Franklin Templeton、Binance、Canton 談代幣化與鏈上結算

0:00開場與嘉賓介紹

0:00大家好，很榮幸在今天的開場與各位相見。我身邊有三位世界級的座談嘉賓。我們先來個超快速自我介紹。Jenny，可以先幫我們開個頭嗎？All right, honored to be with you all on our opening session of the day. I have three absolutely world-class panelists here with me. We're going to get started with a super quick round of intros. Jenny, could you kick it off for us?

0:20我是 Jenny Johnson，Franklin Templeton Investments 執行長，我們公司大約有 80 年歷史，管理 1.8 兆美元資產。我們從 2017 年左右就開始投入區塊鏈技術相關的工作。So Jenny Johnson, CEO of Franklin Templeton Investments, we're about an 80-year-old company. We've got 1.8 trillion in assets under management. We have been doing blockchain technology and work around there since about 2017.

0:36很棒。大家好，我是 Richard Teng，Binance 執行長。我們是全球最大的加密貨幣交易所，現在已經轉型為多元資產的全球交易所，全球有超過 2.3 億使用者，跨多種資產類別交易。很高興回到新加坡見到大家。Excellent. Hi, I'm Richard Teng, CEO of Binance. We are the largest crypto exchange, and then now we pivot to a multi-asset global exchange with more than 230 million customers globally trading across different asset classes now. So very nice to be back in Singapore to see all of you.

0:55我是 Yuval，Digital Asset 共同創辦人暨執行長。我們是 Canton Network 的創建者，這是一個具備隱私功能的公有網路。I'm Yuval. I'm the co-founder and CEO of Digital Asset. We are the creators of Canton Network. Public network with privacy capabilities.

1:01產業規則與監管變革

1:01我們今天要討論新型態的機構市場。我認為現在正處於一個非常有趣的時刻，因為數位資產的市場結構和這個新產業的規則正經歷轉折點。為了讓大家有個背景，美國去年通過了穩定幣法案 GENIUS Act。我們也差一點通過了名為 CLARITY Act 的市場結構法案，但最後沒過。不過現在 SEC 和 CFTC 都積極參與，全球監管機構也在重新思考對這個新產業的態度。We're going to talk about the new institutional market, and I think we're speaking here at a very interesting point because we're going through an inflection point in digital assets market structure and the rules that govern this new industry. You know, just to maybe set the scene here, we had stablecoin legislation pass in the United States last year in the form of Genius. We got very, very close with a market structure bill called Clarity, which did not end up passing. But we now see the SEC and the CFTC really leaning in, and global regulators rethinking their stance on this new industry.

1:37Jenny，我想先請教你，這個產業規則的改變大家該怎麼看？這會如何影響市場？Jenny, I'd love to maybe call on you first here. How should we in this audience understand the changing rule sets of crypto, and how is that going to impact this market?

1:46我認為 GENIUS Act 通過時，這是一個巨大的催化劑，讓大家認知到這個產業會更主流化。它遲早會成為主流。至於 CLARITY Act，最大問題在於政府認為有利益衝突，導致法案卡在兩黨之間。但只要有監管明確性就好，當然最好能立法，因為一旦立法就不容易改變。大家擔心的是換了新政府、新監管機構會不會推翻規則，但這很難做到，美國人也不喜歡政策反覆。我認為我們已經取得很多進展，SEC 和 CFTC 都很明確地想要給產業一些指引，這對機構採用很重要。Well, I think when the GENIUS Act passed that—was a huge catalyst, I think, to sort of this recognition, okay, this is going to come more mainstream. And it has to come mainstream at some point. And, you know, the CLARITY Act, I think probably the biggest issue with the CLARITY Act is there is a view with the administration that there is a conflict of interest, and so you had it. Sort of fall between parties. But the reality is, as long as you get regulatory clarity, sure, you'd love to have it be legislated because once it's legislated, you can't change it. And the concern, of course, is you get a new regulator in with a new administration, do they unwind rules? But that's tough to do. And in the U.S., people, they don't like to whipsaw back and forth on that. So I actually think. We achieved a lot, and it's been very clear with both the SEC and the CFTC that they are trying to provide some clarity for the industry. So I think that's important for institutional adoption.

