Era纯粹依靠数学计算，而op rollups则依靠博弈论和激励机制来确保其交易的确定性。所以我们认为zkSync Era具有更高的安全性。

b. zkSync Era具有更高的结算效率。由于上述的博弈理论和欺诈证明机制，op rollups需要7天的结算期，这也意味着用户不能立即提取资产，而是需要至少要等一个星期。虽然LP可以帮助解决这个问题，但这会造成额外的安全风险，而且对机构或巨鲸并不适用，因为LP的费用会降低其收益。而zkSync Era则不存在这个问题，它提供以小时为单位的结算（目前提取资金的延迟时间为21h）。

3.2 风险点

从技术层面来讲，Matter Labs一直将安全性放在开发产品时的首位，但对安全性的追求可能会影响去中心化程度，团队目前依然控制着sequencer和可升级性（upgradability），以维持足够的性能和安全标准。这就意味着如果sequencer被停机或审查，则整个网络都会宕机；且确保系统安全的代码可以被团队任意改变，而且不需要通知社区，团队也可以在不通知的情况下随意改变验证者合约。Matter Labs团队正在努力改善这一问题，但依然任重道远。

3.3 里程碑和路线图

3.3.1 里程碑

2020.6 zkSync1.0版本发布。

2022.10 主网的Baby Alpha版本上线

2023.2 主网的Fair Onboarding Alpha版本上线，是以太坊上第一个能够在主网部署已注册项目的zkEVM，版本完全开源，zkSync 2.0更名为zkSync Era，zkSync1.0更名为zkSync Lite。

2023.3 zkSync Era主网上线，面向所有用户开放——这也是世界上第一个面向所有人开放的zkEVM主网。

3.3.2 路线图

2023年Matter Labs团队在zkSync Era主网上线后尚未更新路线图，但根据其之前公布的路线图以及近期创始人接受采访时的讲话，可以推断其未来的发展重点包括：

• Layer3。在实现和改进Layer2可扩展性、开发者和用户体验后，zkSync将在Layer2之上构建Layer3 Hyperchain原型并开发相关开发者工具；

• 去中心化。Matter Labs工程师主管Anthony Rose在最近的一次播客节目提及他们的团队正在研究的关键问题是 "我们如何去中心化？"。他们的计划是先对序列器进行去中心化，然后再对验证器进行去中心化，因为序列器和验证器是构成zkSync时代的基础设施的两个重要组成部分，目前由Matter Labs运营。

3.4 团队

zkSync背后的团队是Matter Labs，总部位于柏林，2018年成立，领英显示目前团队有94位成员，包括经验丰富的工程师和研究人员，人员分布情况如下：

CEO：Alex Gluchowski，毕业于柏林工业大学，主修计算机科学专业，有13年的软件开发和创业经验，属于CTO型的CEO。

COO：Zoé Gadsden，也是一位天使投资人，在加入Matter Labs之前在谷歌有过2年多的工作经验，主要负责为创业公司提供支持。

Head of BD：Omar Azhar，之前在安永有过8年的技术类咨询经验。

另外根据领英档案显示，Matter Labs前CFO Ankur Rakshit已于2023年5月离职，前CPO和CMO Steve Newcomb也已于2023年5月离职，离职原因不详。根据Matter Labs官网消息，目前团队仍在积极招募新成员加入。就现有团队情况来看，核心成员在技术和营销领域的工作经验丰富，团队规模不算精简，且仍在扩张，成员以技术开发和BD类为主，分配相对较合理，有助于生态建设和进一步扩张。

3.5 融资情况

根据Crunchbase的统计数据，Matter Labs共在4轮融资中融到了$258M。

2022.11 C轮 $200M Blockchain Capital, Dragonfly领投

2021.11 B轮 $50M a16z领投

2021.2 A轮 $6M Union Square Ventures领投

2019.9 种子轮 $2M Placeholder领投

4、生态概览

4.1 TVL

根据L2BEAT的数据，截至7月3日，zkSync Era的TVL达$734M，Daily TPS为9.92。

从图表趋势中可以看出，自2023年3月zkSync Era主网上线后，TVL到4月上涨至$240M，之后在这一水平停滞到5月，随后一路飙升到现在的$734M。目前zkSync Era在layer2赛道的TVL排名第三，占总赛道TVL的7.36%,仅次于Arbitrum One和OP Mainnet，在zk rollup方向TVL排名第一。

4.2 生态项目 从生态项目赛道部署的角度来看，根据Defillama的数据，zkSync生态上的项目以Defi类为主，排名前5的项目均为DEX，后面跟着几个借贷协议类项目，而排名前10的项目TVL占比超过了生态总TVL的70%，而在这些项目中并没有看到如Curve一样亮眼的生态原生明星项目，排名前十的Defi项目也未见独特的创新之处。

其中SyncSwap的TVL占据了整个zkSync Era生态TVL的40%，作为DEX主要具备交易、流动性挖矿和launchpad（未上线）的功能，具有高度可定制、可组合和采用多池模型等特点。其原生代币SYNC是协议的治理和效用代币，共100,000,000枚，尚未发行，代币模型仍在设计中，计划采用veToken治理代币模型以保持项目的可持续稳定发展。

iZumi是一个多链Defi协议，提供一站式流动性服务（LaaS）。iZumi 推出了 LiquidBox、iZiSwap和iUSD三款链上流动性产品。LiquidBox首先通过Uniswap V3在以太坊上提供可编程流动性服务 (LaaS)。随着Uniswap V3在其他以太坊Layer 2生态系统的部署，LiquidBox也成功部署在Arbitrum & Polygon上。iZUMi Finance随后在BNB Chain上推出了iZiswap，采用创新性的离散化流动性AMM（DL-AMM）模型，该模型是在Uniswap V3集中流动性模型的基础上升级的，实现了支持每个价格点离散流动性的AMM机制，为DEX用户提供了类似CEX的交易体验，iZiswap已部署在zkSync Era。iZUMi还成功发行了iZUMi Bond USD（iUSD）和iZUMi Bond，并支持Bond Farming，为链上投资者带来稳定的收益。平台代币IZI于2021年12月上线，已上线bybit、kucoin和gate等交易所，经历较长时间下跌，于今年4月份上线后zksync出现明显反弹。

Mute作为一个DEX平台，旨在为所有基zkSync的协议构建流动性中心。Mute的主要产品包括Mute Switch——是一个带有限价订单的AMM DEX、一个farming平台和 Bond 平台。

Velocore作为DEX平台的产品类型和上述几个比较一致，除了基本的交易和流动性池外也提供借贷功能，其特色在于Velocore是zkSync生态第一个采用ve(3,3)治理代币模型的DEX产品，其代币于2023年4月3日和4日在自己的launchpad平台进行了private sale和public sale，private sale hard cap为90 ETH，public sale hard cap为450 ETH，募集价格0.0000207 ETH和0.0000229 ETH，折合约$0.037/$0.041,最高涨到约6倍，目前价格维持在$0.03左右。

Maverick是一个可组合的去中心化金融基础设施，由Maverick AMM、boosted positions、voting escrow组成。MAV是Maverick协议的原生实用代币，具有治理和投票功能。该项目已经从三轮代币销售中筹集了1746万美元，其中2,000,000,000枚 MAV总代币供应中的360,000,000已被售出。

4.3 独立地址数

根据Dune上的数据，zkSync生态上目前已有超100万的独立地址数，但从地址数的余额来看，有超过60%的地址余额小于0.1ETH，有30%的地址余额只有0.1-1个ETH。

这反映出受zkSync空投和发行代币预期的影响，其生态上聚集了大量羊毛党，还没有实力吸引大额资金。

5、竞争格局

zkSync Era作为zk rollup派系中最具代表性的项目，和op rollup的竞争维度比较我们已在Arbitrum的报告中有详细阐述，这里不再赘述。这里我们主要探讨zk赛道内部的竞争格局，许多类似的项目也采用了zkEVM，但除了zkSync Era、Polygon zkEVM和StarkNet，其他的zkEVM项目都还没有启动主网。根据L2Beats和Dune的数据，我们将已上线主网的几个项目数据对比如下（数据截至2023年7月3日）：

zkSync Era TVL 728M Daily TPS 9.92

zkSync Lite TVL 84.02M Daily TPS 1.11

Starknet TVL 71.07M Daily TPS 1.75

Polygon zkEVM TVL 40.55M Daily TPS 0.68

从上可以看出，Era的TVL和TPS都已遥遥领先，TVL几乎是Polygon zkEVM的近20倍，这和Era传说中的空投和代币活动也许高度相关。以下就已上线主网的项目做具体介绍。

Starknet作为一条zk rollup layer2链，使用自己的语言Cairo，不兼容EVM，属于V神分类中的Type 4，Starknet使用Warp来将Solidity转移为Cairo，目前仍在研发中，以降低开发人员进入Starknet生态的门槛，其目前对EVM的不兼容性使其落后于zkSync Era。StarkNet和zkSync在技术上有关键区别。zkSync基于zk-SNARK加密技术，可以在不透露数据的情况下验证数据；StarkNet采用的是zk-STARKs，这是zk-proofs的一种变体，在确认链上有效性之前，计算数据可以被分批在链下进行，并在链外进行，有助于增快其计算速度，从而提升可扩展性。

Polygon zkEVM同样属于zk-rollup解决方案，由于Polygon的侧链设计上存在缺陷，为了更好地继承以太坊的安全性，Polygon开始积极探索zk rollup解决方案。在zkSync Era推出其主网的几天后，Polygon zkEVM于2023年3月28日推出。二者的关键区别在于zkSync Era实现的是EVM兼容，而Polygon zkEVM实现了EVM等效。zkSync Era通过基于LLVM的编译器来编译转换流行的EVM语言如Solidity、Vyper和Yul；而Polygon zkEVM则实现了Solidity的原生迁移，不需要额外的编译器或重新编写代码。此外，Polygon zkEVM结合了zkSTARKS和zkSNARKS的优点，其产品系列包括：

• Polygon Miden（基于STARK的rollup）。

• Polygon Nightfall（一个以隐私为重点的rollup）。

• Polygon Zero（一个具有递归证明生成功能的zk-rollup）。

• Polygon ID（一个利用zk技术的web3身份解决方案）。 随着产品系列的不断增加，加上Polygon现有生态的丰富资源，有助于在未来进一步实现Polygon zkEVM的网络效应。

6、总结

在十分拥挤的Layer2赛道，zkEVM的发展和实现对于zk rollup类的解决方案来讲是里程碑式的进步，整个区块链世界都将因此得到实质性的发展，而zkSync Era作为其中的代表性项目，是世界上首个面向所有用户开放的zkEVM主网，其技术亮点耀眼夺目，但潜在风险也不容忽视，比如技术上的中心化风险等。且整个技术和生态尚处于起步阶段，虽然TVL一路飙升，但我们怀疑大多是羊毛党为了潜在的空投和代币机会而锁定资金；目前生态上的项目以defi类为主，排名前5的DEX项目未见独特的创新之处，亟需生态原生明星项目的出现，且zk技术发展难度较大，周期较长，zkSync Era极具潜力，但也任重道远。我们期待zk赛道和生态变得更加繁荣有活力，Mochain会对这一领域进行持续关注。

Regulation and compliance have been a staple of the crypto industry since 2023. With the CFTC and the SEC taking shots at the largest cryptocurrency exchanges, Binance and Coinbase, investors and projects are worried about the crypto future. This article is the second in our regulatory series, following the discussion of the new regulatory policies of Hong Kong, and will delve into the existing regulatory policies for digital currencies in the U.S., and sort out recent hot events in detail to help entrants grasp the regulatory winds.

1、Status Quo of U.S. Regulation

The U.S. government's broad definition of a digital asset is a distributed ledger recorded using cryptographic algorithms or a digital value recorded using other similar technologies. Digital assets include (but are not limited to): convertible virtual currencies and cryptocurrencies, stable coins and NFT. Currently, the laws and regulations of the United States for digital assets have not yet formed a complete regulatory framework, and the regulatory content and division of authority and responsibility of each regulatory body are not clear, and the boundaries are very vague. Although some federal laws have been introduced to regulate crypto assets, the laws applicable to them differ depending on the nature and use of the assets, and each state will make adjustments to the relevant regulations. The U.S. government is currently working to introduce a comprehensive regulatory system for digital assets.

1.1 Regulatory Bodies

Depending on the nature of the regulated objects, the main regulatory bodies for crypto assets in the United States include

a. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which regulates crypto assets for AML and CFT purposes;

b. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which focuses on the issuance and resale of digital assets defined as "securities";

c. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), whose regulatory scope includes digital assets that are considered commodities or are used as derivatives.

Among them, the regulatory status of SEC and CFTC has been controversial. CFTC has jurisdiction over "commodities" as defined in the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). This authority includes derivatives, over-the-counter swaps, futures contracts, options contracts, and the imposition of penalties for fraud and misconduct related to derivatives and commodities. CFTC first defined digital currencies as commodities under the CEA in an enforcement action to resolve Coinflip, Inc, d/b/a Derivabit and Francisco Riordan, CFTC Action No. 15-29. In Coinflip, CFTC stated that the definition of "commodity" is broad and that "Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are included in the definition and are properly defined as commodities." As such, CFTC believes it has clear authority to regulate cryptocurrencies.

SEC has jurisdiction over "securities" as defined in the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Corporate Investment Act of 1940, and has jurisdiction over virtually every possible investment vehicle. SEC is also more specialized in regulating the securities markets. According to the famous Supreme Court decision SEC v. WJ Howey Co. an "investment contract" exists when funds are invested in an ordinary business with a reasonable expectation of profit from the efforts of others. The Howey test has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, and was recently invoked again in 2019. The SEC has issued guidance providing a framework for whether digital assets are securities, stating that individuals and entities engaged in the marketing, offering, sale, resale or distribution of any digital assets must use the Howey test to determine whether the federal securities laws apply to such conduct.

The federal court has affirmed CFTC's authority to regulate digital assets in cases involving fraud and Ponzi schemes, and further noted that the CEA supports the CFTC's assertion of authority because of the CEA's broad definition of "commodity. In addition, the court also upheld SEC's jurisdiction over digital assets, particularly in the context of ICOs.

1.2 Laws and Regulations

In order to enact the regulatory framework, set clear standards and define appropriate jurisdictional boundaries, several bills have been introduced in the U.S. Congress for digital assets, mainly including

• The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and amendments to the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the AML Act, which establish a complete anti-money laundering framework.

• Registration requirements under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and the Securities Exchange Act for assets deemed to be securities and commodities.

One of these bills, the Financial Innovation Accountability Act, was introduced in the Senate in June 2022, followed by the Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act of 2022 in August 2022. Both bills aim to give CFTC broader jurisdiction over digital commodities transactions. While Congress would consider granting the CFTC greater jurisdiction, it would not thereby limit SEC's authority to regulate digital assets. As stated by Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), the sponsor of the Digital Commodities Consumer Protection Act of 2022, , the bill would not take away the authority of financial regulators and, in fact, this bill recognizes that other financial institutions have some role in regulating non-commodity digital assets, such as securities. In addition, the Financial Innovation Accountability Act distinguishes between digital assets that are securities in nature regulated by SEC and digital assets that are commodities in nature regulated by CFTC, in addition to giving CFTC the authority to regulate the spot market for digital assets.

