Previous article | Global Blockchain Industry Panorama and Trends Annual Report (2018-2019)

Editor's note: This article is from Huobi Blockchain Research Institute (ID: HuobiChina) , author Yuan Yuming, Zhu Yibang, Xiao Xiao, Chi Wenting, Liu Yang, Ding Zhaofei, Li Hui, Hu Zhiwei, Ma Tianyuan, Ding Yuan, Lei Chengsan;

summary

2018 was a year when the digital asset market went from frenzy to rationality. All data in the secondary market fell sharply and were transmitted to the primary market. In the same year, the activity on the Bitcoin chain also fell sharply. However, core indicators such as computing power and mining difficulty are still healthy. There was only a slight decline at the end of the year due to the market breakdown and the departure of some miners. The overall trend throughout the year was still fluctuating and rising. The bear market is more about the "market" level.

2018 is also the year of transformation for the digital asset market, with five major transformations taking place: (1) The issuers of assets have expanded from the private sector to the state; (2) Asset issuance has become compliant, with the issuance of securities tokens currently leading DAICO; (3) The trading market has become financialized, with the trading targets expanding to derivatives and index products; (4) Clearing and settlement has shifted to stablecoins; and (5) Market participants have become institutionalized.

2018 is also the first year of compliance in the digital asset market. Three trends are taking shape: (1) The regulatory system is gradually becoming clearer, and the prototype of "license + sandbox + industry self-discipline" is beginning to emerge; (2) "Classification regulation" is gradually giving way to "undifferentiated regulation"; (3) Joint regulation begins with regional economies led by the European Union. The "compliance infrastructure" with compliant exchanges, compliant custody, securities-based digital assets, and stablecoins as the pillars is developing rapidly.

Blockchain industry sectors: (1) Hardware and infrastructure layer: sales of new nano-miners are not ideal, mining farms and mining pools are facing profit pressure, and the decline in computing power of some PoW currencies threatens blockchain security; (2) Platform and basic layer: public chains are cooling down, and the market's pursuit of TPS has returned to rationality; (3) General technology layer: the advancement of the public chain ecosystem has driven the development of developer tools, among which EOS has developed rapidly; (4) Vertical application layer: "Blockchain +" is gradually being carried out, and is accelerating its implementation in scenarios such as building trust, data autonomy and value, and token incentives; (5) Peripheral service layer: community management models of trading platforms, cloud exchanges are beginning to appear, and the prototype of wallet exchanges is emerging.

Blockchain technology level: (1) 2018 was a big year for scalability solutions, forming a three-layer model of Layer 0, Layer 1 and Layer 2; (2) In terms of privacy solutions, some new encrypted smart contracts and ciphertext data computing projects emerged, and anonymous currencies Grin and Beam based on MimbleWimble became popular; (3) In 2018, cross-chain functions have become standard for public chain projects, and cross-chain asset swaps are also developing towards cross-chain asset transfers. In addition, active cross-chain and passive cross-chain have begun to be implemented; (4) Other distributed ledger technology fields, led by DAG, have begun to actively explore the possibility of integrating programmable functions such as smart contracts.

We have reviewed the top ten major events in 2018: (1) EOS.IO set off a wave of super node elections, and the DPOS mechanism was popular; (2) The rise and fall of the "transaction is mining" model; (3) EOS Ram revelation, the prototype of human-machine transaction/IBO, but IBO did not explode as expected; (4) Fomo3D triggered thinking about game Dapp; (5) Traditional giants began to deploy in the blockchain field; (6) Blockchain companies embraced the traditional capital market; (7) USDT faced a trust crisis, compliant stablecoins were born, and algorithmic stablecoins had a bad start; (8) Supervision is no longer limited to paper, and implementation has begun, with the United States as a typical example; (9) Who is the real believer? Looking at public chain governance from the BCH fork; (10) Security and hacking incidents are frequent, and blockchain security opportunities are emerging.

We also made ten predictions for 2019: (1) There is a lack of wealth-creating effect, financing projects are cleared, and the market will fluctuate widely after finding the bottom in 2019; (2) ETFs will not be smooth sailing, but personalized derivatives will continue to emerge; (3) Public chain improvements are gradual, but performance is no longer a pain point, and effective scenarios are; (4) One-stop blockchain deployment may become a new favorite, and cross-chain interoperability will give birth to the diversity of blockchain implementation; (5) With the arrival of Web 3.0, 5G and distributed storage based on IPFS will become important driving forces; (6) The financialization of the mining industry will promote a reshuffle, and those who change their ways will take over, while those who cling to the old ways will leave; (7) Traditional applications will set off a wave of Dappization, and a new world of traffic will emerge; (8) Cases of asset tokenization are emerging, and token anchoring rights are gradually enriched, but there are still obstacles to scale; (9) Stablecoins will shift from transactions to applications and payments, and a "PayPal" based on stablecoins will emerge; (10) Supervision in mainstream countries will continue to be optimized, and the demonstration effect will lead to many countries following suit, and licenses and sandboxes will become popular.

Report Content

1. Review and Outlook of Digital Asset Market

2018 is the year when the digital asset market went from frenzy to rationality. Although the total number of digital assets is still growing, according to CoinMarketCap data, there are currently more than 2,000 digital assets in the world, an increase of about 45% from the end of 2017. However, the total market value of digital assets has shrunk significantly in 2018, and the market trading volume has dropped sharply. The weak market performance and confidence have also gradually spread to the primary market. The completion rate of crowdfunding of digital assets and blockchain projects has gradually dropped to the freezing point in 2018. But at the same time, five important transformations in the digital asset market are also quietly taking place.

1.1 Winter is coming, and the digital asset market continues to cool down

In 2017, the digital asset market experienced explosive growth, with the total market value soaring from US$17.74 billion at the beginning of the year to US$559.76 billion at the end of the year, a 30-fold increase, surpassing the returns of any other asset class. However, after entering 2018, the digital asset market reversed direction, and prices fell sharply. As of December 31, the total market value was approximately US$130 billion, and the overall market shrunk by more than 80% this year.

Except for February, April and July, which saw significant increases, the market value of digital assets continued to decline in other months of 2018. In April, the digital asset market saw a small rally, and the prices of some digital assets rose rapidly, mainly due to the stimulation of multiple projects using the DPOS consensus mechanism, such as EOS and TRX, which competed to start super node elections. In July, driven by the rise of trading mining and a series of Dapp applications led by Fomo3D, the market also saw a significant small rally.

In 2018, the global 24-hour digital asset trading volume reached its peak on January 4 (US$70.004 billion). As the digital asset market cooled, it reached its lowest point in 18 years on October 27 at US$8.78 billion, down 87.6% from the peak. Currently, the 24-hour trading volume is between US$10 billion and US$25 billion.

In addition to the sharp drop in trading volume, the activity of the digital asset market has also dropped significantly:

However, from the perspective of sentiment, the market is still optimistic about the trend in the first half of 2019. After entering 2018, the digital asset market has been in a downward trend, but the market still has hope for 2019. According to Huobi Blockchain Research Institute's monthly sentiment survey of global individual and institutional investors, the market is still optimistic about the trend in the first half of 2019, believing that it will rise slightly. Among them, 78.0% of voters believe that the total market value of digital assets will rise in the next six months, and 28.5% of voters are very confident in the market and believe that the market value of digital assets will rise by more than 30% in the next six months.

1.2 The cold winter is here, and the financing of blockchain and digital assets has plummeted

In 2017, emerging digital assets exploded, and the amount of related financing grew rapidly, reaching a new high in 2018. According to ICO Rating data, a total of 947 projects in the primary market completed crowdfunding in 2018, with a total financing amount of more than 11.6 billion US dollars. The number of projects increased by 200% year-on-year, and the amount of financing increased by 94% year-on-year.

However, the doubling of digital asset crowdfunding financing in 2018 is closely related to some of the top financing projects in the first half of the year. Huobi Blockchain Research Institute counted the top 10 digital asset crowdfunding projects and found that the financing amount exceeded 100 million US dollars. Among them, the top three financing projects were the public chain project "EOS" raising 4.23 billion US dollars, the communication project "Telegram Open Network" raising 1.7 billion US dollars, and the game project "Dragon Coins" raising 320 million US dollars. If the relevant impact of EOS and Telegram is excluded, the digital asset crowdfunding financing amount in 2018 decreased by 4.7% month-on-month.

As the digital asset market cooled, the amount and number of digital asset crowdfunding decreased month by month, especially in the second half of 2018. In December 2018, according to ICO Rating, only 20 projects successfully completed crowdfunding, a new low for the year; the amount of digital asset crowdfunding that month was only 78 million US dollars, a decrease of 96% from the peak in May. The overall market financing situation is not optimistic month-on-month.

At the same time, the completion rate of crowdfunding for digital asset projects has gradually declined, and most projects have not raised enough funds.

In 2018, the price break rate of digital asset crowdfunding projects increased after they were launched. As global regulators intensify their crackdown on digital asset crowdfunding fraud, and affected by the diversion of funds caused by too many projects and the decline in the price of Ethereum itself, most new digital asset prices broke after they were launched on exchanges, and some projects were delayed due to market conditions. Huobi Blockchain Research Institute tracks the projects that are launched on exchanges every month, and calculates the price break rate for projects that count both the crowdfunding cost price and the first online transaction price. The monthly average price break rate is as high as 75%.