2:54我完全同意。如果你看，在 GENIUS Act 之前，儘管區塊鏈和加密貨幣有很多明顯優勢，採用者還是以大眾零售為主。大家都知道 24 小時轉帳的便利，遠勝傳統銀行系統，後者要兩三天才能完成資產轉移。GENIUS Act 通過後，美國有很多金融機構開始加入，支付業者也支持穩定幣。全球其他地區像新加坡、香港、韓國等也因美國市場規模大而被迫跟進。希望 CLARITY Act 也能通過，這樣產業進步才不會被逆轉，全球也會更認真看待，機構資金才會大舉進場。即使沒有這些法案，創新還是持續發生，像 RWA 代幣化已經成為區塊鏈繼穩定幣後的另一個 killer app。產業很怕創新被倒退，這是目前最大的擔憂。Yeah, my view exactly, right? But—If you look at it, until the GENIUS Act, despite all the key benefits that we see in blockchain and crypto, right, adoption was still mainly among the mass retail, right? People understand the beauty of 24 transferability, as much better than traditional banking system where you take two to three days to transfer assets and for the recipients to receive it. It's only with the GENIUS Act. That firstly, in the States, you see so many financial institutions coming on board, the payment providers really supporting stablecoins, etc. And then throughout the rest of the world, you see Singapore, you see Hong Kong, you see the likes of Korea and different parts of the world because of the competitive pressure that U.S. is being such a big marketplace. And once U.S. put its mind and resources to something. That the rest are forced to say, hey, I need to react to maintain my competitive edge, right? So I actually, I do hope to see the CLARITY Act come into place as well, because it's only with that that you don't reverse the course of progression, firstly. And then secondly, you have the rest of the world saying that, hey guys, it's time to get serious. And the institutions, where they need to come in a big way. But even without a lot of those, I mean, innovation is taking place. If you just look at tokenized RWA, it's taking off in such a big way. It's another killer app within the crypto blockchain space, other than stablecoins. So we are seeing innovation taking place, but the innovation is afraid of backtracking. At some point in time, I think that's the biggest fear among the industry.

4:31但我認為不能只靠 CLARITY Act。如果期中選舉如大家預期發展，這法案也不會有更多動能。好消息是，只要監管環境有明確性，創新還是能繼續推進。But I don't think you can rely on the clarity act. I mean, if the midterms go the way everybody thinks they're going to go, you're not going to get more momentum. Absolutely. So I think the good news is, with the clarity on the regulatory environment, you can still move forward on that innovation.

4:46我完全同意 Jenny 的看法。我們其實在 GENIUS Act 之前，當政府換屆時就已經看到機構採用開始出現。機構最在意的是監管機構不會追殺他們。其實在 GENIUS Act 之前，使用區塊鏈並不違反美國法律。GENIUS Act 只是針對穩定幣這個新資產類別立法，但用區塊鏈技術來動員國庫券、貨幣市場基金、股票，法律上並沒有禁止。所以我認為這很像當年 Uber 和 Airbnb，等大家想立法禁止時，已經太晚了，市場習慣已經養成，無法逆轉。現在產業的任務就是趁著監管明確，把技術用到極致，讓 2028 年發生什麼都無法回頭，這就是機構採用的關鍵。Yeah, I totally agree with Jenny. I think we start seeing institutional adoption. When the administration changed, even before Genius, and I think that what institutions want to know is that the regulators are not going to go after them. At the end of the day, using blockchain, in my opinion, didn't violate any U.S. law even before Genius. Genius introduced legislation around a new novel asset class, which is called a stablecoin, but with respect to using Blockchain technology to mobilize treasuries, money market funds, equities. I don't believe that there was anything in the law that prevented it. So my view is kind of similar to if you remember in the days of Uber and Airbnb, by the time people got their act together and decided, okay, we want to legislate against those companies, it was too late. There was no way to reverse the trend of people using these type of services, and I think that that's our job now as an industry, because of regulatory clarity, is to bring the use of this technology to a level that it really doesn't matter what happens in 2028. There is no going back, and I think that that's where the institutional adoption is really key.

5:58機構採用與代幣化催化劑

5:58你們三位在市場上都扮演很特別的角色。你們怎麼看機構採用、使用者黏著度的發展？現在我們正處於代幣化股票的前夕，GENIUS Act 預計 1 月 18 日在美國實施。你們覺得會是穩定幣還是什麼其他催化劑？Yeah, you kind of anticipated my next question there, which is, you know, this is sort of the, I would say, house view, is that we have a certain amount of time to build something very valuable and entrenched in terms of usage for consumers so that even if a less friendly regulatory administration were to come in, they wouldn't want to tear down existing business. Where do the three of you, you each occupy very interesting seats in the market. How do you see that adoption, that entrenched usage happening? Is it, so we're kind of sitting on the eve of tokenized stocks. Genius is being implemented, I believe, January 18th in the United. Is it going to be stablecoins? What's the catalyst that you see?

