找回密码
 立即注册
首页 区块链新闻 查看内容
  • QQ空间

会议记录:SEC和OCC关于数字资产监管的小组讨论

2020-10-8 14:21

 

事件:美国硬币的两面:创新与监管的数字资产

2020年10月1日,由数字室主办


小组成员:

杰伊·克莱顿,美国证券交易委员会主席

Brian Brooks,署理货币监理署署长


主持人:杰克逊·米勒,安全机构政策与政府关系主任


主持人:美国硬币的两面,关注数字资产的创新和监管。我想这是不言而喻的,在过去的几个星期和几个月里,你们在这个空间里一直都很忙。


所以今天我想重点讨论几个方面。首先,谈论成熟监管框架下的创新。过去听过你的很多演讲和评论后,我觉得你在数字资产领域的创新方法中有一个反复出现的主题。


那就是创新蓬勃发展,同时遵守各自的监管框架。克莱顿先生,自从你成为证券交易委员会主席以来,我收到了大约十页你的陈述,这确实反映了这个主题。布鲁克斯先生,最近几周你被引用了很多次,而且自从你真正加入OCC以来,你一直在传递这样的信息。


这个大问题由两个部分组成。我们目前的框架是否足以应对该领域的创新和未来发展?那么,我们目前的框架中是否有一些特定的领域对你来说是有问题的?这可能需要立法努力来解决,以推动创新向前发展。


克莱汤姆先生,我先从你开始。这样布鲁克斯先生就可以搭上他的便车了。


SEC杰伊·克莱顿:当然。谢谢,杰克逊。简短的回答是,是的。我们的监管框架,我们框架中的原则,经过了时间的考验,通过许多创新也经受了时间的考验。


举个例子,如果你谈论今天的交易,所有的交易都是电子交易。我们的交易已经电子化了。你做的每一笔交易,如果你打电话给你的经纪人说,我想要这个,它会通过电子传输,一个电子执行的算法。20年前,情况却不是这样。很有可能就像你有股票证书,现在你有了记录,代表股票的数字记录。很有可能这些都变成了记号化。


但是你必须坚持原则,那些分配股票的人,那些股票发行公司的内部人员,他们有责任。我们遇到的一个问题是我们在这个创新中一开始就做错了。有一种理论认为,因为它是如此高效,因为它可以有如此多的承诺,我们可以抛弃一些责任和透明的原则。我想三四年后的今天,我们的处境要好得多。


我们看到了区块链技术的前景,分布式账本技术,可以提高效率,我所说的是经过时间考验的框架。


说到这里,让我把话筒交给布莱恩。


Brian Brooks, OCC:首先。谢谢杰克逊邀请我们来这里。我认为,OCC和SEC坐在同一间屋子里,谈论这件事,说明了这方面的成熟程度。


坦率地说,我对我们两家机构之间的合作感到无比兴奋,因为我们不仅将这些问题视为执法问题,而且还试图展示事情的另一面。这就是今天演讲的题目,对吧?我认为在证券法和其他规则下,有些东西的销售方式存在问题。


这里也有一些有利于美国投资和领导的事情。正确的。我认为我们必须表明我们认为什么是好的和安全的,我们需要依靠这些东西,就像我们执行我们认为有问题的事情和有信息披露问题的事情一样。


我想这就是我们一起努力要做的。


我认为从OCC的角度来看,我认为很多成熟的加密行业思考这个东西是什么。正确的。我想在这个领域工作过的人都知道比特币和其他创新的最初概念并不是为了创造一些投资资产。


上帝知道有大量的投资,对吗?大量的衍生品合约和股票,以及其他获取波动性的方式。如果那是你想要的,你不需要在计算机代码上编造一些东西来投资,如果那是你想要做的。

 

我们认为OCC发生的事情比这更重要。而且,这可能会对现有的银行监管提出挑战,这就是我们需要澄清它们的原因。但我们认为网络从根本上比垂直整合的控制塔更具弹性和效率。


历史上,金融中介在美国发生的方式是这些中央控制功能由银行管理作为所有金融的基础。基本上都是单点故障。如果一家银行倒闭,就会发生非常糟糕的事情,对吧?


我们在金融危机中看到了这一点。只需要一个雷曼兄弟和我们所知道的世界末日就可以了。如果银行数据中心被黑客入侵,情况也一样。这家银行可能几天都无法营业,造成市场混乱。网络不是这样的。加密令牌的本质是它们被认为是为网络提供动力的资产。


它们激励人们连接到网络上,这样网络的功能,比如互联网,就会随着时间变得非常稳定和有弹性。所以我们认为这更多的是基础设施的问题而不是投资资产的问题。我认为,人们之所以看到监管机构的所作所为,是因为我们还没有达到成熟。


所以在早期有投机者,对吧?还有人试图利用投机者。但在成熟阶段,你拥有的是一个全新的支付系统,它可能比建立在过时技术上的现有支付系统更好。


由于OCC在某种程度上是操作支付系统的银行的管理者,我们有强烈的兴趣去设想一个中期的未来,而不是一个未来,人们在那里投机比特币的价格波动。但在中期的未来这些已经建立的区块链网络基本上就是金融互联网。


这就是我认为的结果。这是对银行模式的一种令人震惊的挑战。


所以我认为,作为银行方面的监管者,我们的责任就是走在前面,帮助制定路线,表明世界上的银行是有未来的。银行在这个世界上扮演着至关重要的角色,我们需要围绕它建立一个框架,这样它们之间的联系才会安全可靠。


主持人:谢谢。回到布莱恩和杰的评论。布莱恩你所提到的,我们还没有达到成熟的这些领域在这个空间。然后Jay,你提到在一些创新上一开始就做错了。


我想这就涉及到我的第二个问题,也就是,特别是各机构之间是否在继续进行有关什么是安全、什么不是安全的讨论,以及在何种程度上继续进行讨论。如果你去更广泛的,加密资产分类。对这些问题的关注是否真的阻碍了您在区块链和数字资产领域解决其他潜在的较少争议的发展?例如,传统受监管金融工具的标记版本。杰,我先从你开始,然后布莱恩,如果你也想去的话。


SEC杰伊·克莱顿:当然。这是一个很好的问题因为你们读过这些问题。但我们有很多人在没有问题的领域工作。我们将这项技术运用到的领域。而且,我认为你可以描述一下我们最近与OCC进行的讨论我们如何才能明确这不是证券法问题?


这就是我和Brian在过去几个月里一直在谈论的事情,感谢我们伟大的员工们。我们如何在支付领域,成熟的支付领域,我们如何让人们明白,如果你不试图为你的网络融资,你不试图重新给人们你的网络回报,它可能不是安全的。


但是如果你想做的是用你的令牌为网络的建设融资,或者为使用你的令牌的人提供回报。你看看传统的安全测试:很明显它是安全的。


我们正在努力弄清楚这些界限在哪里,这样人们就可以完善支付系统。我想,我不知道布莱恩,用这种方式来描述我们的关系公平吗?