According to ICOWatchlist data, in 2018, digital asset crowdfunding projects were mainly distributed in the United States (15.9%), the United Kingdom (9.5%), Singapore (8.3%), Russia (7%), and Switzerland (6.6%). Compared with 2017, the proportion of projects in the United States and Switzerland has dropped most significantly, mainly because clear regulatory policies (incorporating securities supervision) have led some projects to choose to develop overseas, and the remaining projects have chosen to embrace compliance. The proportion of projects in Singapore has increased, mainly because the policies are relatively complete and relatively loose (such as sandbox supervision), and project development is relatively free. The specific distribution of digital asset crowdfunding financing countries is shown in the figure below:

According to ICO Watchlist data, in 2018, digital asset crowdfunding projects were mainly concentrated in application fields, among which the financial field always ranked first. The top three fields were finance (12.1%), payment/wallet (6.7%), and business/retail (5.6%). Compared with 2017, the proportion of asset management projects fell out of the top three, and most of these projects have securities trading attributes and will face supervision. The specific distribution of digital asset crowdfunding application fields is shown in the figure below:

1.3 On-chain activity has reached a bottleneck, but core indicators such as computing power and mining difficulty are still healthy

1.3.1 On-chain activity data growth stagnates

After March 2018, the growth of Bitcoin active addresses stagnated. On January 4, 2018, the number of Bitcoin daily active addresses reached a peak of 1.055 million, and then plummeted to 311,000 (April 8, 2018), a 70.5% drop from the highest point of the year. It can be said that in 2018, the on-chain activity data continued to fall for a long time. At present, the number of Bitcoin daily active addresses is in the range of 300,000-600,000, which is basically the same as the on-chain activity in 2016. It can be seen that Bitcoin activity still has a strong positive correlation with its market price performance. The substantial increase in activity in 2017 and the substantial decline in activity in 2018 are significantly related to the investment and speculation ebbs and flows caused by the rise and fall of market prices. The investment and speculation attributes of Bitcoin still account for a large part, as shown in the following figure:

In addition, the amount of Bitcoin on-chain transfers also showed a downward trend during the same period, reflecting the decline in on-chain activity. After December 2018, the increase in the amount of Bitcoin transfers was mainly due to the normal asset sorting behavior of the Coinbase exchange: in early December, a large number of top addresses cleared all Bitcoins (addresses ranked 9-12 in terms of holdings, as well as addresses ranked 30-31, 45-54, etc.), and most of the transferred Bitcoins were eventually transferred to 96 new addresses, each containing 8,000 Bitcoins.

1.3.2 Hash value (computing power), mining difficulty and number of nodes are still on the rise

However, unlike the sharp decline in on-chain activity, the computing power and mining difficulty of blockchain networks, led by Bitcoin, have not experienced the same sharp decline: the overall hash rate (computing power) of the Bitcoin network continued to rise in 2018, reaching its highest value between September and November, about 50EH/s to 60EH/s. After December, the computing power of the network declined to a certain extent, mainly due to the sharp drop in the digital asset market in November, and some miners left the market. At present, the hash rate (computing power) of the Bitcoin network is still around 40EH/s.

In addition, the difficulty of Bitcoin mining also showed a similar growth trend, reaching its peak in September-November. In December, as some miners left the market, the computing power decreased and the difficulty was reduced accordingly.

The number of Bitcoin verification nodes has remained basically stable, with only a slight decline, which also shows that the group of miners who maintain the operation of the entire blockchain network is still relatively stable. The impact of the 2018 bear market is more on the market level, rather than on the security and underlying technology level:

1.4 Five transformations and transitions that the digital asset market is experiencing

1.4.1 The asset issuer has expanded from private to state

In 2018, digital assets are no longer limited to the private sector. Many national government agencies have also joined in, and legal digital currencies have begun to appear:

In January 2018, the Venezuelan government released the first legal digital currency in human history, "Petro PTR" (petro cryptocurrency). It uses the 5 billion barrels of oil reserves of the Ayacucho Block 1 oil field in the Orinoco heavy oil belt as the material basis for issuing petro coins. Each petro coin is equivalent to one barrel of oil. The petro coin is a product of the Venezuelan government's attempt to save the domestic economy. Since 2014, the Venezuelan currency has depreciated by more than 99% in four years, and the people have lost confidence in the legal currency Bolivar. In such chaos, the people have begun to return to a barter lifestyle, such as exchanging bread for medicine; on the other hand, they have begun to flock to digital assets such as Bitcoin. From August 2014 to November 2016, the number of Bitcoin users in Venezuela increased from 450 to 85,000. In order to prevent the people from eventually abandoning the legal currency Bolivar, which is backed by the government's credit, the government decided to launch the "petro coin" and finally announced in November 2018 that the petro coin has become the country's legal currency, linking the price of the Bolivar to the petro coin. Currently, Petro can be purchased with legal currencies such as RMB and USD and digital assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. Currently, all transactions for purchasing oil in Venezuela must be paid with Petro, such as when airlines refuel in Venezuela. In December, the government began to pay residents' pensions with Petro.

In addition to Venezuela, several other countries have announced their intention to launch legal digital currencies. In addition, according to the latest report of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), 15 central banks have seriously participated in the research of legal digital currencies, and digital assets are gradually entering the era of national teams.

1.4.2 Asset issuance is compliant, and securities token issuance is currently ahead of DAICO

From mid-2017 to the first half of 2018, digital asset crowdfunding experienced a process from germination to explosion, but it was also followed by disorderly asset issuance, various projects on the market were mixed, and most functional tokens had no actual use value. In 2018, the digital asset market saw the emergence of a compliant asset issuance model:

At the beginning of 2018, Ethereum founder Vitalik proposed the DAICO model, hoping to introduce community supervision in digital asset crowdfunding and constrain project owners. DAICO combines some features of the decentralized autonomous organization DAO on the basis of the traditional digital asset crowdfunding model, giving token holders voting rights, which can supervise the raised funds through voting, and release funds through smart contracts. In addition, token holders also have the opportunity to request a refund. The market was excited after the DAICO concept was proposed, but the model has not seen an explosive trend since the beginning of the year. Since the world's first DAICO fundraising project The Abyss, there have been only a few followers, such as Tokedo:

We believe that the main reason is that the DAICO model still has some problems, including:

Ÿ<1> Community democracy is not necessarily beneficial to the development of the project itself. Most token holders only care about the token price and will definitely consider the project itself from a long-term perspective;

Ÿ<2>Secondly, DAICO is essentially still a form of crowdfunding and still needs to comply with the regulatory regulations of various countries. It faces the same potential regulatory constraints as traditional digital asset crowdfunding;

Ÿ<3>Finally, token purchasers did not increase their enthusiasm for participation because DAICO added constraints on project parties. In the bear market environment of 2018, token purchasers turned their focus to the quality of the underlying assets, which is not something that the DAICO model can solve.

The issuance of securities tokens is another exploration of token issuance, which specifically refers to the legal issuance of tokens under a certain regulatory framework and in accordance with the requirements of laws, regulations and administrative rules. Compared with traditional digital asset crowdfunding, the issuance of securities tokens clarifies the attributes of tokens as securities rather than the original functional tokens, and is subject to greater restrictions in terms of issuance and circulation:

Ÿ<1> The issuing side follows the securities issuance process. Token financing in the United States can only be completed through Reg A+, Reg D, Reg CF, Reg S or direct IPO channels;

Ÿ<2>The circulation end must be traded on limited licensed exchanges, and barriers and certain lock-up periods must be set for investors. For example, the US Reg D requires that fundraising is only open to qualified investors, and Reg A+ and Reg S also have requirements for the upper limit of the number of investors. In addition, Reg D, Reg CF, and Reg S financing all have a 12-month lock-up period, which means that only investors with risk tolerance can participate.

From a regulatory perspective, compared with DAICO, security token issuance has stronger endorsement and is more easily accepted by project owners and investors, especially traditional institutional investors. As of the end of October 2018, the US SEC has reviewed and approved 39 security token issuance projects, including Tzero, Filecoin, Telgeram and other star projects, all of which have gone through compliant securities issuance.

1.4.3 Financialization of trading markets, expansion of trading targets to derivatives and index products

The general decline in the digital asset spot market has given rise to the market demand for derivatives, especially risk hedging tools, prompting digital asset exchanges to launch various derivatives to attract users:

According to data from Visual Capitalist, in the traditional financial world, the global stock market value is about 73 trillion US dollars, the global government debt, corporate debt, household and personal debt totals 215 trillion US dollars, the global developed countries' real estate market value is about 217 trillion US dollars, the total cash is about 7.6 trillion US dollars, the spot gold market value is about 7.7 trillion US dollars, and the silver market value is 17 billion US dollars. The global market value of financial derivatives based on various spot products is about 544-1200 trillion US dollars, which is an order of magnitude higher than the global stock market value. Corresponding to the digital asset market, as of December 31, 2018, the global digital asset total market value reached 131.6 billion US dollars. At a 10-fold estimate, the scale of the digital asset derivatives market should be able to reach the trillion-dollar level.

Ÿ<1> Currently, the leading digital asset exchanges are actively expanding into the derivatives market. Currently, BitMex, OKEx and other exchanges all have contract trading sections.

Ÿ<2>In addition, traditional exchanges are also penetrating into the digital asset derivatives market. In December 2017, CBOE and CME successively launched the long-awaited Bitcoin futures in the market, officially recognizing the legal status of Bitcoin derivatives. Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), also established the Bitcoin futures trading platform Bakkt in August 2018 and is working hard to launch a physical-settled Bitcoin daily futures contract. LedgerX, the holder of the Swap Execution Facility license under the US CFTC, has also launched Bitcoin options.

Ÿ<3>In addition to futures, options and other products, index products are also an important exploration direction to facilitate institutions and large capital users to allocate major asset classes. For example, Bloomberg has teamed up with Galaxy Digital (GD) to launch the cryptocurrency benchmark index Bloomberg Galaxy Crypto Index (BGCI).

However, we also need to see that the development of the derivatives and index product markets must be based on a mature spot market. However, the digital asset market is still in its early stages and has not yet found a truly reasonable valuation method. Market liquidity, depth and other aspects are insufficient, and investors have weak risk tolerance, etc. These are all obstacles that need to be overcome in the future for the further expansion of the derivatives and index product markets.

1.4.4 Clearing and Settlement Transformed to Stablecoin

At the beginning of 2018, the trading volume of Bitcoin against US dollar accounted for 57.97%, while the stable currency USDT accounted for only 15.66%. In 2018, with the further development of stable currency USDT and the birth of new stable currencies such as TUSD, USDC, PAX, GUSD, it can be clearly seen that the proportion of stable currencies in Bitcoin transactions has increased. The role of stable currencies in digital asset transactions and settlements is increasing:

In the era when stablecoins have not yet appeared, if users need to trade digital assets, they often need to go to a fiat currency exchange such as Coinbase, or an OTC platform like CoinCola to buy mainstream digital currencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, and then go to a currency-to-currency trading platform to trade other currencies with mainstream digital currencies; in addition, if users want to sell digital assets for risk hedging when the market fluctuates greatly, they also need to go through the same steps in reverse.