6:38我們之所以在 2017 年投入這領域，是因為我當時負責 Franklin Templeton 的技術。剛剛 Yuval 講到一個很重要的點。當我們的 Benji 代幣化貨幣市場基金在 Gensler 主政下獲 SEC 核准時，他們要求我們同時維護鏈上和舊系統的股東紀錄。當時全球只有兩家資產管理公司有舊系統。我還開玩笑說，我們全球有四套紀錄系統，客戶遍布 160 國，從沒有人問過這些系統用什麼程式語言，直到我們用區塊鏈。其實這就是一種程式語言，根本不該是個議題。So the reason we got involved in this, you know, back in 2017, I had run technology at Franklin Templeton, and you looked at it, I... You've all made a really important point. So when we got our Benji tokenized money market fund approved at the SEC under the Gensler administration there, they had us parallel process our shareholder record-keeping system, which we'd built on-chain, and our old system. And at the time, there were only really two asset managers that had an old. And I laughed because I said, you know, we have—I think we had four record-keeping systems globally. We sell, we have clients in 160 countries. And I said, nobody ever asked the programming language of any of them until it was on blockchain. Like, this is a programming language. It shouldn't even be a discussion.

7:25我們會投入，是因為區塊鏈的程式語言有三大優點。第一，它是單一真實來源。金融業花很多錢在不同系統間對帳，因為資料延遲、時間不同。第二，它能做智慧合約，合約條件直接寫進每筆交易。第三，它有支付機制。如果這能成為產業基礎設施，成本會大幅降低、創新會加速。事實上，SEC 要我們雙軌並行，八個月下來，舊系統交易成本約 7.5 萬美元，用 Stellar 區塊鏈只要 1.67 美元。1.67 美元對比 7.5 萬美元。如果你要在舊系統開 Benji 帳戶，最低要 500 美元，因為低於這個金額會被其他股東補貼；Benji 產品只要 20 美元，甚至可以降到 5 美元。這對金融普惠是很大優勢，更重要的是大幅降低成本、提升交易速度，產業一定會走向這條路。雖然有些商業模式會被威脅，但這趨勢無法阻擋。And the reason we were interested, because the programming language does three things really well. That, to me, explains why there is no way this is going to stop. Water runs down the hill, no matter how—gravity is a strong force, no matter how much you try to stop it. Number one, it has a source of truth. There is a huge cost in all financial services firms reconciling data between systems because of the latency of data, and it gets populated at different times. The second, it has the ability to do smart contracts. All this work we do when we do an agreement, we, you know, have people who have to track the terms of the contract. That gets programmed into the individual transaction, and the third, it has a payment mechanism. We looked at that and said, man, if that can be the rails of the industry, it is going to dramatically drive down costs and increase innovation. And in fact, when the SEC had a parallel process, It costs us something like over the eight months to do it, like $75,000 to do the transactions on the old system, and it cost us $1.67 to do—we use the Stellar blockchain—to do on Stellar. $1.67 versus $75,000. So if you want to open a Benji account on our old money market fund, you need $500 to open it up, because anything below that, the other—Shareholders were subsidizing you. On the Benji product, you need $20. We could probably go down to $5. From a financial inclusion, that's a huge advantage. But more importantly, just driving down costs and the velocity of transaction, it's going to dramatically improve. So we looked at it and said, the industry is going to go there. There's a lot of businesses, models that are threatened by that. But there's no way this is going to stop.

9:11鏈上紀錄與產業效率革命

9:11我想追問一下，現在很多 RWA（像國庫券、美元等資產）都上鏈了，形成平行紀錄系統：舊系統是主紀錄，新系統是區塊鏈。但其實新系統在很多方面更好、更便宜、更快、全年無休。未來會完全轉向鏈上紀錄嗎？還是永遠會有兩套？Can I actually ask a quick follow-up, and you probably might be getting ready to answer this, but one interesting thing about this particular moment in time is a lot of RWAs, so treasuries, dollars, all sorts of different assets are moving on-chain, and it seems like we kind of have this parallel record-keeping system. There's the old system, which is the source of truth, and this new system of blockchain. But the new system is actually better in a bunch of ways. It's cheaper, faster, 24/7 global. Are we going to get something where that's the ultimate record-keeping system? Do we make that transition, or is there always going to be two?