OCC布莱恩·布鲁克斯:是的,我认为这是完全正确的。我是说,我们和stablecoins的合作刚刚开始,这是我们合作的第一件事。


我想这是从一个观点看,杰不是安全筒仓。而我就是存贷筒仓。我们是政府监管机构的一员,他们负责维护国家强大、稳健的金融基础设施。正确的。我们监督金融体系。

 

在金融体系中,人们有不同的途径获得资本和信贷。有时他们选择向银行贷款。其他时候,他们发行债务证券。它基本上是可替代的。有时人们买股票。有时他们会做别的事情。我想我们在一起。基于这样一种观点,即如果我们的支付体系运转得更好,英国的经济就会更强劲,摩擦也会更少。


其中一件可能有助于创新支付系统并使我们更具有国际竞争力的事情就是倾向于使用稳定的区块链。所以,杰伊和我一起谈了一会儿,说,嘿,在这个问题上,我们有一个强大的利益联盟,我们都希望看到美国的领导作用。我们都希望看到一个像中国或欧盟那样强大的支付网络。要做到这一点,我们可以说银行有权参与这些支付网络。如果证交会说,嘿,符合OCC信函中规定的某些条件的稳定蛋白,它们就不是证券。


来找我们,我们会给你解释清楚的。我认为,这是一个很好的方式,政府可以做它最擅长的事情。它提供了行业创新和繁荣的框架规则。


主持人:太好了。谢谢你。我认为协调是一个很有趣的想法,尤其是当行业融合的时候。当你想到不同类型的支付和交易方式时,特别是,我想快速回顾一下我的另一个问题。


克莱顿先生,你在最近的参议院银行委员会听证会上提到过。你说天秤座的声明是一个焦点不同类型的管理者认识到,数字化和数字化管道和我们的金融体系的其他方面,包括转移支付来了。


这是引用。我认为你们两个,当你想到桥接传统投资资产支付。当你想到天秤台的推出,万事达推出CBDC测试平台,贝宝提供直接销售加密货币,OCC最近授予特许,我相信它的名字是Jiko银行,处理国库券,特别是支付。


然后你会想到最近的海怪宪章,我相信那是在怀俄明州。甚至还有数字美元、稳定货币和其他数字资产之间的相互作用。我们是否正处在一个行业融合将真正推动并使未来更大的监管融合成为必要的阶段?


布莱恩,让我从你开始。然后杰。


布赖恩·布鲁克斯(OCC):我想以这句话开始,当你给出一长串事情清单时,我想起了这样一个事实,在互联网的早期,有大量的互联网业务蓬勃发展,但大多数都以失败告终。


这是好的。你明白我的意思吗?我的猜测是,大多数加密货币项目将会失败。它们与特定的需求没有关系,或者它们会提出基本的,法律遵从性的问题或者类似的问题。我不认为我们作为监管者应该说你刚才提到的所有事情都是好的或者所有的都是坏的。


我认为,我的意思是,回到Jay关于原则的观点,我认为这是一种明确的框架就像欧盟最近发布的稳定剂框架就在一周前,某种程度上说:满足这些参数的东西在市场面前是合法的。然后市场可以决定它想要什么。


在这一框架之外的事情,会引发投资者信息披露或欺诈等真正的问题,可能不应该出现在那之前。但是在这个框架下,很多合法的东西会进入市场然后失败。就像很多70年前在纽约证券交易所上市的公司一样,现在都倒闭了。再说一遍,我们在一个充满活力的经济中还过得去。


当我和人们谈论加密时,我想说的是,每一个标记都代表一个不同的项目,具有不同的点。其中一些是筹款计划。你知道,这提出了证券交易委员会已经确定的问题。其中一些正在尝试构建一个网络,目的是使用令牌增加对网络的访问。


它们就像公用事业一样简单。其中一些是我们未来银行系统可以建立的基础技术。所以我不想在这里挑选赢家和输家,但是我认为作为监管者我们需要做的是阐明我们认为区块链对生态系统的贡献。风险在哪里,收益在哪里。

 

有好处的地方,我们不应该愚蠢,不应该妨碍美国的成功和竞争力。如果存在诈骗和其他问题,我们不应该羞于启口。我想这就是我们今天要做的。也就是说,这里有一些规则。


让我给你们举个例子。我不想去这么长时间,但就像加密OCC做的第一件事是推出一个托管解释信说,嘿,以同样的方式,银行有权拘留数码证券,或其他任何外来资产,你知道,老式汽车,例如,他们可以保管这些东西,正常的风险管理实践。这里的重点是,密码最大的风险之一就是有人会偷你的密码你会或多或少地遭到抢劫。我们可以帮忙。


我们做的另一件事是,我们提出了一个稳定的信,授权银行维持这些支持稳定项目的存款账户。这很重要,因为一些稳定的项目因为银行挤兑而崩溃了。你知道,人们认为他们买的东西可以兑换成货币。当他们去赎回的时候,银行里没有钱了。这是个问题。


所以我认为,就某个人购买一块蓝天而言,OCC和SEC关心的事情是等价的。你知道,那里可能没有真正的生意。这就是披露义务和注册义务的内容。


但我确实认为,一旦你建立了这些规则,例如,当我们出来说,你必须遵守抵押品和审计标准。当我们提出这些规则时,奇怪的是,美国稳定蛋白的市场流通暴涨,因为市场喜欢规则。


有趣的是,他们喜欢清晰。我认为我们可以有很多创新一旦我们明确了规则是什么。所以我认为,如你所知,联合监管机构并明确规定这一点,最终对有价值的项目来说将是一件好事。


主持人:周杰伦。我让你们来回答这个问题,但是我想再补充一点。


你知道,布莱恩提到了推动一个框架来解决很多这些问题的必要性,坦率地说,你知道,对我来说,我在这个领域反复出现的一个噩梦就是阅读2016年政府问责局的报告。第三页给出了美国所有重叠的监管辖区的图表,先是联邦,然后是州一级。


所以当你在回答我的第一个问题时考虑重叠。你怎么知道最后是谁来开这个车,对吧?因为看起来,随着行业在这些领域的趋同,你将需要监管机构联合起来,在这个问题上有一个统一的声音。


谁开车?


SEC杰伊·克莱顿:首先我想说,我很欣赏布莱恩对我们现在所处的位置和我们要达到的目标的描述。我觉得很不错。


谁来开车取决于功能。好吧。所以我们在谈论稳定蛋白作为一个领域来提高支付系统的效率。


嗯,那些监管支付系统的人,银行监管人员,他们应该推动这个。如果你在讨论——在前言中有ETFs的标记化——我们应该推动它,我们也愿意推动它。我们的门敞开着。如果你想展示如何以一种增加效率的方式标记ETF产品,我们想与你见面,我们想促进这一点。


当然,您必须注册它,并执行与其他ETF相同的操作。我们不喜欢什么。我们不喜欢的是,有人说,你知道,它的功能是支付,所以你必须看看证券法律以外的东西。


我不能那样做。你知道,我不会做我的工作。但是当你专注于功能的时候,我们在协调它,这正是我们对稳定信的反应。就是这些家伙(OCC)会在这方面起带头作用。来告诉我们吧。


当它实际上是一个融资工具时,不要假装它是一个支付系统。但是我们会给你我们的观点。然后去见布鲁克斯先生和他的同事。


主持人:当您谈到美国的协调和机构协调以及我们目前复杂的系统时,您认为至少从国际的角度来看是这样的吗?这是竞争劣势吗?我的意思是,当你看了欧盟上周的提议,我承认我还没有读完他们170页的加密资产报告。当你看到一些精选的国家正在向前推进时,无论是中央银行还是中央银行都在向前推进。

 

如果你看看中国在区块链服务网络上做了什么。以及与各种公共账本的相互联系。考虑到国际上正在发生的一切,我们所处的这个支离破碎的体系,最终是否会让我们处于竞争劣势?因为我们不能像其他国家那样迅速做出反应。


SEC杰伊·克莱顿:所以我要说的是,每种情况都是不同的。我们还没走出考维德森林。但如果你看看美国监管机构对COVID大流行的反应,协调能力,以及在各自领域成为专家的能力,就显得尤为突出。


