從白宮到華爾街：監管新局與機構進場，產業下一步怎麼走？
From the White House to Wall Street: What's Next for Crypto?
- Jake Chervinsky Hyperliquid Policy Center 執行長
- Arjun Sethi Payward／Kraken 共同執行長
- Charles Cascarilla Paxos 共同創辦人暨執行長
- Scott Lawin Pantera Capital 總裁
- Jacquelyn Melinek Stratamedia 創辦人暨執行長（主持）
場次摘要
Hyperliquid、Paxos 與 Pantera Capital 等與談人討論 CLARITY Act 未通過後的監管進展，以及金融機構採用鏈上服務的步調。對談也評估穩定幣、代幣化資產、永續合約與代理人金融的需求，並分析選舉可能帶來的政策變化。
值得記下的 5 件事
逐字稿
監管新局：CLARITY Act 失敗後的產業現況
大家好，我是 Jacquelyn Melinek，Strata Media 的創辦人兼執行長。今天很榮幸邀請到幾位產業重量級人物：Jake Chervinsky（Hyperliquid Policy Center 執行長）、Charles Cascarilla（Paxos 共同創辦人暨執行長）、Scott Lawin（Pantera Capital 總裁）。我們先從產業現況談起。你們對於 CLARITY Act 沒有通過後的產業發展感到有信心嗎？Hi everyone, I am Jacquelyn Melinek, founder and CEO of Strata Media. Today, I'm joined by some very big names in the space: Jake Chervinsky, CEO of Hyperliquid Policy Center, Charles Cascarilla, CEO and co-founder of Paxos, and Scott Lawin, president of Pantera Capital. Let's start at a high level. Do you feel confident about the industry's direction now that the Clarity Act has failed to pass?
我其實很有信心。雖然大家都希望 CLARITY Act 能通過，但事實證明，監管機構本來就有足夠的法源依據來推動我們關心的產品進入美國市場。CLARITY Act 沒過，反而讓監管機構更積極行動。產業真正需要的是創造大家想用、又能合規的產品。我相信我們會做到。I do feel confident. We all wanted the Clarity Act to pass, but the reality is that regulators already have all the statutory authority they need to get the products we care about into the US market. The failure of the Clarity Act actually spurred agencies to take action. What really matters is building products people want and ensuring they're compliant. I think we'll get there.
我完全同意。CLARITY Act 沒過，對產業其實沒什麼實質影響。SEC 和 CFTC 甚至能制定比立法更好的規則。雖然法律會更具永久性，也能定調，但我們的機構客戶沒有人因為法案沒過就放棄市場，甚至沒人提起這件事。I couldn't agree more. The Clarity Act not passing doesn't really change much for the industry. The SEC and CFTC can probably make better rules than what would come from the law. While the law is more permanent and sets a tone, none of our institutional clients have said they're leaving because the Clarity Act didn't pass. No one even mentioned it.
選舉與監管：產業逆風轉順風
其實產業的根本狀況在上一次選舉周期就已經改變了。過去我們最擔心的是監管執法、Choke Point 2.0 等等，這些都讓產業很難發展。但現在情勢已經完全不同，監管機構行動迅速，產業也不太可能再回到過去那種被壓制的狀態。雖然 CLARITY Act 沒過有點可惜，但即使政治再怎麼變動，我們應該也不會回頭。The story really fundamentally changed in the last election cycle. Previously, we were most concerned about regulatory enforcement and things like Choke Point 2.0, which kept the industry down. But now, things have shifted completely. Regulators are acting quickly, and it doesn't feel like we're going back to the old days. It's a shame the Clarity Act didn't pass, but even with political changes, we're probably not headed back.
CLARITY Act 沒過，對機構興趣沒什麼影響。現在大家討論的重點是機構採用，無論是產品還是基礎設施。這其實就是政治問題，監管機構現在已經排好隊，動作很快，讓大家對未來有信心。對創業者來說，他們需要的是『對於合規的明確性』，現在他們知道可以依現有規則來開發產品，不用再等法案結果。The failure of the Clarity Act didn't really affect institutional interest. The big story now is institutional adoption, both in products and infrastructure. This is really about politics, and regulators have lined up and are acting quickly to give everyone confidence. For founders, what they needed was clarity about compliance, and now they know they can build under current rules without waiting for new laws.