9:42百分之百會轉向鏈上。以我們的貨幣市場基金為例，其他基金只是做鏈上影子紀錄（digital twin），完全沒用到技術優勢。我們的 Benji 基金每秒計算收益，日終直接發到你帳戶。如果你是企業財務長，這很有感。只有原生上鏈才能做到。現在 Nasdaq 交易還是 T+1，因為客戶後台還沒辦法處理原子結算，但未來一定會來臨。100%. Sorry, can I—don't mean to steal all the thunder from my panelists, but so just take what we do with our money market fund. The other money market funds that are out there are shadowed on-chain. They're digital twins, which means you get none of the benefits of the technology. So in the case of our Benji Money Market Fund, we calculate the yield every second, and we pay it to you at the end of the day. You get cash in your account. If you're a corporate treasurer, that's really significant, right? The only reason we could do it is because we're natively on-chain. And, and, you know, honestly, Nasdaq's coming out and they're trading, it's T plus one. Why? They could be atomic settlement. It's T plus one because all of their clients, back office, can't handle atomic settlement yet, but it will come.

10:34補充一下 Jenny 剛剛提到的數字，金融業每年光是對帳成本就高達 1300 億美元。資產移動的摩擦也很大，全球約有 40 兆美元資產因摩擦無法用於放貸或抵押。這些成本其實是人類的隱形稅，消費者完全沒受益，只有中間商賺到。這項技術的目標就是把這些成本和摩擦降到零，讓企業到消費者都能受益。舉例來說，財務管理就是很好的應用。我們很快會宣布 Fortune 100 公司用 Benji，他們因摩擦手上要放 100 億美元現金，這一家公司就等於目前所有代幣化貨幣市場基金的兩倍規模。如果能轉成數位貨幣市場基金、即時兌回現金，每年可多賺 3 億美元。這對大公司是巨大好處，對個人和小企業也是，大家都能自動把閒錢轉進高收益產品，產業能創造的收益非常可觀。這也是為什麼監管機構不會想逆轉這趨勢，這根本不合理。Just, just maybe to—Just to put in perspective, in terms of the numbers that Jenny talked about, this cost of reconciliation is estimated right now to the industry at about $130 billion a year of just costs. When you think about the friction of movement of assets, it's estimated that there are roughly $40 trillion worth of assets globally that could be used for lending, collateral. Securities that are not being used as a result of friction, and a lot of times we like to say digital asset, that cost is really just a tax on humanity. No consumer is benefiting from this friction and cost, right? There are some middle players that are benefiting from that friction, but as an overall industry, nobody's benefiting. And I think that you know, the goal of this technology is really to reduce that cost and friction down to zero. And as a result of that, that would enable use cases that benefit all the way from businesses to consumer. As Jenny mentioned, I think treasury management is a great example. We're hoping to announce very soon that we're using Benji with a Fortune 100 company. That that company alone sits on $10 billion of cash at any given point of time because of that friction. One company estimated at 2x the total tokenized money market fund right now out there, and that's just a single company. And they believe that if they can convert that to digital money market fund. And back into cash in real time, they can generate over $300 million of revenue a year. That is a huge benefit to a Fortune 100 company. Think about what that means to individuals that now can sweep their cash accounts into yield products without even thinking about it, small businesses, the amount of revenue and yield. That the whole industry can help generate is pretty massive. And that goes back to my point, as a regulator, why would you ever try to turn that back, right? Like, that just would not be a rational thing to do.

12:47全球普惠與 24/7 交易新格局

12:47我再補充兩個觀點。長久以來，很多人受限於出生地，機會和資源差異很大。比如你出生在新加坡，和中東、非洲等地，能接觸到的銀行、支付、投資環境完全不同。我們今年開始轉型，從加密貨幣交易所變成多元產品平台，包括美股。最大好處就是全球普惠，讓原本無法投資美股的人，透過代幣化產品用極低成本參與，不論身在何處。I'm just going to add two other perspectives to this, right? I think all those excellent points, but just from our angle. So for the longest time, Many individuals are constrained by where they are born, right? Where you are born, the type of opportunities, the type of access you have is very different. If you are born in Singapore, for example, versus, you know, some different parts of the world, whether it's Middle East or different parts of Africa, you probably don't get the same access to the banking system, the payment system, the investment landscape to you would look very, very different, right? So. For us, when we started to do this this year, especially when we pivot from being a crypto exchange offering many other products, including U.S. stocks, I think one of the great things is global access, right? So for people that don't have access to U.S. stocks for the longest time, through tokenized products, firstly gain access at very, very low cost, right? Wherever they are in the world.