所以我认为这是一个非常适合我们金融生态系统的复杂性和各种功能的系统。我认为区块链技术还处于起步阶段。我肯定这很令人沮丧。但如果你用那句老话——历史不会重演,但会押韵——回到交易的数字化。


你有岛,冰,所有这些事情和许多其他人,所有证明有获得效率。他们通过监管体系发挥作用。事实上,许多相同的问题正在出现。现在我们有一个现代的交易环境在那里价差更小,流动性更强等等。固定收益市场也可能发生同样的事情。


我想说的是,我并不担心,你可以称它为碎片,也可以称它为重叠,也可以称它为拼凑,也可以称它为多面性,随便你用什么词都行。


我也不会花很多时间担心,因为我没有看到它改变。所以作为一个实用的问题,你知道,你可能只是想让它尽可能地工作。我不知道,布莱恩。


OCC布莱恩·布鲁克斯:是的。我完全同意。让我把这些话延伸一下,首先,美国的金融体系可能是支离破碎的,因为我们有更多的监管机构处理金融事务,而其他一些国家有,但是你会惊讶于我们是如此紧密地协调。


我们可以通过各种途径坐在一起,做出政策判断。我们有金融稳定监督委员会(FSOC),上周刚刚开会讨论了重要问题。我们有总统金融市场工作组。这是关于加密的。


所以你会得到一个协调的反应,我认为比大多数人想象的要好。但是我想告诉你的是。最重要的力量在这个国家,我们很多这些国家没有统一的监管,以及我们所做的,是我们有一个强大的哲学,市场规则在这个国家,你知道,我们的角色不是命令和控制经济。


我们的角色是创建框架内市场功能。我已经说了一遍又一遍,我在OCC尝试解决加密的最重要的原因不是因为我偏爱加密。因为有5000万人拥有这些东西。所以对Jay来说,确保他们买的是真货并公开注册是很重要的。


对我来说,重要的是要认识到这些东西存在于今天的银行系统中,我们需要一些规则来围绕它。但说到底,美国的实力以及我们之所以是世界上最具创新力的国家,正是因为我们让市场来决定。


我的观点是纽约证券交易所的公司破产了。纽约证券交易所不会拒绝一家公司上市因为他们认为产品是crumby,对吧?他们让市场来决定产品的好坏。他们只是制定了一套规则来揭示这个东西是什么。


这就是我们正在努力做的。至少我今天想做的是让市场决定他们想要什么。然后我们会决定什么是合法的最大化市场参与者做决定的能力。


SEC杰伊·克莱顿:让我这么说吧。我认为我们都将让市场来决定,但我们都认识到可以提高市场的效率。但总是有的。


这就是它的美妙之处。我确信我毫不怀疑。我想到的一件事就是安全利益。证券利益是难以置信的纸密集型。任何时候需要再融资的时候,这些申请都需要在美国各地进行。电话里的任何杠杆金融律师都知道数字化可以大大提高效率的领域。毫无疑问。

 

主持人:让我再补充一个相关的问题,因为它与我们所看到的一些国际发展有关。你说的是市场驱动的,就像在美国一样,但是当你看到这些发展的时候,在多大程度上,它是在中国,欧洲,或者其他地方,因为它涉及到支付结构的扩张,或者是单一的中央系统的创建。这是否会对我们在海外推广金融服务、以及我们在美国持有和出口到海外的价值构成威胁?


OCC布莱恩·布鲁克斯:所以如果我能跳到这个话题上,因为我认为你真的在谈论中国、电子人民币、欧盟/欧洲央行围绕稳定货币的发展,或者英国央行关于数字货币的声明。我是这么想的。我将回到我的市场观点。像中国这样的国家,有我们没有的能力。


他们实行命令和控制经济,实行单一政党执政。如果他们想要决定我们会有这种货币,他们明天可以这样做。我们不能这样做。正确的。因为我们是一个民主国家。所以这永远不会成为我们的优势。


正如我在其他多个论坛上所说的,我们的优势在于,我们已经建立了一套实时支付系统。不是政府做到的,因为那是美国的魔力。我们会为你提供八种不同的口味。而苏联会给你一个。


所以我的问题是,作为监管者,我们能做些什么来创造一个安全和良好的环境,让我们的私营部门得到释放,因为我们比他们做得更好。我认为,我们在过去20年左右的时间里遇到的问题是,我们没有向市场明确我们认为哪些是合法的,哪些是不合法的。


这就是我们现在正在尝试做的事情。也就是说,是的,我们看到了一些我们认为存在法律问题的项目。Jay已经提起了一些诉讼来突出这些东西的样子。现在我们要看问题的另一面。以下是一些我们认为非常有价值的东西,我们也愿意接受。


因此,我们从简单、容易实现的稳定支付系统开始,只要它们符合BSA/AML的要求,只要它们位于美国,并完全以法定货币担保,我们或多或少都能接受。如果这是标准的话,我们已经打败了中国,因为我们有很多这样的网络,而不仅仅是他们一个。


这是我们的优势。它的市场。


主持人:让我回到之前关于协调和机构协调的问题上。现在在座的各位来自SEC和OCC,我想每个人都在监听,我自己也在几英尺之外的地方监听,非常欣赏这两个机构认识到权力重叠的可能性。


你知道,事实上,你们可以一起工作来解决我们现有系统中的一些问题。这一点不会消失。


我想我要问你们两个的问题,因为你们在过去一周都非常活跃,给了我很多周末的作业阅读。但在此之前,您认为您的两个机构之间会有更多的合作吗?您认为美国监管机构将如何采取更加协调的方式?


是否必须在FSOC的水平上解决这些问题。或者就像你们提到的,这也可以是一个机构对机构的基础。杰,从你开始吧。然后布莱恩。


SEC杰伊·克莱顿:当然。我想你已经大致说明了答案。在某些情况下,这是双边的。我们已经做了很多双边工作,我们将把这些双边工作反馈给总统工作小组或FSOC或其他机构。没有固定的协调结构。我们有很多结构来促进协调,但随着事情的发展…


商品期货交易委员会的塔尔伯特主席和我,我们每个星期一都有一个预约电话。有时是半小时,有时是十分钟。如果我们在这个层面上迅速解决问题,我们会在哪些方面做得更好?所以要比你看到的协调得多。我们当然不喜欢每次谈话都宣布。那会很麻烦。但是有很多的讨论。


OCC布莱恩·布鲁克斯:是的。我认为这是完全正确的。我认为,随着时间的推移,这将是好事,就像政府对住房金融有政策一样,政府对这类事情有一个广泛的政策框架将是好事。

 

但就像所有事情一样,它往往从小事开始。首先解决简单的问题,因为它们很大很简单。我想这就是我们正在谈论的与这些菲亚特支持的马厩。然后你会问更复杂的问题,比如你几分钟前提到的天秤座的情况。你知道,还有很多其他的问题。我们怎么想呢?它涉及到我们的多个机构。最后,我想你会看到我们作为一个政府解决一些框架问题,然后你会有单一的机构和双边合作,在一些事情上没有同样广泛的含义。


但是我认为有些事情你可以期望看到的我们。我的意思是,我们已经说了一些事情。我们说过银行可以保管加密资产。我们已经说过,银行可以持有存款账户来支持稳定。我们是否应该对银行插入区块链并实际发行稳定蛋白的能力说点什么?