In December 2022, the Digital Assets Anti-Money Laundering Act was introduced in the Senate, which aims to provide KYC rules for digital asset participants, including wallet providers and miners. The bill would prohibit financial institutions from transacting with digital asset hybrids that disguise the source of each party's funds. While the bill does not grant one agency specific jurisdiction over the other, it does direct CFTC and SEC to conduct risk screening efforts and review anti-money laundering programs and financial reporting. Both bipartisan bills passed designate CFTC as the regulator of crypto spot, in part because CFTC has used existing CEA provisions to file lawsuits against multiple individuals and companies operating in the crypto asset spot market. In 2022, CFTC filed more than 80 lawsuits, more than 20 percent of which were filed against entities engaged in the digital asset market. In addition, global cryptocurrency platforms have combined trading in spot assets with derivatives. Because of this combination, and CFTC's existing authority over derivatives transactions involving digital currencies, many considering a new regulatory framework believe it would be more efficient to assign regulatory authority over spot transactions in digital assets to CFTC.

In addition, Democratic Senator Patrick Toomey has introduced a bill aimed at creating a regulatory framework for stablecoins and integrating digital assets into existing tax and banking laws to spur innovation in the digital asset space, dubbed the Toomey Stablecoin Act, which authorizes three types of entities to issue stablecoins: state-limited payment stablecoin issuers, insured depository institutions, and remittance business merchants, establishes standard requirements for stablecoin issuers and distinguishes stablecoins from securities, and imposes privacy protections on transactions designed to stablecoins and other virtual currencies.

1.3 US Regulatory in 2023

In 2022, the U.S. government conducted a "Cryptocurrency Sprint" to discuss laws and regulations to further regulate cryptocurrencies. Following the discussion, the government released a roadmap of potential areas where further research into new regulations might be conducted. Some of these topics include

• Regulation of crypto assets by banks

• The issuance of stable coins

• Rules for holding cryptocurrencies as a balance sheet

• Sales of crypto assets by banks and financial services companies

• Cryptocurrencies as collateral for bank loans

From these discussion points, it is likely that the U.S. government will soon legalize the sale of cryptocurrencies by banks. The Biden administration has recently proposed stablecoin legislation and the possibility of digital dollars with central banks. Therefore, 2023 could be the year that proper legislation is welcomed.

2、Recent Cases

2.1 CFTC v. Binance

On March 27, 2023, CFTC filed a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that Changpeng Zhao, Binance Holdings Limited, Binance Holdings (IE) Limited, and Binance (Services) Holdings Limited (collectively referred to as Binance) repeatedly violated the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations by operating CEX through a deliberately opaque joint venture in which CZ knowingly engaged in an elaborate regulatory arbitrage strategy in pursuit of business interests; the lawsuit also alleges that Samuel Lim, Coin's former Chief Compliance Officer, aided and abetted Binance's violations. In the ongoing litigation against the defendants, CFTC seeks damages, civil penalties, permanent trading and registration bans, and permanent injunctions from further violations of CEA and CFTC regulations. Several of the specific allegations are as follows:

a.According to the complaint, from July 2019 to present, Binance offered commodity derivatives trading services to U.S. citizens. Despite the legal obligations of entities like Binance, which operates as a futures commission merchant (FCM), to collect customer information, Binance did not require its customers to provide any identifying information prior to trading on the platform and failed to implement basic compliance procedures designed to prevent and detect terrorist financing and money laundering;

b. The complaint alleges that, even though Binance purported to restrict U.S. customers from trading on its platform, Binance directed customers - particularly commercially valuable U.S. VIP customers - to seek the best way to circumvent compliance controls. In addition, Binance failed to register with CFTC as required;

c. The lawsuit also alleges that the Entity Defendant failed to exercise due diligence in overseeing Binance's activities as an FCM. Among the numerous supervisory failures detailed in the complaint is that Binance directed employees to communicate with U.S. customers about circumventing controls through a messaging application set to automatically delete written communications. According to the complaint, the reason Binance used this method of communication was to avoid leaving any evidence of their efforts to retain U.S. customers.

d. CZ is liable for Binance's violations because of his control over Binance and his long history of failing to act in good faith against Binance's misconduct. According to the indictment, CZ owned and controlled dozens of entities that operated the Cryptocurrency platform as a joint venture. CZ was allegedly responsible for all of Cryptocurrency's major strategic decisions, including devising a secret conspiracy to direct VIP customers in the United States to evade Cryptocurrency's compliance controls and instructing employees to ensure that all communications regarding them were made through an application capable of automatically destroying evidence.

In turn, CZ was the first to respond to the CFTC's complaint, claiming that Binance was the first global exchange to implement a mandatory KYC program and still holds one of the highest standards in KYC and anti-money laundering today, with Cryptocurrency's compliance controls in place through nationality (KYC), IP (including VPN terminals commonly used outside the U.S.), mobile operators, device fingerprinting, bank deposits and withdrawals, blockchain deposits and withdrawals, credit card bin numbers, etc. to block U.S. users from using the platform's services.

To summarize, CFTC's allegations against Binance are reasonable and legally sound, because although Binance has a luxury compliance team of several hundred people on the surface, Chief Compliance Officer Samuel Lim followed along to avoid compliance and did not actually block U.S. users. According to CFTC's regulatory logic, fraud and market manipulation in the spot market of virtual assets, as well as the trading of virtual asset commodity futures involving margin, leverage or financing, and the compliance registration of relevant participating entities should comply with the CEA's regulations and be regulated by CFTC.

2.2 SEC v. Binance

On June 5, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed charges against Binance for, among other things, operating unregistered exchanges, broker-dealers, and clearing agencies; misrepresenting the control and oversight of transactions on the Binance.US platform; and unregistered issuance and sale of securities. Cryptocurrency operates Binance.com, the world's largest crypto asset trading platform; a U.S.-based affiliate, BAM Trading Services Inc. ("BAM Trading"), operates the crypto asset trading platform, Binance.US, in conjunction with Binance. Details of the charges are set forth below.

a. SEC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that, since at least July 2017, Binance.com and Binance.US have operated as exchanges, brokers, dealers, and clearing houses under the control of CZ, generating at least $11.6 billion in revenue from, among other things, transaction fees from customers in the U.S. The SEC's claims include (1) allegations that Binance.com, Binance should have been registered as an exchange, broker-dealer, and clearing agency; (2) with respect to Binance.US, Binance and BAM Trading should have been registered as exchanges and clearing agencies; and (3) BAM Trading should have been registered as a broker-dealer. the SEC argues that CZ, as the controlling person of Binance and BAM Trading were each liable for registration violations.

b. SEC alleged that Binance offered and sold BNB, BUSD, and cryptocurrency lending products known as "Simple Earn" and "BNB Vault" without registration. In addition, the SEC alleges that BAM Trading offered and sold collateral for Binance.US without registration. The complaint also alleges that Binance secretly controlled the assets pledged by U.S. customers in BAM's pledge program.

c. SEC alleged that as part of an elaborate scheme, CZ and Binance created BAM Management and BAM Trading in September 2019 to evade U.S. federal securities laws by claiming that BAM Trading operated the Binance.US platform independently and that U.S. customers were unable to use the Binance.com platform. SEC alleged that CZ and Binance effectively maintained substantial participation and control over the U.S. entities, and that behind the scenes, CZ directed Binance to allow many high-value U.S. customers to continue to access Binance.com. Binance's chief compliance officer once messaged a colleague that "we are operating as an unlicensed stock exchange in the U.S."

d. According to the SEC's allegations, Sigma Chain (also owned by CZ), the primary undisclosed market maker trading firm on the Binance.US platform, implemented strategic and targeted wash trades to a large extent, suggesting that BAM Trading's representations regarding its market oversight and control were false.

The lawsuit has taken a turn for the worse in recent days. On June 14, the federal judge overseeing the SEC's case against Cryptocurrency and Binance.US declined to order a temporary restraining order freezing the assets of the exchange's U.S. trading platform, which would have allowed Binance. US to continue its business while further communications with regulators were initiated. According to Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, there is "absolutely no need" for a restraining order if the parties can agree on restrictions. The judge also ordered Binance.US to provide the court with a list of its business expenses and asked the parties to continue negotiations. At this point, SEC v. Binance is more likely to be settled, and we will continue to monitor the progress.

2.3 SEC v. Coinbase

On June 6, 2023, SEC charged Coinbase with operating as an unregistered securities exchange, broker and clearing agency, and Coinbase was also charged with unregistered issuance and sale of securities in connection with its collateral servicing program. The details are as follows.

a. According to the SEC's allegations, Coinbase has illegally facilitated the purchase and sale of cryptoasset securities to the tune of billions of dollars since at least 2019. SEC alleged that Coinbase intertwined the traditional services of exchanges, brokers, and clearing agencies without registering any of these functions with the Commission as required by law. Through these unregistered services, Coinbase conducted the business of trading securities for customer accounts and provided data comparison facilities regarding the terms of settlement of cryptoasset securities transactions, acted as an intermediary for Coinbase's customers in settling cryptoasset securities transactions, and acted as a securities custodian. The foregoing conduct deprived investors of important protections, including SEC examinations, recordkeeping requirements, and safeguards against conflicts of interest. Coinbase's holding company, Coinbase Global Inc. (CGI), is a controller of Coinbase and is therefore also responsible for Coinbase's violations.

b. The SEC alleged that since 2019, Coinbase has been engaging in unregistered securities offerings through a "staking-as-a-service" service, a program that allows customers to profit from certain blockchain PoS mechanisms. Coinbase allegedly pooled cryptocurrency assets that could be pledged by each type of customer, used a pledge pool to perform blockchain transaction verification services, and provided a portion of the rewards generated from this work to its customers whose assets belonged to the pool. Coinbase did not register its offer and sale of this pledge program as required by law.

Coinbase was also quick to respond to the SEC's allegations, with the core argument being that the key to solving the problem lies in better legislation, not litigation. In the absence of clear regulatory rules, SEC's litigation undermines the economic competitiveness of the U.S. and companies like Coinbase that have a clear commitment to compliance, and could cost the U.S. innovation and leadership in the field. Another lawsuit was filed by Coinbase's Chief Legal Officer Paul Grewal -- Coinbase v. SEC, which dates back to July 2022, when Coinbase petitioned SEC to develop regulatory rules and provide necessary regulatory guidance to the industry, but the SEC did not respond for the next nine months. In May 2023, Coinbase directly brought SEC to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, requiring SEC to respond to the petition within a reasonable time based on the Administrative Procedure Act. But instead of waiting for a response from the SEC, Coinbase received a lawsuit. So Paul Grewal's logic is that there are currently no perfect rules, and Coinbase has been proactively seeking regulation, and it is SEC that is not responding or giving rules.

SEC's suit against Coinbase has caused some outrage. on June 7, a16z policy director Brian Quintenz tweeted, "The SEC’s actions today continue the pattern of an irresponsible regulation-by-enforcement approach that hurts entrepreneurs, investors, and consumers while threatening to stifle innovation and drive responsible companies away from the US. Coinbase has been a responsible player in the industry for over a decade, having helped open up web3 in the U.S. As a publicly traded company, it has made repeated attempts to register with the SEC and long called for common-sense regulation – to no avail from regulators. Enforcement is not a substitute for GUIDANCE. Litigating whether specific tokens are securities through enforcement actions against third parties - like these exchanges - is inappropriate and does little to protect consumers or provide markets with clarity. Instead, the SEC should work with market participants to modernize rules and clarify their application. That would be a responsible approach in line with their stated mission."

3.Summary

At present, the U.S. has not yet built a perfect regulatory framework and system for the crypto market, although there are limited regulations such as the Financial Innovation Responsibility Act, many traditional provisions do not apply to the special characteristics of digital currencies, and the division of labor between the CFTC and the SEC is not clear, and the two regulatory bodies have increasingly fierce competition for regulatory power. The SEC has continued to take shots at the crypto sector, even taking aim at crypto exchange giants Binance and Coinbase, as SEC Chairman Gary Gensler argued in his latest speech that "the vast majority of crypto tokens meet the test for investment contracts. Not liking the message and not receiving it are two different things", it is undeniable that these lawsuits do have their legal basis, but frequent enforcement without improving the legal loopholes may be counterproductive. Another factor worth considering in aggregate is the 2024 election cycle, where we predict that Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are highly likely to be a hot topic. Republican leader Ron DeSantis has already said he will "ban CBDC" and support innovation related to bitcoin and crypto. As governor, DeSantis would make Florida one of the most cryptocurrency-friendly areas in the United States. As investors, we support moderate regulation to maximize the protection of market trust and investors' interests, and we are looking forward to more actions from the U.S. Congress in terms of relevant legislation; while the recent high-frequency litigation between the CFTC and the SEC, in addition to the struggle and struggle for regulatory power, will make an example of the market and crack down on unregulated market behaviors, an overly tough and iron-fisted approach will make the entire crypto market scared and kill innovation. Innovation, which will also urge Congress to legislate as soon as possible to a certain extent. Anyway, to establish a perfect regulatory system is the key to solve the problem.