13:45全球普惠是一個重點，因為世界上很多人沒有同樣的機會。現在要投資美股、香港、韓國等頂級股票還是有很多摩擦。另一個重點是 24/7 交易。傳統交易所像 Nasdaq、紐約證交所一天只開八小時，甚至更短。這導致夜間、週末、假日都有流動性風險，因為新聞、產業消息隨時發生，但投資人、交易員、機構、散戶（不論用不用 agentic trading）都無法即時進出或避險。So one issue is global access because many people around the world are not given the same opportunity. There's still a lot of friction points to gain access to the, you know, U.S. stocks, to the top Hong Kong stocks, to the top Korean stocks, etc. So that's one perspective. The other perspective is 24/7 trading, right? If you look at traditional exchanges, and Jenny mentioned this slightly just now. Talking about whether it's Nasdaq or New York Stock Exchange, many of the traditional equity exchange around the world operates eight hours a day, or slightly less than that, right? So there's huge liquidity risk throughout the night, throughout weekends, throughout holidays where the market is closed, because news events are happening, corporate news are coming, industry news are coming. Global events take place minute by minute, second by second, but a lot of investors, traders, institutions, retail, whether with the use of a genting or otherwise, are not able to take new positions or hedge their existing risks and offset risks.

14:4624/7 交易與美股代幣化新現象

14:46今年我們開始大量進行 RWA 代幣化，特別是美國股票。現在我們平台上大約有 7,000 檔美股，其中 1,000 檔已經代幣化，出現了一個很有趣的現象。這些美股在代幣化市場上的交易，有超過 40% 是在美國交易時段之外進行的。因為新聞不斷流出，亞洲時區的使用者不想熬夜盯盤，他們會在白天進行交易、建倉或避險。這種 24/7 隨時交易、可以上鏈並獲得不同收益的特性，真的是一個全新的轉變，也讓大家能更好地避險。So what we are seeing this year when we started to do a lot of this RWA tokenization, especially for U.S. stocks. So now we have about 7,000 U.S. stocks available on the platform, 1,000 of them tokenized, and a very interesting phenomenon take place. So for the U.S. stocks that we trade on the tokenized spaces, close to more than 40 plus percent of the trading take place outside of U.S. trading hours, right? Because as I mentioned, news flow keep coming through. People do not want to stay in Asia time zone throughout the night to trade U.S. counters, right? So, but they are trading during their day. They are taking positions. They are hedging their positions. So that becomes very interesting. The 24/7 ability to trade anything, and you can put them on-chain, as you mentioned, and get different type of yields, etc., is something. That is transformational and new, and allows people to hedge risk.

15:43傳統金融機構像 Nasdaq 宣布將在 12 月開始實施 23.5 小時、每週 6 天交易，但因為券商結構問題，還沒辦法做到 24/7。很多傳統機構都面臨這種挑戰，這是過去架構造成的限制。The traditional financial institutions, Nasdaq has announced they are going to 23.5 by 6 December. They can't move to 24/7 because of the structure that they have with their broker-dealers, right? So many traditional institutions face those challenges. Which is how they are set up in the past, because of all those structure they have put in place.

16:07機構與散戶對 24/7 交易的需求

16:07我有個關於 24/7 交易的問題：機構真的有這麼大需求，還是這比較像是散戶的行為？其實像共同基金或 ETF，價格都是以收盤價為主，ETF 白天會有更多交易，共同基金則只有一天一次。因為事件可能發生在這段期間，所以會有公平價值調整。只要能接觸到這些市場，未來一定會往這方向發展。I have a question on the 24/7 trading. Is there a lot of desire on the institutional side, or is that more of a retail trading behavior and desire, do you think? Well, I mean, one of the things, you know, a mutual fund prices or an ETF. Prices essentially at the market close. An ETF will do more during the day. A mutual fund has one end of the day. You have to do this thing called fair value pricing because events can happen in the window, and so there's an adjustment to the extent that. To the extent that you have access to those markets, it'll absolutely evolve that way.

16:45舉個例子，很多年前印度有家公司爆出醜聞，我們在印度有本地資產管理團隊，也有全球新興市場團隊。當時本地團隊能以明顯較高的價格出場，因為全球團隊沒醒著、也沒辦法即時反應。現在我們已經調整結構，但很明顯，事件發生時，誰能最快取得市場資訊、做出決策就很關鍵。And as a matter of fact, I remember years ago there was a fraud in a company in India, and we have local asset management in India, and then we have a global emerging market team. And I remember the local Indian team was able to exit at a significantly higher price. Then the global team, because the global team wasn't awake and sort of thinking about it and didn't have access, they weren't. Now that was a while ago. We've structured things differently, but there's no question when an event happens, it's going to be about how quickly you can access to make your decision.