我不知道。我不知道正确答案是什么。但我知道市场在问这些问题,我们必须弄清楚。例如,我们是否相信银行应该是区块链上其他资产的节点验证器?再说一次,我不知道,但这就是这些事情的发展方向,而且这些事情的范围很广,我们肯定会在这方面进行协调。这是我们擅长的。


在过去的几分钟里我们谈了很多关于监管协调的问题。但我现在想关注的是,行业主导的监管主要是作为问题给你,Jay,然后Brian,请随意发言。一、两周前我读到的一篇文章是纳斯达克前副董事长戴维•维尔德(David Weild)写的。


他最近在《福布斯》的一篇文章中接受采访时表示,美国政府需要授权一个跨行业委员会来消除阻碍创新的瓶颈。特别是涉及到证券代币的上市、结算和托管。我们之前从商品期货交易委员会委员Brian Quintenz那里听到了自我监管组织在这个领域的重要性。考虑到数字资产术语包含的范围有多广,您是否认为在这种包含的术语之下有某个领域或几个领域值得SRO。或你将好的行业想要加入“在一个SRO”吗?


SEC杰伊·克莱顿:好吧,我要回到我之前说过的观点。您提供的功能是什么?你所提供的功能,你知道,是在冒险吗?这是一种证券,我们有一个SRO。


如果有什么全新的东西。并不是说技术是全新的,而是你所提供的是全新的,然后你就会思考这个问题。但是,简单地说,我还没有看到在功能方面有什么全新的东西。OCC比任何人都更了解支付和银行参与支付。


我不认为如果我们改变用于方便支付的技术,我们就不需要在OCC中增加一个SRO。这就是我的感受。我不知道,布莱恩?


OCC布莱恩·布鲁克斯:我完全同意。当我在cryptoland工作的时候,有一件事让我感到惊讶,那就是一个产业,其基础产品的设计初衷是让事情变得更简单、更快,却让它的政策方面变得如此不必要的复杂。所以有很多不同的小组聚在一起说我们需要一个SRO。自律监管机构在某一时刻,我们可能需要两个有人说。或者可能是一个全新的政府机构或委员会。


听着,加密的意义,就像任何领域的所有创新一样,就是把我们整个生活的方方面面都拿出来,让它变得更简单。


所以当手机被发明出来的时候,我们不需要新的委托。我们有一个联邦通信委员会,他们对手机采取了一个规定,这很好。我们现在有很多不同种类的智能手机。我想这里也是一样的。


我只是重复杰说过的话。你知道,保持简单,傻瓜。在华盛顿取得成功的人都记得:保持简单,傻瓜。如果你像Jay说的那样,试图在一个企业中发行权利,那就是股权。我们都知道那是什么。


我认为安全令牌很好。杰伊的机构现在已经发布了关于ATSs加密和保管的指导。现在已经很清楚它应该如何工作了。太棒了。一些密码令牌是关于价值传输和支付的。我们已经就此发布了指导意见。我认为围绕这一问题建立一大堆治理组织不符合行业利益。

 

做他们擅长的事情是符合行业利益的,那就是发明产品。好吧。我们将试着创建清晰的法律框架,使用我们的工具,我想我们移动的速度比政府以前。这是好消息。但是工业很擅长制造产品,这就是它应该做的。


政府不擅长制造产品。所以它不应该。但它应该制定规则。这是我们擅长的。


主持人:布莱恩,我还有几个问题要问。我知道我们要在这里结束了。但是布莱恩,让我直接问你这个问题。因为我知道它就在你的掌控之中。您在最近的一次采访中谈到,您讨论了以前关于银行业务与投资银行业务或银行业务与证券业务之间的争论和区别,我引用一下"所有这些都随着经济需求而消失了"在过去的几分钟里,您谈到了支付领域,但是支付服务技术中的这些变化是如何真正推动整个金融服务行业的变化的呢?


监管机构如何鼓励这一领域的负责任的创新和进步?


OCC布莱恩•布鲁克斯:嗯,我就注意到,周杰伦已经一段时间了,这是真的对功能的规定。你引用的我的评论是基于1982年的一篇著名文章的观点。


它关乎银行是否特殊。那篇文章讲的是在70年代末和80年代初,作为债务证券和资产支持证券首先成为一种东西。突然之间,银行作为放贷机构的角色似乎并不特别。也许有些借款方式不需要银行参与。


这就给银行带来了生存危机。因为人们意识到债务证券和银行贷款基本上是可替代的。公司可以选择去银行或发行债券来筹集资金。当你意识到这一点时,你就会开始意识到这种封闭的围墙一方面是投资另一方面是银行业务,这可能是一种返祖现象。


说了这么多,我们来看支付世界,我想说的是,历史上我们认为银行提供三种核心功能,吸收存款,支付和贷款。在过去的十年里,我们已经看到,在一个独立的基础上提供一些服务可能会更有利可图。


这就是为什么我们有几千亿美元的公司只是支付公司。他们所做的业务在15年前只在银行内部进行。只有银行才做这种生意。现在,大量的交易活动突然转移到了银行之外。


这是很重要的。加密是最新的,至少是加密的某些方面,是这一趋势的最新演变。这里有一种提供这种服务的方法,就像Jay说的,方法更有效。但我们还是别自欺欺人了。它仍然是一项银行服务。这就是这个词的意思。这是一种金融中介,可以让你为我提供的服务付钱。


和在某种程度上,我认为这是重要的对我来说功能监管的银行业活动扩展监督特许授权的活动。我相信,加密技术是同一件事的进化。


让我来试着总结一下。我想快速地谈谈你们的机构的前进道路。克莱顿先生,我认为你很快就会离开现在的职位,这已经不是什么秘密了。毫无疑问,无论结果如何,即将到来的选举都可能导致政府机构的一些领导层变动。


鉴于你们两个人在过去几年或几个月在各自机构所取得的成就,以及未来数字资产领域已经发生和将要发生的所有变化。您希望您的代理机构和继任者如何继续监督数字资产空间?您现在设定了哪些里程标记,希望您的代理机构能够达到或至少在不久的将来能够达到?


杰,从你开始吧。然后布莱恩,你可以跳进去。


SEC杰伊·克莱顿:那些认为我们在以负责任的方式处理事情的人,不用担心。我有一个很棒的团队。这些人,日复一日,这就是他们所做的。他们做得很好。我想,你们当中那些希望在方法上有根本性改变的人,将会非常失望。


但我认为,在这些工作中发生的一件事是,随着时间的推移,你会变得更加适应你的机构的监管框架是如何影响市场和动态的。以及如何履行透明的义务,促进竞争,促进创新。

 

今天,布莱恩和我在做什么,我希望你同意,我们会继续做的,就是尽可能透明,我们如何看这和我们的工作人员看看,希望将继续促进创新,但将使任何过渡容易得多。


布莱恩·布鲁克斯(OCC):我同意这些观点,而且我还会进一步说,很高兴我们今天谈论的事情与政治无关。你知道,我们两个机构都有一些政治性的事情。


我的意思是,如果你有了一个新的控制者,如果有一个民主党政府,你可能会看到更多的银行执法,你可能会看到一种不同的方式来保护消费者,而不是我们认为适当的,无论如何。


但我认为,这些都是基础设施问题。我认为两党都希望美国在全球具有竞争力。他们都希望该国继续成为经济增长的引擎。我真的相信。你知道,我正在谈论的一些想法,我喜欢销售它们,让它们超级光滑,但它们最初是奥巴马总统的控制器的想法。


有些则不是。有些是我的新朋友。所以我想说,很多这些事情都是我们对市场永久变化的反应。无论谁获胜,这些都不会在选举后消失。我同意Jay的观点。我认为员工们非常、非常致力于安全、稳健和成长的理念。


这就是这些机构的本质所在。我不认为这会改变。


主持人:我就说到这里,感谢你们两位同意参加这次会议。这是一个很好的机会来问你一些关于它的问题。

 

Event: Two Sides of the American Coin: Innovation & Regulation of Digital Assets
Hosted by Digital Chamber, 1 October 2020

Panelists:
Jay Clayton, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (
SEC)
Brian Brooks, Acting Comptroller of the Currency (
OCC)

Moderator: Jackson Mueller, Director, Policy & Government Relations at Securrency

Moderator: Two sides of the American Coin, a focus on innovation and regulation of digital assets. I think it goes without saying that you guys have been quite busy over the last week between the two of you, if not the last couple of weeks and months in this space.

