Zhao Binghao: Overseas experience and Chinese solutions to address the challenges of cryptocurrency regulation

1. Problem Statement

After the People's Bank of China and seven other ministries and commissions issued the "Announcement on Preventing the Risks of Token Issuance and Financing" (hereinafter referred to as the "Announcement") on September 4, 2017, cryptocurrency exchanges in my country are no longer allowed to directly exchange legal tender and cryptocurrency. Since then, on-site trading of cryptocurrency in China has come to an end. On September 24, 2021, the People's Bank of China, the Central Cyberspace Affairs Commission, the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate and ten other departments jointly issued the "Notice on Further Preventing and Dealing with the Risks of Virtual Currency Trading Speculation" (hereinafter referred to as the "Notice"), which defined cryptocurrency-related businesses as illegal financial activities. But at the same time, stablecoins have ushered in a leap forward in the world. Since the direct exchange of legal tender and "virtual currency" and the operation of exchanges as exchange intermediaries are banned in my country, cryptocurrency investors in my country have chosen stablecoins as an alternative way for the circulation of legal tender and cryptocurrency. In other words, since my country completely prohibits the trading of legal tender and cryptocurrency, it has actually played a certain role in promoting stablecoins represented by Tether (USDT) to become the "legal tender" of cryptocurrency in my country. In short, my country's policy of strict regulation of encrypted digital currencies has forced the explosive development of stablecoins in China.

From the perspective of the development of the stablecoin industry in China, in order to cope with regulatory obstacles in China, stablecoins are actively seeking to link to the RMB in various ways and build a crypto digital financial ecosystem around the world, including China. For example, Tether officially announced the launch of CNHT (Tether Chinese Yuan), a stablecoin linked to the offshore RMB, on September 9, 2019. Bitfinex, a sister company of Tether, announced support for the exchange of the following three currency pairs the day after the release of CNHT: Bitcoin (BTC) and CNHT, USDT and CNHT, and offshore RMB and CNHT. The launch of CNHT will further promote the liquidity of offshore RMB, but it has also attracted the attention of Chinese regulators. Although the liquidity of trading currency pairs with CNHT is limited now, in any case, the impact of stablecoins on my country's finance is no longer just theoretical. In addition, due to policy restrictions and the influence of the regulatory environment, there is no official statistics on the popularity and development of stablecoins in China, but we can still find from the data of some third-party institutions that Chinese investors have a very strong demand for stablecoins. As for USDT alone, it is estimated that about 60% of USDT flows to Chinese investors. In addition, unlike traditional foreign exchange payment and cross-border settlement methods, stablecoins do not need to rely on banks and governments, and anyone can obtain the global financial services they bring through the Internet. Although the "Announcement" and "Notice" continue to maintain a high-pressure crackdown on the speculation of encrypted digital currency transactions including stablecoins in my country, it is technically extremely difficult to completely ban stablecoins. The convenience and globality of stablecoins also bring many regulatory challenges such as cross-border money laundering and evasion of foreign exchange supervision. Therefore, my country should take the initiative to actively promote the regulation of stablecoins. This article attempts to propose a Chinese solution for regulating stablecoins based on the analysis of the financial ecology of stablecoins and the world's major regulatory models.

2. Definition of Stablecoin and the Limitations of my country’s Current Legal Regulation

The People's Bank of China pointed out that stablecoins "will bring many risks and challenges to the international monetary system, payment and settlement system, monetary policy, and cross-border capital flow management." The price of cryptocurrencies fluctuates greatly relative to the legal currency system and digital currencies, which makes cryptocurrencies and the legal currency world lack a stable value anchor, unable to become a value scale and circulation medium, and hinders the application of cryptocurrencies in the real world. The emergence of stablecoins has precisely solved this problem, and its development and growth has been unstoppable. As of July 2021, the market value of stablecoins denominated in US dollars has exceeded US$116 billion, and stablecoins are also widely circulated among the people in my country. How to understand the nature of stablecoins and how to regulate them is an important issue related to my country's financial stability, the healthy development of the financial system, and the future national core competitiveness. However, the legal supervision of stablecoins by countries around the world has just started. In July 2021, Janet Yellen, the current U.S. Treasury Secretary, pointed out at the President's Working Group on Financial Markets that stablecoins are growing rapidly, but the legal regulatory framework is still lacking, and U.S. financial regulators should take immediate action to formulate legal norms and regulatory paths for stablecoins. The European Union has already attempted to regulate stablecoins through decentralized legislation.

1. Characteristics of Stablecoins

As a type of encrypted digital currency, the emergence and development of stablecoins are closely related to the formation and construction of the encrypted digital currency ecosystem. As the name suggests, one of the characteristics of stablecoins is that they are stable in value and circulate globally. They are encrypted digital currencies that maintain price stability with the target value (such as the US dollar). Although stablecoins were controversial in the early stages of development, they have gradually been accepted by mainstream finance. Stablecoins do not rely on the central bank of any country and aim to become a true world currency. In response to the three challenges of high-speed iteration of encrypted digital currencies, high value volatility, and independent development paths, stablecoins have demonstrated strong practical value and vitality.