As a result, the deposit and withdrawal procedures in the digital asset world are cumbersome, and the intermediate costs are high, which has formed an obstacle for new users to enter the digital asset world. At the same time, applications in the digital asset world such as Dapp are not compatible with the legal currency system, and users cannot directly participate in the use of legal currency. The birth of stablecoins has broken the gap between the digital asset world and the real world, providing a convenient deposit channel and risk hedging method for the digital asset world. It is precisely because of the convenience of stablecoins that digital asset transactions and settlements are increasingly using stablecoins, becoming a new basic trading pair in the field of digital asset transactions. Taking December 31, 2018 as an example, for Bitcoin, the proportion of USDT transactions has risen to 62.78%, while the US dollar, which has the highest proportion of transactions in legal currency, only accounts for 16.47%, which is a very obvious proof, as follows:

1.4.5 Institutionalization of Market Participants

In 2018, the number of institutional investors in the digital asset market increased significantly. In 2018, about 220 digital asset funds were newly established. Currently, there are about 632 digital asset funds in the world, including 311 hedge funds and 302 venture capital funds. As of the end of October 2018, the total management scale of global digital asset funds was about 8.34 billion US dollars, which was 42.3% higher than the beginning of the year despite the sharp decline in the market value of digital assets in 2018.

Another example that reflects the institutionalization of digital asset market participants is the increase in the application of multi-signatures and the corresponding address balances. The implementation of standardized multi-signatures originated from the Bitcoin Improvement Protocol BIP11, but it was truly popularized and used by a large number of wallets due to the emergence of the Pay-To-Script-Hash (P2SH) transaction type, which greatly simplified the execution process of multi-signatures. Huobi Blockchain Research Institute has compiled data on the Bitcoin balance of addresses based on the P2SH style on the Bitcoin network.

It can be seen that the asset balance of P2SH style addresses has experienced two rapid growths. The first was from the end of 2014 to the beginning of 2015, when the P2SH script appeared and was recognized by the community. The Bitcoin balance in P2SH style addresses increased to 1 million. The second was from the second half of 2017, which truly reflected the increase in institutional users. As of now, the Bitcoin balance in P2SH style addresses has increased to more than 5 million. Since the advantage of multi-signature is security, it prevents the risk of a single point of private key collapse and is suitable for institutional users. Therefore, we believe that the growth of the above multi-signature wallet data actually reflects the increase in the number of institutional participants in the digital asset market from the side, and they are managing their assets through multi-signature.

We believe that the substantial increase in institutional participants is itself a recognition of the prospects of the digital asset market and blockchain industry. There are also three reasons for creating external conditions for institutionalization: First, regulators in various countries have begun to intervene in the digital asset market at an accelerated pace, and compliance has become increasingly perfect, which has reduced regulatory uncertainty to a certain extent; second, the emergence of custody has provided institutional funds with asset custody solutions, greatly reducing the threshold and risk of capital entry; third, the emergence of digital asset derivatives has provided convenience for institutional investors to hedge against market fluctuations.

II. Interpretation of digital asset compliance and regulatory trends

2.1 Latest developments and trends in global blockchain and digital asset regulation

We believe that 2018 is the first year of compliance in the digital asset market, and the global market has entered a stage of accelerated compliance. On the one hand, the digital asset market experienced unprecedented explosive growth in 2017 due to the consensus on smart contracts. In addition, the coexistence of opportunities and risks in the digital asset and blockchain industries has attracted the attention and rapid intervention of regulators in various countries. On the other hand, the regulatory policies introduced by some countries that are at the forefront of compliance have had a demonstration effect on the entire industry, further accelerating the process of compliance. Huobi Blockchain Research Institute reviewed the policy dynamics in 2018 and summarized the following major trends and directions:

(1) The regulatory system is becoming clearer, and the initial form of “license + sandbox plan + industry self-discipline” is emerging.

Digital assets are still in the early stages, with high professionalism and technicality, and they change rapidly. Therefore, the regulation of digital assets itself should be a dynamic process, and it requires the joint efforts of the entire industry and regulators. Simple centralized regulation is difficult to meet the needs of industry development. The good thing is that we do see that the entire regulatory system is becoming increasingly clear and more inclusive, and effective supplements such as industry self-discipline and sandbox programs are included in addition to the license threshold, forming a "license + sandbox program + industry self-discipline" three-wheel drive situation. For example, in addition to the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) itself proposing sandbox regulation in the second half of 2017, South Korea mainly adopts self-regulatory organization supervision, and the US SEC also established the "New Strategic Center for Innovation and Financial Technology" - Finhub this year to build a communication bridge between the market and the SEC on innovative ideas and technological development. In addition, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission issued the "Statement on the Regulatory Framework for Management Companies, Fund Distributors and Trading Platform Operators of Digital Asset Portfolios" this year. While announcing the comprehensive supervision of digital assets and the need to obtain a license, it also proposed a sandbox plan, hoping to cooperate with leading companies in the industry.

(2) “Classification-based supervision” is gradually giving way to “undifferentiated supervision”

Classification supervision mainly refers to the differentiated supervision of "securities digital assets" and "non-securities digital assets", that is, strict supervision of "securities digital assets" and no restrictions on "non-securities digital assets". From 2017 to early 2018, most countries adopted this approach to the supervision of digital assets (especially digital asset issuance). The most typical example is Singapore, which divides tokens into two categories: security tokens (capital market products) and functional tokens, and the regulatory framework of the capital market only applies to security tokens; the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) also divides tokens into three categories: payment tokens, functional tokens, and asset tokens (i.e. securities), and only conducts strong supervision within the securities framework for asset tokens.

However, even if it is a "non-securities digital asset", it still has strong speculation and price volatility. Since 2018, more and more countries and regions are gradually moving towards "undifferentiated supervision", that is, regardless of whether it meets the definition of "securities", they are treated equally, and there are two regulatory ideas:

<1>Hong Kong is a typical region that adopts a completely securitized regulatory approach. On November 1, 2018, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission issued the "Statement on the Regulatory Framework for Management Companies, Fund Distributors and Trading Platform Operators of Digital Asset Portfolios", which cancelled the previous relatively vague classification and regulatory approach of "securities digital assets" and "non-securities digital assets", and announced the entry into a comprehensive "securities regulation" era, that is, regardless of whether digital assets constitute "securities" and "futures contracts" as defined in the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Chapter 571), for the sake of investor protection, they are all included in the same regulatory framework and refer to the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Chapter 571).

<2> In addition to securitization regulation, some countries and regions adopt the idea of comprehensive jurisdiction over digital asset-related businesses. Take Singapore as an example. On January 14, 2019, the Payment Services Act submitted by the Monetary Authority of Singapore to the Parliament was officially passed. Any practitioner who provides any payment-type tokens or operates a platform to trade any payment-type tokens must obtain the corresponding license and follow the same policy supervision as traditional payment service companies, that is, tokens of non-capital market commodities will also be regulated. The United States is actually a typical example of this type of comprehensive jurisdiction. If it involves securities, it is under the jurisdiction of the SEC, and if it is not a securities, it will also be subject to institutions including the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Department of State Financial Services (DFS).

In fact, non-differentiated regulation is based on the existing legal frameworks of various countries, such as securities law, company law, banking law, civil law, etc., and it can be said to be a relatively simple and effective way of regulation for the digital asset market. On the one hand, the existing legal frameworks of various countries have been relatively perfected after historical iterations, and can serve as the basis and starting point for compliance in the digital asset market. On the other hand, in recent years, with the birth and popularization of infrastructure such as stablecoins and financial instruments such as digital asset derivatives, the financial attributes of the digital asset market have become more and more obvious, and are more suitable for the regulatory system of the traditional financial market than in the past.

(3) Joint supervision will start from regional economies, with the EU taking the lead and then spreading outwards

Digital assets are cross-regional in nature, and transactions on the blockchain are borderless, which poses a great challenge to the regulation of a single country. In fact, the speed of technological development today has surpassed the response capacity of a single country's policies, and joint regulation is imminent. However, due to the fact that there are still certain differences in the attitudes and interests of various countries towards digital assets, it is still very difficult to create a global regulatory framework for the digital asset market. However, for regional economies that are highly integrated and have relatively consistent interests, the difficulty is much smaller. In this regard, we believe that joint regulation will be implemented first in regional economies such as the European Union. Although the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has not yet clearly explained the nature of digital assets and included them in regulation, we have reason to believe that in the future, digital assets, especially issuance and trading, will still refer to the traditional financial regulatory framework and be regulated in accordance with the latest "Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II" (MiFID II) that came into effect on January 3, 2018. At present, relevant market participants have actively sought to comply with MiFID II, including Blocktrade, a digital asset exchange in Liechtenstein, and LCX, a Liechtenstein digital asset exchange.

2.2 Review of regulatory trends in major countries and regions around the world

Huobi Blockchain Research Institute continues to track the regulatory policies of major countries and regions in the world, and continuously optimizes the evaluation system and examines the regulatory characteristics. At present, we mainly examine the following four dimensions:

<1> Whether the nature of digital assets is clarified

<2>Whether the trading and circulation of digital assets are regulated

<3>Whether to restrict the issuance and sale of digital assets

<4> Whether to restrict other digital asset-related behaviors

At the same time, due to the rapid progress of global digital asset compliance in 2018, especially in the second half of the year, most mainstream countries and regions have more or less introduced relevant policies or guidelines. In order to better reflect the development of global digital asset and blockchain supervision and facilitate decision-making references for market participants and entrepreneurs, we will no longer use the regulatory strictness index used in the first half of the report, but introduce a regulatory perfection index. Combining the above four dimensions, the regulation of blockchain and digital assets in various countries and regions will be scored according to maturity: from one star to four stars, the more stars, the more perfect the regulatory system of the country and region. We have selected several countries and regions with relatively perfect and typical supervision and sorted them out:

2.2.1 United States: Multiple regulators, sound system, early implementation, maturity (4 stars)

The United States has always played an important role in the field of global digital asset regulation. In 2018, the United States clearly defined digital assets and launched a series of policies to form a relatively complete regulatory framework, which has guiding significance for the entire market regulation. At present, the United States is one of the few countries in the world that implements multiple supervisions, and the regulatory bodies include the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Department of State Financial Services (DFS).

Whether the nature of digital assets is clarified

There are three main ways that the United States characterizes digital assets, covering securities attributes, commodity attributes, and currency attributes:

(1) Securities attributes

Mainly regulated by the SEC, in 2017, the SEC issued the "DAO Report", which laid the foundation for the regulation of digital assets as long as they involve securities (refer to the "Howey Test"), and whether the issuer is a decentralized organization, whether the service is provided in the form of legal currency or digital assets, does not affect the effectiveness of the regulation. In 2018, SEC Chairman Clayton stated that the tokens involved in the issuance and sale of digital assets are used to raise funds, have the nature of securities, and need to be regulated.