So I really wanted to focus on a number of areas for this discussion today. The first being, talking about innovation under a mature regulatory framework. And I think listening to a number of your presentations and comments in the past, that there’s a recurring theme in both of your approaches to innovations in the digital asset space.

And that is that innovation can flourish while still complying with our respective regulatory frameworks. Now, Mr. Clayton, I’ve got about ten pages of statements from you since you became chairman of the SEC that really reflect that theme. And Mr. Brooks, you’ve been quoted quite a bit in recent weeks, and you’ve also been consistent in this messaging since really joining the OCC.

So a two part question to this larger question. Are our current frameworks sufficient to address new innovations and future developments in this space? And then are there particular areas of our current framework that are problematic for you? And that could potentially require legislative efforts to address in order to spur innovation forward.

So Mr. Claytom, let me start with you. And then Mr. Brooks can piggyback on top.

Jay Clayton, SEC: Sure. Thank you, Jackson. And the short answer is, yes. Our regulatory framework, the principles of our framework, it’s time tested and it’s been time tested through many innovations.

You know for example, if you talk about trading today, all trading is electronic. Our exchanges have gone electronic. Every trade you do, if you call your broker and say, I want this, it gets routed through an electronic, an algorithm executed electronically. That was not the case 20 years ago. It may very well be the case that just as you had stock certificates and now you have entries, digital entries for representing stock. It may very well be the case that those all become tokenized.

But you have to stay true to the principles, which is people who are distributing stock, people who are insiders of the companies for which the stock has been issued, they have responsibilities. One of the problems that we had was we got off on the wrong foot in this innovation. There was the theory that, because it was so efficient, because it could have so much promise, we could toss aside some of those principles of responsibility and transparency. I think now three years later, four years later, we are in a much better spot.

And we’re seeing the promise of blockchain technology, distributed ledger technology, bring efficiencies to that, what I say is time-tested framework.

And with that, let me turn it over to Brian.

Brian Brooks, OCC: First of all. Thanks Jackson for having us both here. I think the fact that you’ve got the OCC and the SEC sitting in the same room, talking about this tells you a lot about the maturation of what’s going on here.

And I honestly couldn’t be more excited about the partnership between our two agencies in terms of not only seeing these issues as enforcement issues, but trying to also show the other side of the coin. That’s the title of today’s talk, right? There are some things out there that have been sold in ways that I think are problematic under securities laws and other rules.

And there are also some things here that would be good for America to invest in and lead in. Right. And I think we have to show what we think is good and safe, and we need to lean into those things in the same way that we enforce the things that we think are problematic and have disclosure issues.

And that’s, I think what we’re trying to do together.

I think from the OCC’s perspective, I think a lot of the maturation of the crypto industry is about thinking about what this stuff is about. Right. And I think that anybody who’s worked in the field knows that the original concept of Bitcoin and all of these other innovations was not supposed to be to create some made up investment asset.

God knows there are plenty of things to invest in, right? Plenty of derivatives contracts and equities, and other ways of accessing volatility. If that’s what you’re looking for, you don’t need to make up something on a computer code to invest in, if that’s what you’re trying to do.

We think what’s going at the OCC is something more fundamental than that. And it may be challenging to the existing bank regulations, which is why we need to clarify them. But what we think is going on is the idea that networks are fundamentally more resilient and efficient than vertically integrated sort of control towers.

And historically the way that financial intermediation happened in this country was that you had these central control functions administered by banks as the underpinning of all of finance. There were basically single points of failure. And if a bank went down, really bad things happened, right?

We saw that in the financial crisis. All it took was one Lehman Brothers and the end of the world as we knew it arose. Same thing if a bank data center gets taken out in a hack. That bank may be unavailable for days, creating chaos in markets. Networks don’t behave that way. And what crypto tokens are fundamentally about is they’re supposed to be the assets that are powering networks.

They’re the things that are incentivizing people to connect to the networks, such that the functionality of the network, like the internet becomes very stable and resilient over time. So we see this as more of an infrastructure issue than an investment asset issue in its maturity. And the reason I think that people have seen what they’ve seen from the regulatory agencies is that we haven’t achieved maturity yet.

And so in the early days you have speculators, right? And you have people trying to take advantage of speculators. But in the mature phase, what you have is a radical new payment system that may be better than existing payment systems, which are built on antiquated technologies.

And since the OCC is in part, the administrator of the banks that operate on payment systems, we have a strong interest in trying to envision a medium term future, not a tomorrow future, where people are speculating on Bitcoin price movements. But a medium term future where these blockchain networks that have been built are basically the internet of finance.

That’s where I think this goes. And that’s kind of a mindblowing challenge to the banking model.

And so I think our responsibility as regulators on the bank side is to get out front of that and help chart a course that shows that there is a future for banks in this world. That banks play a critical role in this world, and we need to establish a framework around it so the ways they connect are safe and sound.

Moderator: Thanks guys. Going back to both Brian and Jay’s comments. Brian you’d mentioned, we haven’t achieved maturity yet in some of these areas in this space. And then Jay, you mentioned getting off on the wrong foot on some of this innovation.

And I think that goes to my second question of whether and to what extent is the continued discussions in particular among your agencies as it relates to what is and is not a security. And if you go broader than that, crypto-assets taxonomy. Has the focus on those issues in particular really prevented you from addressing other potentially less controversial developments in the blockchain and digital assets space? Such as, for instance, tokenized versions of traditional regulated financial instruments. Jay, I’ll start with you and then Brian, if you want to go as well.

Jay Clayton, SEC: Sure. And it’s a very good question to ask because you read about the problems. But we’ve got a lot of people working on areas that aren’t problematic. Areas where we’re bringing this technology to bear. And, and also, I think you can characterize a number of our recent discussions that we’ve had with the OCC as where can we be clear that it’s not a securities law issue?

That’s a lot of what Brian and I, and thanks to our great staffs have been talking about over the past few months. And how do we in the payment area, the maturation in the payment area, how do we make it clear to people that if you’re not trying to finance your network, you’re not trying to re give people a return on your network, it’s probably not a security.

But if what you’re trying to do is finance the build out of your network with your token, or provide people with a return for using the network with your token. You look at the traditional test of security: it’s pretty clear it’s a security.

And we’re working to make it clear where those lines are, so people can mature the payment system. And I think, I don’t know Brian, is that a fair way to describe our relationship?

Brian Brooks, OCC: Yeah, I think that’s exactly right. I mean, look, the collaboration we had just start with stablecoins, which is the first thing that we’ve done together.

I think came out of a view that look, Jay is not the security silo. And I am the lending and deposit silo. We’re part of a group of regulators in the government who are charged with maintaining a strong, robust financial infrastructure for the country. Right. We oversee the financial system.

And there are different ways people access capital and credit in the financial system. Sometimes they choose to take a bank loan. Other times they issue a debt security. It’s fundamentally a fungible thing. Sometimes people buy an equity. Sometimes they do something else. And I think we came together around this. Based on the view that the country would be a stronger economy with less friction if our payment system worked better.