The second characteristic of stablecoins is their unique role as a bridge. The main application directions of stablecoins include providing a value measurement scale for highly volatile cryptocurrencies; providing a transaction medium for encrypted digital currencies; providing an entry medium for the entry of off-chain capital; providing the market with hedging and value preservation functions; and providing a point-to-point and trustless low-cost payment and transfer channel for international payments. As the ballast of the encrypted digital currency market, stablecoins play the role of value scale and transaction medium with their stable value, and connect the traditional financial market with the encrypted digital currency ecosystem, solving important issues in encrypted digital currency transactions and ecological development. Therefore, financial regulators and central banks in various countries are increasingly concerned about the impact of encrypted digital currencies, especially stablecoins, on monetary policy and financial stability.

(II) Classification of Stablecoins and Attributes of Underlying Assets

In January 2012, JR Willett published the Second Bitcoin White Paper, which first proposed the concept of "cryptocurrency anchored to asset value", which is the prototype of the concept of stablecoin. In 2014, the Nubits project, the Bitshare project and the Tether project successively proposed the prototype of the stablecoin concept, that is, a cryptographic digital currency that effectively anchors the price with legal currency. Currently, the industry generally divides stablecoins into the following four categories.

The first type is the fiat-asset collateralized stablecoin, also known as off-chain collateralized stablecoin. This type of stablecoin uses fiat currency as the anchor collateral, so it cannot be decentralized. Its core requirement is to use 100% fiat currency deposits as issuance reserves to ensure that the stablecoin and the anchored fiat currency can be redeemed at par at any time. In essence, it is a depository receipt of a non-financial institution. The most famous stablecoin of this type is the stablecoin Tether USD, or USDT (United States Dollar Tether), issued by Tether Limited on October 6, 2014. In theory, USDT and the US dollar have a 1:1 correspondence, that is, for every USDT issued, Tether will reserve one dollar of fiat currency or equivalent assets. So far, USDT has provided good liquidity, but its transparency and potential conflicts of interest have also been widely criticized by the industry, and have evolved into a regulatory and legal crisis in recent years.

Another representative of the issuers of fiat-asset-collateralized stablecoins is Stably, Inc. It has learned from the poor transparency of Tether, and all the stored fiat currencies of USDS are held by Prime Trust, a licensed trust company in Nevada. In addition, Stably, Inc. promised in its white paper that it would publish audit reports regularly. In addition to mainstream asset-collateralized stablecoins, there are also alternative asset-collateralized stablecoins. The biggest difference between this type of stablecoin and the mainstream fiat-asset-collateralized stablecoin is that the underlying anchor asset is not fiat currency but other commodities or assets. For example, the anchor object of some stablecoins is not the US dollar, but precious metals. For example, one stablecoin DGX represents 1 gram of gold.

The second type is crypto-asset collateralized stablecoins, also known as on-chain collateralized stablecoins. This type of stablecoin is generally collateralized by one or a basket of cryptocurrencies, so it is also a purely decentralized stablecoin. Take Dai as an example. Its white paper positions Dai as "a price-stable crypto-currency that can be used as a decentralized leveraged trading platform." Unlike USDT, Dai uses a unique smart contract system, namely the Collateralized Debt Positions (CDP) mechanism, to achieve collateralization, issuance, redemption and risk control, and is anchored 1:1 with the US dollar. As long as the user over-collateralizes a certain amount of Ether (ETH), the system will issue a certain amount of Dai to the user according to the collateral ratio based on the Collateralized Debt Positions mechanism. This on-chain smart contract mechanism CDP also brings higher security and transparency to Dai. However, the scale and value of stablecoins under this model are subject to fluctuations in the cryptocurrency market. At the same time, although the model has designed mechanisms such as forced liquidation to ensure price stability, it remains questionable whether the smart contract system can complete global liquidation in a black swan event. The model also faces the risk of hacker attacks destroying the system or stealing collateral.

The third category is algorithmic central bank stablecoins that rely on algorithms to maintain stability. This type of stablecoin is not collateralized by any assets. As Robert Sams wrote in his famous crypto stablecoin paper "A Note on Cryptocurrency Stabilisation: Seigniorage Shares", this type of stablecoin is a "cryptocurrency similar to Bitcoin, relying on a simple and deterministic money supply rule to control the money supply." He therefore proposed a flexible money supply rule to respond to price fluctuations, using algorithms to replace the central bank's mechanism to maintain the value stability of the currency.

The stablecoin BAY issued by the cryptocurrency exchange Bitbay combines the algorithmic mechanism and voting governance mechanism, and is a representative of algorithmic central bank stablecoins. The biggest feature of the stablecoin BAY is that it does not require third-party custody, auditing or operational supervision, but uses a dynamic hook mechanism to achieve currency stability through "flowing" and "freezing" stablecoins and decentralized governance mechanisms. This type of stablecoin is less well-known than the previous two types of stablecoins because its mechanism for achieving stability is poor. Due to the lack of underlying assets anchoring the value, when its value fluctuates slightly, a large number of coin holders sell out due to panic, resulting in a vicious cycle of stampede-like decline in coin prices.

