穩定幣像現金？先看能不能兌回

3:58:17開場：穩定幣何時能被當成現金

3:58:17Sony Ventures Corporation 的 Takaaki Miura，主持人是 Julie Nguyen，她來自 Rain。歡迎各位。好，午餐過後大家還好嗎？應該都吃飽了，希望沒陷入食物昏迷。好。歡迎各位。非常感謝你們來這裡。希望大家的代幣體驗都是正面的，這週過得不錯。真的很感謝各位下午跟我們待在一起。我知道周邊活動很多，但你們選擇來這裡參加Takaaki Miura from Sony Ventures Corporation, and our moderator is Julie Nguyen, and she's from Rain. So welcome. All right, how's everyone doing after lunch? Well fed, hopefully not falling into food coma. All right. Well, welcome, guys. Thanks so much for being here. Hopefully everyone's token experience has been positive and you guys are having a good week. Really appreciate you guys spending the afternoon with us. I know there's tons of side events, but you chose to be here at

3:58:40Stablecoin Summit。我是 Julie，來自 Rain。我們是穩定幣支付基礎設施公司，背後有 Galaxy Ventures 這類領先投資人支持，他們今天也在這個座談上。今天我們要談三件事：評等、準備金，還有兌回，這當然。我覺得我們接下來要深入的關鍵字，比較像是「之前」。也就是，穩定幣要被當成現金，到底哪些條件必須成立？整個夏天，其實發生了不少事情。Stablecoin Summit. I'm Julie. I'm with Rain. We are a stablecoin payments infrastructure company backed by leading investors like Galaxy Ventures, also on the panel today. Today we're going to be talking about three things: ratings, reserves, and redemption, obviously. I think the key word here that we're going to be diving deeper into is kind of the before. So, like, what really needs to be true for stablecoins to count as cash? Basically, over the summer, there has been a lot of activity.

3:59:03FASB 三項條件

3:59:20我記得是 8 月 18 日，Financial Accounting Standards Board 對這件事發布了指引。他們的測試有三項條件。第一，你必須有契約上的隨時兌回權利。這項權利也必須直接對發行方持有，而且代幣必須以隔離準備金一比一擔保，準備金要放在短期、高流動性資產裡。So I think it was August 18th, the Financial Accounting Standards Board actually came out with some guidance on this. And so their test has three criteria for this to happen. So first, you need to have a contractual right to redeem on demand. And then the right also has to be held directly with the issuer, and the token has to be backed one-to-one by segregated reserves in a short-term, highly liquid asset.

3:59:58所以這整件事的意思是，你不能只靠在交易所賣掉它。那樣不夠。所有意見要在 11 月 19 日前送交，另外 GENIUS Act 一旦生效，也會禁止把非許可發行方的任何支付型穩定幣當成現金等價物。所以這個問題是真的，也剛好接到今天座談的標題：評等、準備金與兌回。你要怎麼，任何人要怎麼判斷，And so where all this is going is you really can't be able to sell it on an exchange. Like, that's not enough. All the comments are going to be due November 19th, and then separately, the GENIUS Act also will bar cash-equivalent treatment of any payment stablecoin from a non-permitted issuer once it takes effect. So the question is real, and it kind of ties neatly into the title of the panel today: ratings, reserves, and redemption. How do you, like, how does anyone judge whether,

4:00:40一枚穩定幣會不會守住掛鉤？如果你不是發行方，你怎麼知道代幣背後實際拿什麼擔保？然後你要怎麼真的把它換成現金？這就是我們今天討論的路線。先介紹與談人。請各位簡單自我介紹，也幫我把這句話講完：在我把穩定幣當成現金之前，這件事必須成立。誰先來？Michal 先。我是 Michal Selbka，S&P Global Ratings 董事。在you know, a stablecoin will hold its peg? If you're outside of the issuer, how do you know what's actually backing the token? And then how can you actually turn it into cash? So that's our roadmap for today's discussion. And first, I'd love to introduce the panelists. Why don't you guys give a little bit of an intro and also finish this sentence for me: Before I treat stablecoin as cash, this needs to be true. Who's first? Michal can go. So I'm Michal Selbka, Director at S&P Global Ratings. On the

4:01:20評等這邊，我會涵蓋一些 DeFi 原生機構，不過我也有全球支付產業、全球最大支付機構、證券交易所、結算所和銀行的經驗，穩定幣、代幣化這些題目，在各種會議都會碰到。我們也會跟他們討論這些題目。把你那句話講完的話，我覺得不容易，因為要看你希望穩定幣扮演什麼功能？ratings side, I do cover some DeFi-native institutions, but I also do have experience with the global payment industry and the global largest payment institutions, stock exchanges, clearinghouses, and banks, and the topics of stablecoins, topics of tokenization are relevant across all different meetings. And we discuss those topics with them too. Finishing your sentence, I think it's tough because it depends, you know, what function do you want to see for a stablecoin?

4:01:54我們不把它們看成無風險。連短期國庫券我們也不看成無風險。我們對它們有風險權重和資本要求。但從流動性和支付功能來看，我覺得它很快就會像現金一樣運作，如果現在還沒到的話。有到了嗎？對，有。我是 Wojtek Pawlowski。Accountable 執行長兼共同創辦人。我們的主要角色，也是我們進這個領域一開始做的事，就是在這個領域建立信任。We don't see them as risk-free. We don't even see T-bills short-term as risk-free. We have a risk weight for them and capital requirements. But from the liquidity perspective and the payment function perspective, I think this would function cash-alike pretty soon, if it's not already there. Is it? Yeah, it is. I'm Wojtek Pawlowski. CEO and co-founder of Accountable. Our primary role, and this is what we started with in the space, was to establish trust in the space.

4:02:31我們跟很多金融機構在不同方向合作，也主要跟一些穩定幣合作。針對所謂計息穩定幣，它們其實跟我們今天大概要建立的穩定幣定義沒有關係，我們讓機構證明他們在鏈下和鏈上做什麼、持有什麼、績效如何、策略是什麼。他們可以把這些策略底層的隱私留在自己手上。We work with a lot of financial institutions on different directions, also with some stablecoins, primarily. With so-called yield-bearing stablecoins, which in reality have nothing to do with the definition of a stablecoin that we probably try to establish today, we let institutions prove what they do off-chain and on-chain, what they hold, what is their performance, what is their strategy. And they can keep the underlying privacy of those strategies with them.

4:03:04所以我們跟避險基金合作，也跟想把特定策略代幣化的對象合作，也跟穩定幣合作。把你那句話講完，從我的角度看，不會很分析性，但、但流動性才是王道，對吧？如果你能把一種資產換成另一種，而且底層掛鉤也在，那它就還是現金，對吧？有人想把比特幣變成現金。比特幣其實不穩定，對吧？但只要你進得去出得來，它還是可以當現金。So we work with hedge funds, we work with parties that want to tokenize some particular strategy, but also with stablecoins. So to finish your sentence, I believe from my perspective, which won't be very analytical, but But liquidity is king, right? Like if you can exchange one asset to another, and of course the underlying peg is there, then it remains cash, right? Like some people wanted to make Bitcoin cash. Bitcoin is not really stable, right? But it could remain cash if you can get in and out of it.