And one of the things that can potentially help innovate the payment system and make us more internationally competitive would be leaning into stablecoin powered blockchains. So, Jay and I spent some time talking together and said, hey, on this issue, we have a strong alliance of interests where we both want to see American leadership. We both want to see a payments network that is as strong as China’s or the EU’s. And one way to do that is for us to say that banks have the authority to participate in these payment networks. And for the SEC to say, hey, stablecoins that meet certain conditions outlined in the OCC’s letters, they will not be securities.

So come to us and we’ll give you clarity. That’s a great way, I think, for government to do what it does best. Which is to provide framework rules within which industry can innovate and flourish.

Moderator: That’s great. And thank you for that. And I think this idea coordination is an interesting one, especially when the industry is converging. When you think of the different types of payments and methods for transacting out there, and in particular I just wanted to quickly go over another one of my questions.

Mr. Clayton, you talked about in the recent Senate Banking Committee hearing. You stated that the announcement of Libra was a focal point for regulators of different types to recognize that digitization and the digitization of the plumbing and other aspects of our financial system, including payments transfers is coming.

And that was quote unquote. I think for the two of you, when you think about bridging traditional investment assets as payments. When you think about the launch of Libra, MasterCard launching a CBDC testing platform, PayPal offering direct sales of cryptocurrency, the OCC recently awarding a charter to I believe it’s pronounced Jiko Bank that deals with treasury bills in particular for payments.

And then you think about the recent charter of Kraken, I believe that was in Wyoming. And even with the interaction between the Digital Dollar, stablecoins and other digital assets. Are we at a point where industry convergence is really going to drive and necessitate greater regulatory convergence in the future?

And Brian, let me start with you. And then Jay.

Brian Brooks, OCC: I would start with this comment, which is when you give that long laundry list of things, I’m reminded of the fact that in the early days of the internet, there was this massive flourishing of internet businesses, most of which failed.

And that’s okay. You know what I mean? My guess is that most cryptocurrency projects are going to fail. They’re not going to be relevant to a particular need, or they’re going to raise fundamental, legal compliance issues or something like that. I don’t think it’s our role as regulators to say that all of the things you just mentioned are good or all of them are bad.

I think, I mean, coming back to Jay’s point about principles, I think it’s about sort of articulating a framework much as the EU recently issued a framework on stablecoins just a week ago, to sort of say: things that meet these parameters are legal to bring before the market. And then the market can decide what it wants.

Things that are outside of this framework, raise real problems of investor disclosure or fraud or whatever, and probably shouldn’t come before that. But within that framework, lots of legal things are going to come to the market and fail. Just sort of like lots of companies that list on the New York Stock Exchange and were there 70 years ago have gone out of business. And again, we’re okay in a dynamic economy.

What I try to say when I talk to people about crypto is, every one of these tokens represents a different project with a different point. Some of them were fundraising schemes. You know, that raised the issues that the SEC has identified. Some of them are trying to build a network for the purpose of using the token to add access to the network.

And they’re as simple as utilities. And some of them are foundational technologies that our future banking system could be built on. So I don’t want to pick winners and losers here, but what I do think we need to do as regulators is articulate what we think blockchain adds to the ecosystem. And where the risks are and where the benefits are.

And where there are benefits we should not be stupid and get in the way of American success and competitiveness. And where there are issues of scams and frauds and other things, we shouldn’t be shy about saying so. And I think that’s what we’re trying to do today. Is to say, here are some rules.

Let me just give you one example. And I don’t mean to go on this long, but like the first thing the OCC did on crypto was come out with a custody interpretive letter to say that, hey, in the same way that banks are authorized to custody things like digital securities, or any other exotic asset, you know, vintage cars, for example, they can custody these things, subject to their normal risk management practices. And the point there was, one of the big risks in crypto is that somebody is going to steal your code and you’re going to get robbed, more or less. We can help with that.

Another thing we did is we came out with a stablecoin letter, authorizing banks to maintain the deposit accounts that back these stablecoin projects. And that’s important because some stablecoin projects have blown up because of what amount to bank runs. You know, people thought they bought something that was redeemable for currency. And when they went to redeem it, there was no money in the bank. And that’s a problem.

So I think these are kind of the OCC equivalents to things that the SEC cares about in terms of somebody’s buying a piece of the blue sky. You know, there may not actually be a business there. And that’s what disclosure obligations and registration obligations are about.

But I do think that once you establish these rules, for example, when we came out and said, you have to comply with collateral and audit standards. When we put those rules out there, the weird thing was is that the market circulation of US-based stablecoins went through through the roof because markets like rules.

They like clarity, interestingly. And I think we can have a lot of innovation once we specify what the rules are. So I think coming together as you know, joint regulators and specifying that, is going to be a good thing ultimately for the projects that are valuable.

Moderator: Jay. I’ll let you answer that question, but I think I wanted to add a little bit more to it.

You know, Brian had mentioned the need to push forward on a framework for a lot of these issues and frankly you know, for me, one of my recurring nightmares in this space is reading a 2016 government accountability office report. That on page three gave a chart of all the overlapping regulatory jurisdictions in the U.S. At the federal and then the state level as well.

So when you think about that overlap as you answer my first question. How do you know who’s going to drive this at the end of the day, right? Because it seems like as the industry converges on a number of these areas, you’re going to need regulators to band together and have a united voice on this.

So who drives?

Jay Clayton, SEC: Let me first say I enjoyed Brian’s characterization of where we are and where we’re trying to go. I thought it was quite good.

And, and who drives depends on the functionality. Okay. So we’re talking about stablecoins as an area for enhancing efficiencies in the payment system.

Well, the people who regulate the payment system, the banking regulators, they should drive this. If you’re talking about – in the preamble there was tokenization of ETFs – well we should drive that and we’re willing to drive that. Our door is wide open. If you want to show how to tokenize the ETF product in a way that adds efficiency, we want to meet with you, we want to facilitate that.

Of course, you’ve got to register it and do what you would do with any other ETF. What we don’t like. What we don’t like is when someone says, you know, the function is payments, so you really gotta look past the securities law stuff.

I can’t do that. You know, I wouldn’t be doing my job. But as you focus in on the function, we’re coordinating around that and that’s exactly what we were doing with our statement in reaction to the stablecoin letter. Which is these guys (OCC) are gonna take the lead on that. Come tell us about it.

Don’t pretend that it’s a payment system when it’s actually a financing vehicle. But we’ll kick the tires and we’ll give you our view. And then go over and see Mr. Brooks and his colleagues.

Moderator: Do you guys think at least from an international perspective, when you talk about the coordination and agency coordination here in the U.S. And just the complex system that we have currently. Is that a competitive disadvantage here? I mean, when you look at what the EU proposed last week, and I admit I haven’t read through 170 pages yet of their crypto-asset report. When you look at some of the select countries out there that are moving forward on, whether it be CBDCs and their central banks are pushing forward on that.

When you look at what China is doing with their blockchain services network. And the promotion of that and interconnectedness with various public ledgers out there. Given all of what’s happening internationally, does the fragmented system that we’re in, does that put us at a competitive disadvantage at the end of the day? Because we just can’t respond as quickly as some of these other countries can.

Jay Clayton, SEC: So I’m going to jump in on that and say every situation is different. And we’re not out of the COVID woods yet. But if you look at the response of the various U.S. Regulators around the COVID pandemic, the ability to coordinate, but also the ability to be expert in each of their areas, came to the fore.