进入2023年以来，监管和合规一直是加密行业的主旋律。随着CFTC和SEC对最大的加密货币交易所币安和Coinbase开炮，投资人和项目方都对加密前景感到担忧。本文是继探讨香港监管新政报告后，我们监管系列文章的第二篇，将深入探讨美国现有针对数字货币的监管政策，并详细梳理近期热点事件，帮助入局者掌握监管风向。

1、美国监管现状

美国政府对数字资产的广泛定义是利用加密算法记录的分布式账本或利用其他类似技术记录的数字价值。数字资产包括（但不限于）：可兑换的虚拟货币和加密货币、稳定币和NFT。目前美国针对数字资产的法律法规尚未形成完整的监管框架，各监管主体的监管内容和权责分工并未明确，界线十分模糊。虽然目前联邦法律已出台部分针对加密资产的条例，但根据资产性质和用途的不同，其所适用的法律也不同，且各个州也会对相关法规做出调整。美国政府目前正在努力推出一套完善的数字资产监管体系。

1.1 监管主体

根据监管对象的不同性质，美国针对加密资产的主要监管主体包括：

• 金融犯罪执法局（Financial Crimes Enforcement Network，简称FinCEN) ，以反洗钱（AML）和打击恐怖主义融资（CFT）为目的监管加密资产；

• 美国证券交易委员会（The Securities and Exchange Commission，简称SEC) ：主要针对被定义为“证券”的数字资产的发行和转售；

• 美国商品期货交易委员会（The Commodity Futures Trading Commission，简称CFTC) ：其监管范围包括被认作是商品或被用作为衍生品的数字资产。

其中，SEC和CFTC的监管地位一直有所争议。CFTC对《商品交易法》（CEA）中定义的 "商品 "有管辖权。这一权力包括衍生品、场外掉期、期货合约、期权合约，以及与衍生品和商品有关的欺诈和不当行为进行处罚。CFTC在解决Coinflip, Inc, d/b/a Derivabit和Francisco Riordan的执法行动中，首次将数字货币定义为CEA规定的商品，CFTC诉讼案号为15-29。 在Coinflip案中，CFTC表示，"商品 "的定义是广泛的，"比特币和其他虚拟货币都包含在定义中，并被正确定义为商品"。因此，CFTC认为它有明确的权力来监管加密货币。

SEC对《1933年证券法》、《1934年证券交易法》和《1940年公司投资法》中定义的“证券"具有管辖权，并对几乎所有可能的投资工具具有管辖权。 SEC在监管证券市场方面也更加专业。根据最高法院的著名判决SEC诉WJ Howey Co.中所阐述的，当资金投资于一家普通企业且合理预期利润来自他人的努力时，“投资合同”就存在。豪威测试已被最高法院多次重申，最近于2019年被再次引用。因此，SEC认为属于豪威测试的数字资产是“投资合同"，其形式类似于上市公司的股票。SEC已经发布了指导意见，为数字资产是否是证券提供了一个框架，指出从事任何数字资产的营销、发售、销售、转售或分销的个人和实体必须使用豪威测试来确定联邦证券法是否适用于这种行为。

联邦法院肯定了CFTC在涉及欺诈和庞氏骗局的案件中监管数字资产的权力，并进一步指出，由于CEA对“商品”有广泛的定义，CEA支持CFTC的权力主张。此外，法院也支持SEC对数字资产（特别是在ICO方面）的管辖权。

1.2 监管法律条例

为了定义监管框架，制定明确的标准，界定合适的管辖边界，美国国会已针对数字资产推出了几项法案，主要包括：

• 银行保密法（BSA）以及美国爱国者法案和反洗钱法规定的修正案，这些法案建立了一个完整的反洗钱框架。

• 《商品交易法》（CEA）和《证券交易法》中有关被视为证券和商品的资产的登记要求。

其中参议院于2022年6月推出了《金融创新责任法案》，随后于2022年8月提出了《2022年数字商品消费者保护法》。这两项法案都旨在赋予CFTC更广泛的数字商品交易管辖权。尽管国会会考虑授予CFTC更大的管辖权，它并不会因此而限制SEC监管数字资产的权力。正如《2022年数字商品消费者保护法》的提案人，参议员Debbie Stabenow（D-MI）所述，该法案不会剥夺金融监管机构的权力，事实上，此法案承认其他金融机构在监管非商品的数字资产（如证券）方面发挥了一些作用。此外，《金融创新责任法案》区分了属于美国证券交易委员会监管的证券性质的数字资产和属于CFTC监管的商品类别的数字资产，此外还赋予CFTC监管数字资产现货市场的权力。

2022年12月，参议院提出《数字资产反洗钱法案》，旨在为数字资产参与者，包括钱包提供商和矿工提供KYC规则。该法案将禁止金融机构与掩盖各方资金来源的数字资产混合商进行交易。虽然该法案没有授予一个机构对另一个机构的具体管辖权，但它确实指示CFTC和SEC开展风险排查工作，并对反洗钱计划和财务报告进行审查。 两党通过的法案都指定CFTC作为加密现货的监管机构，一部分原因是CFTC已利用现有的CEA规定对多个经营加密资产现货市场的个人和公司提起了诉讼。2022年，CFTC提起了80多起诉讼，其中20%以上是针对从事数字资产市场的实体提出的。此外，全球加密货币平台已经将现货资产交易与衍生品结合起来。由于这种合并，以及CFTC对涉及数字货币的衍生品交易的现有权力，许多考虑新监管框架的人认为，将数字资产现货交易的监管权力分配给CFTC会更有效率。

此外，民主党参议院Patrick Toomey还提出了一项法案，旨在为稳定币建立监管框架，并将数字资产整合到现有的税收和银行法中，刺激数字资产领域的创新，该法案被称为图米稳定币法案，授权了发行稳定币的三种主体：国家有限支付的稳定币发行方、被保险存款机构和汇款业务商，为稳定币发行者制定了标准要求，并将稳定币和证券区分开来，并对设计稳定币和其他虚拟货币的交易实施隐私保护。

1.3 2023年监管法案方向

2022年美国政府进行了一次 "加密货币冲刺"活动，讨论进一步规范加密货币的法律和法规。讨论结束后，政府发布了一份路线图，说明可能进行进一步研究新法规的潜在领域。其中一些主题包括：

• 银行对加密资产的监管

• 稳定币的发行

• 持有加密货币作为资产负债表的规则

• 银行和金融服务公司的加密资产销售

• 加密货币作为银行贷款的抵押品

从这些讨论点来看，美国政府很可能很快就会使银行销售加密货币合法化。拜登政府最近提出了稳定币的立法和与中央银行数字美元的可能性。因此，2023年可能是欢迎适当立法的一年。

2、近期重点事件盘点

2.1 CFTC诉币安事件

2023年3月27日，CFTC已向美国伊利诺伊州北部地区法院提起民事诉讼，指控赵长鹏、Binance Holdings Limited、Binance Holdings (IE) Limited和Binance (Services) Holdings Limited（合称Binance）多次违反《商品交易法》（CEA）和CFTC规定，通过一个故意不透明的共同企业运营CEX，而CZ明知故犯，为追求商业利益参与了精心策划的监管套利策略；诉讼还指控币安的前首席合规官Samuel Lim协助和教唆Binance的违规行为。在对被告的持续诉讼中，CFTC要求赔偿、民事罚款、永久性交易和注册禁令，以及永久禁止进一步违反CEA和CFTC法规的指控。具体的几项指控如下：

a. 根据投诉，从2019年7月至今，Binance向美国人提供商品衍生品交易服务。尽管像币安这样作为期货佣金商（FCM）运作的实体有收集客户信息的法律义务，但币安并没有要求其客户在平台交易之前提供任何身份验证信息，也没有实施旨在防止和发现恐怖主义融资和洗钱的基本合规程序；

b. 投诉称，即使币安声称限制美国客户在其平台上交易，但币安仍引导客户——特别是具有商业价值的美国VIP客户——寻求最佳方法规避合规控制。此外，币安没有按规定向美国商品交易委员会注册；

c. 诉讼还指控实体被告没有尽职地监督币安作为FCM的活动。诉状中详述的众多监督失误中，包括币安指使员工通过一个设置为自动删除书面通信的消息应用程序与美国客户就规避控制权进行沟通。根据投诉，币安使用这种沟通方式的原因是为了避免留下任何关于他们努力留住美国客户的证据。

d. 由于CZ对币安的控制，以及他长期以来没有对币安的不当行为采取善意的行动，因此对币安的违规行为负有责任。根据起诉书，CZ拥有并控制着几十个作为共同企业运营币安平台的实体。据称，CZ负责币安的所有重大战略决策，包括设计秘密阴谋，引导美国的VIP客户逃避币安的合规控制，并指示员工确保关于其所有通信是通过能够自动销毁证据的应用程序进行的。

而CZ也在第一时间对CFTC的控诉进行了回应，声称币安是第一个实施强制性KYC计划的全球性交易所，并且今天仍然拥有KYC和反洗钱方面的最高标准之一，币安通过国籍（KYC）、IP（包括美国以外常用的VPN终端）、移动运营商、设备指纹、银行存款和提款、区块链存款和提款、信用卡仓号等来阻止美国用户使用平台服务。

总结来看，CFTC对币安的指控是合理且有法律依据的，因为币安虽然明面上有着几百号人的豪华合规团队，但首席合规官Samuel Lim跟着一起规避合规， 实际并没有屏蔽美国用户。而根据CFTC的监管逻辑，虚拟资产现货市场上的欺诈和市场操纵等行为，以及涉及保证金、杠杆或融资的虚拟资产商品期货交易行为，以及相关参与主体的合规登记都应遵守 CEA 的规定并受 CFTC 的监管。

2.2 SEC诉币安事件

2023年6月5日，美国证券交易委员会（SEC）对币安提出指控，指控包括经营未注册的交易所、经纪商和清算机构；虚报Binance.US平台的交易控制和监督；以及未注册的证券发行和销售。币安经营着全球最大的加密资产交易平台Binance.com；位于美国的关联公司BAM Trading Services Inc.（"BAM Trading"）与Binance一起经营着加密资产交易平台Binance.US。具体指控细节如下。

a. SEC在哥伦比亚特区的美国地区法院提出申诉称，至少从2017年7月开始，Binance.com和Binance.US在CZ的控制下作为交易所、经纪人、交易商和清算机构运营，从美国客户的交易费等方面获得了至少116亿美元的收入。SEC的主张包括（1）关于Binance.com，Binance本应注册为交易所、经纪商和清算机构；（2）关于Binance.US，Binance和BAM Trading本应注册为交易所和清算机构；以及（3）BAM Trading本应注册为经纪人-交易商。SEC认为CZ作为控制人对Binance和BAM Trading各自的注册违规行为负有责任。

b. SEC指控Binance未经注册提供和销售BNB、BUSD以及被称为 "Simple Earn "和 "BNB Vault "的加密货币借贷产品。此外，SEC还指控BAM Trading未经注册提供和销售Binance.US的抵押品。诉状还指出，Binance秘密地控制了美国客户在BAM的质押项目中所质押的资产。

c. SEC称作为精心策划的计划的一部分，CZ和Binance于2019年9月创建了BAM Management和BAM Trading，通过声称BAM Trading独立运营Binance.US平台及美国客户无法使用Binance.com平台以逃避美国联邦证券法。SEC指控称，CZ和Binance实际上保持着对美国实体的实质性参与和控制，在幕后，CZ指示Binance允许许多高价值的美国客户继续访问Binance.com。 Binance的首席合规官曾给一位同事发信息说："我们在美国正作为一个无牌照证券交易所在运营"。

d. 根据SEC的指控，Binance.US平台主要的未被披露的做市商交易公司Sigma Chain（也是由CZ拥有）在很大程度上实施了战略性和有针对性的清洗交易，这表明BAM Trading关于其市场监督和控制的陈述是虚假的。

这起诉讼案件在近几日出现了转机。6月14日，负责监督SEC对币安和Binance.US案件的联邦法官拒绝下令冻结该交易所美国交易平台资产的临时限制令，这将使Binance. US能够继续开展业务，同时与监管机构展开进一步沟通。根据美国哥伦比亚特区地区法院Amy Berman Jackson法官的说法，如果双方能够就限制达成一致，“绝对没有必要”发出限制令。同时，该法官还责令Binance.US向法院提供其业务开支清单，并要求双方继续协商。目前来看，SEC诉币安案最终达成和解的可能性较大，我们会持续关注后续进展。

2.3 SEC诉Coinbase事件

2023年6月6日，SEC指控Coinbase作为未注册的证券交易所、经纪人和清算机构运营，Coinbase还因未注册的证券发行和销售而被指控，这与它的抵押品服务项目有关。具体细节如下。

a. 根据SEC的指控，至少从2019年开始，Coinbase已经非法为加密资产证券的买卖提供了数十亿美元的便利。SEC称，Coinbase将交易所、经纪人和清算机构的传统服务交织在一起，而没有按照法律规定向委员会注册任何这些职能。通过这些未注册的服务，Coinbase为客户账户进行证券交易的业务，并提供有关加密资产证券交易结算条件的数据比较设施，充当Coinbase客户结算加密资产证券交易的中介，并充当证券托管机构。上述行为剥夺了包括美国证券交易委员会的检查，记录要求，以及防止利益冲突的保障措施等在内的对投资者的重要保护。Coinbase的控股公司Coinbase Global Inc.（CGI）是Coinbase的控制人，因此也要对Coinbase的某些违规行为负责。

b. SEC称，自2019年以来，Coinbase一直在通过“staking-as-a-service”服务从事未注册的证券发行业务，该项目允许客户从某些区块链的POS机制中获得利润。据称，Coinbase将每一类客户可质押的加密货币资产汇集在一起，用质押池进行区块链交易验证服务，并将这项工作产生的部分奖励提供给其资产属于该池的客户。Coinbase没有按照法律规定登记其提供和销售的这个质押项目。

Coinbase对SEC的指控也很快做出了回应，其核心观点是解决问题的关键在于完善立法，而非诉讼。在尚不存在明确监管规则的情况下，SEC的诉讼行为损害了美国的经济竞争力，也损害了像 Coinbase 这样对合规性有明确承诺的公司，会让美国失去在该领域的创新力和领先地位。Coinbase的首席席法务官Paul Grewal也反复提起了另一起诉讼案件——Coinbase诉SEC，该案件可追溯至2022年7月，当时Coinbase请愿SEC制定监管规则，并为行业提供必要的监管指引，但SEC在之后的9个月都没有任何回应。2023年5月，Coinbase直接将SEC告上了美国联邦第三巡回上诉法院，基于《行政程序法》要求SEC在合理时间内对该请愿书做出回应。但Coinbase没有等到SEC的回应，而是接到了一纸诉状。所以Paul Grewal的逻辑是目前没有完善的规则，而Coinbase一直在主动寻求监管，是SEC不回应也不给规则。

SEC起诉Coinbase有些引起众怒。6月7日，a16z政策主管Brian Quintenz在推特上发文称：“美国证券交易委员会（SEC）今天的行动延续了不负责任的执法方式的模式，这种方式伤害了企业家、投资者和消费者，同时威胁要扼杀创新并将负责任的公司赶出美国。Coinbase十多年来一直是该行业负责任的参与者，曾帮助在美国开放Web3，作为一家上市公司，它多次尝试在SEC注册，并长期呼吁常识性监管，但监管机构并未做出回应。SEC应与市场参与者合作，使规则现代化并阐明其应用，这将是一种符合他们既定使命的负责任的做法。让我们清楚这些单方面决定的后果。区块链技术和Web3有可能使各种行业民主化。但要让这种创新在美国发生，政府必须提供可遵循的规则，而不仅仅是诉讼。自SEC上一次有意义的加密相关指导以来已经四年了。具有讽刺意味的是，今天的行动是在国会提出一项提案之后发生的，该提案将给出明确的规则——保护美国人并铲除该行业的不良行为者。SEC应该与国会和负责任的美国加密货币公司合作，以提供清晰度——而不是加深混乱。”

3、总结

目前来看，美国尚未针对加密市场构建出完善的监管框架和体系，虽然已有《金融创新责任法案》等相关条例做出了有限规定，但许多传统条款并不适用于数字货币的特殊性，且CFTC和SEC的监管分工尚不明确，这两大监管主体对监管权力的争夺也日益激烈。2023年以来CFTC和SEC持续向加密领域开炮，甚至将矛头直接指向了加密交易所巨头币安和Coinbase。正如SEC主席Gary Gensler在最新的演讲中认为“绝大多数加密代币都符合投资合同的测试。不喜欢这条信息和没有收到它是两码事”，不可否认的是，这些诉讼案的确有其法律依据，但频繁执法，却不完善法律漏洞，效果可能会适得其反。另外值得综合考虑的因素便是2024年的选举周期，我们预测比特币和加密货币极有可能成为热点话题。共和党领导者Ron DeSantis已经表示他将“禁止 CBDC”并支持与比特币和加密技术相关的创新。作为州长，DeSantis 将使佛罗里达州成为美国对加密货币最友好的地区之一。作为投资者，我们支持适度监管，最大化保护市场信任和投资者利益，十分期待美国国会在相关立法方面的更多作为；而CFTC和SEC近期高频的诉讼案件除了监管权力的斗争和争夺外，一方面杀鸡儆猴，打击不规范的市场行为，但过度强硬的铁腕手段则会使得整个加密市场心惊胆战，误杀创新，这也会从一定程度上敦促国会尽快立法，建立完善的监管体系才是解决问题的关键。

Cryptocurrency market has expanded from billions of dollars at the beginning of 2015 to 2 trillion dollars by the end of 2021. After that, it fell to about 1 trillion US dollars. In less than 10 years, it developed from a very small geek experiment to a trillion-level track that cannot be ignored by the traditional capital circle, but there must be high risks behind high returns. We tried to use the compilation and calculation methods of the traditional market index for reference, combined with the unique characteristics of cryptocurrency for improvement, and finally synthesized the Top 5 and Top 10 market cap weighted indexes. The purpose of the indexes is to select the most representative cryptocurrencies through scientific and objective methods as a sample, establish a market overview that can be used as an investment evaluation standard and a financial derivative product benchmark.