4:03:40相對快，而且沒有底下價格波動的曝險。所以我會說這是最主要的事。大家好，我是 Will Nuelle。我負責 Galaxy 的投資。Galaxy 是數位資產領域的大型金融服務集團。從投資人角度看，我們主要投在金融服務跟加密交會的地方。所以是穩定幣、代幣化、資本市場，現在也越來越多 AI 相關的商品市場。Relatively fast and don't have the underlying exposure of the price volatility there. So I would say that this is the primary thing. Hey, everybody, I'm Will Nuelle. I lead investing for Galaxy. Galaxy is a large financial services conglomerate in the digital asset space. You know, we, from an investor perspective, we're mostly focused on investing at the convergence of financial services and crypto. So stablecoins, tokenization, you know, capital markets, increasingly commodities markets around AI as well.

4:04:13Rain 是我們的投資組合公司。我們也很幸運有 Ethena、RedotPay 等投資組合公司。這些年 Galaxy 也有 Fireblocks。所以很高興來談穩定幣。我個人已經把它們當成現金。從 2022 年我第一次用 USDC 請朋友吃飯開始，我就把它們當現金，那次成功了，他收下了，對我來說到現在都沒問題。所以不是技術定義，但是。大家好，我是 Sony Ventures 的 Takaaki Miura。And so Rain is a portfolio company. We're lucky also to have portfolio companies like Ethena, RedotPay, and many more. Over the years, Fireblocks at Galaxy. So excited to chat about stablecoins. I already consider them cash, personally. I consider them cash since 2022 when I first paid a friend of mine for dinner in USDC, and so that worked, and he accepted it, and it's good for me now. So not the technical definition, but. Hi everyone, I'm Takaaki Miura from Sony Ventures.

4:04:43我目前負責 fintech 和加密的投資。講到加密，我們有兩類。一類是金融加密，包括穩定幣、RWA。第二類讓我們比較特別，是娛樂，因為 Sony 是娛樂公司，所以我們也重視娛樂。我以前也在總部財務待過。所以今天，以使用者身分，我也可以對穩定幣講幾句。講到穩定幣，我們認為So I'm currently leading the investment of the fintech and crypto. And when it comes to crypto, we have two categories. One is the finance crypto, which includes stablecoin, RWA. And second category, which makes us unique, is the Entertainment, because Sony is an entertainment company, so we put importance on entertainment as well. And previously, I also worked for the headquarter finance. So today, as a user, I also can make some remarks on the stablecoin. So speaking of the stablecoin, we believe that

4:05:20我們重視透明度。如果不能把一枚穩定幣換成一美元，我們就不會用。所以這大概是我們給各位的第一點。好。我可以很快補一件事嗎？我還沒說 S&P 在這個領域內部在做什麼，除了大家都知道的評等以外。我們有一個比較少人知道的穩定幣穩定度評估工具，用來評估穩定幣，最近也推出了 vault 風險評估。We put importance on the transparency. So if we can't convert one stablecoin into one dollar, we will never use. So probably this is our first remark for you. Okay. Can I quickly add one thing? I didn't say what S&P is doing internally in this space, apart from the ratings that everyone knows. So we have a stablecoin stability assessment tool that assesses stablecoins that is less known, and we also launched recently vault risk assessment.

4:05:48這也是對 vault 風險的新評估，我們可以在別的場合、別的高峰會再談，但這對現場聽眾來說可能沒那麼明顯。我們進入評等的第一部分。就穩定幣來說，穩定到底是什麼意思？這個也許要請 Michal，什麼把穩定幣評等分數分成很強跟很弱？我們在穩定幣穩定度That is also a new assessment of the risk in the vaults, and we can talk on different occasion, different summit about it, but that's something that maybe is not so obvious to the audience here. Let's dive into the first portion of ratings. What does stable actually mean as it relates to stablecoins, right? So maybe this one's for you, Michal, but what separates a stablecoin rating score of, you know, really strong versus really weak? So the key aspect we look at in our stablecoin stability

4:05:58S&P 穩定度評估從資產品質開始

4:06:20評估裡看的關鍵，我們從資產品質開始：一般的信用風險，但不只這樣；還有所持資產的市場風險，以及保管風險，因為現在穩定幣發行方的這些東西，大多是放在某個地方。然後還有其他因素。隨時間越來越重要的，還有我們的技術評估。像是多簽、MPC、漏洞獎金，這些在我們的評估裡都相關。治理和透明度也很重要。assessment is, and we start with, is the asset quality: so the typical credit risk, but not only; also market risk for what is kept and custody risk, as those things mostly for the stablecoin issuers now are kept somewhere. Then we have additional factors. More and more important over time is also our technology assessment. So the things like multi-sig, MPC, bug bounty rewards, those all things are relevant in our assessment. Also, governance and transparency is very important.

4:06:53簽證品質好不好、稽核到哪個層級、我們是否真的知道裡面有什麼，也是相關因素。因為我們把缺乏透明度也看成風險。那什麼讓它們不一樣？我們的評估大概有一半多一點落在較強那一類，我們預期其中不少會符合 GENIUS Act。所以已經有限制，或之後會有監管限制，規範他們能持有什麼，如果大多是短期國庫券，這會讓我們比較安心。How good are the attestations, the level of audits, and that we really know what is in there, it's also a relevant factor. Because we view lack of transparency also as a risk. And what differentiates them? So we have, I think, slightly over half of our assessments in the stronger category, and we expect many of them to be GENIUS Act compliant. So there's already a limit, or there will be a regulatory limit, of what they can keep, which would give us some comfort what that is, if it's mostly T-bills.

4:07:25但我們在那個區段裡還是可以移動，評估會改變的時機，甚至是全部資產或準備金都放存款，或全部都是短期國庫券。所以我們的評估也可以從非常強分到較低層級。穩定幣什麼時候會通過會計測試，但還是讓你們有點擔心？Wojtek，這方面？某種意義上，從But we can move really within that segment, and when the assessment can change is even if the full assets or reserves are in deposits, or if they are all T-bills. So it also can differentiate our assessment from the very strong to the lower levels. Where could a stablecoin pass the accounting test, but still kind of worry you guys? Wojtek, on that front? Like, in a sense, like from

4:08:00我們的角度看，對吧，我們讓發行方去證明他們有什麼，底層準備金是什麼其實沒那麼重要，對吧？所以他們持有的品質可以差非常多。我還是要回到這點，因為我們大多數客戶，是把避險基金活動塞進穩定幣這個詞裡，對吧？那種東西一直在變。他們同時在 20 家不同交易所交易、做套利策略，對有些人來說那也叫穩定幣。our perspective, right, like we let issuers, and it doesn't really matter what's the underlying reserves, like to prove what they have, right? So the quality of what they have can vary very widely. And again, I'm gonna come back because the majority of our clients, they are packing into the word, the word stablecoin, a hedge fund activity, right? Like that is constantly changing. They are trading at 20 different exchanges at the same time, doing arbitrage strategies, and that's also called a stablecoin for some.