The fourth category is financial institution-backed stablecoins issued by traditional financial institutions and developed based on their own private chains. This type of stablecoin is quite different from the above three stablecoins in terms of application scope, transparency and target groups. The application scenarios of financial institution-backed stablecoins are generally limited to the blockchain technology empowerment of financial institutions' daily business; due to the reputation and credit endorsement of financial institutions, their transparency is better than that of general stablecoins; and their target groups are not mass customers, but certified institutional customers or peer customers. The first bank to issue this type of stablecoin is Signature Bank, a full-license commercial bank located in New York, USA. On December 4, 2018, Signature Bank took the lead in launching Signet, a stablecoin created based on a private licensed version of Ethereum. Signet provides a blockchain technology solution for real-time payments around the clock for commercial customers rather than individual customers, and has been approved by the New York State Department of Financial Services. Subsequently, JPMorgan Chase also launched JPM Coin based on its own private chain Quorum in February 2019. In reality, the form of stablecoins is still evolving, but their main forms and mechanisms basically revolve around the above four categories.

3. Legal Basis and Regulatory Loopholes of Stablecoins

1. Civil Code Recognition: The Virtual Property Attributes of Stablecoins

Article 127 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code) stipulates that if the law has provisions for the protection of data and network virtual property, such provisions shall be followed. This makes my country's Civil Code the first code in the world to make provisions for virtual property. According to the "Notice on Preventing Bitcoin Risks" jointly issued by the central bank and five other ministries on December 5, 2013, my country has defined Bitcoin and other encrypted digital currencies as "a special virtual commodity." Therefore, although the rights attributes of virtual property are still controversial, it is undeniable that the value attributes of network virtual property, including stablecoins, as "virtual commodities" have been recognized by the Civil Code.

Article 127 of the Civil Code is located after the enumeration of various civil rights and before the provisions on the protection, acquisition and exercise of civil rights. From its position in the text, it can be deduced that the legislator did not identify it as a new statutory right, but only as the object of a certain civil right listed in the Civil Code. As for the legal nature of stablecoins, scholars also have many disputes. Under current conditions, stablecoins do not have the characteristics of being widely accepted and used within the territory of a country. Although they meet the transaction medium and stability requirements of currency in terms of function, they are not recognized by law, so they naturally do not constitute legal tender in legal nature. As for whether stablecoins are things, some scholars start from the possibility of management and believe that "although digital currency only exists in virtual space, as long as it can be controlled and dominated by corresponding technical means, digital currency in the form of data messages becomes the object of ownership, and there is no theoretical and institutional obstacle", so it can be identified as a thing. However, some scholars believe that the domination of property law highlights the possession order of the real world. The domination of encrypted digital currency in virtual space is difficult to be identified as domination in the sense of property law. The publicity is difficult to meet the requirements of transaction concepts, and it is also impossible to meet the principle of property law. It may cause difficulties in the application of rules and cannot be simply characterized as a thing. At present, my country's stable currency market is still in its infancy. There is no regulatory consensus, and the courts have not formed a unified judgment idea. The existing legal system does not seem to be sufficient to regulate its particularity. In other words, although China's civil and commercial laws have laid the foundation for regulating stable currencies, the civil laws and regulations that directly regulate stable currencies, as actually pointed out in Article 127 of the Civil Code, are still missing in my country, and stable currencies have not yet been fully recognized by law in fact and legal theory, which has also directly affected the regulation and evaluation of stable currencies by criminal law and administrative law.

2. Lack of criminal norms: Anti-money laundering loopholes and ambiguity in criminal evaluation

Money laundering has become a difficult problem for Chinese financial institutions and regulatory authorities due to its high profits, complex and diverse methods, and certain lags in the law. "Faced with the unusually active money laundering activities in my country, judicial practice has given a surprising answer. The key problem in my country's current anti-money laundering is that judicial application obviously cannot meet the actual needs of my country's anti-money laundering." The emergence of stablecoins has further magnified the lag in judicial application in money laundering crimes. In recent years, criminals have used encrypted digital currencies and stablecoins as a medium for money laundering, terrorist financing, and evasion of foreign exchange management. However, my country's current laws and regulations do not make clear regulations on the anti-money laundering obligations of stablecoins and the illegal foreign exchange transactions that may be involved. Affected by the absence of civil and commercial laws and regulations on stablecoins, criminal legal norms related to stablecoins are also in a state of absence, and the criminal legal evaluation of stablecoins is vague, which directly affects the crackdown on related criminal crimes.