1.CMC Top 5 & Top 10 Market Cap Weighted Index introduction

1.1 Introduction

According to CMC ( https://coinmarketcap.com/ ) historical data, we integrated the top 5 and top 10 currencies in the crypto market since 2015 ranked by market cap, calculated the weight, synthesized the Top 5 and Top 10 composite indexes, and compared their trends with the prices of BTC and ETH to track the performance and rate of return of the whole market, and provide a reference for predicting the future trend.

*Stablecoins, new coins generated by hard/soft forks are not counted .

1.2 Quick Facts

Index name: CMC Top 5 & Top 10 Market Cap Weighted Index

Unit: USD

Weighting Method: Market Cap Weighted

Rebalance Frequency: Monthly

Calculation Frequency: Every Sunday

Calculation Period: January 4, 2015 to May 28, 2023

Index base: 1000

Index Composition: According to the data provided by CMC , the top 5 and top 10 cryptocurrencies are selected.

1.3 Conclusion

Index trend (unit: USD )

According to the CMC data on May 28, 2023 , the market value of BTC and ETH accounted for half of the crypto market. Over the past eight years, the price trend of BTC and ETH (especially BTC ) has been basically the same as that of the Top 5 and Top 10 crypto indexes, which also represent the trend of large cap.

Monthly yield for the past 1 year

Annualized rate of return

Top 5 Index Risk Indicators

Top 10 Index Risk Indicators

The extremely high volatility of the crypto market can be seen combing the income and risk indicators. The return standard deviations of the Top 5 and Top 10 indexes far exceed the fluctuation of the traditional stock market index. In addition, because we calculated the weight based on market cap instead of equal weight, so the income and volatility of the overall index are affected by the largest proportion of BTC and ETH.

2.Index Calculation

2.1 List of formulas

The formula for calculating the index is:

Among them , n : the number of currency types included in the index ; p i : the price of component currency i at time t ; w t i : the weight of component currency i at time t ; Divisor t : is the divisor obtained after the rebalance just completed, which can ensure the sustainability of index changes and exclude the index price from being affected by price changes other than component currencies. Except for special circumstances, in this report, divisor adjusted cycle is consistent with the index adjustment cycle, i.e. monthly.

the base period divisor is:

in period t is:

Among them , n t : the number of constituent currencies included in the index at time t ; n t - 1 : The number of component currencies included in the previous index.

weight w t i is calculated according to the weight factor (the weight remains unchanged during the rebalancing period):

where the weighting factor is determined according to the market value proportion of each component currency at time t .

2.2 Calculation example

Step 1: Determine the weight factor of each component currency based on the market value , taking the base period data as an example (December 2014):

The top 5 cryptocurrencies by market value in the current period are BTC , XRP , Paycoin , Litecoin and Bitshares , and the top 5 total market cap is $5,358,444,337, taking BTC as an example to calculate its weight factor:

Weighting Factor BTC = ($4,333,395,591. 1 1/$5,358,444,337)*100%=0.809 Weight factors for several other cryptocurrencies can be calculated in the same way.

Step 2: According to the calculation formula of weight:

Taking BTC as an example, Index t = 1000, its weight is: Weight BTC = 1000*0.809/317.24=2.55

The weights of several other cryptocurrencies can be calculated using the same method.

Step 3: the base period divisor is:

Divisor 0 = 1000 is obtained by multiplying and summing the price and weight columns in the table .

Step 4: Calculate the index

According to the calculation formula of the index:

Taking the index calculation on January 4, 2015 as an example, Sum of p i * w t i = 812.074, Since the divisor of the base period is 1000, the current index is 812.074.

3.Index Adjustment ( Index Rebalance )

3.1 General adjustments

Index components and weightings are adjusted monthly to reflect the latest market conditions at that time.

3.2 Special adjustments

During the adjustment period, if a major event occurs in a certain component currency (such as being delisted by the exchange or the price goes to zero), two special adjustments will be made : directly remove the currency from the index components and recalculate the weight; or remove the currency and a new coin will be added and recalculated with new weights.

4.Summary

We compiled the CMC data over 8 years from January 2015 to May 2023, after calculating tens of thousands of data in the crypto index price charts, yield and risk indicators of the Top 5 and Top 10 crypto market capitalizations were obtained . It can be seen that the market cap of BTC and ETH occupies half of the crypto market due to the weighted method, the overall trend of the index is basically consistent with BTC , and the volatility of the curve is greater than that of BTC and ETH ; in addition, the annualized rate of return of the Top 5 and Top 10 crypto indices did not outperform BTC or ETH , And the volatility of earnings is high. In the future, we will continue to update and improve relevant index data and continue to monitor the trend of the crypto market.

加密货币市场的整体市值从 2015 年初的几十亿美金规模膨胀至 2021年底的2万亿美金， 后续又跌落在 1 万亿美金左右，在不到 10 年的时间从极其小众的极客实验发展为如今再也不容为传统资本界所忽视的万亿级赛道，但高收益的背后必定存在着高风险。我们尝试通过借鉴传统大盘指数的编制和计算方法，结合加密货币的独有特点进行改进，合成了加密货币市Top5 和Top10指数，目的在于通过科学客观的方法挑选出最具代表性的加密货币作为样本，建立一个反映加密市场概貌和运行状况、能够作为投资评价尺度及金融衍生产品基础的基准指数。

1、CMC 加密货币 Top5 & Top10 指数介绍

1.1 简介

经过一段时间的精心计算与整理， 我们根据 CMC (https://coinmarketcap.com/) 的历史数据，对2015年以来加密市场市值排名前5和前10的货币进行整合，以市值为准计算权重，合成了Top5和Top10综合指数，并将其走势与BTC和ETH的价格进行对比，以追踪加密市场大盘表现和回报率，并为预测未来加密市场的走向提供参考。

* 稳定币、硬/软分叉产生的新币没有计算在内。

1.2 基本设置

指数名称：CMC Top5 & Top10 加密指数

计价单位：USD

加权方法：市值加权

调整频率：月度

计算频率：每周日

计算周期：2015 年 1 月 4 日至 2023 年 5 月 28 日

指数基数：1000

指数构成：根据 CMC 提供的数据，选取市值排名前5 和前 10 的加密货币作为组成成分。

1.3 结论展示

指数走势 (单位： USD)

2023年5月28日的CMC数据显示， BTC 和 ETH 市值占据了加密市场的半壁江山，近八年来，BTC 和 ETH (尤其是 BTC) 的价格走势与Top5 及 Top10 加密指数走势基本一致，代表了加密市场大盘的走势。

近 1 年月度收益率

年化收益率

Top5 指数风险指标

Top10 指数风险指标

将收益和风险指标结合来看， 加密市场的极高波动性可见一斑， 不论是Top5 或是Top10 指数的收益率标准差都远远超过了传统股票市场大盘指数的波动；另外由于我们选取以市值为准计算权重的方法，而不是等比权重，所以整体指数的收益和波动性受占比最大的BTC和ETH影响较大。

2、指数计算

2. 1 公式列举

指数的计算公式为：

其中，

n： 指数包含的成份货币种类数量；

pi： 成份货币 i 在 t 时间点的价格；

wti： 成份货币 i 在 t 时间点的权重；

Divisort： 是刚完成 rebalance 后重新得到的除数，可以保证指数变化的可持续性，并排除 指数价格受到除成份货币价格变动以外的影响，除特殊情况外，在本报告中，divisor调整的周期和指数调整周期一致，均为每月调整。

基期除数的计算公式为：

在 t 期除数调整时的计算公式为：

其中， nt： 在时间 t 指数包含的成份货币种类数量； nt- 1 :在上期指数包含的成份货币种类数量。

权重 wti 是根据权重因子计算得出的 (权重在 rebalance 周期内保持不变) ：

其中权重因子 (weighting factor) 是根据各个成份货币在 t 时间点的市值比重确定的。

2.2 计算举例

第 1 步： 根据市值确定各成份货币的权重因子， 以基期数据为例 (2014年12月) ：

当期市值排名前 5 的加密货币为 BTC、XRP、Paycoin、 Litecoin 和 Bitshares， 前 5 的 总市值为$5,358,444,337， 以 BTC 为例计算其权重因子：

Weighting FactorBTC = ($4,333,395,591. 1 1/$5,358,444,337)*100%=0.809 用同样的方法可以计算出其他几种加密货币的权重因子。

第 2 步： 根据权重的计算公式：

以 BTC 为例， Indext = 1000， 其权重为： WeightBTC = 1000*0.809/317.24=2.55

使用同样的方法可以计算出其他几种加密货币的权重。

第 3 步： 基期除数的计算公式为：

将表格中的价格列和权重列相乘并加总后， 得到 Divisor0 = 1000。

第 4 步： 计算指数

根据指数的计算公式：

以 2015 年 1 月 4 日的指数计算为例， Sum of pi * wti = 812.074, 由于基期除数为 1000， 所以本期指数即为 812.074。

3、指数调整 (Index Rebalance)

3. 1 常规调整

指数成份及比重每月会调整一次以反映当时市场的最新情况。

3.2 特殊调整

在调整期限内， 若某种成份货币有重大事件发生 (如被交易所下架或价格归零) ， 会进行两 种特殊调整： 直接将该货币从指数成份中移除并重新计算权重； 或将该货币移除并选择新的 加密货币补充进来并重新计算新的权重。

4、总结

我们整理了自 2015 年 1 月至 2023 年 5 月的超 8 年的CMC数据，经过计算上万条数据得出了加密市场市值 Top5 和 Top10 的加密指数价格走势图、收益率和风险指标等。可以看出， 由于采用市值加权的方法计算权重， 而 BTC 和 ETH 的市值占据了加密市场的半壁江山，指数的整体走势基本和BTC保持一致，且曲线波动性大于 BTC 和 ETH； 另外，结合风险和收益一起来看，Top5 和 Top10 加密指数的年化收益率并没有跑赢 BTC 或 ETH， 且收益波动性较高。后续我们会不断更新完善相关指数数据，继续监测加密市场走向。

Bitcoin, which leads the encryption market , has ushered in its return of value in 2023. After its newborn Ordinals protocol successfully minted BTC NFT, the BRC -20 standard token has also been upgraded and minted . After the prices of a series of meme coins such as $PEPE and $Aidoge went to the moon , funds once again aimed at BRC -20 meme coins . This article will introduce the background , opportunities and risks of BRC -20 in detail, and objectively evaluate its future development.

* This article is only for research and discussion . There may be bias and errors in facts , data , and opinions . It does not constitute any investment advice and does not assume legal responsibility .

Report Highlights

♦ BRC -20 is an experimental token standard designed for the Bitcoin blockchain , which only supports the deployment , minting and transfer of tokens , and the tokens do not have any token utility .

♦ BRC -20 has brought a new narrative to BTC , pushing the transaction fee of the Bitcoin blockchain to a peak in May and increasing the income of miners ; but its centralized indexer has security risks , and because the token has no utility , it belongs to a meme coin, so there is a great risk of speculation and hype.

♦ The problem that BRC-20 needs to solve urgently in the future is to successfully release a completely on-chain and trustless indexer. Both UniSat and ALEX are working on solutions in this regard. An effective indexer will further increase the legitimacy of BRC-20; in addition , the infrastructure surrounding BRC -20 has begun to be laid out , developer activities are becoming increasingly active , and the BTC ecosystem is ushering in vitality again .

1、Introduction to BRC -20

BRC -20 is the latest innovation of Ordinals protocol . It is an experimental token standard designed for the Bitcoin blockchain . Its name is imitated from Ethereum’s token standard ERC -20, but it does not support the deployment of smart contracts , but only supports for deploying , minting and transferring tokens on the Bitcoin blockchain. BRC-20 was proposed by an anonymous Twitter user Domo @domodata in March 2023. He published a Gitbook article introducing BRC -20 and successfully deployed the first token ORDI based on the BRC-20 standard. One thing to note is that BRC -20 is an interesting experiment and cannot be considered a universal token standard for the Bitcoin blockchain . To put it simply , BRC -20 can be understood as a ledger , which states what coins are to be issued , the total amount of coins , how much can be minted each time , and brief information such as who is transferred to . At this time, a centralized bookkeeper ( or indexer ) needs to write down all the small ledgers, and keeps them updated dynamically. Compared with the realization of Ethereum’s smart contracts through programming , this method will be relatively simple , but at present BRC - 20 is still in a very early stage , and the technology will be further mature .

1.1 Bitcoin Ordinals

The market in recent years seems to have reached a consensus that Bitcoin is suitable as a value-stored asset , and Ethereum is suitable for developing various innovative ecosystems. But the emergence of Ordinals has shaken this consensus and injected new vitality into the Bitcoin ecosystem. Launched in January 2023, the Ordinals divides each bitcoin into 100 million satoshis ( sats ) , allowing each satoshi to be identified. Information (such as text, pictures , videos , etc. ) can be attached to a single satoshi to generate a Bitcoin NFT. Satoshis are numbered according to the order in which they were mined and transferred , and transfers are numbered according to the order of transaction inputs and outputs , hence the name "ordinals" (ordinals) . The sequence number of the first satoshi in the first block is 0, the sequence number of the second satoshi is 1, and so on. According to ordinal number theory, these ordinal numbers serve as stable identifiers for data attached to the sat.

BTC NFTs minted by the Ordinals protocol are fundamentally different from traditional NFTs on blockchains such as Ethereum , Solana , and BNB. In traditional NFTs, only Token ID information is stored on the chain . This string of integers will be mapped to the URL for retrieving the meta data of NFT, while NFT metadata is typically stored on IPFS ; in contrast , ordinals in the Ordinals protocol are inscribed directly on individual satoshis, which are then included in blocks on the Bitcoin blockchain. That is, the NFT information is completely on the chain . In this sense, BTC NFTs inherit the simplicity, invariance, security and durability of Bitcoin itself , but because all the information is on the chain , the size of the information contained in NFTs will be limited and cannot be modified , and the storage space of each block is only 4 MB . Blue-chip NFT projects on Ethereum such as Yuga Labs, Crypto Punks, and DeGods on Solana have issued corresponding NFTs in the BTC ecosystem. There are also native NFT projects on BTC such as Pixel Pepes, BTC Machine, JOMO Hippo, etc. As of June 6 , more than 10M of inscriptions have been minted.