4:08:36所以當你有一枚穩定幣，在銀行裡持有短期國庫券，幾乎不變或很少變，我會覺得那超級安全。不管是短期國庫券跟歐元或美元 70 比 30，也不管放在 A、B 或 C 銀行，在我的世界裡那都超級安全，因為我們每天看到塞進這些代幣化結構的東西很可怕，光譜非常寬。So then when you have a stablecoin that holds T-bills in a bank, and that doesn't change almost at all or changes very infrequently, I consider that insanely safe. So whether that's a T-bills proportion of 70 to 30 with euros or dollars, and whether that sits at bank A, B, or C, like in my world, that's insanely safe because what we see on a daily basis that is packed into these tokenized structures is very scary, and we see a very wide spectrum.

4:09:09所以我還是從我每天看到怪東西的角度看。我就是沒有 Michal 那麼懂技術細節，他會深入看某個比例或某家銀行是不是比另一家好。所以我才沒有立刻。我們所謂穩定，差很多。有些東西我們可能根本不該叫穩定。對，所以這個詞應該永遠改掉。因為收益跟穩定幣大概不該配在一起。So again, I will be talking from my perspective that sees weird stuff on a daily basis here. So I just don't know enough technicalities such as Michal, who dives into these details of whether a certain proportion or a certain bank is better than another. So that's why I didn't have an immediate. Big difference in what we call stable. Some things we might not even call stable. Yeah, but that's why we should change this term forever. Because a yield and a stablecoin shouldn't probably be paired together.

4:09:43對。從我的角度看，這相當，我是說，這不是穩定幣的技術定義，但你對支付型穩定幣要找的，像 Circle 或 Tether，或 Paxos 發行的那類穩定幣，是要有人拿著特許來發行，對吧？你要找的是存款，底層準備金放在銀行存款裡，最好是全球的 G-SIB，對吧？系統重要性銀行，對吧？Yeah. I mean, from my perspective, it's pretty, I mean, it's not a technical definition of what a stablecoin is, but, you know, what you're looking for with a payment stablecoin like a Circle or a Tether or any of the sort of Paxos-issued stablecoins is you're looking for something issued you know, by somebody with a charter, right? And you're looking for deposits, the underlying reserves held in bank deposits, ideally at a global, you know, G-SIB, right? Systemically important bank, right?

4:10:14也就是不會弄丟你的存款、或讓你的存款承受風險的對象。這其實就是 SVB 危機時很有名的問題，因為 Circle 在 SVB 有存款，然後 USDC 的一部分價值在 2023 年 3 月掉到，我記得是 92 美分或 87 美分之類。79。喔，79。對對。你抓到最低點了。So somebody who's not going to lose your deposits or put a risk to your deposits. This actually was famously the issue during the SVB crisis, because Circle had deposits with SVB, and then a portion of the, you know, the value of USDC ran down in March of 2023 to, I think, 92 cents or 87 cents or something like that. 79. Oh, 79. Yeah, yeah. You bottom-ticked it.

4:10:40不是。我記得我醒來看到 79，當下想說我要退出加密，因為如果那也垮了，對吧，因為當時大家在從 Binance 抽現金，我覺得那搞不好是下一個 FTX。所以 USDC 做出那些事的時候，很瘋狂。然後很明顯，GENIUS Act 會規範配置，銀行準備金要放哪，還有準備金裡能放美國公債的比例，而且必須是短天期公債。No. I remember when I woke up and I saw 79, I was like, I want to quit crypto, because if that failed, right, like, because people were pulling cash from Binance and so at the time I was feeling that maybe that's next FTX. So when USDC did all of that, it was crazy. And then obviously, the GENIUS Act regulates, like, you know, the deployment, where to deploy bank reserves, as well as the portion of your reserves that can be held in U.S. Treasuries, and those have to be in short-dated Treasuries.

4:11:08所以對我來說很明顯，只要它符合資格，存款放在安全、安全的銀行，這就是你對支付型穩定幣該期待的，它不該在美國公債上承擔存續期間風險，對吧？這是另一個關鍵條件，因為我不想因為利率上升、手上美國公債價值下跌，而讓穩定幣掉價。所以不要存續期間。And so that's obviously, to me, as long as it qualifies and you, you know, you have deposits in, you know, safe, safe banks, that's what you should expect from a payment stablecoin that's not taking duration risk on U.S. Treasuries, right? That's another key criteria, because I don't want to lose value of my stablecoin due to rates going up, for example, and the value of your U.S. Treasury holdings falling. So no duration.

4:11:33接到 Wojtek 的點，我覺得你進入所謂計息穩定幣時，幾乎是更有意思的一類，但它們代表的是預期會賺一些收益的美元計價策略。顯然不是無風險。有時會分層，像低風險版本，再加一個質押版本，風險比較高。我覺得那一類顯然And then to Wojtek's point, like, I think you get into almost a more interesting category as you go into what are often called yielding stablecoins, but represent, you know, a dollar-denominated strategy that is expected to earn some yield. Obviously, it's not risk-free. Sometimes they're tranched into like a low-risk version and then a staked version, which is higher risk. And I think, you know, that category is obviously

4:11:48支付型穩定幣與計息產品不是同一類

4:12:00不算真正的穩定幣，也不符合穩定幣定義，因為你沒有保證能兌回一美元，對吧？你在底層承擔了一些風險。但那一類其實有意思，我覺得那是未來五到十年會有意思的消費產品，最後會跟 Visa 和not really a stablecoin, and it doesn't meet the definition of a stablecoin because you have no guarantee that you can redeem it for a dollar, right? You're taking some risk on the underlying. But that category is actually interesting, and I think that's a consumer product that over the next five to ten years will be interesting and will eventually settle with, you know, Visa and

4:12:20Mastercard 透過 Rain 這類業者結算。你會有一筆計息存款，賺 7%，資料會由 Wojtek 和 Accountable 證明，你基本上能透過 Rain，用流動的方式在當地商家花掉那筆存款，對吧。我覺得未來是往那邊走，當作儲蓄產品很有意思。顯然不是支付產品。所以我覺得，美國Mastercard through folks like Rain. You're going to have a yielding deposit, and it's going to earn 7%, and the data is going to be proven by Wojtek and Accountable, and you're going to essentially be able to spend that deposit in a liquid fashion via Rain, right, at your local merchant. And I think that's where the future is headed, and that's interesting as a savings product. Obviously not a payment product. And so I think, you know, the U.S.