價格、國際趨勢與美國領先地位
很有趣的是，法案沒過，價格卻大漲，這反而帶動了資本流入和商業模式創新。其實如果 CLARITY Act 通過，或許會加速全球監管協調，但短期內美國還是領頭羊。美國從過去的去銀行化到現在積極擁抱產業，機構採用速度明顯加快，像 Charles Schwab、Morgan Stanley 都已經開放加密貨幣交易，預計未來一年幾乎所有大型金融機構都會跟進。Ironically, the bill didn't pass, but prices rallied, which helped unlock business models and capital flow into the space. If the Clarity Act had passed, it might have accelerated global regulatory harmonization, but for now, the US is leading. The US has gone from debanking to embracing the industry, and institutional adoption is accelerating. Firms like Charles Schwab and Morgan Stanley have launched crypto trading, and we expect almost every major financial institution to follow suit in the next year.
美國以外的地方也有一些國家積極推動創新，例如哈薩克等地，但規模還是比不上美國。美國的監管和行政支持讓機構更有信心。以 Hyperliquid 為例，現在反而是想把 Hyperliquid 帶進美國市場，雖然其他國家早就能合法使用。美國的監管複雜，但現在政府已經把這件事列為優先事項，未來很有機會實現。Outside the US, there are countries like Kazakhstan that have aggressively embraced innovation, but they don't have the same scale. The US regulatory and administrative support gives institutions more confidence. For Hyperliquid, we're actually trying to bring it onshore to the US, even though it's already available in many other countries. US regulation is complex, but the government has made this a priority, so I'm optimistic it will happen.
機構參與現況：仍在早期、潛力巨大
過去幾年，像 BlackRock、KKR、Apollo 等機構進場都會帶動市場，但現在越來越多資產管理公司和銀行加入。你們覺得機構參與真的像媒體寫的那麼深入嗎？其實還很早期，大多數機構還在試水溫。即使把所有傳統機構排除，除了 ETF 影響外，整體規模還很小，機構採用才剛起步，這反而是看多的理由。In recent years, when big institutions like BlackRock, KKR, or Apollo entered the space, it moved markets. Now, more asset managers and banks are getting involved. But is institutional involvement as deep as headlines suggest? Actually, it's still very early—most institutions are just testing the waters. Even if you removed all traditional institutions, aside from ETF impact, the scale is still small. Institutional adoption is just beginning, which is a bullish sign.
機構動作本來就慢，他們需要信心和明確的監管架構。過去 18 個月，最大資產管理公司和金融機構對加密產業的態度已經有根本轉變。產品面，18 個月前大銀行客戶還不能買加密貨幣，現在像 Morgan Stanley 不只賣 ETF，還把區塊鏈創投基金放上平台。基礎設施面，原本只在創新中心的加密團隊，現在已經進入核心業務。雖然還在早期，但輪子已經開始轉動。Institutions move slowly—they want confidence and regulatory clarity. In the last 18 months, the biggest asset managers and financial institutions have fundamentally shifted their approach to crypto. On the product side, 18 months ago, big bank clients couldn't own crypto, but now firms like Morgan Stanley are actively offering ETFs and blockchain venture funds. On the infrastructure side, crypto teams that were once in innovation centers are now part of the core business. It's still early, but the wheels are in motion.
從 DeFi 到 On-chain Finance：產品型態轉變
其實機構要真正理解並採用這些新技術需要很長時間。過去產業主打 DeFi，強調去中介化，對機構來說就是『我們不需要你們』。但現在產業轉向 on-chain finance，重點是用公鏈打造最有競爭力的產品，機構仍然扮演信任背書的角色。最好的例子就是穩定幣，既用到公鏈優勢，又有公司負責監管和信任。Hyperliquid 也是這類型的產品，完全 on-chain order book，更符合機構需求。It takes a long time for institutions to really understand and adopt these new technologies. Previously, the industry focused on DeFi and disintermediation, essentially telling institutions 'we don't need you.' But now, the shift is toward on-chain finance, where the goal is to build the most competitive products using public blockchains, with institutions still providing trust and backing. Stablecoins are the best example—they leverage public blockchains but have companies providing regulatory oversight and trust. Hyperliquid fits this category as a fully on-chain order book, which is more appealing to institutions.