17:20流動性、重大事件與亞洲交易時段

17:20很有趣的是，交易的驅動力不同，基金通常會選擇流動性高的時段交易，避免滑價。散戶則比較不在意滑價，想交易就交易。像中東戰爭這種重大事件，流動性會在非傳統時段突然出現。美股市場平常開盤、收盤時段流動性最大，但遇到突發事件，像油價大變動，流動性會立刻湧現。這就是這些系統的價值，能隨時提供流動性。Very interesting. I think it really depends on what is the driver of trading. I mean, when you look at most funds that track an index or a strategy, they would be interested to trade when there is a lot of liquidity because they don't want to have a lot of slippage. I think retail, which is probably less sensitive to slippage, would want to trade whenever they want to trade. But if anything, the war in the Middle East showed. is that liquidity can show up when there are meaningful events, even when it's outside your traditional liquidity windows, right? So in the U.S. market, it is known open auction, close auction is where you're going to see most of the liquidity when it's business as usual trading day. But if suddenly there is a war, And there is a very important event that can change the prices of oil. Guess what? The liquidity will show up instantly outside your usual trading hours. And I think that that's the point that Richard is saying, is that it's the ability of these systems to be available.

18:25未來你會看到亞洲時段也會有新的交易量型態，像造市商會在亞洲時段提供流動性，因為需求增加。這些時段會有交易高峰，但大致會維持穩定。遇到重大事件時，系統能即時湧現流動性，這是很大的突破。I think what you're going to see is very similar. I don't think you're going to see necessarily the volume patterns. Change significantly, you might actually see a new volume pattern for Asia trading, where people will say, Hey, as market makers, I'm a former market maker, we can provide liquidity during the Asia hours, and we know that there's now a good amount of demand. So you'll see also some spikes during Asia hours, but those will remain kind of constant. But the ability of the systems to suddenly spin up liquidity during a special event will happen instantaneously.

19:00私有市場代幣化與資訊不對稱

19:00我想追問一個關於鏈上股票的問題：我們剛剛討論的都是已經在紐約證交所或 Nasdaq 上市的公開股票，那私有市場呢？現在加密市場開始有 pre-IPO 永續合約等創新產品。這也跟公司延後上市、一般投資人錯失財富機會的討論有關，像 Anthropic、OpenAI 這種案例，只有極少數人受益。現在交易所開始提供私有股票產品，但發行公司有時會抗拒，這中間有很多拉鋸。我想聽聽三位對於尚未上市私有公司代幣化的看法。I have just one more follow-up question on the on-chain equities, which is we're talking about public equities that already trade on the New York Stock Exchange or the Nasdaq. What about on the private side? You're starting to see some innovation in crypto markets, markets like pre-IPO perpetuals, things like this. And this is also coming at a time where there's been a lot of debate around this forever, but companies staying private longer, the general public missing out on wealth creation opportunities. And, you know, I think probably the best examples of this are Anthropic and OpenAI, where this has benefited such a small number of people in such a hugely disproportionate way. So you're starting to see exchanges innovate at the level of offering privates, but actually the issuers sometimes are like, hey, whoa, whoa, whoa, I don't really want this. And there's this very interesting dance that's going on right now. So I'm curious if the three of you have perspectives on the opportunity for privates that haven't gone public yet.

20:00我先談談為什麼會這樣。我們是全球前十大另類資產管理人，1.8 兆美元資產中有 3,000 億在私募市場。私募市場持續成長，公司都不想上市，現在從創業到上市平均要 10 到 11 年，早期成長只有合格投資人能參與。美國證監會等監管單位也在想辦法讓一般投資人能參與，但目前還是被排除在外。金融危機後，銀行放貸角色減弱，私募市場大爆發。我的看法是，這主要是監管問題，不是因為私募資產本身流動性差。私募基金原本 10 年期，現在都拖到 12、15 年，普通投資人其實不了解流動性風險。代幣化技術很棒，但還需要造市商等配套，不能一夜之間就讓私募資產變得有流動性。I'll start on sort of why that's all happening, and then you go more, I think, specifically on the tokenizer. So we're top 10 alternatives manager. We have about 300 billion of our 1.8 trillion in alternatives in private markets. The reality is private markets continue to grow. Companies don't want to go to public. Nobody wants to be a public company CEO. And so they, you know, what used to be three, four years to go public around 2000, it's now 10, 11 years before companies are going public. So that early growth is being only to qualified, access to qualified investors, right? And so. The SEC and in the U.S. in particular, but other markets, they're trying to figure out ways to get access because the average investor has been left out. On the credit side, it used to be banks were the big lenders. Post the financial crisis, the capital requirements for banks changed. It created this huge proliferation of private markets. My argument is it's more of a regulatory issue. Then a, because private assets are illiquid. They are absolutely illiquid. And if you're in a private equity fund, what you thought was 10 years is now going 12, 15 years. So the concern is that the average investor doesn't understand that illiquidity risk. Tokenization is a great technology to help it. But you have to have market makers and things to make it liquid. It doesn't just make it liquid overnight. Right. Yeah.