4:12:43國會其實有先見之明，把支付型穩定幣跟其他東西分開。我不覺得他們有考慮到 vault 或這些其他概念。所以這是比較高階的看法，不是技術觀點，但我會這樣看穩定幣領域的分類，我覺得是對的，支付那邊必須安全，計息那邊，你基本上要確定擔保真的存在。Congress actually had some foresight in differentiating between a payment stablecoin and everything else. I don't think they've contemplated vaults or some of these other concepts. So I think that's like at a high level, and it's not a technical view of things, but I think that's a high level how I would think about a taxonomy of the stablecoin space, and I think it's the right, you know, the payment guys need to be safe, and then the yielding guys, you need to be certain that the backing exists, basically.

4:13:13也許再追問你一個問題：你怎麼看，對吧？誰該決定你的存款要去計息，對吧？假設 Rain 採用某種計息穩定幣。一般使用者來 Rain。誰承擔那個風險？我覺得應該由消費者自己選擇承擔風險。我不覺得平台該替使用者承擔把錢放進 sUSDe 的風險，也就是 Ethena 的計息產品。我覺得那樣不對。Maybe one follow-up question to you: how you feel about it, right? Like, who should be making the decision that your deposits should be yielding, right? Like, let's say Rain adopts some yield-bearing stablecoin. People come to Rain, like they're an average user. Who takes that risk? I think the consumer should have to choose to take that risk. I don't think a platform should choose to take the risk of, say, putting it in sUSDe, like Ethena's yielding product, on behalf of their user. I think that's wrong.

4:13:44但問題是，如果人們虧錢，他們會怪平台，對吧？因為他們不會做盡職調查。我其實跟一家 neobank 通過電話，他們有三個 Earn 產品，低風險是基於 Lido，中風險賺，我不確定，百分之五到六，然後高風險。高風險到處都是警告：紅、紅、紅。你猜怎樣？資金流入只進高風險，對吧？But then the problem is that if people lose money, they will blame the platform, right? Because they won't do due diligence. I actually had a call with a neobank, and they have three Earn products, like the low risk, which is based on Lido, mid-risk making, I don't know, five to six percent, and then the high risk. And the high-risk, it's like warnings everywhere: red, red, red. Guess what? It's only the inflows are only to the high-risk, right?

4:14:10然後他們知道，如果出事，大家會怪那家 neobank 連這個都提供。所以這是難的地方。但抱歉，我們把這。你問，現金像那塊呢？我們愈來愈離它遠。所以我覺得一直是。代幣化存款不是現金。穩定幣也不真的是現金。你看的是不同層次的風險和步驟。And then they know that if something goes wrong, everybody will blame that neobank for even offering that. So this is the tricky part. But sorry, we are taking the— You ask, where was cash-like? We're moving more and more away from it. So I think it's always— Tokenized deposit is not cash. Stablecoin is not really cash. There are different layers of risk and steps you look at.

4:14:30不知道你們知不知道，兩週前聯準會發布了支付型穩定幣資本要求的提案，也就是我們稱為最安全的那些。它們會有一些資本要求。也會有流動性壓力測試要求，現金不會有這些。所以它不完全是現金，但它有很多功能可以，尤其在代幣化經濟裡，可以發揮。And I don't know if you know, but two weeks ago, the Fed issued a proposal about the capital requirements for the payment stablecoins, so the ones that we call the most secure. They will have some capital requirements. They will have liquidity stress test requirements, so the cash won't have it. So it's not exactly cash, but it has a lot of functions that can, you know, especially in the tokenized economy, that it can serve.

4:14:53我覺得銀行在 GENIUS Act 簽署前後提出的點是，如果我們要有一些穩定幣，它們在某些方面看起來像存款，至少有某種自然關係。它們應該有 Basel III 底下同樣的股本資本要求，對吧？它們應該跟銀行一樣安全，所以要當穩定幣發行方，就必須在資本結構裡拿出一定數量的股本。And I think the point that banks made around the signing of the GENIUS Act was that if we're going to have stablecoins that have some— They look like deposits in some ways, and at least there's some natural relationship there. They should have some of the same equity capitalization requirements that are present under Basel III, right? They should be as safe as banks, and so they need to put up certain amounts of equity into the capital structure to be an issuer of stablecoins.

4:15:17我覺得這些都是好的、合理的事，對銀行來說沒有漏洞。如果你是穩定幣發行方但不是銀行，卻找到某種比銀行更有效率的資本化方式。所以我覺得這其實都合理。接著請座談上兩位投資人。這個問你們。你們在盡職調查一家公司And I think those are all, like, good and sound things, and, you know, for banks, there's no loophole. You know, if you're a stablecoin issuer but not a bank, and you get some way to, you know, have more efficient capitalization than a bank does. And so I think that's all well and fair, honestly. Moving on to our two investors on the panel. This one's for you guys. When you guys are diligencing a company

4:15:40發行或打造美元代幣時，你們怎麼查準備金，會要什麼公開揭露找不到的東西？以企業財務來說，我們通常用 USDC 這類主要產品。講到 USDC，他們已經揭露準備金是哪一種。所以從大型企業來看，我們大概會從穩定幣開始，像 USDC 這種主要穩定幣。但也許大家都該注意到，大型企業，issuing or building a dollar token, how do you check the reserves, and what will you ask for that you can't find with public disclosures? So, as a corporate treasury, we usually use the major product like USDC. So when it comes to USDC, they already show that, you know, what kind of reserve is there. So from the large corporate, we probably start with the stablecoin, like major stablecoin like USDC. But maybe it is important for everyone to notice that large corporates,

4:15:53大企業還缺公司錢包與會計理解

4:16:20我相信，沒有多少大型企業準備好接收 USDT，甚至 USDC，只是因為公司裡沒有錢包。所以 Sony 第一次在 Sony 導入錢包時，我去找會計部門、法遵部門，跟他們解釋用來收穩定幣的錢包，他們的反應是：「什麼，這是什麼？」然後我們就得從這裡開始解釋。I believe, not many large corporations are ready to receive USDT and even USDC, just because, you know, they do not have a wallet within the company. So when Sony first adopted a wallet at Sony, so we, you know, I reached out to the accounting department, compliance department, and explained to them that the, you know, wallet to receive the stablecoin, and, you know, their response is, "What, what, what is this?" And, you know, from here we have to explain.