過去十年，政策、華爾街、區塊鏈技術這三個圈圈各自獨立，現在開始真正融合。未來我們可能會把『on-chain』這個詞拿掉，因為區塊鏈技術會完全融入傳統金融系統，大家只會說 finance，不會特別強調 on-chain。For the past decade, policy, Wall Street, and blockchain technology have been separate spheres, but now they're converging. In the future, we might drop the term 'on-chain' altogether, as blockchain technology becomes fully integrated into traditional financial systems. People will just call it finance, without emphasizing 'on-chain.'
區塊鏈技術將成為金融基礎設施
未來 Paxos 也不會強調自己是區塊鏈公司，而是專注於『移動資金』。就像你用網路時不會在意底層協議一樣，重點是解決客戶問題。區塊鏈技術只是讓我們能用新方式解決問題，最終大家只會在意服務本身。In the future, Paxos won't emphasize being a blockchain company, but rather focus on 'moving money.' Just like you don't care about the underlying internet protocols when you use the web, what matters is solving customer problems. Blockchain is just a tool to solve problems in new ways, and ultimately, people will care about the service, not the technology.
未來五到十年，產業會進入『Intel inside』時刻，區塊鏈會成為金融服務的標配，大家不再只談區塊鏈公司，而是運用區塊鏈的企業。這會是新一代的金融服務和 agentic finance，技術只是幕後推手。In the next five to ten years, the industry will have its 'Intel inside' moment—blockchain will become standard in financial services, and people won't just talk about blockchain companies, but blockchain-enabled businesses. This will be the new world of financial services and agentic finance, with the technology working behind the scenes.
創業者與機構觀點：去標籤化與技術應用
現在創業者不太自稱 crypto founder，而是用區塊鏈技術解決問題。大家更常說 AI，因為比較容易吸引資本。其實 crypto 只是區塊鏈的一個應用，創業者關心的是怎麼用這個技術做出更快、更便宜、更好的產品。從機構角度來看，crypto 這個詞還帶有比特幣價格或過去幾輪事件的包袱，大家更在意技術如何讓業務變得更好。Founders today rarely call themselves crypto founders—they use blockchain technology to solve problems, and often say AI to attract VC money. Crypto is just one application of blockchain. What matters to founders is using this technology to build better, faster, and cheaper products. From an institutional perspective, the word 'crypto' still carries baggage from Bitcoin price swings or past events, so people focus on how the technology can improve their business.
這種現象不只發生在 crypto。以前大家會強調是『網路公司』，但當網路普及後，這個標籤就消失了。Hyperliquid 也是如此，我們其實是在做期貨產業基礎設施，而不是 crypto 產品。這種去標籤化會越來越明顯，未來大家只會關心產品本身。This isn't unique to crypto. There was a time when companies called themselves 'internet companies,' but as the internet became ubiquitous, that label disappeared. The same is happening with crypto. For example, Hyperliquid is building infrastructure for the futures industry, not just a crypto product. This trend of dropping the label will continue, and people will focus on the product itself.
未來 12-18 個月的關鍵趨勢：穩定幣、RWA、Perps
你們認為未來一年半最具破壞性的領域會是哪一塊？其實穩定幣、Perps（永續合約）、RWA（實體資產上鏈）都有真實需求。接下來會看到的是交易量和採用度持續增加，這雖然沒那麼性感，但會帶來更永久、強大的改變。Paxos 長期以來都在打造合規的金融基礎設施，現在機構才剛開始大規模進場，這只是開始。Which area will be the most disruptive in the next 12 to 18 months? Stablecoins, perps (perpetuals), and RWAs (real-world assets) all have real use cases. What we'll see next is increased volume and adoption, which may be less flashy but will bring more permanent and powerful changes. Paxos has been building regulated financial market infrastructure for a long time, and now institutions are just starting to adopt it—this is only the beginning.
穩定幣被銀行採用會對現有金融系統造成巨大衝擊，但不一定會破壞他們的商業模式，關鍵在於誰能善用新技術。Perps 也是更好的期貨產品，但 CME 這類機構如果願意也能推出。早期產業強調去中介化，機構覺得這是在顛覆他們，但現在大家意識到這其實是提升現有業務、導入新技術。Stablecoins being adopted by banks will disrupt the current financial system, but it doesn't necessarily mean their business models will be destroyed—the key is who can best adopt the technology. Perps are a better version of futures products, but institutions like CME could launch them if they wanted. Early on, the industry focused on disintermediation, and institutions felt threatened, but now they see it's about improving their business by adopting new technology.