Regarding the criminal judicial practice related to stablecoins in my country, although USDT was first issued in 2015, the first criminal judgment document involving USDT in my country did not appear until 2019. In 2019, there were only 14 criminal judgments involving USDT in my country, which increased to 103 in 2020, and are expected to grow further slowly in 2021. From the case cause of the document, a total of 20 charges were involved, mainly concentrated in the crime of fraud, the crime of assisting information network criminal activities, the crime of concealing and concealing criminal proceeds, the crime of criminal proceeds, and the crime of organizing and leading pyramid selling activities, accounting for more than 85% of the total number of criminal judgments involving USDT. The above data is in sharp contrast to the fact that USDT and other stablecoins are widely used as media in criminal activities such as money laundering. The reason for this is mainly due to doubts about the property attributes of stablecoins. When determining the amount of crime, judicial organs are accustomed to using the legal currency flow of traditional banks as the basis for the case, that is, requiring the suspect to complete the conversion of stablecoins to legal currency. Electronic data evidence of centralized exchanges and evidence of professional institutions tracking and analyzing on-chain data transfers are still very rare.

3. Administrative supervision and regulation: lack of strong supervision by superior laws

Regarding the regulation of monetary finance, the lack of legal norms in my country's financial law, administrative law and other legal norms is particularly obvious. Since the legislative era, foothold and starting point of existing laws and regulations are not at the same level as the later financial technology revolution, a detailed study of the content and the legislative purpose and scope of application shows that my country does not yet have a formal financial administrative regulatory law for stablecoins. In addition, my country's current paradigm of financial administrative regulation of encrypted digital currencies is highly controversial in terms of its effectiveness, system and radical "prohibitive" regulatory path.

At present, the three normative documents regulating cryptocurrencies including stablecoins in my country are neither laws, administrative regulations, local regulations, nor rules, but administrative normative documents in the general sense. This is completely different from the model of the United States and Europe formulating special laws to regulate the issuance and circulation of stablecoins. In general, the current legal regulatory framework for stablecoins in my country is not at a high level and its legal effect is questionable. Although the "Announcement" was jointly issued by seven ministries and commissions, its nature is obviously not a law or administrative regulation, but an administrative normative document or administrative regulations. In terms of effectiveness, the "Notice" is also only a normative document. Administrative regulations, normative documents, etc. generally only have the function of constraining administrative behavior, and should not affect the effectiveness of civil behavior. Therefore, the "Announcement" and "Notice" cannot actually be used as a basis for denying the effectiveness of civil acts related to stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies. It is inappropriate to use them as a basis to determine that the contract violates the mandatory provisions of the law. In addition, the "Announcement" itself does not explicitly prohibit the public from participating in virtual currency transactions, but reminds the public that there are multiple risks in virtual currency transactions, and investors must bear the investment risks themselves. Therefore, some courts do not support the return of investment in blockchain projects or stablecoin transactions based on the Announcement, and thus determine that the contract is invalid, which is an inappropriate expansion of the interpretation.

(IV) Different standards for identifying stablecoins in my country’s judicial practice

In recent years, cases involving stablecoin USDT in my country are mainly concentrated in civil disputes, and show the following characteristics: First, the number of cases has increased significantly year by year. As of August 19, 2021, there are 203 civil judgments on the China Judgment Documents Network, including 172 judgments and 31 rulings; secondly, 194 judgments are concentrated on the causes of "contract, gratuitous management, and unjust enrichment disputes". This shows from one side that USDT has emerged in my country's civil circulation and transactions; thirdly, the vast majority of the parties to the case are natural persons. This shows that natural persons with poor risk identification and risk control capabilities in my country are precisely the main users of stablecoins. Therefore, it is of special urgency and necessity to formulate regulatory laws for stablecoins; in addition, the cases involve 28 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities across the country, showing that the overall geographical distribution of the cases is relatively dispersed across the country, but the distribution in some regions is relatively concentrated.

In judicial practice, due to the different understandings of the nature of stablecoins by courts, the rules for judging related cases are relatively chaotic and there is no obvious pattern. Once the court cites the Announcement, it will often determine that the act of buying and selling stablecoins (such as USDT) is not legal, and then determine that the civil legal acts involved are invalid. In this way, the party at fault does not have to bear the legal consequences, and the counterparty can only bear the losses helplessly. This is contrary to the original intention of civil and commercial legislation to encourage transactions and maintain fair trading order. By analyzing the results of the cases, in the cases involving stablecoins, only more than 30 cases were fully or partially supported, and the claims of the remaining cases were rejected. Most courts that recognized stablecoins as virtual commodities, virtual property or virtual digital assets have recognized the validity of transactions involving stablecoins and given reasonable relief to the parties. The determination of the nature of stablecoins often depends on whether the judge can correctly understand Article 127 of the Civil Code and the Announcement and other laws, regulations and administrative normative documents. It is precisely because of such clear-cut interpretations that there are diametrically opposed judgments and characterizations of stablecoins in trial practice.

III. Comparative legal studies on stablecoin regulation: from the perspective of the United States and the European Union

Stablecoins are treated as cash, deposits, electronic money, payment tools, collective investment plans, securities, commodities, derivatives, other regulated financial products, encrypted financial assets, encrypted digital currencies or commodities not subject to any regulation in different countries. The regulation and legal evaluation of stablecoins is still a global problem. Although the United States and the European Union are still exploring the regulation of stablecoins, their regulatory principles and legislative efforts are quite representative and worthy of serious study and research in my country.