21:28其實很多投資人透過不同輪次（像 C 輪）進入這些公司，員工也有早期股票期權，他們都想有退出機制和價格發現。市面上有些平台提供這種服務，但規模還很小。現在全球對這些公司的認知度提升，我們也提供像 SpaceX、Anthropic 的 pre-IPO 交易。因為品牌知名度高，市場需求很大，雖然有時資訊不完整，價格發現還是會發生。這也是私募市場的挑戰：如何讓公司資訊更透明。有些公司對股票被交易很猶豫，但市場需求真的很大。作為平台，我們能做的就是滿足這些需求，讓價格發現更完善。So if you look at it, I mean, there are a lot of investors in many of these companies through different series, right, Series C, etc. And there are a lot of employees with early stock options, right? So they want exit mechanism, they want proper price discovery. Actually, and before that, there are some platforms out there. that serve that, but it's to a much smaller scale. I think what we are seeing now is, given the general greater awareness globally of many of these companies, we offer pre-IPO trading, right, for SpaceX even before it went public, and for the likes of Anthropic. So what we are seeing is that because of the brand name recognition of any of these companies, right. There are a lot of interest. Price discovery is taking place, although sometimes without full information, right? So I think that that is the key challenge for some of these private markets. How do you make sure there's better information flow from the company? I think some of these companies are a bit hesitant about having their stocks being traded, as you mentioned, but— There is, there are huge demand for all these products out there. And as a platform, I mean, what we can do is try to satisfy them and bring about proper price discovery for these different products.

22:42我同意剛剛的說法。私募市場除了流動性問題，還有資訊不對稱。公開公司要揭露很多資訊，私有公司則不用。很多創辦人、CEO 都想掌控股權結構，會設計條款限制股票流通，甚至規定不能賣給 SPV，不然就作廢。但有人還是會在你股票上發永續合約，你也沒辦法阻止。這些做法已經過時了。像 Binance 這樣的平台應該思考如何讓私有公司也能受益，因為如果你是私有公司 CEO，想上市，但市場不了解你的公司，導致估值偏低，會影響 IPO 計畫。所以我認為平台可以幫助私有公司讓產品更有效率。這不只是流動性問題，還有資訊不對稱，只要這趨勢擋不住，就應該讓私有公司也能受益。Yeah, I agree with what was said. I think there's a liquidity, but there's actually also an information issue when it comes to privates, right? One of the reasons. Why it's challenging to be public is because of all of the disclosure mechanisms that you subject yourself to, which as a private company you don't have to. I think that a lot of, even as myself as a CEO of a private company, I mean, I think a lot of founders, CEOs would want to have control over their cap table and can. Try to do all kinds of special terms saying you cannot sell your shares into an SPV. If you do that, we'll void your shares. There are mechanisms where you could try to make it challenging, but then someone will just list a perp on your stock, and good luck with you saying you're not allowed to do that. Those things, in my opinion, are a thing of the past. And what we need to do with organizations like Binance, for example, is how to make these offerings also good for the privates. Because again, one of the challenges is imagine you're a private CEO, you do want to go public, and now for whatever reasons, because the market doesn't understand your company or whatever, It trades at, like, a significantly lower valuation than where you think you should IPO. And that can do a lot of damage to your IPO plans and stuff like that. So I actually think that companies like Binance could be super helpful for private companies to say there are ways to make these products efficient. Because it's not just liquidity. Like I said, a lot of it has to do with the information asymmetry that exists in private companies, because I just don't think that, again, there's a way to stop this from happening, and therefore we should just make that offering as good as possible for private companies as well.

24:37穩定幣未來與銀行體系的融合

24:37最後幾分鐘，我想聚焦在穩定幣。穩定幣是除了比特幣之外，區塊鏈最成功的應用之一。去年通過的 GENIUS Act 明年一月上路。假設我們兩年後再回顧這段時間，穩定幣市場會怎麼變？現在 USDT 和 USDC 形成雙寡頭，但未來會有更多發行商加入，市場結構會變嗎？還有大規模採用穩定幣會帶來哪些二、三階效應？會不會有更多人用交易所、DEX，或把錢存進借貸協議？All right. In our closing minutes here, I want to focus on stablecoins. So... Stablecoins have been one of the key success stories, you know, outside of Bitcoin, I would say, of crypto today. We got legislation last year in the form of GENIUS that's going to get implemented in January of this coming year. And I would love if, let's imagine that the four of us are sitting down two years from now, and we're talking about what happened with stablecoins over the last couple of years. Kind of a two-part question here, but I'd love to understand from your perspective, what's the quantum and the sort of, like, right now there's a duopoly in between USDT and USDC. I would imagine we're going to see a lot of additional issuers come to market. So does that composition relatively stay the same? And then I would ask you to think too, what are some of the second and third order implications? of massive adoption of stablecoins, that might not be quite as obvious. So do you get more people trading on exchanges and DEXs? Do you get more people depositing into borrow-lend like money market funds, like kind of the morpho and Aaves of the world? I know that's a many-part question here, sorry, I can never help myself.