And so I think it’s a system that’s actually well-tailored for the complexity and various functionalities of our financial ecosystem. And look, I think we’re fairly early days in blockchain technology. I’m sure it’s frustrating. But if you use the old cliche – history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes – go back to the digitization of trading.

You had Island, ICE, all these things and many others that all demonstrated that there were efficiencies to be garnered. They worked through the regulatory system. In fact, many of the same issues were coming up. And now we have a modern trading environment where spreads are tighter, liquidity is greater and the like. And the same thing is probably happening in the fixed income market.

And let me just say this, I’m not worried about, you can call it fragmented, you can call it overlapping, you can call it patchwork, you can call it the multifaceted, whatever word you want to use.

And I also wouldn’t spend a lot of time worrying because I don’t see it changing. So as a pragmatic matter, you know, you probably would just want to make it work as best you can. I don’t know, Brian.

Brian Brooks, OCC: Yeah. I agree with all that. So let me just extend those remarks and say, first of all, the U.S. system may be fragmented in the sense that we have more regulators dealing with finance that some other countries do, but you’d be surprised how closely coordinated we all are.

There are various vehicles by which we all sit together and do make policy judgments. We have the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) that just met last week and discusses important issues together. We have the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets. This is looking at crypto among other things.

And so you’ll get a coordinated response out of us, I think better than most people appreciate. But what I would tell you is. The most important strength we have in this country, which a lot of these countries that have unified regulation don’t have, as well as we do, is we have a strong philosophy that markets rule in this country, you know, and our role is not to command and control the economy.

Our role is to create frameworks within which markets can function. And so I’ve said over and over again, that the most important reason I’m trying to address crypto at the OCC is not because I have a bias in favor of crypto. It’s because there are 50 million people who own this stuff. And so it’s important for Jay to make sure that what they’re buying is real and disclosed and registered and all that stuff.

It’s important for me to recognize that this stuff sits inside the banking system today, and we need some rules around it. But at the end of the day, the thing that is America’s strength and the reason that we are the most innovative country in the world is precisely because we let markets decide.

To my point about the New York Stock Exchange companies going bankrupt. The New York Stock Exchange does not refuse to list a company because they think the product is crumby, right? They let the market decide if the product’s good or not. They just have a set of rules about disclosing what that thing is.

And that’s what we’re trying to do. At least what I’m trying to do today is to let markets decide what they want. And then we’ll decide what’s legal to maximize the ability of market actors to make their decisions.

Jay Clayton, SEC: And let me just say. I think we both will let the market decide, but we both recognize that there are efficiencies that can be added to the market. But there always are.

That’s the beauty of this. And I am sure I have no doubt. One of the things that comes to mind is security interests. Security interests are incredibly paper intensive. Anytime there’s a refinancing, the filings that have to go you know, around the States and whatnot. And any of the leveraged finance lawyers on the phone know this area where digitization could add a tremendous amount of efficiency. Without a doubt.

Moderator: Let me just add in another related question, as it relates to some of these international developments we’re seeing. And you talk about markets driven and like here in the U.S. But to what extent when you see these developments, whether it’d be out of China, Europe, elsewhere, as it relates to expansion of their payments structures, or creation of monolithic centralized systems. Does that pose a threat to the promotion of our financial services abroad and the values that we hold in the U.S. and export abroad.

Brian Brooks, OCC: So maybe if I can jump on that because I think you’re really talking about the development of things like the China, e-Renminbi or the EU / ECB work around stablecoins, or the UK statement about central bank digital currency. Here’s what I think. And I’m going to come back to my market point. Countries like China, have an ability that we don’t have.

Which is they have a command and control economy and a single party, you know, sort of government. And if they want to dictate that we’re going to have this kind of a currency, they can do that tomorrow. And we can’t do that. Right. Because we’re a democracy and everything else. So that’s never going to be our strength.

Our strength is, as I’ve said in multiple other fora, we’ve already built a bunch of real time payment systems. It just wasn’t the government that did it because that’s the magic of America. We’re the people who will deliver you eight different flavors. When the Soviet union would deliver you one.

And so the question I’ve got is just what can we do as regulators to create a safe and sound environment where our private sector can be unleashed because we’re better than they are when we do that. And I think the problem we’ve had for the last 20 years or so is we haven’t given clarity to the market about which of these things we think are legal and not.

And that’s what we’re trying to start doing now. Is to say, yes, we’ve seen some projects that we think are legally problematic. Jay’s brought some lawsuits to highlight what those look like. Now we’re trying to look at the other side of the coin. Here are some things that we think are highly valuable and we’re okay with.

And so we start with the easy, low hanging fruit of stablecoin powered payment systems, as long as they are compliant with BSA/AML requirements, as long as they’re based in the U S and fully collateralized with Fiat currency, we’re more or less good with that. And if that’s the standard, we’ve already beat China because we’ve got a bunch of those networks, not just their one.

That’s our advantage. It’s markets.

Moderator: Let me go back to my previous questions on kind of coordination and agency coordination. So I’ve got both of you in this room right now from the SEC and the OCC and I think everyone that’s listening in and myself listening in from a couple of feet away, really appreciates the two agencies recognizing the potential for overlap of authority.

You know, the fact that you’re able to work together to work out some of the kinks within this system that we have. And which is not going away.

I guess the question I have for the both of you since you’ve been very active over the last a week in particular, giving me a lot of weekend homework reading. But even before that is, do you see more cooperation ahead between your two agencies and how do you see U.S. regulators moving forward on a more coordinated approach.

Does it have to be at kind of FSOC level in addressing some of these issues. Or as you guys mentioned, it can be an agency by agency basis as well. Jay let me start with you. And then Brian.

Jay Clayton, SEC: Sure. I think you outlined the answer. Which is in some cases it’s bilateral. We’ve done a lot of bilateral work and that bilateral work we’ll feed into work at the Presidential Working Group or at the FSOC or otherwise. There’s no set structure for coordination. We have a lot of structures that facilitate coordination, but as things come up …

Chairman Tarbert over at the CFTC and I, we have a standing call every Monday. Some days it’s a half hour, some days it’s ten minutes. Where are we going to be better if we resolve things at that level quickly? So there’s a lot more coordination than you see. We certainly don’t like announce every time we talk to each other. That would be quite cumbersome. But there’s a lot of discussion.

Brian Brooks, OCC: Yeah. I think that’s absolutely right. I think that broadly over time, it would be good, in the same way that the government has a policy on things like housing finance, you know, it’ll be good for the government to have a broad policy framework for this kind of stuff.

But like everything, it tends to start small. You address the easy questions first because they’re big and easy. And I think that’s what we’re talking about with these Fiat backed stablecoins. And then you get to more complicated questions, like the Libra situation that you raised a few minutes ago. You know, that’s got a lot of other issues going on with it. And what do we think about that? It touches multiple of our agencies. At the end of the day I think you’ll see us address some framework questions as a government, and then you’ll have single agencies and bilateral cooperation on things that don’t have the same breadth of implication.

But I think there are things you can expect to see coming out of us. I mean, we’ve already said a few things. We’ve said banks can custody crypto-assets. We’ve said that banks can hold deposit accounts in support of stablecoins. Should we say something about bank’s ability to plug into blockchains and actually issue stablecoins?

I don’t know. And I don’t know what the right answer is. But I know the market’s asking those questions and we’ll have to figure that out. You know, do we believe, for example, that banks should be node validators on a blockchain for other assets? Again, I don’t know, but that’s where these things lead and some of these things are broad enough to mention that we’ll coordinate on it, for sure. That’s what we do well.