(2) Product attributes

It is mainly regulated by the CFTC and involves the futures and options markets in the United States. As early as 2015, the CFTC regarded digital assets as commodities. Compared with the SEC, the CFTC's supervision of digital assets is relatively open, and it mainly regulates compliant derivatives such as futures and options on the market.

(3) Currency attributes

It is mainly regulated by FinCEN and DFS, and mainly cracks down on money laundering, terrorist financing and other financial crimes in financial and digital currency transactions. Its supervision of digital assets is more monetary, so it focuses on its circulation level. In 2013, it has made it clear that digital asset exchanges and their managers are currency transfer service providers and need to register as MSB (Money Service Business). In addition, each state also has its own currency transfer regulations, and it needs to obtain the MTL (Money Transmitting License) of the corresponding state.

Whether to regulate the transaction and circulation of digital assets

The transaction and circulation of digital assets are mainly regulated by SEC, CFTC, FinCEN and DFS in the United States:

(1) FinCEN and DFS

As early as 2013, FinCEN had made it clear that virtual currency exchanges and their managers were monetary services (MSBs), monetary service providers and monetary transfer service providers (Money Transmitters) must comply with the Bank Confidentiality Act (BSA) and its implementation regulations, and register as MSBs in FinCEN to comply with anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing (AML/CFT). In addition, each state actually has its own currency transfer regulations, and it must obtain the corresponding state's currency transfer license MTL (Money Transmitting License) from DFS before it can provide services to residents of the state. Among them, New York State has also introduced an independent license for digital asset business, called Bitlicense.

(2) SEC

On 7th of 2018, the US SEC issued a public statement requiring platforms that trade digital assets that meet the definition of securities must be registered as National Securities Exchange with the SEC or exempted. National stock exchanges are securities trading platforms defined by the Exchange Act Rule 3a1-1(a), such as New York Stock Exchange LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., etc., and also include some derivative trading platforms, such as Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board of Trade, etc.

With the exemption from the Exchange Act Rule 3a1-1(a), trading platforms do not need to register as national exchanges, but can register as ATS (Alternative Trading Systems) and comply with relevant alternative trading system rules (Rules 300-303 of Regulation ATS). As of the end of June 2018, there were 91 approved ATS companies. On July 18, 2018, the SEC issued another announcement to accept ATS regulatory amendments to improve the operational transparency and supervision of ATS exchanges. Since then, the issuance of ATS licenses has begun to tighten, and as of the end of November 2018, the number of approved ATS companies has become 88.

(3) CFTC

In terms of digital asset derivatives trading, the US CFTC has always been a relatively open and encouraging attitude. In July 2017, it issued a license to New York's Bitcoin options exchange LedgerX to allow it to trade and settle Bitcoin derivative contracts. This is the first time that the CFTC has issued a license to digital asset derivative transactions. In December 2017, CBOE and CME successively launched Bitcoin futures contracts with CFTC approval. On May 21, 2018, the CFTC market supervision department and the clearing and risk department issued a new guidance document for compliance with the digital asset derivatives exchange, suggesting that exchanges must have the ability to monitor the integrity of the underlying spot market that supplies its pricing data and coordinate with CFTC staff in a timely manner. However, the document is not considered the final "compliance checklist", but it does express the attitude of the CFTC and hopes to help clearing houses and exchanges keep up with changes in the digital asset market.

Whether to restrict the issuance and sales of digital assets

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

Whether to restrict other related behaviors of digital assets

In addition to the issuance, sales and transaction of digital assets, the US SEC also puts forward corresponding requirements for investment and consultation related to digital assets:

(1) Investment

According to the Investment Company Act of 1940, the SEC recognized that securities investment companies are non-governmental entities whose main business is to invest and trade "securities" and whose investment portfolio is managed is more than 40% of the investment portfolio invested in securities. Including: (1) fund management companies; (2) unit trust funds; (3) face-to-face securities companies; (4) emerging ETFs, etc. According to regulations, securities investment companies must register with the SEC, and the sales of their funds or equity shares are also securities issuance and must meet the securities issuance and sales laws and regulations.

(2) Consultation

According to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Securities Investment Advisors are any individual or corporate entity that meets the following three conditions: (1) paid services, but not necessarily directly from the client; (2) it is the main or only business; (3) it involves the provision of investment advice, investment consulting, research report release, securities analysis, whether directly or through public announcement, so that users believe that the relevant entity is providing relevant services. Securities Investment Advisors must register with the SEC and meet the corresponding regulatory requirements.

2.2.2 Switzerland - Category is clear, regulatory style focuses on substance over form, maturity (3 stars)

Switzerland is a country that is relatively friendly and supportive to blockchain and digital assets. Its regulatory body is mainly the Swiss Financial Market Supervision Administration (FINMA). In the ICO Guidelines issued on February 16, 2018, it clearly stated that the laws and regulations of the financial market are not applicable to all digital asset financing cases, laying the foundation for its regulatory style to focus on substance rather than form. On December 7, 2018, FINMA issued the "Swiss Distributed Ledger Technology and Blockchain Legal Framework" (hereinafter referred to as the "Legal Framework"), which more detailedly describes its regulatory logic:

Whether to clarify the nature of digital assets

In the ICO Guidelines and the "Legal Framework", FINMA clearly divides tokens into three categories according to their purpose: Payment tokens, Utility tokens and Asset tokens.

(1) Payment token

Similar to digital assets such as Bitcoin (including fork coins such as Bitcoin, Bitcoin gold, and variants such as Litecoin), it is only used as payment tools, and usually the user and the receiver do not constitute a contractual relationship. In addition, if the token is a payment method for purchasing goods or services within the system, or a value transfer method within the system, and does not involve the rights and obligations of the contract, it also belongs to a payment token. Functional tokens and asset tokens may also have payment attributes, which can be called "hybrid tokens".

(2) Functional token

Holders can access a certain blockchain platform or application and enjoy the services and conveniences it provides. Like vouchers or chips, they can cash out the services owed according to the set rules. Functional tokens may be used as payment means in the blockchain system in some scenarios. At this time, it also has the nature of a payment token, and it must be consistent with a payment token in supervision. In addition, it should be noted that if the token is issued for platform development for financing and cannot provide services before the platform is launched, the token does not belong to a functional token, but an asset token when issuing, because the token issuer is essentially financing, while the token buyer is investing, and the regulatory processing method is consistent with the asset token.

(3) Asset token

Whether to regulate the transaction and circulation of digital assets

For exchanges with "securities" type digital assets defined by FINMA, they belong to the financial market infrastructure and need to obtain FINMA authorization; in addition, if the token traded belongs to the "financial instrument" defined under the FinSA Act, that is, equity securities, bonds, derivatives, structured financial products, deposit products with end-of-term value or interest income related to market risks (except products linked to the standardized interest rate index), the exchange must also comply with the provisions of the FinSA Act, including due diligence disclosure, document description, etc., to ensure that the transaction's token is credible, and the scope of the "finSA" defined by FinSA itself covers the scope of the "securities" defined by the FINMA Act.

For exchanges that are not "securities" digital assets, they do not need to obtain FINMA's authorization, but they need to meet Switzerland's anti-money laundering, anti-terrorism financing and other requirements. The specific compliance methods are: First, they become a member of the Self-Regulatory Organization (SRO) recognized by FINMA, and the other is to directly register with FINMA and become a direct affiliated financial intermediaries (DSFI).

Whether to restrict the issuance and sales of digital assets

FINMA's ICO Guidelines divide the issuance of digital assets into two situations and provide different supervision:

(1) There is already a main network when financing

There is already a main network when financing, and the token is already in circulation and use. In this case, FINMA will conduct case analysis based on the three major categories of the token and finally determine regulatory countermeasures.

(2) Pre-Sale/Pre-financing (Pre-Sale/Pre-financing)

The project is still in the development stage when financing, and the purchased tokens will be issued in the future, which is a pre-sale/pre-financing activity. FINMA regards all tokens in this situation as asset tokens, which are "securities" defined by the FIMA Act, and are applicable to FMIA, FinSA and a complete set of securities regulatory frameworks.

Whether to restrict other related behaviors of digital assets

In addition to the issuance, sales, and transaction of digital assets, Switzerland also has corresponding regulations on digital asset custody, that is, if the custody behavior is caused by purely safe custody, it does not require a bank license, but it must meet anti-money laundering requirements. If it involves the use of raised funds for investment, asset management, etc., the custody platform or the fundraising party in digital asset crowdfunding needs to hold a bank license (unless the exemption conditions are met).

2.2.3 Hong Kong—From differentiated supervision to undifferentiated supervision typical, maturity (3 stars)

In the early days, Hong Kong pursued a differentiated regulatory strategy for digital assets. If it does not involve "securities", it does not require authorization and license qualifications. If it involves "securities", it will be regulated by the Hong Kong Securities Regulatory Commission system. On November 1, 2018, the Hong Kong Securities Regulatory Commission issued the "Statement on the Regulatory Framework for Management Companies, Fund Distributors and Trading Platform Operators of Digital Assets Investment Portfolio" (hereinafter referred to as the "New Regulations"), which actually announced that Hong Kong embarked on the path of comprehensive supervision of digital assets, established the CSRC's regulatory status over digital assets, and moved towards the licensing system, saying goodbye to the previous ideas for the classification supervision of "securities-based digital assets" and "non-securities-based digital assets":

Whether to clarify the nature of digital assets

Hong Kong has a clear definition of the nature of digital assets. In September 2017, the Hong Kong Securities and Exchange Commission issued a statement saying that the issuance of digital assets may belong to securities. Overall, as long as it complies with the "securities" and "futures contracts" defined in the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Chapter 571), it is considered a "securities token", and if it does not comply with it, it belongs to a "non-securities token".

Whether to regulate the transaction and circulation of digital assets

According to the new Hong Kong regulations, both "non-security token" trading platforms and "security token" trading platforms are included in the supervision, and in accordance with the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Chapter 571), they must obtain a Class 1 (Securities Trading) and Class 7 (Providing automated trading services) licenses. In addition, the new regulations also point out that the CSRC will impose certain special regulatory standards in combination with the operating characteristics of the exchange. The specific special regulatory standards will be determined in the sandbox stage by the trading platform and the CSRC, which may include: digital asset transactions are carried out under the same legal entity; (2) Only provide services to professional investors; (3) The token issued for the first token can be launched at least 12 months or after the project generates profits; (4) The financing and futures derivatives trading services cannot be provided to customers. In addition, the new regulations put forward the view that decentralized exchanges may not be suitable for conducting within the existing regulatory system, or the above-mentioned trading platforms are not approved for the foregoing.