25:43我認為不管叫穩定幣還是代幣化存款，鏈上貨幣的採用關鍵在於發行方的信用，以及資金分發能力。就像 Diners Club 信用卡，沒人用是因為沒人收。現在 USDT、USDC 雙寡頭主要靠加密交易需求。未來如果有更多非加密交易的應用，像 Visa、Mastercard、Stripe 這種有龐大分發能力的玩家會進場，這會改變市場格局。重點是誰能把鏈上貨幣用起來，誰就有競爭力。My view is that at the end of the day, whether you call it A stablecoin, a tokenized deposit. At the end of the day, money on chain will have multiple characteristics that will drive its adoption, which is the creditworthiness of the issuer. Do you believe the issuer has safe money on chain? But I actually think the second part is even more important, is the distribution of said money. I mean, I can ask how many people here hold Diners Club credit card, and probably the number is zero, right? And the reason is nobody accepts it, right? So I think where you're going to see the competition, where it's, for example, open standard, is where are you going to have more usage of holding that money on chain. Right now, the duopoly is primarily driven by crypto trading, right? As we start seeing more and more use cases that are outside of crypto trading, I think players like credit card, like Visa, Mastercard, Stripe have massive distribution that should not be underestimated. It's a question: would they actually be able to, you know, build this product and launch it successfully? But I think that that's the thing that I look at, is what are the new use cases, as you said, outside of crypto, kind of traditional crypto trading, that are going to be introduced? And I think there are other players that have quite... Bigger distribution right now. It's just a question: would they be able to execute well?

27:23我完全同意。大家看到 USDT、USDC 成功，很多新穩定幣也在發行，但關鍵是怎麼做大規模分發、創造應用場景並持續成長。另一個挑戰是全球監管標準不一，像 USDT 在歐洲等地就遇到挑戰，監管要求透明度越來越高。還有像代幣化存款等新實驗也在出現，這些都會影響生態。總之，這些都是區塊鏈的大應用，大家都會受益。Yeah, I totally agree. So, I mean, people look at the success of USDT, USDC, and you see a lot of other stablecoins being issued, right? But the key challenge is how do you get to the right scale? How do you bring about distribution? How do you bring about the utility and the use case, and continue to grow? I think that's one dimension. The other dimension is— Regulators around the world are starting to look at that space and starting to regulate, and the regulation somehow doesn't match each other as well. I think that's one big challenge. If you look at, you know, USDT, for example, we face some challenges in the likes of Europe and some other jurisdiction, right? So again, the backing, the type of transparency that regulators demand. I couldn't impose on this are going to continue to escalate and elevate on that front. But there are also other experimentation like tokenized deposits coming through, right? So how does that impact the landscape, I think? But everything is a big use case for blockchain, so everybody wins, in my view.

28:27我補充一點，穩定幣有可能讓銀行體系存款流失，這對經濟影響很大，因為銀行是貨幣流通與乘數的核心。所以銀行也開始發行自己的穩定幣，未來一定要找到兩者融合的方式。現在銀行帳戶很貴、手續費高，有銀行 CEO 說 ATM 要收費，但其實年輕人很少用 ATM。雖然如此，這些基礎設施還是消費貸款等系統的必要條件。兩者必須找到融合點，監管單位也還在摸索。I would just add that I agree with all the points made here. I think that— Part of the concern on stablecoins is that they have the potential to drain the banking system of deposits. And if that happens, banks are absolutely fundamental to every economy. They are the velocity of money. They are the multiplier of money. And so the two have to figure out. And I think a lot of banks, that's why they're starting to try to issue their own. There has to be a way to bring the two together. Now, the argument is that it's actually really expensive to have a bank checking account. They charge you a lot of fees, and, you know, they'll say, well, a very prominent bank CEO said, well, we give ATMs and they should pay, and I— Okay, I'm not sure my kids have gone to an ATM in a very long time, but you need that infrastructure because for consumer loans, for a lot of the system. And so these two things have to figure out a way to come together. And I think that's, you know, we're ultimately a convergence happens, and the regulators are tentative on trying to figure out how to deal with that.

29:39時間差不多了，請大家給我們的與談人熱烈掌聲。All right, everyone, that is all the time we have. Please give a warm round of applause to our panelists, everyone.