Moderator: We talked about a lot over the last couple of minutes about regulatory coordination. But I want to focus now on is, industry led oversight and primarily as questions for you, Jay, but then Brian, feel free to jump in as well. One of the things that I read about a week or two ago was authored by David Weild, former vice chairman at NASDAQ.

And he was interviewed in the recent article in Forbes where he suggested the need for the U.S. Government to empower a cross industry commission to remove bottlenecks against innovation. And particularly as it relates to listing settlement and custody of securities tokens. And we’ve previously heard from the CFTC Commissioner Brian Quintenz on the importance of self regulatory organizations in this space. Given how encompassing the digital asset terminology is, is there a certain area or several areas underneath that kind of all encompassing term that you believe would either merit an SRO. Or you would be okay with kind of industry looking to join together in an SRO?

Jay Clayton, SEC: Well, I’m going to go back to the point I made. What is the functionality that you’re providing? If the functionality that you’re providing is, you know, exposure to a venture? Well, that’s a security and we have an SRO for that.

If there’s something fundamentally new. Not that the technology is fundamentally new, but what you’re providing is fundamentally new, then you would think about that. But, the short answer is I haven’t seen something that’s fundamentally new in terms of functionality. Like the OCC knows more about payments and bank participation in payments than anybody else.

I don’t think if we change the technology that’s used to facilitate payments, we don’t need to add an SRO to the OCC. That’s kind of how I feel about this. I don’t know, Brian?

Brian Brooks, OCC: I couldn’t agree more. One of the things that I found surprising when I was actually working in cryptoland was how an industry whose underlying product was designed to make things simpler and faster, made the policy side of it so needlessly complicated. So there were multiple different groups getting together saying we need an SRO. We might need two SROs at one point, somebody said. Or possibly a whole new government agency or a Commission.

Listen, the point of crypto, like the point of all innovation in any area is to take aspects of life we’ve lived with our whole lives and just make it easier.

So we didn’t need a new Commission when cell phones got invented. We had an FCC and they adopted a rule around cell phones and that was fine. And here we are and we have lots of different kinds of smart phones out there. I think it’s the same thing here.

I’m now just reiterating what Jay said. You know, keep it simple, stupid. The people who’ve been successful in DC are the people who remember: keep it simple, stupid. If you’re trying to issue rights in a venture, like Jay says, that’s equity. We all know what that is.

I think security tokens are great. Jay’s agency has now issued guidance about crypto ATSs and custody. And now there’s clarity about how that’s supposed to work. Fantastic. Some crypto tokens are about value transmission and payments. We’ve issued guidance around that. I think it’s not in the industry’s interest to have a whole bunch of governance organizations around this.

It’s in the industry’s interest to do what they do well, which is invent product. Okay. We will try and create clarity around legal frameworks, using the tools we’ve got and where I think we’re moving faster than the government ever has before. So that’s the great news. But industry is great at building product and that’s what it should do.

Government’s terrible at building products. So it shouldn’t. But it should set rules. That’s what we’re good at.

Moderator: Brian, I’ve got a couple more questions. I know we’re kind of wrapping up here for time. But Brian, let me direct this question to you. Because I know it’s right in your wheelhouse. You’ve said in a recent interview, where you discussed how the old debates and previously held distinctions between banking versus investment banking or banking versus securities and I quote ‘all fell away in light of economic demand’. When you talk about the payment space and you’ve done so for the past couple of minutes now, but how are these changes occurring in the payment services technologies really driving change throughout the financial services industry?

And how can regulators encourage responsible innovation and progress in this space?

Brian Brooks, OCC: Well, I would just pick up on the point that Jay has been making for a while now, which is it’s really about sort of functional regulations. So the comment that I made that you quoted was based on an insight that was written in a famous article in 1982.

It was about whether banks are special or not. And that article was talking about the idea that in the late seventies and early eighties as debt securities and asset backed securities were first becoming a thing. Suddenly it looked like banks’ role as lending institutions may not be special. And maybe that there are ways of borrowing that don’t involve a bank.

And that created an existential crisis for what banks were. Because people realized that debt securities and bank loans are basically fungible. And a company can choose to raise money by going to the bank or by issuing a debenture. And when you realize that, you start to realize that the hermetic walling off of investments on the one hand and banking on the other hand, maybe kind of an atavism.

So having said all of that, when we look at the world of payments, what I’ve sort of said is historically we think of banks as providing three core functions, deposit taking, payments and lending. We’ve seen in the last ten years that it might be more profitable to offer some of those services on an unbundled basis.

This is why we have multiple hundred billion dollar companies that are just payments companies. That business that they’re doing was exclusively done inside of banks 15 years ago. Nobody but banks did that business. And now suddenly an enormous amount of the activity has moved outside of banks.

So that’s kind of a big deal. Crypto is just the newest, at least certain aspects of crypto, the newest evolution of that trend. Here’s a way of offering that service, as Jay says, way more efficiently. But let’s not kid ourselves. It’s still a banking service. That’s what the word means. It’s a kind of financial intermediation that allows you to pay me for some service I provided you.

And at some level, I think it’s important for me as a functional regulator of banking activity to extend supervision and charter authority to that activity. And crypto is just an evolution of that same thing, I believe.

Moderator: Let me kind of try and wrap things up here. I want to quickly touch on the way forward for your agencies. And Mr. Clayton, I think it’s no secret that you are likely to move on from your current role shortly. And certainly the upcoming election will likely lead to some leadership changes among the agencies, regardless of the outcome.

Given all that the two of you have accomplished over the past several years or several months at your respective agencies and all the changes that have and will take place in the digital assets space in the future. How would you like your agencies and successors to proceed on oversight of the digital asset space and what mile markers are you setting now that you hope your agencies will reach or at least follow in the near future?

Jay, let me start with you. And then Brian, you can jump in.

Jay Clayton, SEC: Well, for those of you who think we’re handling things in a responsible way, fear not. I have a great staff. These people, day in and day out, this is what they do. And they do a great job. And then for those of you who were hoping for some radical change in approach, you’re going to be sorely disappointed, I imagine.

But I think one thing that happens in these jobs, is that over time you become more attuned to how the regulatory framework of your agency impacts the marketplace and that dynamic. And how to use your obligation to be transparent, to facilitate competition, to facilitate innovation.

And largely what Brian and I are doing today, I hope you agree with this, and what we expect to continue to do, is be as transparent as possible as to how we look at this and how our staff’s look at it, which hopefully will continue to foster innovation, but will make any transition a lot easier.

Brian Brooks, OCC: I would echo all of that and I would go further and just say the things we’re talking about today, happily aren’t political. You know, there’s things at both of our agencies that are kind of political.

I mean, if you’ve got a new Controller and if there was a Democrat administration, you might see a little bit more bank enforcement, you might see a different kind of approach to consumer protection than we believe is appropriate, whatever.

But I think these kinds of things, these are infrastructure issues. I think both parties want the country to be competitive globally. They both want the country to continue to be an engine of economic growth. I really do believe that. And you know, some of the ideas I’m talking about, I like to sell them and make them super glossy, but they were originally the idea of President Obama’s Controller.

And some of them are not. Some of them are new with me. So I would say a lot of these things are sort of our response to permanent changes in the marketplace. Those are not going to go away after the election, regardless of who wins. And I would echo Jay’s comment. I think the staffs are very, very committed to the idea of safety and soundness and growth.

That’s what these agencies are fundamentally about. I don’t see that changing.

Moderator: So let me just end it there and let me say thank you to you both for agreeing to do this. It’s been a great opportunity to ask you some questions about it.

 

来自: Ledger Insights