4:16:53不然穩定幣大概不會被大型企業接受。所以這大概是一件事。也許兩邊都有。不過我希望那不是熱錢包。對，你看，我們在用穩定幣、支付型穩定幣時，我個人真的看不出理由要用 USDC 以外的東西，就是因為那個產品的網路效應。我會上網So maybe otherwise stablecoin won't be accepted by large corporate. So that's probably, you know, one thing. So maybe you get both. I hope it's not a hot wallet, though. Yeah, I mean, look, when I look at when we're using a stablecoin and a payment stablecoin, I really don't see a reason to use anything other than USDC, personally, just because of the network effects around that product. You know, I'll go online

4:17:20定期看他們公布的報告，我想是每月，上面列出他們在我認為由 BlackRock 管理的基金裡持有的公債清單，還有底層存款所在的銀行帳戶清單。所以我覺得，對所有穩定幣的期待，不管符不符合 GENIUS，就是要反覆公布擔保，對吧，還有銀行清楚簽證資金確實放在那裡。periodically and look at the reports they publish, I think monthly, which show the list of Treasuries that they hold in the fund that I think BlackRock manages, and, you know, the list of bank accounts that they have underlying deposits held in. And so I think, you know, the expectation, you know, for all stablecoins, GENIUS-compliant or not, is that there's some, you know, repeated publishing of the backing, right, and a clear attestation by banks that the funds are held there.

4:17:49所以我覺得只要達到那些標準，最好還有稽核。很明顯，Tether 有名的是長期繞過稽核，現在終於被稽核了。被稽核了，而大家還是在用，對吧？Tether 基本上沒被稽核時，人們還是大量使用，相信擔保在那裡。當然也有人不相信擔保在，然後試著放空 Tether，買入賣權等著必然爆掉，但那從來沒發生。So I think as long as those standards are met, ideally, audits. Obviously, Tether's famous for sort of skirting audits for a long time and now finally being audited. audited, and people were still using it, right? People still used Tether extensively while it was fundamentally unaudited and trusted that the backing was there. And obviously there were people who didn't believe the backing was there, and then they were trying to short Tether and, you know, buy puts for the inevitable blowup, and that never came.

4:18:17所以我覺得支付型穩定幣這邊我們要看的東西是一致的。計息穩定幣這邊就比較，多樣性比較多，你會問資產放在哪。Ethena 是我們的投資組合公司，我提過，他們用 delta 中性交易策略擔保穩定幣，歷史上就是基差交易。現在他們也在做一些機構放貸。And so I think the things we would look for on the payment stablecoin side are consistent. I think on the yielding stablecoin side, that's where it gets—there's more, you know, diversity, where you do have questions over where assets are held. You know, with Ethena, which is a portfolio company of ours, as I mentioned, there's—they are backing a stablecoin with a delta- neutral trading strategy, which is the basis trade historically. Now they're doing some institutional lending as well.

4:18:47我們真的有盡職調查他們跟交易所的三方保管安排，對吧？他們把 ETH 放在 Copper 錢包的三方保管，然後能把那 ETH 當交易所保證金去做空，他們就是這樣做出來的。Aegis 是 Accountable 的產品，也是投資組合公司，他們直接把餘額放在交易所。所以加密交易所變很多，對吧？他們怎麼輪替全部這些？And, you know, we really did diligence the triparty custody setup they had with exchanges, right? They're holding ETH in Copper wallets in triparty, and then they have the ability to sort of use that ETH as margin on exchanges and go short, and that's how they created. And so Aegis, which is an Accountable product, is a portfolio company as well, and they keep balances on exchanges directly. So the crypto exchanges change a lot, right? Like how they rotate all of them?

4:19:16沒錯。所以那邊多樣性比較多，我們會真正往下挖：誰持有資金。到頭來，鏈的最末端一定有人保管資金，對吧，我們會真的去看、去弄清楚是誰、放在哪，對吧？所以我覺得要避開交易對手風險或保管風險，唯一辦法大概是聯準會主帳戶，把現金都放在聯準會。從美元的角度看，我們大概會把那叫零風險Exactly. And so I think that's where there's more diversity, and we try and really dig in: who holds the funds. At the end of the day, somebody custodies the funds, right, at the end of the chain, and we legitimately go and look and figure out who's holding them where, right? So I think the only way to avoid, like, the counterparty risk or custody would be a Fed master account and keeping all the cash at the Fed. So that's probably something that we would call zero risk from the perspective of the U.S.

4:19:46兌回。當然，對，同意。但進入計息穩定幣這一類，他們承擔很大的，你知道，我們這行會被幹掉，交易對手風險鏈，對吧？不是，因為收益必須被做出來，人們對創造收益的方式很有創意，對吧？我們有一個客戶是用巴西穀物應收款在創造收益，對吧？巴西有一個政府入口網站，我們dollar redemption. For sure, yeah, agreed. But I think when you get into this yielding stablecoin category, they're taking huge, you know—our business will be killed—chains of counterparty risk, right? No, because the yield needs to be generated, you know, like people are very innovative with ways of generating yield, right? Like we have one client that was generating yield on receivables on Brazilian grain, right? And there is a governmental portal in Brazil for which

4:20:20為它做了所謂連接器或整合，你就能看到他們產生的應收款，然後還要跟巴西的銀行做整合，對吧，去查這筆餘額是不是真的進到那裡，對吧？但那還是改不了這個事實：如果這些人決定從銀行帳戶把現金抽走，去巴哈馬或哪裡，那個事實還是在，對吧？所以那是完全不同的風險，對吧？we built the so-called connector or an integration, so you could see the receivables that they are making, and then you need to build an integration with a bank in Brazil, right, like to retrieve whether this balance is actually coming there, right? But that still doesn't change the fact that if these guys decide to pull the cash from the bank account to, I don't know, go to the Bahamas or wherever, like, that doesn't change that fact, right? So it's a completely different risk, right?

4:20:47你可以證明一切都沒問題、他們在賺錢、收益在那裡。但某個時點會有人的因素。所以我們也證明底層協議的政策，對吧？你要知道自己曝險在什麼。是一個人按一個按鈕就把錢匯到自己的個人錢包，還是過程裡有稽核人員，握著那關鍵的一份，就能完全改寫結果。Like you can show that everything is fine, that they are making money, that the yield is there. But at one point, there can be a human factor. So that's why we also prove the policies of the underlying protocols, right? You need to know what you're exposed to. If it's one guy clicking one button and wiring the money to his own personal wallet, or there are, for example, auditors in the mix that hold one critical share that can make all the difference.

4:21:16這題我再補一點，我覺得市場普遍定價錯了或不理解，就是誰持有穩定幣底層資金的實體結構，以及破產時這條鏈長什麼樣子。因為你真正在意的情境，是底層實體已經無力清償，I'll add one more on this topic, which I think the market broadly misprices or misunderstands, is the entity structuring of who holds the funds underlying a stablecoin, and what the chain looks like in a bankruptcy. Because the case you care about is the case where the, you know, the underlying entity is insolvent,

4:21:40誰是那個實體的債權人，以及一旦無力清償，實際現金流會往哪邊流出，我覺得這是盡職調查最重要的事，常常被漏掉。人們會把錢放進穩定幣，然後那枚穩定幣底下的資金變成某個實體的資產，你作為穩定幣持有人變成那個實體的債權人。但你必須搞清楚還有誰是那個實體的債權人。and who's a creditor to that entity and where sort of like where the actual cash flows would spill out in the case of an insolvency, I think is the most important thing to diligence, which a lot of times gets lost. And people will put money into a stablecoin, and then that stablecoin, the funds... underneath the stablecoin become the sort of assets of an entity, and you as a stablecoin holder become a creditor to that entity. But you have to understand who else is a creditor to that entity.