1. Characteristics of U.S. regulation: Progressive regulation under a dual-line multi-polar model

The U.S. financial regulatory system is characterized by fragmented, overlapping multi-polar regulatory agencies and a dual regulatory system of state and federal governments. It is the multiple historical financial crises that the United States has experienced that have shaped this financial regulatory system. Today, stablecoins have once again posed a major challenge to U.S. financial regulation. Under U.S. law, stablecoins may be characterized as electronic currencies, securities, or virtual commodities. Therefore, the regulation of stablecoins is very likely to fall into an uncertain policy regulatory environment similar to initial coin offerings (ICOs) and encrypted digital currencies from the very beginning. Stablecoins must also comply with traditional financial compliance requirements including anti-money laundering (AML) and "know your customer" (KYC). The current U.S. dual-line multi-polar regulatory system adopts progressive supervision, attempting to regulate the unique "cross-border" stablecoin ecosystem from multiple levels such as judicial, legislative, and administrative policies.

1. Judicial authorities’ exploration of individual regulatory cases on stablecoins: Compliance disputes

In the United States, USDT, as the current stablecoin with the largest market value, has been controversial since its birth. Tether has long pursued a full fiat currency margin system, promising to deposit one dollar in the bank for each USDT issued, and Tether also promised not to use the US dollar as the underlying anchor asset for credit or investment. However, on March 14, 2019, Tether suddenly announced that it would change the full traditional currency margin system to a non-full traditional currency margin system. In this way, although the total market value of USDT on that day was still about US$2 billion, according to the new rules, Tether only needs to deposit part of the US$2 billion in the bank, and the remaining funds can be used for credit or investment business. If Tether can make a profit, each USDT can still obtain sufficient asset support, and Tether will even pay these investment income as interest to USDT holders. But if there is a credit default or investment failure, the underlying assets as margin cannot provide sufficient support for the value of USDT. Obviously, the revised margin system has actually shaken people's original risk prediction of USDT.

Looking at the uproar caused by Tether's modification of the margin system, it can be seen that the challenges of stablecoin development mainly come from two aspects: regulatory issues and invisible over-issuance. In fact, Tether's revision of the margin system is not a hasty business decision, but more of a stress strategy to deal with legal compliance challenges. Tether claims that its parent company is iFinex Inc., a Hong Kong company registered in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), which is also the parent company of Bitfinex, a cryptocurrency exchange. Not only are Tether and Bitfinex related companies in terms of holding relationship, but Tether and Bitfinex also have many overlapping senior executives. In addition, Tether has long been criticized for its transparency, and many observers and media have doubted whether Tether has really provided enough legal currency collateral for its issued USDT. In December 2017, Tether announced that its employment relationship with auditor Friedman LLP had come to an end, and since then USDT has actually begun to "run naked" without external audits.

The above multiple doubts, contradictions and conflicts soon evolved into multiple government enforcement actions, administrative lawsuits and class actions against Tether and its affiliates. In fact, New York law enforcement agencies have been investigating Tether and its affiliates since 2018. On April 24, 2019, New York Attorney General Letitia James accused Tether, the cryptocurrency exchange Bitfinex and its parent company iFinex Inc. and other related parties of fraud that harmed the interests of New York investors, and applied for a writ from the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan (actually the New York State Court of First Instance). The law relied on by the prosecution is the Martin Act of New York State, which is known as the "worst law" in the United States.

In this case, according to the prosecution's charges, since March 2017, as mainstream financial institutions such as Wells Fargo Bank have terminated their cooperation with it, the cryptocurrency exchange Bitfinex first established business contacts with two banks in the Bahamas and Puerto Rico in order to open up a fiat currency channel. Unfortunately, both banks soon closed down. Subsequently, Bitfinex had no choice but to turn to some "shadow banks" with questionable qualifications, such as Crypto Capital, to solve the urgent need for a fiat currency channel. However, since Crypto Capital was investigated by multiple regulators in Poland, Portugal and the United States and its funds were frozen, it was unable to return the $850 million it had entrusted to Bitfinex. The prosecution accused Bitfinex of trying to conceal its losses and not disclosing the relevant losses to investors, but instead reaching out to its sister company, Tether, for the fiat currency reserves used to redeem USDT, and secretly misappropriated at least $650 million to make up for the fiscal deficit. The court subsequently approved the prosecution's request and ordered Tether and other defendants to provide information related to users, operations, finances, etc., prohibited the defendants from using Tether's US dollar reserves, and prohibited the defendants from destroying evidence.