Whether to restrict the issuance and sales of digital assets

According to Hong Kong regulatory regulations, the issuance of digital assets may involve three identities: if the digital token represents the equity or ownership interest of a company, it may be regarded as a "share", if the purpose is to enter into or recognize debts or debts borrowed by the issuer, it may be regarded as a "debtor". If the income from the issuer is collectively managed by the issuer and invested in different projects, it may be regarded as a "collective investment plan". Specifically, if it is a "securities token", it must be licensed by the Hong Kong Securities Regulatory Commission or registered with the Securities Regulatory Commission.

Whether to restrict other related behaviors of digital assets

In addition to issuance and sales, transaction circulation, Hong Kong also has corresponding constraints on fund managers involved in digital asset business, share distributors involved in digital asset business, etc.:

(1) Fund managers involved in digital asset business

According to the new regulations, fund managers who have clearly stated that the investment target is digital assets (regardless of whether it is a "security token"), or intend to invest 10% or more of the total assets of the portfolio (less than 10% can be exempted) in digital assets must hold the corresponding license for Class 9 regulated activities and must meet certain special regulatory standards derived from the risks of digital assets, including: (1) Only raise funds from qualified investors and disclose all relevant risks; (2) Selecting appropriate asset custody plans, whether self-custodial, third-party custody or deposited on exchanges, must evaluate from the perspective of maximizing customer interests; (3) Prudently and carefully value the portfolio, make reasonable and appropriate choices of valuation principles, methods, models and policies, and properly disclose them to investors; (4) Establish a good risk management and control system; (5) Hire an accountant for external independent audit of the managed funds; (6) Retain appropriate working capital.

(2) Share distributors involved in digital asset business funds

Any person who conducts or distributes funds invested in digital assets in Hong Kong or to the public in Hong Kong, regardless of whether the digital assets constitute securities or futures contracts, shall be licensed or registered for Class 1 regulated activities (securities transactions) unless exempted.

2.2.4 Japan - Early practitioner of digital asset legalization, maturity (3 stars)

Japan is the first country in the world to provide legal protection for digital assets. On May 25, 2016, the Japanese cabinet signed the amendment to the Fund Settlement Law and included digital currencies in the legal regulatory system. The bill began to be implemented on April 1, 2017 and is of great significance in global digital asset supervision.

Whether to clarify the nature of digital assets

The Fund Settlement Law passed by Japan in 2016 recognizes that digital assets are a legal means of payment, not commodities or securities. This attitude is also related to Japan's national conditions. Yuko Kawahiro, head of the Financial Technology Center of the Bank of Japan, once said that because Japanese people are extremely sensitive to personal information leakage and rely very high on cash, Japan's digitalization process is very slow and far from entering the era of cashless society. The emergence of digital assets brings new opportunities for the development of Japan's real economy.

Whether to regulate the transaction and circulation of digital assets

In March 2018, due to the NEM theft incident on the CoinCheck exchange in January, the Japanese Financial Department strengthened the review of domestic digital asset exchanges. The stricter supervision this time is mainly to further stricter the provisions on customer KYC and other regulations on the basis of the Fund Settlement Law.

Whether to restrict the issuance and sales of digital assets

The Fund Settlement Law requires the issuance of digital assets to register with the Financial Administration as a "digital asset exchange service provider" or issuance through registered digital asset exchange operators. Because if the financing issuance of digital assets in fiat currency, it belongs to the above-mentioned "digital currency purchase and sale"; if the financing issuance of other digital currencies such as Bitcoin, it belongs to the "exchange with other digital assets". Therefore, once the issuance of digital assets involves financing, the issuer will be defined as a "digital asset exchange service provider".

Whether to restrict other related behaviors of digital assets

Since Japan has always been a major country in trading and use of digital assets, taxation is also the focus of regulation. The National Tax Agency of Japan (NTA) issued the "FAQ on Tax Issues Related to Digital Currencies" document on November 30, 2018, which gave detailed answers to tax-related issues in the current digital currency transactions in Japan and published detailed calculation rules and calculation methods. From January 2018 to December 2018, people who generated related income from digital currencies exceed 200,000 yen (about 1,780 US dollars) will be required to pay various different taxes.

2.2.5 Singapore—continuous iteration, comprehensive supervision, maturity (4 stars)

Whether to clarify the nature of digital assets

In the Guide released in 2017, MAS divided digital assets into two categories: "capital market products" and "functional tokens". The 2018 New Guide slightly expanded the scope of definition based on the previous one:

(1) "Capital Market Product" (Capital Market Product)

For example, the stocks, bonds, collective investment plan unit funds, and MAS specifically designated financial products mentioned in the 2017 Guide; the 2018 New Guide adds two other categories to its basis: unit commercial trusts, representing ownership of the commercial trust fund; and securities-based derivative contracts, including any derivative contracts based on stocks, bonds or unit commercial trusts. Such tokens are considered securities in Singapore. In addition, if a cryptocurrency project is defined as securities, you can also apply to enter the regulatory sandbox of MAS for experimental operations, and MAS will relax regulatory requirements according to the specific circumstances.

(2) Functional token (Utility Token)

The rest are not defined as functional tokens as above "capital market products".

Whether to regulate the transaction and circulation of digital assets

All entities that are auxiliary token issuance will be regulated by MAS and need to hold a capital market service license as required. This includes a platform that can provide project parties with a "basic digital token issuance" and an operator of a "digital token trading platform". MAS also stipulates that as an intermediary, anyone who provides financial advice on any digital token must obtain a license as a financial adviser.

Whether to restrict the issuance and sales of digital assets

MAS stipulates that if the token is a "capital market product", it must comply with the Securities and Futures Act (SFA), and other laws of the existing Singapore capital market will directly apply. Relevant requirements include the need to provide a formal token issuance specification (prospectus) like a prospectus, rather than just publishing a white paper. However, the issuance of securities tokens can also enjoy some exceptional exemptions: 1) small issuance (not exceeding S$5 million within 12 months); 2) private placement (issuance to up to 50 investors within 12 months); 3) issuance to institutional investors only; 4) issuance to qualified investors only.

On November 20, 2018, the Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX) formulated guidelines for listed companies planning to issue digital assets and proposed that before conducting digital assets, listed companies should maintain communication with the SGX RegCo to allow investors to make informed decisions. The SGX believes that according to Singapore's SFA, tokens are "securities or capital market products" in digital assets, so they must meet the registration requirements of securities issuance prospectus and the registration requirements of securities dealers stipulated by the SFC. In addition, such issuances need to be conducted through subsidiaries.

This guideline mentions the information that the token issuer must provide to investors including: 1) basic principles and risks; 2) the use of funds and the key progress that can be achieved with these funds; 3) KYC inspections used to remove the risks of money laundering and terrorist financing; 4) accounting and valuation processing; 5) the use of the issuer's funds in the token issuance process; 6) the financial impact of the issuance of the token on the issuer and the impact of the settlement terms; 7) the impact on existing investors' interests; 8) and other information that SGXRegCo believes is necessary. In addition, the issuer (listed company) must also obtain the recognition of a statutory audit to ensure that the financial situation is good and the use of funds is not abnormal.

Whether to restrict other related behaviors of digital assets

Under the latest Payment Services Bill ("PSB"), persons engaged in providing any digital payment token transaction service or any service promoting digital payment token exchange must obtain a license and need to develop anti-money laundering/anti-terrorism risk aversion measures and are regulated by PSB in this regard.

2.2.6 Malta - Actively embrace, clear supervision through legislation, maturity (4 stars)

On July 4, 2018, the Malta Parliament officially passed three bills to establish a regulatory framework for distributed ledger technology (DLT) and cryptocurrency, which is also the world's first national-level law in the fields of blockchain, cryptocurrency and distributed ledger technology.

The first bill is the Malta Digital Innovation Authority Bill (MDIA Act), which established the Malta Digital Innovation Authority and clarified the responsibilities and powers of the Administration in the certification, supervision, and law enforcement of the operating qualifications of relevant digital innovation companies.

The second bill is called the Innovative Technology Arrangement and Services Act (ITAS Act), which proposes that all innovative companies or organizations related to DLT, smart contracts, and DAOs need to be certified by the Administration before operating and issue corresponding certificates. Certified companies can only operate within the scope of certification and must comply with the MDIA Act. During the application process, DLT service providers need to provide business-related information and written materials as detailed as possible. Crypto Asset Exchanges and decentralized application platforms are included.

The third bill is the Virtual Financial Assets Bill (VFA Act), which clarifies a complete set of regulatory systems for the issuance, transactions, wallet providers, etc. of digital asset issuance, transactions, and wallet providers. It is also the world's first regulatory bill specifically designed for digital assets.

Whether to clarify the nature of digital assets

MFSA calls all assets related to distributed ledgers "DLT assets", and according to the properties of the assets, it is divided into four categories: virtual tokens, virtual financial assets, electronic currency, and financial instruments. Its characteristic is that it does not apply the traditional securities or currency regulatory system to treat digital assets as currency, but instead proposes a new concept of "virtual tokens" and "virtual financial assets" and establishes new regulations for such new types of assets.

(1) "Virtual Token" (Virtual Token)

It refers to a form of digital media recording that has no utility, value or application outside the DLT platform, and can only be directly exchanged for funds on such platforms through the issuer of such DLT assets, and cannot be listed and circulated. Such assets only need to comply with the regulations of DLT Innovation Company and have business qualifications certified before the company operates.

(2) "Virtual Financial Assets" (VFA)

It refers to all digital assets used as a medium of exchange of value, unit of account or store of value, which can be listed and circulated. Such assets need to be regulated by the VFA Act.

(3) "Electronic Money" (Electronic Money)

It refers to the digital currency. Such assets are not subject to digital assets' relevant regulations for the time being, and only basic regulations such as anti-money laundering are required.

(4) "Financial Instrument" (Financial Instrument)

It refers to financial products in the traditional financial world such as securities and derivatives, and has nothing to do with digital assets.

Whether to regulate the transaction and circulation of digital assets

Under the new regulations, any entity that provides a VFA or is classified as a VFA service provider is required to obtain a business license from the MFSA through a registered VFA agent, and the MFSA has the right to recover the business license at any time depending on its operating conditions. After obtaining the license, the operator is also required to submit audit reports to the MFSA regularly.