4:22:11有沒有其他優先債權人基本上會把你的資金拿走？我覺得對非 Tether、Circle 來說，這個風險討論得不夠。也許 Tether 也算，但 Circle 這類，很多人漏掉，這也是嚴謹盡職調查的一部分。這正好接到下一個題目：兌回。平靜的日子兌回很簡單，但你們從過去的脫鉤學到什麼？有沒有能用在未來的教訓？Are there other senior creditors that would basically swipe your funds? This is sort of under-discussed as a risk, I think, to non, you know, Tether, Circle. Maybe Tether, but Circle and so on, that a lot of people miss and is part of, I think, rigorous diligence. That is a great segue into the next topic, which is redemption. So redemption is pretty easy on a quiet day, but what have you guys learned from past depegs? Any lessons that we can apply for future?

4:22:43我可以說，因為我們大概要分開講兌回能力和次級市場脫鉤，後者可能被很多事情造成，甚至壞消息等等。第一，我們的評等，我們的主要產品，技術上是看兌回能力。如果這項有在運作、持續進行，其實不太影響評等。只要符合約定、時效有守住、承諾有做到。但我們另一個穩定幣I could say, like, because we need to probably differentiate between ability to redeem and the secondary market depegs that could be caused by many things, even, you know, bad news, etc. So one, our ratings, our main product, technically looks at the ability to redeem. And if this one functions and it's ongoing, it doesn't really impact the rating. If it's in line with the agreement, the timeliness is kept, what's promised. But our other stablecoin...

4:23:20穩定度評估也會看脫鉤、看次級市場，那時這項評估才相關。我會聚焦計息穩定幣，因為那邊極度不透明，壓力時刻你有時會看到有後門，例如某些 LP 比其他人更早把現金提走。通常是散戶基本上自己留著那袋問題。還有整個分配流程stability assessment looks also at the depeg, at the secondary markets, and that's when it's also relevant for this assessment. I will focus on the yield-bearing stablecoins part because there it's extremely opaque, and actually in the stressed moments, like, you can sometimes see that there is a backdoor, for example, and that certain LPs were withdrawing the cash earlier than everybody else. Usually retail, it's basically the one keeping the bag of problems for themselves. Also the whole distribution process

4:24:00爆掉之後剩下的東西怎麼分配，完全不透明、含糊，這些通常設在境外法域的空殼實體基本上跟你說，我不知道，我今天給你一美元裡的 51 美分，其餘可能來也可能不來的部分你全部放棄權利，基本上他們就這樣告訴你。就是會這樣，你沒有任何權利拿到那些，因為我們要理解擠兌發生時，對吧？of the leftovers that are there when there is some sort of blow-up, completely opaque and vague, and all of these shell entities usually located in offshore jurisdictions are basically telling you, I don't know, I'm going to give you 51 cents on the dollar today, you waive all of the rights to the rest that may or may not come, and it's basically what we're going to tell you. It's going to happen and you have zero rights to get that, because we need to understand when there is a bank run, right?

4:24:36通常如果你有應收款，對吧，它不是躺在銀行等你。所以流動準備金會先被抽乾，然後問題通常是那些不流動的東西，對吧？可能解決、可能不解決。沒人知道會怎樣。你只能看發行方臉色，完全沒有能見度。對，也許補一句，這個我們知道，一個大概你們也提過的大脫鉤。Like usually when you have receivables, for example, right, it's not like laying in the bank and waiting for you. So the liquid reserves, it's what's being drained first, and then usually the problem is the stuff that is illiquid, right? And that may resolve, may not resolve. Nobody knows what's going to happen. You're at the mercy of the issuer without any visibility. Yeah, just maybe to add that, this one we know about, like, one big depeg that you probably also mentioned.

4:25:06它是銀行存款的特定情況造成的，所以現在在發展資本準備金緩衝，可以多一層墊子，對沖既有的一些風險集中。不只是超額擔保的水位，還有額外緩衝，可能用來覆蓋暫時的卡關或某些問題。全球企業要看到什麼，才會把穩定幣放上資產負債表，跟短期國庫券和貨幣市場基金放在一起？It was caused by a specific situation of a bank deposit, and that's why the means are being developed of capital reserve buffers that will be kept that could be additional cushion against some concentration of risks that is there. Not only the level of over-collateralization, but also additional buffer to potentially cover for any, let's say, temporary hiccup or some issue. What does a global corporate need to see before stablecoins sit on the balance sheet next to T-bills and money market funds?

4:25:37Taka，你有想法嗎？好。首先，我覺得企業必須定義什麼是穩定幣、什麼不是。今天這個座談，大家討論了支付型穩定幣和產生收益的穩定幣。依我看，產生收益的穩定幣不是穩定幣。所以基本上，支付型穩定幣有充足準備金。我們講了脫鉤，對吧？脫鉤發生對我來說沒關係，因為我們一定會選，比如說 USDC。Taka, do you have any thoughts? Okay. So first of all, I think it is important for corporate to define what a stablecoin is and what is not. So today in this panel, people discussed that payment stablecoin and yield-generating stablecoin. In my opinion, yield-generating stablecoin is not the stablecoin. So basically, the payment stablecoin, they have the sufficient reserve. So, you know, we spoke depeg, right? So when depeg happens, it's fine for me because we definitely choose, like, for example, you know, USDC.

4:26:20我們一定會選，比如說 USDC，如果它短暫偏離一比一關係，只要充足準備金還在，我們相信它會回到一。所以這是我在企業裡對穩定幣的定義。這不表示我反對產生收益的穩定幣。但如果我是總部財務的財務經理，我會把它當成收益產品，而不是產生收益的穩定幣。We definitely choose, like, for example, you know, USDC, and if it deviates from the, you know, one-to-one relationship for a short time, as long as sufficient reserve is there, we believe that it comes back to one. So this is my definition of stablecoin in the corporate, and, you know. Which doesn't mean that I disagree with the yield-generating stablecoin. But if I am the finance manager in a headquarter finance, I will put it as, you know, like a yield product rather than a yield-generating stablecoin.