1.2 BRC-20 : Upgrade of the Ordinals protocol

If NFT can be generated on satoshi with inscription , then can a similar method be used to generate fungible tokens? BRC-20 provides a possible solution, which enables the inscription to inscript text data (Text) in a unified JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) format, and successfully generates fungible tokens . Domo also deployed the first BRC-20 token ORDI , with a total of 21,000,000 tokens , limited to minting 1,000 tokens each time, and was minted within 18 hours. Since then, various Bitcoin wallet projects (such as Unisat) have rapidly deployed relevant tools to support BRC -20 standard token transactions. A large number of BRC -20 standard tokens have been launched , but almost all of them are meme coins without any practical use. While Domo has made it clear against speculation using BRC -20, memecoin funds have poured into the Bitcoin ecosystem over the past month. According to data from brc-20.io , as of June 6 , there were 24,667 BRC - 20 tokens with a total market capitalization of $475,058,296, of which ORDI ranked first in market capitalization , but the price of ORDI tokens has fallen by more than 70% . It is self-correcting to find a stable balance .

2. BRC -20 vs ERC-20

The ERC-20 token standard is the most widely used token standard on Ethereum (it stands for Ethereum Draft No.20 ), and is the technical standard for all Ethereum-based assets. ERC-20 defines:

• Token balances: how the Ethereum network records and tracks wallet balances;

• Transfer function: how tokens are sent between wallet addresses, verifying that the sender has sufficient funds;

• Token supply: how many tokens exist and whether they can be minted or burned ;

• Token metadata: the name of the token, its logo and the number of decimal places displayed;

• Permission : parameters that allow certain wallet addresses to spend tokens on behalf of users;

• Events: Allow tokens to initiate events on the blockchain , which can be captured and used by other smart contracts or applications;

• Interface: A common interface for the token to standardize the interaction between contracts and applications.

  Compared with ERC -20 , the function of BRC-20 is very simple and rough:

• 
  

• where p = protocol name, op = operation, tick = ticker/identifier, max = maximum supply, lim = minting limit, amt = amount .

3、Opportunities and Risks

3.1 Miners ' income increased

Transaction fees have always been the most discussed topic in Bitcoin . According to Bitcoin's model design , miners, as the guardians of network security , can get two types of incentives : block rewards and transaction fees . Block rewards are halved every four years until they return to zero , so transaction fees are particularly important for miners in the later stage , but before this year , Bitcoin can only be used for asset transfers , and miners can only get very limited income from transaction fees . However, according to the data provided by the block , the proportion of transaction fees in miners’ income reached its peak in May this year , and the previous peaks occurred at the end of 2017 and the first half of 2021 , both of which are bull markets . At present, the market is still in a bear market . This wave of peaks is largely due to the Ordinals protocol and BRC -20, which has rekindled the vitality of Bitcoin , built a large imagination space for participants , and released a large amount of market demand for Bitcoin. ; but at the same time , high transaction fees have also reduced the accessibility of the Bitcoin blockchain to a certain extent , and it remains to be seen whether the surge in fees will continue .

3.2 Risks

3.2.1 Security Risks BRC-20 was conceptualized only a few months ago , and the whole story is still in a very early stage , and the related infrastructure is extremely imperfect , such as the centralized indexer mentioned above. Because BRC-20 tokens cannot be query the relevant information of tokens by running the smart contract like ERC-20 , it needs to query off the chain by using the centralized server to retrieve the Bitcoin block, and record the deployment, minting and transfer of all BRC-20 tokens operation , so as to query the final balance of each user's BRC-20 token. In other words , although the ledger of BRC-20 is decentralized, the settlement process is centralized.

3.2.2 Speculation Risks Although tokens related to the BRC -20 standard, including ORDI, were not minted for hype at the beginning , the market needs hot spots, and funds will follow hot spots crazily. The price of the No. 1 ORDI token has plummeted . After the FOMO sentiment , the market has begun to return to rationality and re-find a balance point. After all, BRC-20, as a meme coin, has no real token utility and has poor liquidity . There is no market for the high price.

4、Summary

At present, there are many disputes about whether BRC-20 is benign for the development of the BTC ecosystem. Judging from the discussions on the Bitcoin Core Developers Forum, the biggest disagreement lies in how to use the BTC ledger space. The opposition believes that BTC, as a distributed decentralized ledger, can only be used for BTC transfers and value storage , while the Ordinals protocol and BRC-20 have caused serious network congestion and occupied the ledger space. Those who violate this law are infringing on the security and value of BTC; while those who support or do not oppose BTC -20 believe that this phenomenon meets the needs of users and endows BTC with new vitality and potential. For example , the NFT information on the Ordinals protocol is completely stored on the chain. Such storage method is more trustworthy than the centralized storage of traditional NFTs. This idea also brings new development directions and space for NFTs ; BRC -20 tokens can be traded on exchanges. With more liquidity, there is hope to add another touch to the narrative of BTC - Fi . Just as Satoshi Nakamoto answered the question of miners in 2010 -- what should I do if the mining output is very low in the future -- he said: " I'm sure that in 20 years, the transaction volume of Bitcoin will either be large or none. " Then BRC -20 is one of the solutions to change the status quo of the small transaction volume of Bitcoin . After all, the transaction scale of Bitcoin in recent years has not met its grand goal , but even if there is no BRC-20, as long as a few million people start using Bitcoin, transaction fees will also soar , so from another perspective , we can take this soaring fee and network congestion as a warning. If Bitcoin really wants to become a global P2P payment system for billions of people in the future , there is still a long way to go. .

As its founder domo said in the recent Twitter space, his first goal is to successfully release a fully on-chain and trustless indexer. Indexers are software that read the Bitcoin chain and compile all transactions to create and maintain an agreed-upon global state of equilibrium. Both UniSat and ALEX are working on solutions in this regard, and an effective indexer will be crucial to further increase the legitimacy of BRC-20. In addition , the infrastructure surrounding BRC -20 has already begun to lay out . According to the official announcement of the Bitcoin Frontier Fund , its accelerator program has launched 8 start-up companies, which are working on various solutions, from ordinal lending to Bitcoin Web3 games development kit, and then to the ordinal cross-chain bridge. Developer activity is a key indicator to measure ecosystem’s potential . We can see that even though the initial design of BRC -20 is relatively simple , it has successfully attracted more developers and aroused the enthusiasm of more developers . Although we are still highly cautious about BRC -20- related tokens at this stage from an investment point of view , its attempts and contributions to the prosperity of the BTC ecosystem deserve recognition and long-term attention .

引领加密市场的比特币在2023年迎来价值回归，它的新生儿Ordinals协议在成功铸造了BTC NFT后，升级铸造出了BRC-20标准的代币。继$PEPE、$Aidoge等一系列meme币暴涨之后，资金再次瞄准了BRC-20 meme币。本文将详细介绍BRC-20的背景、机会和风险，客观评估其未来发展空间。

*本文仅作为研究讨论，可能存在事实、数据、观点上的偏颇和错误，不构成任何投资建议，不承担法律责任。

报告要点

♦ BRC-20是为比特币区块链设计的一种实验性代币标准，仅支持部署、铸造和转移代币，相关代币不具有任何实际效用。

♦ BRC-20为BTC带来了新的叙事，在5月将比特币区块链交易费用推向高峰，增加了矿工收入；但其中心化索引商存在安全风险，且由于代币没有任何效用，属于meme币，因此存在很大的投机和炒作风险。

♦ BRC-20未来亟需解决的问题是成功发布完全链上且无需信任的索引器，UniSat和ALEX都在研究这方面的解决方案，一个有效的索引器将进一步增加BRC-20的合法性；另外，围绕BRC-20的基础设施已经开始布局，开发者活动日益活跃，BTC生态正重新迎来生机。

1、BRC-20介绍

BRC-20是Ordinals协议的最新创新，是为比特币区块链设计的一种实验性代币标准，名字模仿自以太坊的代币标准ERC-20，但其不支持部署智能合约，目前只支持在比特币区块链上部署、铸造和转移代币，由推特匿名用户Domo @domodata 在2023年3月提出，他发布了介绍BRC-20的一篇Gitbook文章，并成功部署了第一个基于BRC-20标准的代币ORDI。需要注意的一点是，BRC-20作为一项有趣的试验，并不能被当作是比特币区块链的通用代币标准。简单来讲，可以将BRC-20理解为一个账本，上面写明要发行什么币，币的总量，以及每次可以铸造多少，转给了谁等简要信息，这时还需要一个中心化的记账商（或索引商），拿本子把各个小账本都记下来，并保持动态更新，这种方法和以太坊的智能合约通过程序去控制实现相比，会显得比较简陋，但目前BRC-20还处于极早期，技术还会进一步成熟。

1.1 Bitcoin Ordinals

近几年的市场似乎已达成共识，比特币适合作为储值资产，以太坊适合发展各类创新生态。但Ordinals的出现动摇了这样的共识,为比特币生态注入了新的生机。Ordinals于2023年1月推出，它将每个比特币分为1亿个satoshis（sats），允许识别每个satoshi，并通过铭文（inscription）的过程将信息（如文本、图片、视频等）附在单个satoshi上生成比特币NFT。Satoshis的编号是根据它们被开采和转移的顺序来确定的，编号根据每个satoshi被铸造的顺序来确定，转移则依据交易输入和输出的顺序来编号，因此被称为 "序数"（ordinals）。第一个区块中的第一个satoshi的序号是0，第二个satoshi的序号是1，以此类推。根据序数理论，这些序数作为附加在sat上数据的稳定标识符。

Ordinals协议铸造的BTC NFT和在以太坊、Solana和BNB等区块链上的传统NFT有本质的区别。传统NFT只有Token ID信息储存在链上，这串整数会映射到URL中，用于检索NFT的metadata，而NFT metadata则通常存储在IPFS上；与之相反，Ordinals协议中的序数直接刻在单个satoshi上，然后包含在比特币区块链的区块中。即NFT信息完全上链，从这个意义上说，BTC NFT继承了比特币本身的简单性、不变性、安全性和耐久性，但也因为信息全部上链，因此NFT包含的信息大小会被限制且无法修改，每个区块的存储空间只有4MB。以太坊上的蓝筹NFT项目如Yuga Labs、Crypto Punks，Solana上的DeGods都已经在BTC生态发行了对应的NFT，BTC上也不乏原生NFT项目如Pixel Pepes，BTC Machine，JOMO Hippo等。截至6月6日，已有超过10M的铭文被铸造。

1.2 BRC-20：Ordinals协议的升级

既然可以用铭文（Inscription）在satoshi上生成NFT，那是否可以用类似的方法生成同质化代币（fungible token）呢？BRC-20提供了可能的解决方案，它使铭文刻录了统一的JSON（JavaScript Object Notation）格式的文本数据（Text），成功生成了同质化代币。Domo也部署了第一个BRC-20代币ORDI，总量21,000,000个代币，每次限制铸造1000个代币，18小时内即被铸造完毕。此后各个比特币钱包项目（如Unisat)迅速部署相关工具支持BRC-20标准的代币交易，大量使用BRC-20标准的代币被推出，但几乎都属于meme币，没有任何实际用途。虽然Domo已明确反对利用BRC-20的投机行为，但meme币资金已在过去一个月涌入了比特币生态。根据brc-20.io的数据，截至6月6日，已有24667种BRC-20代币，总市值达$475,058,296，其中ORDI市值排名第一，但ORDI代币的价格跌幅已超过70%，市场正在自我修正寻找稳定的平衡点。

2、BRC-20 vs ERC-20

ERC-20代币标准是以太坊上使用最广泛的代币标准（它代表以太坊第20号征求意见稿），是所有基于以太坊资产的技术标准。ERC-20定义了：

• 代币余额：以太坊网络如何记录和跟踪钱包余额；

• 转移功能：代币如何在钱包地址之间发送，验证发送方是否有足够的资金；

• 代币供应：有多少代币存在，以及它们是否可以被铸造或销毁；

• 代币元数据：代币的名称、标志和显示的小数位数；

• 许可：允许某些钱包地址代表用户花费代币的参数；

• 事件：允许代币在区块链上发起事件，可以被其他智能合约或应用程序捕获和使用；

• 接口：代币的通用接口，以规范合同和应用程序之间的互动。 与ERC-20相比，BRC-20的功能就十分简单粗糙了：

其中p = 协议名称，op = 操作，tick = 股票代码/标识符，max = 最大供应量，lim = 铸造限制，amt = 数量。

3、机会与风险

3.1 矿工收入提高

交易费用一直是比特币被讨论最多的话题，根据比特币的模型设计，矿工作为网络安全的守护者，可以得到两种类型的激励措施：区块奖励和交易费用。区块奖励每四年减半直至归零，所以交易费用在后期对于矿工来讲显得格外重要，而在今年以前，比特币只能用于资产转移，矿工从交易费用中得到的收入十分有限。但根据the block提供的数据，交易费用在矿工收入中的占比在今年5月达到了峰值，之前的峰值则在2017年年底和2021年上半年出现过，这两个时间段都是牛市，而目前市场仍处于熊市，这波峰值很大程度归功于Ordinals协议和BRC-20，重燃了比特币的生机，为参与者构建了很大的想象空间，释放了市场对比特币的大量需求；但同时，高昂的交易费用也在一定程度上降低了比特币区块链的可访问性，费用飙升是否持续还有待观察。

3.2 风险点

3.2.1 安全风险 BRC-20被概念化仅仅是从几个月前开始的，整个故事还处于非常早期的阶段，相关基础设施极其不完善，比如前文提到的中心化索引商，由于BRC-20代币无法像ERC-20一样通过运行智能合约查询当前代币的相关信息，所以BRC-20需要通过链外查询，即使用中心化服务器检索比特币区块，记录所有BRC-20代币的部署、铸造和转移操作，从而查询出各用户的BRC-20代币最终的余额。也就是说，虽然BRC-20的账本是去中心化的，但结算过程却是中心化的。

3.2.2 投机风险 BRC-20标准相关的代币，包括ORDI在内，虽然铸造伊始并不是为了炒作，但币圈需要热点，资金也会疯狂追随热点，虽然代币价格在之前一度冲向百倍收益，但目前市值排名第一的ORDI代币价格已经大跌，FOMO情绪之后，市场已开始回归理智，重新寻找平衡点，毕竟BRC-20作为meme币，没有任何实际效用，实际流动性较差，有价无市。