During the transaction process of various VFAs, MFSA will continue to supervise the operating conditions of its issuing entities. If there is any act that violates the VFA Act, MFSA has the right to impose a short-term suspension of transactions or permanent suspension of transactions on the VFA at any time.

Whether to restrict the issuance and sales of digital assets

The VFA Act puts forward comprehensive requirements for entities in Malta and those that issue virtual financial assets (VFA) to Malta residents in various aspects, such as marketing and advertising information that need to be accurate and unmisleading. It is worth mentioning that the VFA Act is the first bill in the world to legalize the white paper, and puts forward 16 basic principles for the white paper, such as the white paper needs to be written in a prescribed format and a project review in non-technical language for investors to compare similar projects. The completion date must be indicated, and the name, functions, and the content written by the author must be stated in the white paper. The administrative management team of the issuer needs to declare in the white paper that the white paper meets the requirements of the VFA Act, and the entire white paper must have an English version, etc. The contents that the white paper needs to include are detailed: the purpose of the issuance of the VFA, the detailed description of the relevant technologies behind the project, the detailed analysis of project sustainability and scale, the challenges and risks faced by the project, and the corresponding solutions, the characteristics and uses of the VFA, the detailed introduction of the issuer, the issuing service provider (agent, etc.), the development team, the consultant, and all other teams related to the implementation of the project, the issuer's wallet address disclosure, the detailed description of the security control process and risk avoidance plan, the past project milestones and financing situation, and the list of future plans, etc., a total of 38 items of information.

In addition, the VFA Act also stipulates that every project that is preparing to go to a virtual financial asset exchange must find a VFA agent registered with the MFSA to coach and sponsor it.

Whether to restrict other related behaviors of digital assets

Apart from the scope covered by these three bills, Malta has not yet made any requirement for other digital assets-related areas. These bills are intended to make Malta one of the most ideal places to open a company in the fields of blockchain and crypto assets. As these bills are now included in the legal system, Malta will become a pioneer in economic innovation. In turn, it will strengthen the country's economy by creating a new economic niche.

2.3 Compliance infrastructure: Compliance exchanges, compliance custody, securities digital assets, stablecoins

The compliance of the digital asset market is an irreversible trend. The result is that a mechanism and bridge can be established in which traditional funds can intervene, and the injection and migration of funds and resources in the traditional world. What plays an important role in the compliance process are the four pillars we call "compliance infrastructure": compliance trading platforms, compliance custody, securities digital assets, and stablecoins, which correspond to transactions, custody, target assets, and liquidation methods. In 2018, the above four tracks developed rapidly:

(1) Compliant trading platform

Custody, securities digital assets and stablecoins are essentially serving the circulation and interaction of value. Without a trading platform (whether centralized or decentralized), the real and virtual values with digital assets as carriers cannot be maximized and circulated. At present, there are two main forces that promote the compliance of trading platforms, one is the traditional financial force, and the other is that blockchain companies actively seek compliance.

Ÿ1>Traditional financial power

It mainly comes from the promotion of some important countries in the United States and Europe. The Bakkt Exchange initiated by the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange ICE Group is a futures exchange approved by the US CFTC. Recently, the futures exchange ErisX has received capital injection from Nasdaq. Both are vigorously promoting Bitcoin futures matters and providing traditional investors with a full set of licensed "asset custody + trading + clearing settlement" solutions. On July 6, the Swiss Stock Exchange SIX announced that it will launch a digital asset trading platform in the first half of 2019 and is regulated by the Swiss Financial Regulatory Authority FINMA. On December 12, Stuttgart, Germany's second largest stock exchange, announced that it plans to launch digital asset trading in the second quarter of 2019. It is enough to see that the most core traditional financial forces are gradually penetrating.

Overall, the layout of traditional financial forces in the field of digital assets mainly has the following core characteristics: 1) It is more based on the investment attributes of digital assets, and is based on the model of the traditional financial system, and is laid out around market infrastructure, mainly involving the construction of compliant trading platforms, compliant clearing and settlement providers, and compliant custodians; 2) The transaction targets launched are mainly digital asset derivatives, with futures as typical, and spot digital assets as supplemented; 3) Clearing and settlement still mainly adopts the traditional securities trading model, using legal currency for clearing and settlement, that is, trading "legal currency-digital assets".

Ÿ2> Blockchain enterprises actively seek compliance

Under the trend of compliance, blockchain companies are also actively embracing compliance and regulation to provide regulated digital asset transaction circulation services. Gemini and itBit, located in New York, have obtained trust licenses issued by the New York State Financial Administration many years ago. Coinbase is also the holder of the New York State digital asset license Bitlicense, which can provide compliance services to users. 2018年，寻求合规化的主力军主要系火币、币安和OK：火币集团通过设立独立本地站的形式在日本、韩国等地落地了合规交易服务，其中日本的经营资质系通过收购拥有合法牌照的BitTrade交易所获取，另外，火币通过与战略合作伙伴HBUS合作的形式进入美国市场，除此之外，火币还自主申请了欧洲直布罗陀的DLT牌照，可在欧洲合规开展区块链资产交易业务；币安则是全力推进全球各地的合规法币交易所落地，目前已上线币安乌干达、币安泽西岛，前者支持乌干达先令，后者支持欧元、英镑；OK集团则是与马耳他证券交易所签署了备忘录，推动全新的证券类通证平台落地，除此之外，其美国主体OKCoin取得了货币服务商MSB牌照，拥有开展数字资产交易资质。

（2）合规托管

在传统金融体系中，第三方资产托管系常见安排，基金的投资资产需在合格托管人处托管。那么参照传统金融市场体系，合规化趋势下，数字资产的第三方托管便有其重要意义，并将成为引入传统投资者的重要设施。然而与传统资产不同的是，数字资产依赖“私钥”，私钥即所有权，这使得数字资产的托管实际与过去的不记名纸质证券有类似之处，包含了“私钥保护+合规资质”两个层面。目前，数字资产托管市场主要分成了“To C消费级市场”和“To B企业级市场”，而合规托管，主要是侧重后者“To B企业级市场”，目前该领域参与者众，2018年，该赛道发展迅速，形成了如下的综合竞争格局：

Ÿ1>专业的托管服务商，例如瑞士的Xapo，香港的Invault，美国的DACC，欧洲的Swiss Crypto Vault和Koine Finance等；

Ÿ2>企业钱包服务商转型，例如拿下南达科他州信托牌照的Bitgo以及中国的数字资产钱包服务商Cobo Wallet；

Ÿ3>持牌数字资产交易所衍生业务，例如纽约州信托公司Gemini和itBit提供的托管服务，以及Coinbase与美国证券经纪商ETC合作的托管服务；

Ÿ4>传统金融机构衍生业务，例如Kingdom Trust、Prime Trust和Bank Frick等在内已在运作的，和高盛、野村、纽约梅陇银行已宣布要提供服务的。

我们认为，托管除了引导传统资金入场的功能外，自身亦本就包含了巨大的影响这个市场的能量，体现在：1）各类资产必须在持牌托管人处托管，意味着其会成为ETF等金融衍生品在数字资产市场落地的关键；2）对目前数字资产交易模式形成重大影响，由于资产必须托管在合格托管人处，目前充值至交易所再行交易的模式存在缺陷，合规化进程下，或将倒逼交易平台获取托管牌照，或独立托管人直接承担经纪职能，为客户提供撮合交易，并逐步演变为交易柜台。

（3）证券类数字资产

目前数字资产市场中的大部分资产发行，并没有成熟的框架予以约束，实际未纳入监管，缺乏发行背书，同时，大部分的数字资产发行亦无现实资产的支撑，难以吸引真正的主流机构投资者入场参与。而证券类数字资产，即合规数字资产发行则是解决上述症结的重要方式，市场需要一种合规的通道对区块链资产的发行进行约束和筛选，以协助重塑市场信用，加大投资者参与的信心。而除了在资产发行层面，证券类数字资产也是传统证券实现资产上链的重要典型，让传统证券在链上进行流转，可提升流动性和流转效率。即证券类数字资产，理论上应该包含数字资产的证券化，以及证券的数字资产化两个层面。2018年系证券类数字资产共识元年，围绕证券类数字资产，已经慢慢上形成了一整个生态格局，

Ÿ1>发行平台：证券类数字资产实际是将传统证券市场中的合规准则通过代码的形式通过智能合约内嵌至数字资产中，因而需要特殊的发行平台予以协助，包括Polymath、Swarm、Harbor、Securitize以及Securrency等；

Ÿ2>交易平台：证券类数字资产，本质即为“证券”，只是以数字资产的形式存在，其交易需在合规的持牌交易平台进行，包括持有美国ATS牌照的Open Finance Network, Tzero, Sharespost以及Coinbase，也包括本身系传统证券交易所的伦敦证券交易所、纳斯达克、瑞士证券交易所等；

Ÿ3>周边服务商：除了发行平台和交易平台外，还有包括分销平台、投行服务、法律服务、流动性服务、信息平台、托管服务商等在内的各类机构，亦是整个生态中重要的组成部分。

（4）稳定币

由于法定货币流转受限于传统的银行体系，为了进一步促进法定货币的流转，去到法定货币无法触及的时空，产生了价值1:1锚定法定货币的稳定币，可在365/24/7的背景下进行自由流转和低成本交易。稳定币最早起源于泰达公司发行的TetherUSD，属于法币抵押稳定币。然而由于法币抵押稳定币具备入金属性，因而以TetherUSD为首的稳定币一直占据着市场主要地位，但TetherUSD目前仍未得到监管背书，其潜在的不透明性常被市场所担忧。

2018年，稳定币市场一家独大的局面开始转变为群雄逐鹿局面。定位于“合规稳定币”的TUSD、USDC、GUSD、PAX分别在：1）合规性，前两者采用了“Licensed Money Transmitter”模式，分别由资产上链平台TrustToken和金融科技公司Circle Fintech和Coinbase发起的Centre联盟扶持，后两者采用了“Licensed Trust Company”模式，分别由纽约州信托公司Gemini Trust Company和Paxos Trust Company发起；2）透明性，引入了独立会计师事务所对美元储备金进行审计和披露；3）美金储备安全性，美元储备含保险，受美国联邦存款保险公司保护。这三个层面对USDT进行了改良并得到了市场认可。