4:26:58所以我們有了那樣的定義之後。對。接下來，對吧？抱歉，我要回答你的問題。如我剛才說，第一，企業需要錢包，第二，接受穩定幣的第二個挑戰是：它們不是收益產品。所以我們一收到 USDC，比如說，大概會把 USDC 轉成 TMMF，代幣化 MMF，比如說。所以我覺得穩定幣和代幣化 MMF 是一套。我們一收到，我們So after we— We, you know, have a definition like that. Yeah. So next, right? Sorry, I need to answer your question. So as I mentioned, firstly, you know, corporate needs a wallet, and secondly, the second challenge of accepting stablecoin is: They are not yield products. So once we receive USDC, for example, we will probably convert USDC into TMMF, tokenized MMF, for example. So I think stablecoin and tokenized MMF is a set. So once we receive it, we...

4:27:40轉成代幣化 MMF，當全球財務需要穩定幣去付款時，再把代幣化 MMF 轉成穩定幣。我這樣講的話，我已經跟團隊研究過，比較代幣化 MMF 產品，像 BlackRock、Franklin Templeton、WisdomTree，這些產品。所以如果我們能快速把代幣化 MMF 轉成穩定幣來付款，我覺得對我們來說這些就可以。你們有持有代幣化貨幣市場基金嗎？目前沒有。Convert it into the tokenized MMF, and when global treasury needs stablecoin to make payment, we convert tokenized MMF into stablecoin. So when I put it this way, I already studied with my team that we compare the tokenized MMF products, like— BlackRock, Franklin Templeton, WisdomTree, all these products. So if we can quickly convert tokenized MMF into stablecoin for the payment, you know, I think, you know, these are fine for us. Do you guys hold tokenized money market funds? At this moment, not.

4:28:16好，但你在意的基本上是代幣化貨幣市場基金轉成 USDC 的可轉換性。對，沒錯。沒錯。對，為了支付。好。在評等、準備金和兌回之間，你覺得現在最大的可投資缺口是什麼？你們在資助什麼？看到什麼會興奮？我是說，穩定幣最讓人興奮、最有意思的，不是，我是說，兌回是必要條件。Okay, but you care about the convertibility of tokenized money market funds into USDC, basically. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Yeah, for payment. Okay. Across ratings, reserves, and redemption, what do you think is the biggest investable gap right now? What are you guys funding? What are you excited to see? I mean, I think that, like, the thing that's most exciting about stablecoins and, like, most interesting is not—I mean, redemption is a sine qua non.

4:28:40可投資缺口在通路與流動性

4:28:49你顯然不能用一枚無法全額兌回的穩定幣。我覺得穩定幣之間更有意思的差異，是它們能用到的流動性，包括交易所上的次級流動性，還有其他形式的整合。不是要一直講 Rain，但我覺得穩定幣的差異點是：Visa 收不收，對吧，當成支付方式，USDC 可以，其他穩定幣不行。You can't obviously, like, use a stablecoin that you cannot redeem the full size of. The more interesting differentiator between stablecoins, in my view, Is the liquidity that's available to them, both on exchanges as secondary liquidity, and also other forms of integration. I mean, not to continue to highlight Rain, but I think a differentiator for a stablecoin is: does Visa accept it, right, as a form of payment, which is true for USDC, but is not true for— Other stablecoins.

4:29:21所以是那項資產周圍那一整組流動性和整合，而不是兌回的特定機制，前提是兌回能力、條件和百分之百擔保都達到。所以我覺得那And so it's the constellation of liquidity and integrations around that particular asset, as opposed to, you know, the specific mechanics around its redemption, assuming the redemption capabilities and criteria and 100% backing are met. And so I think that's—

4:29:40講到我們會支持什麼、對什麼感到興奮，是圍繞 USDC，或 Paxos 穩定幣，或 Tether 的整合和真實世界使用場景持續往外長，長期會帶來更多真實世界效用，然後我。跟卡組織整合就是很好的一個。你可以想像跟國內支付系統整合，ACH，巴西的 Pix，對特定穩定幣來說也會是有意思的差異點。It's like, when it comes to what I, you know, what we would back and what we're excited about, it's the continued build-out of integrations and real-world use cases around USDC or, you know, Paxos stablecoins or Tether that are going to bring more real-world utility over the long term, and I— Integration with card networks is a great one. You can imagine integration with, you know, domestic payment systems, ACH, you know, Pix in Brazil, you know, also being an interesting differentiator for a particular stablecoin.

4:30:14我確實認為這必須一項資產一項資產發生。所以我覺得那。那對我們來說，比風險和兌回的特定機制更令人興奮。不知道你們同不同意，或。這百分之百是通路遊戲，對吧？所以你才看到那麼多歐元穩定幣失敗。採用度絕對是零，因為流動性是零。它們甚至有上交易所。And I do think that will have to happen on an asset-by-asset basis. And so I think that's— That's, like, exciting to us more so than the particular mechanics around the risk and redemption. I don't know if you guys would agree or disagree, or— It's a distribution game, 100%, right? Like, that's why you see so many euro stablecoins failing. Like, there is absolutely zero adoption because there is zero liquidity. They are even listed on exchanges.

4:30:40像 Binance 那些，但量薄到如果你第一天沒把這些樂高積木都組好，就沒有任何採用機會。所以現在 Revolut 帶著歐元進場，對吧，我相信那才是有機會成功的穩定幣基礎。現在外面有多少美元穩定幣？這個階段大概好幾百，但我們幾乎只談 USDC，對吧？幾乎。Like Binance and so on, but the volume is so thin that, like, if you don't have all of these Lego pieces set up on day one, then you have no chance of any adoption. So now that Revolut is entering the game, right, like with euros, like, that's the foundation of a successful stablecoin that I believe has a chance. So there are how many USD stablecoins out there? Like hundreds at this stage, but we only talk about USDC, right? Like, almost.

4:31:07有意思的部分似乎是把那關打通，我覺得那才是新穩定幣的差異點。我看新穩定幣時，是你能不能打通路遊戲？而且那真的是一場遊戲，因為一個選項是你付 200 萬美元，再付給 Anchorage 100 萬美元做整合，付給 Fireblocks 做整合。The interesting part seems to be cracking that, and I think that's the differentiator for new stablecoins. When I look at new stablecoins, it's, can you crack the distribution game? And it literally is a game, because one option is you can pay $2 million, and you can pay Anchorage a million dollars for an integration and Fireblocks for an integration.

4:31:25你可以付錢給交易所上架，但太貴了，除非你有理由讓他們想做，意思是你有某種獨門配方，能把通路打出來。我覺得 Agora 在這塊有有意思的想法，把一部分收益回饋給通路夥伴。對，我們跟他們合作，那是他們在特定鏈上搶早的機會。You can pay the exchanges for listing, but, like, it's so expensive unless you have a reason for them to want to do it, which means you have some, you know, kind of special sauce that, you know, that's going to hack distribution. I think Agora had interesting ideas in this area, you know, in terms of paying back portions of the yield to the distribution partners. Yeah, we work with them, and that's their chance of being early on a particular chain.