On September 24, 2019, the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court temporarily suspended the prosecutor's request for Bitfinex and Tether to submit all documents related to the $650 million internal transactions and $900 million credit line incident, but the court ordered the continued execution of the ban on Tether from lending funds to Bitfinex. Tether immediately appealed and asked the court to lift the ban. On December 4, 2019, the prosecutor submitted an appeal to the court, reaffirming jurisdiction and pointing out that the defendant failed to cooperate in submitting documents and evidence, and attempted to prevent the New York State Attorney General's Office from investigating potential securities and commodities fraud. It is worth noting that the New York State Attorney General has never filed any formal charges against Tether and its affiliates. The center of the case dispute focuses on two issues: jurisdiction and whether the defendant must disclose information. On July 10, 2020, the court pointed out that because Tether has users and employees in New York State, the New York court has jurisdiction over the case. At the same time, the court agreed that the New York State Attorney General would continue to investigate Tether and required Tether to cooperate with the investigation and provide relevant information and documents. On February 23, 2021, the New York State Attorney General's Office announced a settlement agreement with Tether, ending a legal dispute that had been going on since 2019.

At the same time, iFinex Inc., Tether, Bitfinex's related operating entities BFXNA Inc. and BFXWW Inc. and other related entities have also become defendants in four class action lawsuits. The theoretical basis of these class action lawsuits comes from a paper published in 2019 in the world's top financial journal "The Journal of Finance" - "Is Bitcoin Really Un-Tethered?". Based on the use of algorithms to analyze Bitcoin data from January 2009 to March 2018, the paper disclosed and analyzed two important findings. First, the author claimed in the article that Tether is actually a manipulator of Bitcoin prices and has significantly raised Bitcoin prices by issuing USDT indiscriminately. Specifically, whenever the price of Bitcoin falls or falls to a key price, Tether will issue additional USDT, driving the price of Bitcoin to rise sharply. Second, the article points out that Tether's claim that USDT has sufficient 1:1 US dollar reserves is nonsense. This is also consistent with the lawsuit filed by the New York Attorney General against Tether and its affiliated entities. In these four class actions, the plaintiffs are all cryptocurrency traders and have made the following three allegations against the above defendants: (1) the defendants violated the provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act prohibiting market manipulation; (2) they controlled more than 80% of the stablecoin market through monopoly means, thereby violating the Sherman Antitrust Act; and (3) they planned and implemented extortion, violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. As of the end of 2021, these class actions have not yet been settled.

In summary, in line with the unique litigation culture of the United States, both law enforcement agencies and natural persons, legal persons and other organizations that believe that stablecoin issuers have violated their legitimate rights and interests are trying to initiate law enforcement procedures or recover losses through legal proceedings. It is worth noting that the legal basis for the plaintiffs to file these lawsuits are all legal provisions that are frequently cited in the judicial practice of the United States and are already very mature. Faced with new regulatory disputes and litigation disputes brought about by financial technology represented by stablecoins, the US judicial authorities have demonstrated their strong adaptability and deductive ability through legal interpretation and reasoning.

2. Compliance supervision

Given the unique and important role of stablecoins in the cryptocurrency ecosystem, U.S. state and federal financial regulatory authorities have begun to seek a reasonable path to regulate stablecoins and to regulate them. The U.S. regulatory process for stablecoins began at the local level. On September 10, 2018, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) approved Gemini Trust Company, LLC and Paxos Trust Company, LLC to issue stablecoins Gemini Dollar (GUSD) and Paxos Standard (PAX) anchored at 1:1 to the U.S. dollar. The biggest difference between these two stablecoins and USDT is that they operate in accordance with regulations and are more regulated. Stablecoins such as GUSD and PAX are held by trust companies, so they have all been approved by local regulators. Cryptocurrencies are often associated with illegal activities such as money laundering. The New York State Department of Financial Services approved the two stablecoins on the premise that the issuers guarantee that these stablecoins have effective risk control, anti-money laundering and other measures to prevent their tokens from being used for money laundering or terrorist financing. However, regulated stablecoins also have disadvantages: while increasing protection for investors and holders, they also sacrifice privacy and decentralization. The approval of these two projects is of great significance to the enhancement of the influence of the US dollar, which means that residents of different countries around the world can indirectly hold US dollars by holding cryptocurrencies.

Since then, the stablecoin compliance process has further developed in depth and breadth. In terms of depth, on September 5, 2019, Paxos Trust Company, LLC once again announced the launch of PAX Gold (PAXG), the first encrypted gold coin redeemable for physical gold by the New York State Department of Financial Services. In terms of breadth, a cryptocurrency exchange cooperated with Paxos to launch HUSD, a stablecoin anchored to the US dollar at a 1:1 ratio. In January 2020, HUSD was also approved by the New York State Department of Financial Services.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Compared with USDC, the custodians of other stablecoins are trust companies, but the trust companies themselves also have certain risks and need to obtain a license to prove their compliance. USDC's assets are custodians. Since USDC's custodians are regulated by the government and play a regulatory role in other financial businesses, USDC's assets are more secure.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Therefore, the stablecoin industry immediately commented on this bill, and the bill has not been voted by Congress so far.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Therefore, the stablecoin policy issued by the U.S. Currency Complaint is actually the basic position of U.S. financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve, on stablecoins. This statement shows that they encourage innovative applications of stablecoins in the U.S. financial markets.