法币抵押模式稳定币的蓬勃发展，与目前数字资产市场所处的阶段是密不可分的：即目前市场规模仍较小，大部分的资产、资源、业务仍未从链下转移到链上，大部分的人亦未持有数字资产，迫切需要通过合规的通道将传统资产转移为数字资产，提供入金的方式，推进“资产上链”运动，这就给了法币抵押稳定币重要的发展驱动力。而价值稳定、可随时赎回成法定货币的合规稳定币，将成为这一波浪潮中，传统机构参与链上数字资产交易和流转，以及进出这个市场重要的关键所在。未来，我们很可能看到托管服务商（也会是经纪商、交易柜台和银行）与稳定币的购赎API相连，实现客户的快速法币入金、交易及退出，而这一切的实现，也只能由合规的稳定币来实现，即对于合规稳定币来说，相当于为交易场景提供了“Fiat Gateway as a Service”的服务。

三、区块链产业发展现状解读

区块链作为一种革命性技术，在赋能各类产业的同时，也催生出了一个完整的产业，火币区块链研究院将整个区块链产业链分成五大板块：

硬件与基建层：为各种区块链提供、整合底层算力和硬件支持；
平台与基础层：为各种区块链应用提供底层架构、开发平台和生态；
通用技术层：让区块链应用更方便部署和被应用，为开发者和用户服务；
垂直应用层：将区块链应用于各个行业及场景，服务最终用户；
周边服务层：帮助资金、信息等流动，为产业链参与者提供专业服务。

3.1 硬件与基建：低纳米矿机市场表现不佳，矿场、矿池面临诸多考验

矿业，也被称为区块链世界中的基础设施，起到整合底层算力与硬件支持的作用，是区块链原生的产业。其因比特币而诞生，后随着区块链技术逐渐发展，成为一条成熟的矿业产业链。2018年，随着整个数字资产市场的持续降温，矿业也面临了诸多考验，亟待破局者出现：

（1）低纳米矿机因市场环境因素而占有率不足，性能提升红利逐渐缩小

各大矿机芯片设计厂商，今年均有高性能的新产品问世，虽然在功耗比方面更具有优势，但是因市场下挫，销量都不甚理想。

比特大陆系矿机界的佼佼者，然从2016年开始，其芯片研发进度有所放缓，直到2018年中旬的蚂蚁S9 Hydro，仍然使用的是16nm芯片。11月份，另一矿机厂商嘉楠耘智率先发布7nm矿机阿瓦隆A9，之后比特大陆同为7nm的S15矿机发布。新锐矿机生产商神马和芯动于今年异军突起，凭借单矿机高算力和功耗比的优势在市场中杀出一条血路，整个低纳米矿机市场竞争激烈。

然而7nm矿机对于矿工来说，最大的问题并不在设计与性能，而在产量与价格。除了投产需要较长的周期外，其产量严重不足，受到台积电与三星生产线产能制约，其芯片或与手机芯片制造产生产能冲突，进而不利成品矿机产量。除此之外，7nm芯片价格不菲，其设计、流片、制造等一系列成本会转嫁到矿工身上，那么在熊市中，价格高企的高性能矿机是否是矿工的首选，就是个问号。

从长期来看，未来竞争核心的确将逐渐变为7nm芯片的矿机，但从芯片领域发展历史来看，每次升级所带来的边际收益正逐渐递减。从28nm到16nm的时候还可以带来40%左右的性能提升，但是从16nm到10nm或7nm，却未能带来性能大幅度的提升。而且7nm基本已是目前芯片领域技术极限，在可预见的未来很难再有大幅度的工艺升级。因此，矿机升级所带来的性能提升红利还能持续多久，亦是一个问号。

（2）矿场大干快上掉头难，矿池业务纵深盈利难，反过来影响算力稳定

对于矿工来说，币价、算力、电费、矿机成本、维护成本是影响其收益的关键要素。但矿场却无需关心这么多，其本质上是“收租子”（电价差及托管费）的传统房地产生意，关键是能够找到便宜的电和地。以中国为例，丰水期的云贵川小水电，新疆、内蒙许多便宜的电力一般均能够吸引到矿场投资者。

但“租房”市场也不会永远兴隆，在数字资产价格不见明显回升的时候，“经济萧条”，矿工交不起“房租”，那么诸多小型、高电费矿场也面临倒闭，在熊市出清产能，而这也是2018年很大一批矿场所面临的尴尬境地。另一方面，数字资产监管层面的不确定性，也影响着矿场的生存和发展。

矿池在市场中的作用在于整合散户矿工和部分中小型矿场，通过收取管理费和服务费盈利，不直接负担矿机成本。表面上看，这一特点使其在这个寒冬生存的并不那么艰难，但由于矿池之间竞争的存在，如果仅仅做矿池一项业务，而从未涉及矿场、挖矿或其他产业链衍生业务，也会面临竞争力不足的局面。然而虽然背靠完整产业链的矿池具有更强的优势，但受市场因素影响，“矿工”、“算力”离场，盈利也越发困难，面临着不同程度的危机，而这正反过来在影响算力的稳定，对区块链网络的安全性造成了很大的影响。根据Crypto51数据，目前，部分区块链网络（以采用PoW共识机制的次主流币为主，比特币等大币种相对仍健康），发动1小时51%算力攻击的成本已低至一万美金以下：

3.2 平台与基础：公链降温，回归理性，“欲速则不达”

一直以来，火币区块链研究院根据数字资产代表权益属性的不同将其分为“币”、“平台”“应用”和“资产通证化”四类。

通过对目前市值排名前100的数字资产进行分类，我们发现，全年应用项目个数是遥遥领先的，但同时也看到，自2018年上半年起应用项目数目下滑趋势明显，这也和市场真实感觉一致：2018年初简单的应用项目就能获得较好估值，大量应用项目涌现市场，它们基本上是利用公链平台去落地行业应用；然而随着大众对区块链技术越来越了解，并逐渐意识到主流公链平台的可扩展性不强，应用项目纷纷不甘“寄人篱下”，掀起了自己开发公链平台潮，公链项目数量在二、三季度增长迅速，如下图所示：

然而随着二、三季度公链平台潮爆发后，市场又出现了部分公链平台无人使用的情况，花了大力气开发出来的公链平台除了应用项目自己使用外，无法拓展其他生态，于是到了2018年下半年公链平台潮热度也开始下滑，市场回归理性。Top100的公链平台和应用项目市值基本上归一到了同一个级别，而实物资产通证化项目市值，反倒是随着合规稳定币的兴起，需求的增加，而不断上涨：

综上，整个2018年，区块链项目尤其是公链项目经历了以下几个阶段：

Ÿ<1>第一季度应用项目热潮转向第二、三季度的公链平台潮；

Ÿ<2>第四季度公链平台潮的褪去，而实物资产通证化出现上涨；

Ÿ<3>公链项目和应用类项目市值回归同一个量级。

从技术层面上看，2018年新出来的公链项目基本都采用“Fork +改编”路线，很多Fork出来的公链均以高TPS为主打旗帜，TPS也以过万、过十万甚至过百万著称，似乎速度已经成为了公链唯一的追求。然而我们对比一些支付服务商数据就能知道，即便是采用中心化的解决方案，达到数十万甚至百万，也是困难重重，而达到那么高TPS的是否存在必要，亦是一个疑问：

除此之外，我们也整理了2018年有一定知名度的25条公链上主网情况，发现公链的开发落地也并不是一番风顺，如下表所示：

从上表可以得到以下几个结论，2018年既定主网上线的公链项目中，有：

近一半的项目主网上线滞后；
Ÿ至少三分之一的项目滞后严重，推迟到了2019年；
Ÿ在EOS主网上线期间出现了公链主网扎堆上线、抢先上线的情况；
Ÿ扎堆主网上线的项目容易出现年内迅速迭代升级的情况，上线的主网只有基础功能并未覆盖白皮书全部功能甚至优势功能的情况；
Ÿ头牌明星项目的愿景和开发难度在项目成立之初往往被忽视，如ADA，ZIL、Filecoin等，纷纷滞后严重。

纵观2018年公链项目，活跃度相对更高的主要是EOS和TRON，他们将TPS提升到了千级，并带动了Dapp的发展。但另一方面，以高TPS著称的EOS和TRON也碰到了上链数据大量来自于简单游戏、数据量暴增和资源制约问题，引发了数据价值问题以及公链价值的思索。也许对区块链技术的使用，我们目前仍然没有想得很清楚，单纯提升扩展性，或求快速构建一条完美的公链，都是不切实际的，而这，也不禁让人想起了“欲速则不达”的道理。

3.3 通用技术层：公链生态推进带动开发者工具发展

公有链之间的竞争有两个层面，向下要争取到更多的用户，向上则要争取到更多的开发者。不论公有链的底层技术如何，任何一条公有链的繁荣都不可能一蹴而就。2015-2017年，公有链都在紧锣密鼓地开发中，诸多公链只能在概念上一较高下。但是2018年，多条知名的公有链主网上线，公有链之间开始争夺社区支持，尤其是开发者的支持，而提供通用技术模块组件，降低开发者的开发成本，让开发者可以快速、简易的开发和部署应用，便成为了重中之重。

其中表现最突出的新兴公有链之一就是EOS.IO。相比于PoW系公有链，如以太坊中的矿工节点而言，EOS社区的BP节点会更愿意去推动免费的开发者工具。典型的社区的开发工具包括：CPU租赁、区块链浏览器、测试网、投票工具、快照工具、公投工具、通用库、开源构架、术语和词汇表、合约开发工具、API 工具、侧链、安全监测工具、Chrome插件、评级工具、协议等：

这是因为BP的候选人是有潜在收益的。BP义务为社区制作开发工具，一方面可方便自身的开发团队使用，另一方面则可以吸引社区更多选民选票支持。获取更多的投票意味着BP更可能进入前21名并获取更多的EOS收入。而且竞选越激烈，社区工具迭代更新就会越快。

同时，如果某款工具既能服务社区内的开发者，又能获得直接收益，这类工具发展速度则会更快。比如EOS目前已有不小于10款CPU资源租赁的工具，既有B2C盈利性质的，也有C2C撮合性质的，还有B2C公益性质的，一应俱全。资源租赁这个现象在2017年是没有的，因为在过去没有对区块链网络资源的需求。但如今，由于EOS.IO网络特殊的设计，以及DApp的逐步发展，开发团队非常需要足够的廉价的资源来维持DApp的运转，因此CPU租赁工具等也同样快速发展。我们可以预计到的是，伴随着REX（Block.one开发）等工具的上线，在2019年开始，资源租赁的规模将会随着DApp不断壮大。假如DApp进一步繁荣，甚至可能会出现基于资源租赁的多种金融衍生品。