4:31:49所以他們跟 Monad 簽約，對吧，第一天就在那裡，然後主導了那條鏈。所以如果你不試這些，你，再說一次，我覺得這就是今天特定穩定幣的差異，也是我們看新的時候會找的其中一件事。So they signed a deal with Monad, right, like, to be there on day one, and they dominated the chain. So if you don't try these things, you— again, that's, like, what's differentiating about particular stablecoins, I think, today, and one of the things we look for when we're looking at new.

4:32:04我碰到那些把穩定幣解決方案當技術在開發、沒有市值的公司時，也看到很多概念，用幾乎即時的出入金當軌道，他們還是能提供 24/7 的所有好處，卻沒有真實曝險。所以他們真的可以把穩定幣當支付和轉帳工具，但不創造穩定幣的市值。我看到科技公司很多都在討論這個概念，其中一個想法。I can also see a lot of concepts when I meet the companies developing, like, a stablecoin solution as a technology without the market cap, with almost immediate on- and off-ramping as rails, and they can still provide 24/7, like, all the benefits without, like, real exposure. So they just can really— use a stablecoin as a means of payment and transfers of money, but without creating a market cap of a stablecoin. I can see with technology companies, a lot of them discuss this concept, one of the ideas.

4:32:30但你也問了資產負債表的問題，什麼時候會在資產負債表上看到更多。我想用數字給一個大圖，我們怎麼看銀行資產負債表上的這件事。假設現金風險權重是 0%，短期國庫券對我們是 3%，換算成 100 美元曝險要 24 美分。穩定幣，符合 GENIUS、我們知道裡面有什麼、還有一些銀行存款的，現在頂尖那檔大概 15%。所以你有 3 和 15。But you asked one question also about the balance sheet, when you would see more of them on the balance sheet. So I wanted just to give a big picture of how we look at it at the balance sheet of the bank, with numbers. So let's say cash would be 0% risk weight, T-bills would be 3% for us, which translates to 24 cents on $100 exposure. And stablecoin, GENIUS-compliant, that we know what's there with some bank deposits, is now about 15% for the top one. So you have 3 and 15.

4:33:00所以相對小。大概是 100 美元曝險要 1.20 美元緩衝要求。但如果他們放在資產負債表上，尤其是銀行，大概必須把這算進去。它需要的資本緩衝水位會有點不一樣。喔，所以你是說銀行要對那個價值提列 15% 準備？在我們的方法裡，我不是說因為監管發展他們必須這樣，但聯準會提案的結果，看起來跟我們做的很像。So it's relatively small. It's like $1.20 buffer requirement on $100 exposure. But if they have it on balance sheet, they will probably need to, especially banks, take this into account. It costs a bit different level of capital buffer that probably is needed to be kept. Oh, so you're saying the banks need to reserve 15% of the value? In our methodology, I'm not saying that they need because of the regulatory developments, but the proposal of the Fed, in terms of the outcome, looks pretty similar to what we do.

4:33:32我算的時候，他們用不同路徑走到那裡，但最後要求可能是 100 美元曝險要 1.20 美元。但為什麼會到 15%？那是風險權重。就是那樣，搭配 8% 的要求。所以基本上是看堆疊裡的銀行存款曝險。所以如果純粹是短期國庫券。喔，因為你是在說穩定幣裡有多少銀行交易對手曝險，基本上。當然，如果純粹是短期國庫券，水位可以不一樣。And when I calculated it, they have a different way how to get there, but in the end, the requirement could be like $1.20 on $100 exposure. But why do you get to 15%? It is the risk weight. That's the way, with the 8% requirement. So it's based off, basically, the bank deposits exposure in the stack. So if it was purely T-bills— Oh, because you're saying how much bank counterparty exposure is present in a stablecoin, basically. So of course, if we had purely T-bills, it could be a different level.

4:34:03如果我們有某種保證，它不會是別的東西。好，最後閃電問答收尾。看看水晶球，到 2027 年底，亞洲大多數大型企業財務會不會持有一些被他們分類成現金的穩定幣？是或否？決定這件事的一件事是什麼？對我來說，我的意見是不會。我們還在基礎設施建設階段，尤其是日本。If we had, like, some guarantee that it won't be anything else. All right, lightning round to wrap up here. Looking into the crystal ball, by the end of 2027, will most large corporate treasuries in Asia hold some stablecoins they classify as cash? Yes or no? And what's one thing that decides it? So for me, I think my opinion is no. So we are still in the infrastructure-building phase, in Japan especially.

4:34:31所以在完全接受穩定幣之前，我們必須做一些事，包括為基礎設施鋪路。但希望穩定幣和代幣化 MMF 都準備好，如果企業財務相信它能解決我們的財務問題，我們相信日本企業會開始用。消費端，我們相信我們。也不算相信，我們希望消費者接受日圓穩定幣。So before fully accepting the stablecoin, we need to do something, including, you know, paving the way for the infrastructure. But hopefully, stablecoin and tokenized MMF are ready, and if corporate treasuries believe that it can solve our treasury issue, we believe that Japanese corporations will start using it. And on the consumer side, we believe that we... Also, not believe—we hope consumers accept the, you know, JPY stablecoin.

4:35:06目前在日本有一些穩定幣，JPYC 和 JPYSC，由 SBI 和 Startale 發行，還有三家大型銀行的穩定幣，要給 Mitsubishi Corporation 使用。這些穩定幣一旦準備好、日本消費者一旦接受，我們相信日本市場會更有意思。作為 Sony，我們想培養這個文化，也想看到更有意思的Currently, you know, in Japan, there are some stablecoins, JPYC and JPYSC, issued by SBI and Startale, and also three megabanks' stablecoin, which are to be utilized by Mitsubishi Corporation. So these stablecoins, once they are ready and once Japanese consumers accept, we believe that, I think, the Japanese market will be a more interesting one. As Sony, we would like to develop the culture, and we would like to see the more, you know, interesting

4:35:40未來，人們用穩定幣不只是賺錢、創造收益，也能用更娛樂的方式使用穩定幣。謝謝。好，各位，就是這樣。非常感謝各位下午跟我們待在一起。這場的主要收穫是，穩定幣要真的被當成現金，兌回、評等、準備金，都必須經得起檢驗。而今天，讓這件事發生的所有工具正在被打造。所以我要感謝future in which people use stablecoin not only as, you know, earning money and making a yield, but also using the stablecoin in a more entertainment way. Thank you. All right, guys, that was it. Thank you so much for spending the afternoon with us. Main takeaway from this session is for stablecoins to actually be considered as cash, you know, redemptions, ratings, reserves, they all need to hold up under scrutiny. And today, all the tools for that to happen are being built right now. So I want to thank the—

4:36:20與談人加入我們，也感謝主辦單位今天請我們來 Stablecoin Summit。the panel for joining us and the organizers for having us here at Stablecoin Summit today.