4、总结

目前对于BRC-20对于BTC生态的发展是否良性存在许多争议，从比特币核心开发者论坛上的讨论内容来看，最大的分歧点在于该如何利用BTC的账本空间。反对派认为，BTC作为分布式去中心化的账本，只能用于BTC的转账和价值存储，而Ordinals协议和BRC-20造成了严重的网络拥堵，占据了账本空间，违反这一定律的就是在侵害BTC的安全和价值；而支持或不反对BTC-20的人则认为这一现象是符合用户需求的，赋予了BTC新的生命力和潜力，比如Ordinals协议上的NFT信息是完全储存在链上的，这样的存储方式比传统NFT的中心化存储更值得被信任，这个思路也为NFT带去了新的发展方向和空间；BRC-20代币可以在交易所交易，如果未来注入更多流动性，就有希望为BTC-Fi的叙事更添一笔。正如中本聪在2010年回答矿工的问题，将来挖矿产出很低怎么办时，他说：“我敢肯定，20年内比特币的交易量要么很大，要么没有。”那么BRC-20就是改变比特币交易量很小这一现状的解决方案之一，毕竟近几年比特币的交易规模并不符合它的宏伟目标，但就算没有BRC-20，只要再有几百万人开始使用比特币，交易费用也一样会飙升，所以换个角度看，我们可以将这次费用飙升和网咯拥堵看做一次警告，如果比特币未来真的要成为数十亿人的全球P2P支付系统，依然任重道远。

对于BRC-20的未来展望，正如其创始人domo在最近的推特空间中所说，他的首要目标是成功发布一个完全链上且无需信任的索引器。索引器是读取比特币链的软件，可以编译所有交易，以创建和维持一个商定的全球平衡状态。UniSat和ALEX都在研究这方面的解决方案，一个有效的索引器将至关重要，它将进一步增加BRC-20的合法性。另外，围绕BRC-20的基础设施已经开始布局，根据比特币前沿基金的官宣消息，其加速器项目已经启动了8家初创公司，它们正在研究各种解决方案，从序数借贷到比特币Web3游戏的开发工具包，再到序数的跨链桥接。开发者活跃度是衡量生态潜力的关键指标，我们可以看出即使BRC-20的最初设计较为简单，但它已经成功地抛砖引玉，激起了更多开发者的热情。虽然从投资的角度来讲我们依然对现阶段的BRC-20相关代币持高度谨慎态度，但它对BTC生态繁荣所做出的尝试和贡献值得肯定并长期关注。

3月23日，以太坊Layer2 Rollup解决方案项目Arbitrum代币ARB开始空投，截至目前，Arbitrum TVL已达$2.35B，远远领先竞争对手Optimism的$891.41M TVL。本文即将围绕Arbitrum技术、生态和代币做出全面探讨，深究其火爆的原因，一窥其中的投资机会。

*本文仅作为研究讨论，可能存在事实、数据、观点上的偏颇和错误，不构成任何投资建议，不承担法律责任。

报告要点

♦ 针对以太坊高昂的交易费用和缓慢的交易速度的现状，各类扩容方案百花齐放，Layer2扩容方案中，V神最爱的是Rollup方案——它通过将交易数据打包，转移到以太坊链下执行交易，而资产则仍保留在链上智能合约中。目前两种主流的Rollup方案包括Zero-Knowledge Rollups (zk-rollups)和Optimistic Rollups，我们本文探讨的Arbitrum即属于Optimistic Rollups中的一个项目。

♦ Arbitrum包含两条链：Arbitrum One和Arbitrum Nova。Arbitrum One的核心亮点包括欺诈证明机制和强大的EVM等效性——用户可以在Arbitrum上继续使用Metamask，开发者可以在以太坊库和工具中部署合约，但其sequencer目前由开发团队运行，未来必须实现进一步的去中心化；Arbitrum Nova则牺牲了安全性，而为游戏和社交类应用实现了更低的gas费用。

♦ Arbitrum的代币ARB仅作为治理代币，和竞争对手Optimism做相对估值分析后发现，长期来看Arbitrum项目价值可能已被高估，已流通市值和FDV相差较大，一年后会面临较大抛压；另外从MCap/TVL以及FDV/TVL的指标来看，短期内ARB币价依然有小幅上涨空间。

♦ Arbitrum生态目前已有170多个项目入驻，以Defi赛道项目如GMX、Radiant为主，游戏和NFT类生态仍属极早期，除了Treasure尚未出现龙头项目，NFT交易量也很低。

♦ 和Optimism相比，Arbitrum业务数据表现更佳，当前L2体验最佳，且团队执行力强，开发进度较快；但Arbitrum空投出现宕机暴露出其当前性能有待改进，且AIP-1提案争议使社区对Arbitrum信心大幅降低。

报告大纲

1、Layer2赛道概述 2、Arbitrum如何解决以太坊扩容问题？ 3、ARB代币经济学和估值分析 4、发展里程碑 5、团队背景和融资情况 6、生态布局 7、竞争格局分析 8、观点和总结

1、Layer2赛道概述

以太坊是当今区块链世界的最强Layer1之一，但随着用户数量的增加以及交易量的激增，目前以太坊只允许每秒约20-40笔交易（TPS）；当达到上限时，用户被迫支付更加高昂的交易费用以使得自己的交易被尽快执行。出现这样的可扩展性问题是因为以太坊要求交易完成前必须经过多个节点的验证并必须就交易的当前状态达成共识，这就要求每个以太坊的完整节点保存完整的区块链历史账本。而这已导致运行和验证节点的成本过于昂贵，从而进一步削弱了去中心化的属性。

针对以太坊扩容已有各种解决方案出现，包括Layer1和Layer2扩容方案。Layer1扩容方案如分片（sharding），直接对以太坊进行修改；Layer2扩展方案在以太坊的基础上运行，以下为常见的Layer2方案分类：

Layer2诸多扩容方案中，V神最爱的是Rollup方案，目前来看，Rollup也的确发展得最快最受欢迎，它通过将交易数据打包，转移到以太坊链下执行交易，而资产则仍保留在链上智能合约中。交易数据在处理完成后会再被发送回以太坊。一旦Layer1足够强大，大部分的交易就可以在Layer2上进行，从而允许更强的可扩展性和更快的交易速度，并降低gas fee。这种Rollup方案的关键在于必须保证能够继承Layer1的安全性能。目前两种主流的Rollup方案包括Zero-Knowledge Rollups (zk-rollups)和Optimistic Rollups，我们本文探讨的Arbitrum即属于Optimistic Rollups中的一个项目，这两种类型的Rollup应该能够将以太坊的TPS从15至45扩展到1000至4000。现就两种派系简要介绍如下。

1.1 Zero-Knowledge Rollups (zk-rollups)

Zero-knowledge Rollups通过利用一种聪明的密码学，即零知识证明（zero-knowledge proof）来实现，因此被称为ZK rollups。在这个模型中，每一批发布到L1的文件都包括一个叫做ZK-SNARK的加密证明。当交易批次被提交时，该证明可以被L1合约快速验证，无效的批次可以被直接拒绝。

1.2 Optimistic Rollups

正如它的名字“乐观的（optimistic）”，Optimistic Rollups将数据发布到Layer1，并假定是数据是正确的。如果发布的数据的确有效，就可以继续“乐观”，不需要做其他额外的事情。但若出现了无效交易，系统必须能够识别它，将其恢复到正确的状态并惩罚提交交易的一方。为了实现这一点，Optimistic Rollups推出了一个争议解决系统，它能够验证欺诈证明，检测欺诈交易，并抑制不良行为人提交其他无效交易或不正确的欺诈证明。能够向Layer1提交成批交易的一方必须提供保证金（通常为ETH）。任何其他网络参与者如果发现不正确的交易，可以提交欺诈证明。欺诈证明提交后，系统进入争议解决模式。在这种模式下，可疑的交易将再次在以太坊上执行。如果执行结果证明该交易确实是欺诈性的，提交该交易的一方将受到惩罚，通常是削减其保证金。为了防止不良行为者用不正确的欺诈证明来干扰网络，提交欺诈证明的一方通常也必须提供可以被削减的保证金。即使只有1个诚实方监控滚动的状态并在需要时提交欺诈证明，该系统也能按预期工作并检测出欺诈。另外，由于Rollup系统内有正确的激励机制，进入争议解决程序应该是特殊情况，而不是常态。

1.3 ZK rollups vs Optimistic rollups

Optimistic Rollups的短板在于为了实现其争议解决机制，所有的网络参与者必须有足够的时间来提交欺诈证明，然后再最终确定第一层的交易。这段时间通常相当长，以确保即使在最坏的情况下，欺诈性交易仍然可以被争议，这会导致提取资金的时间相当长，用户必须等待多达一两个星期才能将资金提回Layer1。不过目前已有几个项目（Hop协议和Connext）正在努力通过提供快速的 "流动性存在 （liquidity exists）"来改善这种情况，使得用户可以即时将资金提回Layer1，但会被收取少量费用。

相比之下，ZK rollups不存在长时间提现的问题，其核心难点在于由于技术的复杂性，创建一个与EVM等效的ZK rollup要难得多，这使得在不重写应用逻辑的情况下扩展通用的应用程序更加困难。不过，ZKSync正在这个领域取得重大进展，他们可能很快就能推出与EVM等效的ZK rollup方案。Optimistic Rollups在EVM等效性方面要容易一些。他们仍然需要运行自己的EVM版本，并进行一些修改，但99%的合约可以在不做任何修改的情况下被直接转移。此外，ZK rollups也比Optimistic rollups的计算量大得多，这意味着计算ZK证明的节点必须是高规格的机器，普通用户很难运行它们。

2、Arbitrum如何解决以太坊扩容问题？

Arbitrum采用的是Optimistic Rollups方案，用户可以在Arbitrum上使用dapp、部署智能合约等，交易费用更低且交易速度更快，而且同时会利用以太坊确保交易的安全性。目前Arbitrum基于以太坊运行着两条平行链：Arbitrum One和Arbitrum Nova。其核心亮点如下。

2.1 欺诈证明

Arbitrum One最核心的功能特色是可以检测Layer1上的欺诈交易，验证者（validator）可以通过运行开源的验证软件来将Arbitrum链上stateRoot发送至Layer1的合约中，虽然普通用户很可能没有兴趣成为validator，但这种机制的关键点在于任何人都可以成为validator，而且只要有一个诚实的验证者，链就会保持安全；也就是说，只需要一个非恶意的欺诈者，就可以抓住任何数量的恶意者。这些属性共同使得系统 "无需信任（trustless)”——用户不依赖任何特殊的指定方来保证他们的资金安全。

这样的“欺诈证明”机制是Arbitrum可以降低交易费用的核心原因；此外，Arbitrum设计的一些其他机制也帮忙减轻了L1的负担。首先，Arbitrum交易是分批提交给L1的；通常，一个批次（在一个L1交易中提交）将包含几百个L2交易，分批提交可以摊销与L1互动的开销，因此比起每次提交单个交易，可以节省很多费用；此外，交易数据是以压缩形式发布在L1上的（只在L2环境中解压缩），使得交易占用了更少的L1空间。

2.2 强大的EVM等效性

在Arbitrum中，除了交易更快更便宜外，其他的体验和以太坊是基本一致的，因为Arbitrum从开发之初便将EVM等效这一特性放在首位。用户可以在Arbitrum上继续使用以太坊钱包，开发者可以在以太坊库和工具中部署合约。今年2月份，Arbitrum还宣布推出下一代编程环境Stylus，通过WebAssembly，开发者可以使用Rust、C和C++来编写的程序，预期会吸引更多Web2的开发者。为了实现强大的EVM等效性，Arbitrum One使用并改进了Geth的分叉，将其变成了一条Layer2链，这意味着在Arbitrum上运行的大部分代码和在以太坊上运行的是一致的。

2.3 Arbitrum Nitro升级

2022年9月，Arbitrum One进行了Nitro升级，主要改进了以下几点：

• 更高的吞吐量：与之前相比提高了7倍到10倍；

• 高级调用数据压缩：通过减少发布到以太坊的数据量，推动Arbitrum的交易成本下降；

• 以太坊L1 gas兼容性：EVM的定价和核算与以太坊一致；

• 附加L1互操作性：包括与L1区块号更紧密的同步；

• Geth追踪：更广泛的调试支持。

随着Nitro的引入，交易现在被分成两个阶段处理。Nitro先将交易放入一个将被处理的序列中，然后发布序列，并对序列中的每个交易应用一个确定性的状态转换函数。目前，序列器（sequencer）是一个由Offchain实验室操作的集中式组件，随着Arbitrum进入后期阶段，它将逐渐过渡到一个分布式系统。虽然在短期内，为追求更低的gas费用而进行的集中化权衡是可以理解的，但创建一个分散的系统势在必行。

2.4 Anytrust Chain —— Arbitrum Nova

Arbitrum Nova是Arbitrum推出的AnyTrust链。它没有像Rollup链那样的去中心化、无信任、无许可的安全保证，因此可以提供更低的gas费用。Rollup和AnyTrust在很多方面都很相似，但有一个关键的区别：在Rollup中，所有的数据都发布在L1上（允许任何人无权限加入成为validator），而在AnyTrust中，数据是在链外交给了“外部数据可用性委员会”管理，该委员会的成员包括 Offchain Labs、Consenys、谷歌云、P2P、Quicknode和Reddit。在遇到挑战的情况下，AnyTrust链会恢复到rollup模式；这里的安全假设是，至少有两个委员会成员是诚实的（也就是说，他们会在必要时提供数据）。Arbitrum认为，对于那些需要高交易吞吐量而不需要rollups提供完全去中心化的应用（如游戏、社交类应用），AnyTrust可能是一个明智的权衡。换句话说，Nova以安全为代价降低了交易费用。

3、ARB代币经济学和估值分析

3.1 代币情况

ARB的初始总供应量是100亿枚，每年最多通货膨胀2%，目前价格稳定在$1.1左右，代币已上线币安、Coinbase等一线大所。

随着Arbitrum过渡到去中心化自治组织（DAO），该代币将完全用于治理。持有者可以使用代币对治理提案进行投票，以决定关键问题，包括费用、代币解锁和通货膨胀率。目前 Arbitrum上还是使用ETH支付gas fee。Arbitrum社区占总量的56%，3月23日的空投已向符合条件的用户发放了总供应量的11.5%，另外44%将流向 Arbitrum的创始团队Offchain Labs的投资者和员工。

代币解锁周期如下图所示，机构投资者和团队一年后开始解锁，随后3年按月线性解锁。

3.2 相对估值

分析

这里选取了同样作为Optimistic Rollup系的Optimism项目作为参照，从P/S Ratio的角度来看，Arbitrum高于Optimism，意味着长期来看Arbitrum项目价值可能已被高估，虽然投资人所持ARB代币一年后才会解锁，短期内没有抛压，但已流通市值和FDV相差较大，后面依然会面临较大抛压；另外从MCap/TVL以及FDV/TVL的角度来看，由于Arbitrum的TVL遥遥领先Optimism，这两项指标ARB均低于OP，短期内币价依然有小幅上涨空间。

4、发展里程碑

2020.2：第一版测试网上线，仅支持DAC特定应用链，不支持合约部署。

2020.10：测试网升级，上线了一般合约部署功能。

2021.1：测试网推出了DeFi Demo 产品。

2021.5：推出了Arbitrum One测试网，超过 250 个团队申请接入。

2021.9：主网Arbitrum One上线，并完成了1.2亿美元的B轮融资。

2022.6：推出了为期8周的奥德赛奖励活动，激励用户通过参与Arbitrum生态项目等活动获取NFT奖励，并争取到拿空投的机会。但该活动运行一周即被暂停，原因是大量新用户导致网络拥堵，gas fee飙升，甚至超过了以太坊主网的gas fee。