(II) EU regulatory paradigm: functional supervision based on risk control

First, due to the complexity of the technical foundation of stablecoins and the diversity of specific functions, stablecoins may be placed under different regulatory frameworks or in the vacuum of the regulatory framework. Although the EU's supervision of stablecoins is similar to that of the United States, based on the EU's macro-policy and legal traditions, the EU's regulatory path for stablecoins has formed the following distinctive characteristics. Without specialized regulatory laws on stablecoins, the EU comprehensively applies current payment systems, solutions, financial tools, and anti-money laundering regulatory laws, and types regulate the issuance, circulation, storage and exchange of stablecoins in EU member states according to the different technical construction and implementation functions of stablecoins. At the EU's legal level, the regulation of stablecoins is mainly divided into three levels: regulated investment and financial instrument supervision; electronic currency supervision; anti-money laundering supervision.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : In fact, Germany does follow the principle of strict interpretation of various EU directives, while countries represented by France tend to tend to be loose and free interpretation.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Secondly, the European Central Bank believes that it is necessary to dig deep into the potential of stablecoins and also control related risks. The European Central Bank listed several advantages of global stablecoins in its report, such as transaction speed and convenience, which are currently recognized by the public. On the other hand, the European Central Bank has not avoided the various risks and difficulties that stablecoins may bring. The European Central Bank pointed out that stablecoins may be regarded as safe bank deposits by holders (although there is no interest), but because the value of stablecoins is actually determined by their "governance and risk management and the value of underlying assets or fund portfolios". Once the underlying assets or portfolio of stablecoins lose their fixed value, or the value of the anchored assets deviates from the expected level, users will not be able to cash out with the exact "stable value". In addition, the possible systemic failures of stablecoins are also inherent risks of stablecoins. Therefore, stablecoins are not completely "stable" and safe.

The EU is keenly aware that regulation and guidance on stablecoins and other cryptocurrencies have special significance for maintaining the EU's independence and competitiveness. EU policymakers believe that the global public health crisis that began in 2020 exposed the ripple effect caused by over-reliance on non-European suppliers, so they propose that special attention should be paid to cultivating local European power in information technology, cloud service providers, payment systems and operators. Globally, Europe is already in a good position in the fintech and crypto asset industry. European fintech is the biggest beneficiary of venture capital: 20% of all venture capital funds in Europe are invested in fintech, which is higher than that in Asia and the United States. The EU also has a good regulatory foundation. The EU's proud EU Payment Service Directive - 2nd Edition aims to strengthen competition and is recognized as a global leader in regulation and promoting innovation in open payments.

4. my country's choice of stablecoin regulatory paradigm

The macro supervision of stablecoins in countries around the world mainly includes financial policy supervision and legal compliance supervision. Strengthening stablecoin project audits, improving transparency, and enhancing compliance are of great importance to the development of stablecoins. At present, more and more stablecoin projects actively embrace supervision. Although they sacrifice freedom and convenience to a certain extent, they can prevent credit collapse and legal litigation directly caused by insufficient risk control or lack of compliance, which is exchanged for the endorsement of regulatory authorities and a broader development space. This has also created important practical conditions for my country's legislative and law enforcement agencies to regulate stablecoins to a certain extent, and thus provides my country with the principle framework and basic path for stablecoin supervision.

(I) The internal and external environment of my country's stablecoin supervision

From the perspective of the scope of use of stablecoins in my country, stablecoins have obvious advantages in foreign trade, international trade settlement, cross-border investment, international payment, and cross-border capital flows. On the one hand, the point-to-point transaction mode transfer of stablecoins eliminates the high fees, cumbersome steps and slow processes of cross-border payment and clearing of traditional banks, greatly improving settlement efficiency and benefits, and greatly reducing payment costs; on the other hand, the exchange rate of stablecoins is relatively stable, and the value is basically consistent around the world, and can provide a safe and secure valuation unit and settlement medium, which is conducive to reducing bilateral exchange rate risks and avoiding risks and uncertain factors brought about by exchange rate fluctuations. In addition, stablecoins can also achieve seamless connection with my country's central bank digital currency (Digital Currency Electronic Payment-DC/EP), which can expand and enrich the application scenarios of central bank digital currency, further strengthen the two-way circulation and mutual recognition of the cryptocurrency ecosystem and fiat currency, which is of far-reaching significance in maintaining and realizing my country's financial stability.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : It is particularly worth mentioning that the weight of the US dollar has risen from 39.35% in June 2018 to 40.33% in June 2020, and its dominance in global payment currency has further stabilized. Therefore, the internationalization of the RMB has a long way to go. The emergence of stablecoins not only provides my country with a good opportunity to break the closed dollar exchange mechanism against China, but also is very helpful to achieve the internationalization of the RMB.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : It can be foreseen that if digital stablecoins in China, Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong can be implemented, it will improve the risk resistance of regional trade under the influence of the international environment, and Hong Kong can also make new contributions to the development of the country's digital economy.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : However, the central bank's legal digital currency borrows and applies blockchain components technology, such as using smart contracts to realize the directional circulation of funds and using asymmetric encryption to authenticate identity. Stable coins can almost naturally achieve mutual integration and common development with the central bank's legal digital currency. This can not only lay a key foundation for the deep integration of the digital economy and the real economy, but also provide rich imagination space for the rising decentralized finance.