技術賦能創新者，產業競爭新格局
其實技術本身不是破壞者，而是讓創新者有能力挑戰現有巨頭。產業裡有兩種角色：創新挑戰者和守成者。老牌機構往往變得臃腫、效率低下，只能靠監管護城河來防守。新技術讓挑戰者有機會搶市佔率。像 CME 這樣的機構可以選擇擁抱新產品，但他們更傾向於守住現有市場。穩定幣也是如此，很多銀行擔心穩定幣收益威脅到他們的業務，還在推 tokenized deposits 來升級支付系統。這顯示技術潛力巨大，甚至 21 家銀行組成聯盟要發行穩定幣。The technology itself isn't the disruptor—it's an enabler for innovators to challenge incumbents. There are two types of players: innovative challengers and established incumbents. Incumbents often become bloated and inefficient, defending their turf with regulatory moats. New technology gives challengers a shot at market share. For example, CME could embrace new products but prefers to defend its current business. The same goes for stablecoins—many banks fear stablecoin yields threaten their business and push tokenized deposits as a solution. This shows the technology's huge potential, with even a 21-bank consortium launching a stablecoin.
RWA 與 Agentic Finance：下一波機會
你們認為下一波加密產業的北極星機會是什麼？我認為是 RWA（實體資產上鏈）。穩定幣需要有 T-bills、貨幣市場基金、repo 等儲備，這些資產會先被拉上鏈，接著其他有收益的資產也會陸續上鏈。這會徹底改變金融市場運作方式，像 democratizing risk-free rate 這種以前只有少數人能享有的機會，未來大家都能參與。What is the North Star opportunity for the next phase of crypto? I think it's RWAs (real-world assets). Stablecoins need reserves like T-bills, money market funds, and repo, which will be brought on-chain first, followed by other yield-generating assets. This will fundamentally change how financial markets operate, democratizing things like the risk-free rate that were previously only accessible to a few.
我們也很看好 agentic finance（自主金融），這是目前最多創投資金流入的領域。如果你加上 AI 標籤更容易募資，但這一切都需要區塊鏈作為底層基礎。RWA 也是另一個大趨勢，未來每一種資產都會上鏈，對機構來說能釋放抵押品、即時保證金結算等，影響深遠。We're also very excited about agentic finance—it's attracting the most venture capital right now. If you add an AI label, it's even easier to raise money, but all of this requires blockchain as the underlying infrastructure. RWA is another big trend—eventually, every asset will move on-chain, which will have huge implications for institutions, like freeing up collateral and enabling real-time margining.
RWA 未來甚至會變成『資產』，大家不再強調 real world。公鏈已經證明對金融很有用，未來要讓大家想要的資產都能上鏈，這樣整個金融系統才會真正搬到鏈上。這是未來一到兩年最重要的事。RWAs will eventually just be called 'assets'—the 'real world' label will disappear. Public blockchains have proven their value for finance, and the key is to bring the assets people want onto the chain so the entire financial system can truly move on-chain. That's the most important thing for the next one to two years.
美國選舉與產業發展：政治影響幾何？
最後回到一開始的主題，美國即將迎來期中選舉，這對產業發展、政策、投資有多重要？理想上這應該是超越黨派的議題，大家都能看到技術的價值，不會再因政治擺盪而大幅改變。不過現實可能沒那麼理想，但我們會觀察發展。Bringing it back to the start, with the US midterm elections coming up, how important is this political cycle for industry growth, policy, and investment? Ideally, this should be a nonpartisan issue, with everyone recognizing the value of the technology, so political swings won't have a huge impact. But reality may be less ideal, so we'll have to see how it plays out.
其實現在的監管機構領導人會留任到這屆政府結束，國會誰執政影響不大。除非我們還在推動市場結構法案，否則產業發展不太會受選舉結果影響。接下來兩年是產業發展的黃金期，不管十一月選舉結果如何，產業都會繼續前進。Currently, the heads of regulatory agencies will stay through the end of this administration, so it doesn't matter much who controls Congress. Unless we're pushing for a market structure bill, the industry's development won't be greatly affected by the election. The next two years are a golden window for the industry, and progress will continue regardless of the November outcome.
謝謝各位精彩的分享，也感謝現場和線上的朋友收聽！Thank you all for the great discussion, and thanks to everyone for listening in!