2022.7：推出了新链Arbitrum Nova。

2022.9：升级Arbitrum One到了Nitro版本，提高了网络速度并降低了交易成本，在交易量和日活用户上远远领先Optimism，市场份额高达 52.5%。

2023.2：宣布为Arbitrum One和Arbitrum Nitro推出下一代编程环境 Stylus，Stylus的速度快了一个数量级，可以进一步降低费用，与EVM完全互操作，甚至被称为是以太坊虚拟机的升级版EVM+。

2023.2.21：据Dune数据显示，Arbitrum交易笔数达110万次，首次超越以太坊主网，创历史新高，以太坊主网交易笔数为108 万次，Optimism 的交易笔数约为 19 万次。

2023.3.23：Arbitrum代币ARB开放空投认领，ARB不能在以太坊主网上铸造或领取，只能在Arbitrum One上铸造和领取。Arbitrum正式过渡到去中心化自治组织 (DAO)，这意味着ARB持有人将能够对Arbitrum One和Arbitrum Nova的关键决策进行投票。认领过程中Arbitrum基金会网站以及区块浏览器ArbiScan因网络拥堵宕机。

2023.3.24：以太坊Layer 2网络总锁仓量（TVL）突破 90亿美元，创历史新高，达到约90.1亿美元。其中Arbitrum One上TVL约 59.8 亿美元，Optimism 上 TVL 约 20.2亿美元，二者占总 TVL的近 90%。

2023.3.24：币安上线ARB代币。

2023.3.28：Arbitrum社区在Snapshot上发起 Arbitrum Improvement Proposal 1 (AIP-1) 提案投票，提案内容为拟引入由 ARB持有者管理的去中心化自治组织结构ArbitrumDAO，Arbitrum 基金会也将为ArbitrumDAO 社区服务并受其管理。然而投票还未结束，AIP-1 提案也尚未通过。却被 Patrick McCorry博客文章爆出，Arbitrum基金会却已经事先创建了一个地址名为Arbitrum DAO Treasury2的多重签名钱包，收到近 7 亿枚ARB Token，且已经提前出售了 ARB Token 以换取稳定币，这立刻引起了社区热议，并引起了持有人不满。

2023.4.3 ：团队回应AIP-1提案争议，表示基金会多次要求明确批准过程，AIP-1 的目标是让社区参与初始决策，并最终让代币持有者通过 DAO 投票批准初始决策和框架予以支持。Arbitrum表示，基金会没有出售 5000 万枚 ARB，基金会持有的7.5%比例代币也低于Optimism、Starkware 与 Polygon；关于5000万枚ARB代币的链上转移问题，Aribitrum表示其中4000万枚已借给做市商，剩余 1000 万枚已兑换为法币并专用于运营成本。

2023.4.6： Arbitrum 基金会已提交两项新提案，拟限制其自身的权力并扩大 ARB 代币持有人的预算监督和治理权力。第一个提案 AIP-1.1建议将基金会剩余的7亿ARB置于「智能合约控制的锁定」中，该锁定将在四年内解锁，在社区成员批准代币分配预算之前，基金会将无法使用代币，一部分代币将用于资助Arbitrum基金会第一年的运营预算；第二个提案AIP-1.2旨在修改 Arbitrum 生态系统的几个治理文件，包括将在链上发布改进提案所需的ARB 代币数量的门槛从500万个ARB降低到100万个 ARB。DAO的成员将有三天的时间就提案提供反馈，之后这两项提案将进行为期一周的快照投票。

2023.5.5：Offchain Labs提醒社区，今天和未来几天，分配给投资者和团队的大量 ARB将被转移到托管钱包或归属智能合约。所有投资者和团队ARB都被锁定，锁定由托管人以合约方式强制执行，或者通过智能合约为那些选择自我托管的人强制执行。 2023.5.22 据Dune Analytics最新数据显示，Arbitrum已创建账户总量突破700万，现为705.4万，其中活跃账户总量为590万。历史数据显示，Arbitrum 已创建账户总量在今年四月中旬达到500万个，较过去一个月相比涨幅近30%。此外，当前Arbitrum链上交易总量近2.5亿笔，累计锁定的 ERC-20代币价值达到 91.45 亿美元。

5、团队背景和融资情况

Arbitrum背后的开发团队是offchain labs，核心创始人包括前美国白宫CTO、普林斯顿大学计算机科学教授Ed Felten，普林斯顿大学计算机科学博士、康奈尔大学博士后研究员、前谷歌实习生Steven Goldfeder，和同为普林斯顿大学计算机科学博士的Harry Kalodner。其中，创始人Ed Felten的经历和背景最引人注目。早在2014年，以太坊诞生之前，他看到比特币网络潜在的拥堵问题后便决定研究区块链的扩容方案。目前Offchain labs依然保持小而精的规模，领英显示目前团队共59人，以工程技术和业务拓展员工为主，背景大多来自普林斯顿、港中文、肯高迪亚和哈佛等名校。

根据Crunbase的统计数据，Offchain labs共融资$123.7M，

2019.4 种子轮 $3.7M Pantera Capital领投，Coinbase Ventures参投 2021.4 A轮 $20M - 2021.8 B轮 $100M Lightspeed Venture Partners领投，Redpoint，Polychain，MCE，Alameda Research等参投。

6、生态布局

根据Messari的总结所示，Arbitrum生态项目主要分为Defi系统和其他消费者应用。

6.1 Defi

Defi生态系统以DEX、借贷和永续合约为基础，赛道已相当拥挤。

6.1.1 DEX (代表项目Camelot） 根据Defi Llama的统计数据，就在前几个月，Arbitrum上的DEX活动量超过了Polygon，仅次于以太坊，而且在Arbitrum上的DEX协议与以太坊大多类似。目前对Uniswap等老牌DEX形成最大挑战的项目是Camelot（https://excalibur.exchange/)。部署在Camelot上的每个池子都可以自定义费用参数，产品的核心特色是其更加定向的可定制性，例如，USDC-WETH池可以对从池中购买WETH的交易收取0.04%的费用，但对向池中出售WETH的交易仅收取0.02%的费用。这种定向功能允许池部署者微调给定对的激励结构。此外，这些费用杠杆是动态的，这允许费用结构根据市场条件等因素发生变化。

6.1.2 借贷（代表项目Radiant) Radiant（https://radiant.capital/)于2022年7月上线Arbitrum，建立在LayerZero上，旨在打造全链借贷协议。Radiant目前占Arbitrum借贷赛道TVL的57%，这样的数据主要来源于大量的RDNT激励措施，它提供一键式“循环和锁定”功能，允许用户将借来的资产重新存入协议作为抵押品，然后再从协议中获得贷款，最多可以循环五次，用户抵押时间越长，可以获得越多的RNDT奖励，所以抛开基本的两位数借贷APR，用户还可以从协议借贷中获得更多优惠，目前来看这是Radiant很成功的增长战略。自2023年初以来，RDNT的价格上涨了1075%，这也使得其激励机制更具吸引力。

6.1.3 永续合约（代表项目GMX） 结合了AMM和订单薄的交易所混合模型在Defi中越来越受欢迎，而此类平台也是推动Arbitrum生态早期增长的重要动力。目前的永续合约赛道拥有约5.65亿美元的TVL，在Arbitrum Defi生态系统中占比最大。其中，GMX（https://gmx.io/）占据了TVL的80%以上。

GMX于2021年8月首批上线Arbitrum One，其成功的关键在于双代币模型：协议收入的30%分配给 GMX（协议的治理代币）的利益相关者，70% 分配给 GLP（平台的流动性代币）的利益相关者。这样的机制有助于围绕协议构建完整的生态系统，从而为GMX带来了更大的流动性。

6.2 消费者基础应用

Arbitrum生态上除了Defi以外的赛道大多数仍处于极早期，尚未达到和Defi应用同等的量级。

6.2.1 游戏（代表项目Treasure) Arbitrum的游戏赛道代表项目是Treasure协议（https://treasure.lol/)。Treasure是面向游戏开发者的生态系统，旨在成为“Web3的任天堂”。Treasure上发行的游戏直接具有互操性，目前支持10+款游戏，这些游戏可以利用其原生DEX MagicSwap和原生NFT市场Trove进行交易，原生治理代币是MAGIC。Treasure截至目前的成功主要可以归功于其先发效应，且目前在Arbitrum系统内暂时没有同类竞争者。

6.2.2 NFT （代表项目Treasure Trove) Arbitrum的NFT生态仍处于十分早期，过去一个月NFT的交易量仅有3,900ETH，同时段以太坊的NFT交易量则为130万ETH。其主要交易量即来源于Treasure的Trove NFT市场。

7、竞争格局分析

根据CMC的数据可以看到Layer2赛道的现状如下：

Layer2 Rollup解决方案主要分为zk系和op系，关于二者的优劣势在本文第1部分已有论述，op系的Arbitrum和Optimism核心优势在于其EVM等效性，都可以直接在MetaMask上使用，而且具有先发优势，吸引了诸多如Sushi类的明星项目，可能形成生态壁垒；相比之下，ZK系技术开发难度大、不具备EVM等效性、配套生态薄弱，但ZK基础设施进展仍值得关注；而且从根本的技术来讲，ZK路径若能实现即会秒杀op系。从投资的角度来讲，短期依然可以多多关注op系。

在此我们主要就op系中的代表项目Optimism和Arbitrum做出多维度对比。虽然Arbitrum和Optimism都试图实现相同的目标，但设计上有所不同。首先，争端解决模式设计上，Arbitrum没有在Layer1重新运行整个交易来验证欺诈证明是否有效，而是提出了一个交互式的多轮模型，允许缩小争议的范围，可能只在L1执行一些指令来检查可疑的交易是否有效，这也使得在Arbitrum上部署的智能合约可以大于以太坊上允许的最大合约大小；另一个主要区别是处理交易排序和MEV的方法。Arbitrum最初将运行一个负责交易排序的排序器，但从长远来看，他们希望将其去中心化。Optimism更倾向于另一种方法，即交易的排序，以及由此产生的MEV，可以在一定时期内拍卖给其他各方。

• Reddit将选择Nova作为其Community Points； -Stylus和Orbit即将推出。 优势 OP stack具备先发优势，带动了RAAS赛道的火爆。 -业务数据各方面表现极佳，当前L2体验最佳； -团队执行力强，开发进度较快。 劣势 开发进度较慢，业务数据已被Arbitrum全面超越。 - Arbitrum空投出现宕机暴露出其当前性能有待改进；

• AIP-1提案争议使社区对Arbitrum信心大幅降低。

8、观点和总结 Offchain Labs在SmartCon 2022演讲中就Arbitrum未来的发展路径做出介绍，围绕解决去中心化的问题，项目会对验证者和sequencer等做出升级，今年奥德赛也会重启。从Layer2 Rollup大赛道来看，zk系在短期内难以追赶op系，Arbitrum也在业务表现上全方位碾压了竞争对手，短期内其生态项目值得关注，我们十分期待看到能为Arbitrum解决sequencer等过于中心化问题的方案；与之相比，虽然目前来看zk系还难以达到公链级别的叙事，但其底层技术发展十分值得长期关注，比如ZKSync可能很快就能推出与EVM具有等效性的ZK rollup方案。此外，Move系的新公链Sui（可查阅我们的文章《新公链Sui主网主网上线——Aptos杀手来了？》）和Aptos从L1的角度着手解决可拓展性的问题，虽然生态繁荣性和以太坊没法比，但也间接和Layer2赛道形成竞争，其生态发展同样不容忽视。Mochain后续会对公链赛道保持关注，继续输出相关研报，敬请期待。

On March 23rd, Arbitrum token ARB, an Ethereum Layer2 Rollup solution project, started airdrop, and so far, Arbitrum TVL has reached $2.35B, far ahead of competitor Optimism's $891.41M TVL. This article will discuss Arbitrum's technology, ecosystem and tokens, and look into the reasons for its popularity and investment opportunities.

*This article is intended as a research discussion only and may contain biases and errors in facts, data, and opinions, and does not constitute any investment advice and does not assume legal responsibility.

Key Insights

♦ In response to the current situation of high transaction fees and slow transaction speed of Ethereum, various kinds of scaling solutions are blossoming. Among Layer2 scaling solutiions, Vitalik’s favorite one is Rollup - it executes transactions by packaging transaction data and transferring them off Ethereum, while the assets remain on-chain. Currently, the two mainstream Rollup solutions include Zero-Knowledge Rollups (zk-rollups) and Optimistic Rollups, and Arbitrum belongs to one of the Optimistic Rollups projects.

♦ Arbitrum consists of two chains: Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova. Core highlights of Arbitrum One include its fraud proof mechanism and strong EVM equivalence - users can continue to use Metamask on Arbitrum, and developers can deploy contracts in Ethereum libraries and tools, but its sequencer is currently run by Arbitrum’s development team and must be further decentralized in the future; Arbitrum Nova sacrifices security in favor of achieving lower gas fees for gaming and social applications.

♦ Arbitrum's token ARB is only used as a governance token, and after conducting a relative valuation analysis with its competitor Optimism, it is found that the value of Arbitrum project may have been overvalued in the long run, and the difference between the circulated market value and FDV is large, which means ARB token will face a large selling pressure after one year; in addition, from the indicators of MCap/TVL and FDV/TVL, the ARB token price still has a small upside trend in the short term.

♦ Arbitrum ecosystem currently has more than 170 projects, with Defi projects such as GMX and Radiant as the main ones. Except for Treasure, other game and NFT projects are still at extremely early stage, and NFT transactions volume are also very low.

♦ Compared with Optimism, Arbitrum has better data performance, a stronger team execution and faster development progress; however, the downtime during Arbitrum airdrop exposes its current performance still needs to be improved, and the AIP-1 proposal controversy has significantly reduced the community's confidence in Arbitrum.

Outline

1、Layer2 Overview 2、How Does Arbitrum Solve the Scaling Problem? 3. ARB Tokenomics and Valuation 4、Milestones 5、Team and Financing 6、Ecosystem Overview 7、Competitive Landscape 8、Opinion and Summary

1、Layer2 Overview

Ethereum is one of the strongest Layer1 in the blockchain world today, but as the number of users increases and the volume of transactions proliferates, Ethereum currently allows only about 20-40 transactions per second (TPS); when the cap is reached, users are forced to pay even higher transaction fees to have their transactions executed as quickly as possible. This scalability problem arises because Ethereum requires that transactions must be verified by multiple nodes before completion and must reach consensus on the current state of the transaction, which requires each full node to keep a complete blockchain history ledger. And this has led to the cost of running and verifying nodes being too expensive, thus further weakening the decentralization property.