(II) Reasonable planning of regulatory agencies based on the nature of stablecoins

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Compared with money market funds, electronic currency has much stricter regulatory restrictions on issuers. For example, under the 2009 Electronic Money Directive (Directive 2009/110/EC), the issuer of stablecoins needs to meet capital adequacy requirements and the issuer has the obligation to redeem the holder's stablecoins at face value at any time.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

The absence of regulatory authorities has also led to a large number of stablecoins that exist in my country's economic life and judicial practice falling into a regulatory vacuum. As the world's second largest economy and an international financial center, China is also a region with the rapid development of crypto digital ecology and stablecoins. The inefficiency of separate supervision has weakened the development and standardization of stablecoins, and has also affected the international competitiveness of my country's financial technology. At present, with the rapid development of my country's mixed financial business, my country's financial supervision model has gradually transitioned to a regulatory model that takes into account the stability of the financial system and the normative market behavior. In line with this, my country should gradually establish a special stablecoin regulatory agency on this basis. At present, the People's Bank of China and the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission should play its role as front-line regulatory agencies to strengthen research, supervision and guidance on stablecoins in the issuance and circulation links, jointly assume the regulatory responsibilities of stablecoins, and provide experience accumulation and theoretical support for the next stage of stablecoin supervision.

(III) References to European and American regulatory models: A preliminary study on the regulatory path of my country's stablecoin

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Issuers and exchanges shall strictly fulfill their prudent verification obligations for digital asset transactions, and conduct compliance review and risk prevention work for anti-money laundering and terrorist financing.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : In addition, the regulatory authorities should consider implementing sandbox supervision or in areas with better infrastructure and relatively active and healthy financial ecology, such as the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, to experiment with the stablecoin ecological operation system and timely summarize the regulatory effect. The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area presents the characteristics of "one country, two systems, three currencies", which is not only within the unified jurisdiction of the central government, but also includes cross-border and autonomous regions; it not only provides real application scenarios for new cross-border payments, but also safely and effectively avoids intervention from international forces. It is the most ideal pilot area for my country's stablecoin ecological system.

Finally, my country should actively take the industry standards and regulatory policies of stablecoins and participate in global cooperation in stablecoin regulation. At present, the digital economy is ushering in new development opportunities. Through the COVID-19 pandemic, countries around the world have more fully realized the importance and urgency of developing the digital economy and have increased their investment in technology, capital and research. In the future, the competition between digital economy and digital finance will inevitably become more intense. In the financial field, my country has always had a fine tradition of being good at leveraging the advantages of latecomer advantages. The paperless construction of China's securities market has completed the paperless process that only completed in decades of mature markets. In the rapid formation of the world's crypto digital currency ecosystem, my country is also one of the important markets of the world's stablecoins. Therefore, my country has the technical conditions and market foundation to participate in the formulation of the industry standards and regulatory framework for the world's stablecoins.

The enforcement actions and regulatory framework of the United States and Europe for stablecoins are no longer limited to financial supervision. The deeper motivation behind this is that many countries have realized that stablecoins will affect the international monetary and financial order, and the regulation of stablecoins is related to the country's monetary policy and financial stability. At this stage, the anchoring of the US dollar to issue stablecoins mainly borrows the dominant position of the US dollar as the world currency, and the stablecoins pegged to the US dollar have further enhanced the world influence of the US dollar, which means that residents of different countries around the world can indirectly hold the US dollar by holding stablecoins. As this situation continues to spread, the US dollar's position in the global monetary system will be further enhanced, and the United States will further strengthen its control over the global economic system. As a response and response measure, my country should encourage private enterprises to participate in the competition in the stablecoin market, approve the stablecoins anchored by the RMB in accordance with regulatory requirements, so as to actively participate in the competition in the stablecoin market and enhance the RMB's position in the international payment market.

We must also fully understand that the competition, development and regulation of stablecoins are carried out at the global level. The emergence of stablecoins is born to solve the problems of cross-border payments and cross-fiat and digital currency payments. The liquidity of stablecoins is also a global scale. "Same business, same risks, same rules" and consistent regulatory methods between countries constitute the regulatory guidelines proposed by the G7 Global Stable Coin Working Group. Faced with the natural cross-border liquidity of stablecoins and the enormous impact on world financial stability, the G20 authorized the Financial Stability Committee (FSB) in June 2019 to review the legal regulatory framework of stablecoins for countries around the world and provide advice on multilateral response measures. Therefore, my country should actively participate in international cooperation in stablecoins regulation to avoid regulatory arbitrage.

in conclusion

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Under other security dimensions related to financial means, the People's Bank of China, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, as well as the financial and legal think tanks should continue to pay attention to the latest research progress of financial regulators around the world, and submit continuously improved legislative suggestions for stablecoin to the legislature.