Various solutions have emerged for Ethereum scaling, including Layer1 and Layer2 scaling solutions. Layer1 scaling solutions such as sharding, directly modify Ethereum; Layer2 scaling solutions run on top of Ethereum. The following is a classification of common Layer2 solutions:

Among those Layer2 scaling solutions, Ethereum’s founder, Vitalik’s favorite one is the Rollup solution, and so far, Rollup is indeed the fastest growing and most popular, which executes transactions by packaging the transaction data and transferring it off Ethereum blockchain, while the assets remain on-chain. The transaction data is then sent back to Ethereum after processing is completed. Once Layer1 is strong enough, most transactions can be performed on Layer2, allowing for greater scalability and faster transactions with lower gas fees. The key to Rollup is that it must ensure it can inherit the security performance of Layer1. The two mainstream Rollup solutions include Zero-Knowledge Rollups (zk-rollups) and Optimistic Rollups, and the Arbitrum we discuss in this paper is one of the Optimistic Rollups. The two types of Rollups should be able to scale the TPS of Ethereum from 15 - 45 to 1000 - 4000. A brief description of the two factions is as follows.

1.1 Zero-Knowledge Rollups (zk-rollups)

Zero-knowledge rollups are implemented by leveraging a clever cryptography called zero-knowledge proof, hence the name ZK rollups. In this model, each batch of files sent to L1 includes a cryptographic proof called ZK-SNARK. When a transaction batch is submitted, this proof can be quickly verified by the L1 smart contract, and invalid batches can be rejected outright.

1.2 Optimistic Rollups

As its name "optimistic" suggests, Optimistic Rollups publish data to Layer1 and assume that the data is correct. If the posted data is indeed valid, it can continue to be "optimistic" and does not need to do anything additional. However, if an invalid transaction occurs, the system must be able to recognize it, restore it to its correct state and penalize the party that submitted the transaction. To achieve this, Optimistic Rollups has introduced a dispute resolution system that validates fraudulent proofs, detects fraudulent transactions, and discourages bad actors from submitting other invalid transactions or incorrect fraudulent proofs. A party able to submit batches of transactions to Layer1 must provide margin (usually ETH). Any other network participant who discovers an incorrect transaction can submit a proof of fraud. After the proof of fraud is submitted, the system enters dispute resolution mode. In this mode, the suspicious transaction will be executed on Ethereum again. If the execution proves that the transaction is indeed fraudulent, the party that submitted it will be punished, usually by cutting its margin. To prevent bad actors from disrupting the network with incorrect fraudulent proofs, the party submitting the fraudulent proof must also usually provide a margin that can be cut. The system works as expected and detects fraud even if only 1 honest party monitors the status of the rollup and submits fraud proofs when needed. Also, with the right incentives within the Rollup system, entering the dispute resolution process should be the special case, not the norm.

1.3 ZK rollups vs Optimistic rollups

The shortcoming of Optimistic Rollups is that in order to implement their dispute resolution mechanism, all network participants must have enough time to submit proof of fraud before finalizing the Layer1 transactions. This time is typically quite long to ensure that even in the worst case scenario, fraudulent transactions can still be disputed, which can lead to rather long withdrawal times, with users having to wait up to a week or two to withdraw their funds back to Layer 1. However, there are already several projects (Hop protocol and Connext) that are working to improve this situation by providing fast "liquidity exists" to improve this situation, allowing users to withdraw funds back to Layer1 instantly, but for a small fee.

In contrast, ZK rollups do not have the problem of long withdrawals. The core difficulty is that it is much harder to create an EVM-equivalent ZK rollup due to the complexity of the technology, which makes it more difficult to scale a generic application without rewriting the application logic. However, ZKSync is making significant progress in this area and they may soon be able to launch a ZK rollup solution that is equivalent to EVM. Optimistic Rollups are a bit easier in terms of EVM equivalence. They still need to run their own version of EVM with some modifications, but 99% of the contracts can be transferred directly without any modifications. Moreover, ZK rollups are also much more computationally intensive than Optimistic rollups, which means that the nodes computing the ZK proofs must be high-spec machines and it is difficult for regular users to run them.

2、How Does Arbitrum Solve the Scaling Problem?

Arbitrum is an Optimistic Rollups solution that allows users to use dapps, deploy smart contracts, etc. on Arbitrum, with lower transaction fees and faster transactions, while using Ethereum to ensure the security of transactions. Currently Arbitrum runs two parallel chains based on Ethereum: Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova, whose core highlights are as follows.

2.1 Fraud Proof Mechanism

The core feature of Arbitrum One is the ability to detect fraudulent transactions on Layer1. A validator can send stateRoot on the Arbitrum chain to Layer1's contract by running open source validation software, and while the average user is likely not interested in becoming a validator, the key point is that anyone can become a VALIDATOR and the chain will remain secure as long as there is an honest validator; that is, it only takes one non-malicious fraudster to catch any number of malicious ones. Together, these properties make the system "trustless" - users do not rely on any particular designated party to keep their money safe.

Such a "proof of fraud" mechanism is at the heart of Arbitrum's ability to reduce transaction costs; in addition, there are a number of other mechanisms designed by Arbitrum to help reduce the burden on the L1. First, Arbitrum transactions are submitted to the L1 in batches; typically, a batch (submitted in one L1 transaction) will contain hundreds of L2 transactions, and submitting them in batches amortizes the overhead of interacting with the L1, thus saving a lot of money compared to submitting a single transaction at a time; furthermore, transaction data is published in a compressed form on the L1 (decompressed only in the L2 environment), making the transactions take up less L1 space.

2.2 Powerful EVM Equivalence

In Arbitrum, the experience is essentially the same as in Ethereum, except that transactions are faster and cheaper, as Arbitrum has had EVM equivalence as a feature at the forefront of its development from the beginning. Users can continue to use Ethereum wallets on Arbitrum, and developers can deploy contracts in Ethereum libraries and tools. In February, Arbitrum also announced the launch of Stylus, a next-generation programming environment that allows developers to use programs written in Rust, C and C++ through WebAssembly, which is expected to attract more Web2 developers. To achieve strong EVM equivalence, Arbitrum One uses and improves upon the fork of Geth by turning it into a Layer2 chain, meaning that most of the code running on Arbitrum is identical to that running on Ethereum.

2.3 Arbitrum Nitro Upgrade

In September 2022, Arbitrum One underwent a Nitro upgrade with the following major improvements:

• Higher throughput: 7 to 10 times higher than before;

• Advanced call data compression: driving down transaction costs for Arbitrum by reducing the amount of data posted to Ethereum;

• Ethereum L1 gas compatibility: EVM pricing and accounting is consistent with Ethereum;

• Additional L1 interoperability: including tighter synchronization with L1 block numbers;

• Geth tracing: broader debugging support.

With the introduction of Nitro, transactions are now processed in two stages. Nitro first places the transactions into a sequence that will be processed, then publishes the sequence and applies a deterministic state transition function to each transaction in the sequence. Currently, the sequencer is a centralized component operated by Offchain Labs, which will gradually transition to a distributed system as Arbitrum enters its later stages. While the centralization tradeoff in pursuit of lower gas costs is understandable in the short term, the creation of a decentralized system is imperative.

2.4 Anytrust Chain - Arbitrum Nova

Arbitrum Nova is the AnyTrust chain launched by Arbitrum. Rollup and AnyTrust are similar in many ways, but there is one key difference: on Rollup, all data is published on L1 (allowing anyone to join as a validator without permission), while on Anychain, data are managed offchain by the External Data Availability Committee, whose members include Offchain Labs, Consenys, Google Cloud, P2P, Quicknode and Reddit. In case of a challenge, the AnyTrust chain reverts to Rollup. Arbitrum believes that AnyTrust may be a wise tradeoff for applications that require high transaction throughput and do not require Rollups to provide full decentralization (e.g., gaming, social applications). In other words, Nova reduces transaction costs at the cost of security.

3. ARB Tokenonomics and Valuation

3.1 ARB Token Overview

The initial total supply of ARB is 10 billion, with a maximum inflation of 2% per year. The current price is stable at around $1.1, and the tokens are already listed on Binance, Coinbase and other first-tier exchanges.

As Arbitrum transitions to a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), the token will be used exclusively for governance. Holders can use the token to vote on governance proposals to decide on key issues, including fees, token unlocking and inflation rates. Currently the gas fee is still paid using ETH on Arbitrum. 56% of the total is accounted for by the Arbitrum community and the airdrop on March 23rd has distributed 11.5% of the total supply to eligible users, with the other 44% going to investors and employees of Offchain Labs, the founding team of Arbitrum.

The token unlocking period is shown below, with institutional investors and teams starting to unlock after one year, followed by three years of linear monthly unlocks.

3.2 Relative valuation analysis

From the perspective of P/S Ratio, Arbitrum is higher than Optimism, which means that the value of Arbitrum may be overvalued in the long run. Although the ARB tokens held by investors will be unlocked after one year, there is no selling pressure in the short term. However, the difference between the circulated market value and FDV is large, and the latter will still face greater selling pressure. In addition, from the perspective of MCap/TVL and FDV/TVL, as the TVL of Arbitrum is far ahead of Optimism, both indicators are lower than OP, and the coin price still has a small upside trend in the short term.

4、Milestones

5、Team and Financing

The development team behind Arbitrum is offchain labs, whose core founders include Ed Felten, former White House CTO and professor of computer science at Princeton University; Steven Goldfeder, PhD in computer science at Princeton University, postdoctoral fellow at Cornell University, and former Google intern; and Harry Kalodner, also a computer science PhD at Princeton University. Among them, founder Ed Felten's experience and background are most notable. Back in 2014, before the birth of Ethereum, he decided to research blockchain scaling solutions after seeing the potential congestion in the Bitcoin network. Currently Offchain labs remains small and lean, with a team of 59 people, mainly engineering and business development employees, mostly from Princeton, CUHK, and Harvard.

Offchain labs raised $123.7M in total according to Crunbase's statistics.

• 2019.4: Seed Round, $3.7M, Pantera Capital led the investment, Coinbase Ventures participated in the investment

• 2021.4: Series A, $20M

• 2021.8: Series B, $100M, Lightspeed Venture Partners led the investment, with participation from Redpoint, Polychain, MCE, Alameda Research and others.

6、Ecosystem Overview

According to Messari's summary, the Arbitrum ecosystem is mainly divided into Defi system and other consumer applications.

6.1 Defi

The Defi ecosystem is based on DEX, lending and perpetual contracts and the venue is already quite crowded.

6.1.1 DEX According to Defi Llama's statistics, just a few months ago, DEX activity on Arbitrum surpassed Polygon and was second only to Ethereum, and the DEX protocols on Arbitrum are mostly similar to Ethereum. The project currently posing the biggest challenge to older DEXs such as Uniswap is Camelot (https://excalibur.exchange/). Each pool deployed on Camelot has customizable fee parameters, and a core feature of the product is its more targeted customizability; for example, USDC-WETH pools can charge 0.04% for transactions that purchase WETH from the pool, but only 0.02% for transactions that sell WETH into the pool. This directional feature allows the pool deployer to fine-tune the incentive structure for a given pair. In addition, these fee levers are dynamic, which allows the fee structure to change based on factors such as market conditions.

6.1.2 Lending Protocols Radiant (https://radiant.capital/) goes live on Arbitrum in July 2022 and is built on LayerZero to create a full-chain lending protocol. Radiant currently accounts for 57% of the TVL of the Arbitrum lending venue, a figure that is largely driven by the large number of RDNT incentives, which offers a one-click "cycle and lock" feature that allows users to re-deposit borrowed assets as collateral and then receive loans from the agreement up to five times. The longer the user pledges, users can earn more RNDT rewards. So beyond the basic double-digit lending APR, users can also receive more benefits from the agreement lending for more benefits, which so far looks like a very successful growth strategy for Radiant. Since the beginning of 2023, the price of RDNT has increased by 1,075%, which makes its incentives even more attractive.

6.1.3 Perpetual contracts Exchange hybrid models that combine AMM and order thinning are gaining popularity in Defi, and such platforms have been a key driver of early growth in the Arbitrum ecosystem. The current perpetual contracts venue holds about $565 million in TVL, the largest share of the Arbitrum Defi ecosystem. Of this, GMX (https://gmx.io/) accounts for over 80% of the TVL.

The key to the success of GMX, which was the first to go live with Arbitrum One in August 2021, is the dual token model: 30% of the protocol's revenue is allocated to stakeholders of GMX (the protocol's governance token) and 70% to stakeholders of GLP (the platform's liquidity token). Such a mechanism helps to build a complete ecosystem around the protocol, thus bringing greater liquidity to GMX.

6.2 Consumer Basic Applications

Most of the tracks on the Arbitrum ecosystem other than Defi are still very early and have not yet reached the same level of volume as Defi applications.

6.2.1 Games Arbitrum's gaming track is represented by the Treasure protocol (https://treasure.lol/). Treasure is an ecosystem for game developers and aims to be the "Nintendo of the Web3". The games released on Treasure are directly interoperable and currently support 10+ games that can be traded using its native DEX MagicSwap and native NFT marketplace Trove, and its native governance token is MAGIC. The success of Treasure so far can be attributed mainly to its first-mover effect and the fact that there are currently no competitors of its kind in the Arbitrum ecosystem.

6.2.2 NFT Arbitrum's NFT ecosystem is still very early, with only 3,900 ETH of NFT transactions in the past month, compared to 1.3 million ETH of NFT transactions on Ethereum in the same period.

7、Competitive Landscape

According to the CMC data, the current status of the Layer2 venue can be seen as follows:

The advantages and disadvantages of the two have been discussed in Part 1 of this paper. The core advantages of OP-Rollups including Arbitrum and Optimism are their EVM equivalence, which can be used directly on MetaMask, and their first-mover advantage, which has attracted many star projects such as Sushi, and may form an ecological barrier. In contrast, ZK-Rollup’s technology is quite difficult, does not have EVM equivalence , and the supporting ecosystem is weak, but the progress of ZK infrastructure is still worth noting; and from the fundamental technology point of view, if ZK path can be realized, it will kill OP-Rollup. From the investment point of view, we can still pay more attention to the OP-Rollups in the short term.

Here we focus on a multi-dimensional comparison between Optimism and Arbitrum, the representative projects in the OP family. While Arbitrum and Optimism both attempt to achieve the same goal, the designs differ. First, the dispute resolution model is designed in such a way that instead of re-running the entire transaction at Layer1 to verify whether the fraud proof is valid, Arbitrum proposes an interactive multi-round model that allows narrowing the scope of the dispute, possibly by executing only some instructions at L1 to check whether the suspicious transaction is valid, which also allows smart contracts deployed on Arbitrum to be larger than the the maximum contract size allowed; another major difference is the approach to deal with transaction sequencing and MEV. Arbitrum initially runs a sequencer responsible for transaction sequencing, but in the long run they want to decentralize it. Optimism prefers an alternative approach where the sequencing of transactions, and the resulting MEV, can be auctioned off to other parties over a period of time.

8、Opinion and Summary

Offchain Labs made a presentation on Arbitrum's future development path in SmartCon 2022 speech. Around solving the problem of decentralization, the project will make upgrades to verifiers and sequencer, etc., and Odyssey will also restart this year. From the perspective of the Layer2 Rollup track, it is difficult for ZK-Rollups to catch up with OP-Rollups in the short term, and Arbitrum has crushed its competitors in all aspects of business performance, so its ecosystem projects are worth paying attention to in the short term. For example, ZKSync may soon be able to launch a ZK rollup solution with EVM equivalence. In addition, the new public chain Sui in the Move line. Mochain will keep an eye on the Layer2 venue and continue to output related research reports.