而与新兴的公有链如EOS.IO目前的通用技术工具还相对基础，侧重资源型，且较为分散不同的是，以太坊为首的老牌公有链，由于时间积淀更长，其通用技术工具更为模块化和成熟，并有一系列集合式的解决方案项目出现，例如数字资产流通解决方案0x推出了0x Launch Kit，让使用者快速部署去中心化交易平台，又例如区块链游戏、侧链解决方案Loom Network集成了让开发者自行架设以太坊侧链和部署Dapp的模块组件包等等。

3.4 垂直应用层：“区块链+”逐步开展，商业模式赋能及强化成破局关键

2018年的区块链应用与2017年的基于区块链发行资产不同，市场不再为通证的价格炒作买单，也不仅仅满足于区块链在价值交换方面的应用，而是把关注点放在了商业模式上，于是，“区块链+”模式的应用开始逐步开展。

在纯粹的区块链项目中，需要从零开始基于区块链建立社区，可能需要经历漫长的开发、用户获取、社区运营、商家获取等过程才能实现商业化。而“区块链+”中的“+”体现在，盈利模式或者应用场景原本即存在，区块链技术更多是在此基础上赋予更多价值，具体包括：构建信任（利用区块链分布式账本特性），数据自治及价值化（利用区块链价值传输网络特性），行为激励（利用区块链通证激励特性）三大核心应用层面[1]，具体如下：

[1]详细介绍请参考《火币区块链产业专题报告-区块链四层应用模型的构建与解析》

（1）构建信任（利用区块链分布式账本特性）

分布式账本与传统第三方中介方式相比，在构建信任方面有着较大优势，背后的思想与传统社会使用的复式记账的思路一脉相承，也类似于订立合同时一式多份的做法，是希望通过在多个业务主体间共同保有多个备份来尽可能避免对记录内容的篡改，但在实现方式上，是予以电子化，一旦达成共识，该信息会在网络上予以同步，以此降低信用成本，增强可信度。

在信任重构方面，显著降低时间及信任成本的应用系存证。2018年6月28日，中国杭州互联网法院对一起侵害作品信息网络传播权纠纷案进行了公开宣判，首次对采用区块链技术存证的电子数据的法律效力予以确认。该案中的原告华泰一媒在诉讼阶段通过第三方存证平台保全网提交了一系列证据，保全网通过开源程序自动收集了网页源码和截图等原始信息并打包压缩，将哈希值等相关信息上传至Factom和比特币区块链平台上，确保不可篡改，免去了第三方公证。在此之后，2018年9月7日，中国最高人民法院公布《最高人民法院关于互联网审理案件若干问题的规定》，即日起施行，并明确了区块链存证的法律效力。

我国在增强可信度方面还有一些应用案例：2017年，微众银行联合广州仲裁委、杭州亦笔科技三方基于FISCO BCOS区块链底层平台打造“仲裁链”；2018年2月，广州仲裁委基于“仲裁链”出具了业内首份裁决书。通过“仲裁链”，仲裁机构能够从证据产生初期就参与到存证业务的过程中，参与多方共识进行实时见证，当发生纠纷时，经核实签名的存证数据即可被视为直接证据。

（2）数据自治及价值化（利用区块链价值传输网络特性）

区块链可以实现将微小的行为数据化，再通过通证的形式将其价值化，而这一切将通过私钥的形式由用户本身保留有数据的所有权和自治权，并借助区块链价值传输网络的特性，予以在数据需求者和数据提供者之间有偿流转。具体来说，基于区块链和公钥/私钥对，用户可以实现对颗粒化个人数据的控制，以及实现对任何一项细分数据的访问授权，只有在用户授权同意的前提下，智能合约才可以被执行。2018年，在用户数据自治方面的区块链尝试，源于互联网巨头Facebook，5月，其宣布了增设了专门的区块链部门，重点在于解决用户隐私问题，而就在此之前，被成为“史上最严格隐私规范”的欧洲《通用数据保护法案》(General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR)也正式生效，使得Facebook等互联网公司面临更大的压力，用户数据自治和价值化将是未来重要的方向之一。

（3）行为激励（利用区块链通证激励特性）

而基于真实业务场景，引入以区块链通证为价值载体而建立的通证激励体系，以此突破业务的瓶颈，带来增量，则是“区块链+”的另一大杀器。换个角度理解，这一种模式，可以认为是一种升级版的会员积分计划，具备两大特性：

Ÿ独立社会化传播：与传统模式不同，通证激励体系，其记录、流通、交换、交易等环节均在链上完成，单中心控制变成社会化传播；
Ÿ可编程的实体经济赋能：成为“区块链+”通证经济的重要基础，为实体经济赋能提供新的技术和商业解决思路，实现业务逻辑逻辑的智能化。

借助上述特性，通证激励体系将会充分调动各个关联方的贡献，即打破积分孤岛困局，充分激励利益相关方，同时，亦可借助可编程的组织治理机制，优化市场资源配置，人们的行为贡献都能通过算法规则和通证机制实现分布式账本的确权，并通过赋予通证多维度的高阶权益，提升组织内和组织间的资源配置效率。

日本LINE公司于2018年8月31日宣布即将开展区块链项目Link Chain便是非常典型的案例，在LINE的设想里，一切用户行为都可以算作挖矿，因为这些用户行为其实都在为生态系统贡献用户行为数据，所以都应该获得通证奖励。而用户拿到这些LINK积分之后，可以在多种渠道使用，包括在各个Dapp中进行支付，实现跨场景流通，亦包括在积分交易市场上进行流通。而通过这种方式，用户会更有激励去进行知识板块的问答、答题板块的竞猜、美食签到等板块的分享等等行为，自发地为整个生态的扩张贡献力量。

2018年2月上线的网易星球，亦是我们所提的借助通证激励体系思维的一款产品。星球会给予用户原力（相当于动态的积分会员等级）和区块链积分“黑钻”，原力值越高，可搜集到的黑钻越多，黑钻可用于兑换产品，而原力值则由用户通过完成各种行为任务（比如签到、分享、发现原创音乐、阅读资讯等）获得。进一步地，当更丰富多样的行为在网易星球上产生，用户在旅行、健康、教育程度、社交信用、娱乐、购物等偏好信息的数据价值就会沉淀在黑钻上。

3.5 周边服务层：交易生态变化，推动交易平台、钱包转型

区块链产业链上的周边业务目前主要包括数字资产交易所、媒体及社区、行情及资讯终端、数字资产钱包等，该部分周边业务属于行业的信息、资讯端口以及交易、资金汇集中心。2018年，这一领域最大的变化便是交易生态正逐步发生变化，并推动着交易平台、钱包、行情/资讯终端转型。

（1）交易平台的去中心化、分散化

Ÿ社区化管理模式的探索

交易所当前形态为股份制，通过公司组织结构，实现有效分工，取得了规模效应和竞争效率，但仍受制于股份制弊端，面临潜在的用户、平台、供应商利益不一致等情形。而区块链世界的核心是社区，是共享，是充分调动参与者的积极性，实现多方利益的统一。在这一浪潮中，交易所也在不断进行社区化探索，对社区有益的行为，将会得到社区奖赏；对社区有害的行为，将会受到惩罚。目前来看，交易所的社区化管理模式改造，还主要在于资产端，即通过投票的形式筛选上线交易的资产：

不过综合来看，社区治理场景仍较为复杂，一蹴而就并不现实，我们可能会面临：（1）治理权之争：是谁带来更多的流动性，更有发言权，还是持有更多的token更有发言权，仍存争议，而这更像PoW和PoS之间的争论；（2）51%攻击：当恶意一方持有了51%的token，以社区token投票进行治理，是否还具有意义；（3）公地悲剧：如何调动token持有者投票积极性。

因此，为了避免社区治理陷于混乱，在社区化治理还并不成熟的情况下，我们认为应当采用渐进式的社区治理模式，即“中心化+社区化治理”，再到“完全社区化治理”模式，以交易所场景中的资产端社区化管理为例，可采用：

第一阶段：社区拥有否决权和决定权，由交易所初步筛选出项目，再由平台积分者持有者进行公投。最后，获得社区共识的项目通过；

第二阶段：社区民主阶段，弱化内部审核机制，交易所内部机构只负责协调，上币权移交给社区，由社区提交项目提案，社区投票决定。

Ÿ共享深度的数字资产交易联盟出现

与传统证券市场之中，某一资产仅在单一交易所交易不同的是，数字资产市场中，流动性是分散的，单一资产可在各个不同的交易所同时交易。虽然一定程度上，各地涌现的数字资产交易所，可以为当地的用户提供数字资产的购买、交易服务，但不同的交易所之间，事实上也分割了流动性和深度，一个全球的、互通的交易池因而呼之欲出。

2018年6月后，全球三大主流交易所币安、火币、OKEx均开始推出自己的“连锁加盟机制”，方便具备用户、资金但缺少研发、技术、安全等实力的团队实现“一站式开设交易所”，称之为“EaaS”(Exchange as a service)；另外，新兴数字资产交易所BHEX，以及美国SharesPost推出的全球流动性和结算系统网络GLASS设计机制之中，亦有云交易所的身影：

公有云交易所模式是一种底层基础的共享服务，先共享庞大的基础设施，然后再共享交易深度。从新生数字资产交易所角度来看，初期面临的最大问题都是交易深度和流量问题，没有一个强大的信用背书和激励方式很难吸引大量的用户群体，加上技术门槛和安全防护以及用户体验的影响，初生的数字交易所存活率并不高，且做一个交易所其实是需要巨大投入的。

不过，交易系统、安全机制等基础设施方面的投入是具有共通性的，实际可以进行共享和输出，这就构成了云交易所以及“EaaS”(Exchange as a service)服务的基础，可大大节省新团队的投入成本，而共享的交易深度，则是解决了初期的交易深度和流量，保证启动顺利。虽然某种程度上也存在交易所技术服务商可提供同类服务的可能性，但由于无法解决交易深度和流量，在提供的价值规模上，仍略逊于交易所的“EaaS”。

（2）钱包交易所雏形：Dapp与通证的高频交互场景

2018年，随着Dapp应用落地推进，数字资产的作用正慢慢从纯交易走向应用，而流量入口也正慢慢从交易所转移至钱包，其不仅能快速接入各类Dapp，也能实现Token兑换，原本只是用于数字资产存储的钱包，正变为钱包交易所。

目前，根据钱包提供的交易相关类服务的轻重程度，主要包括如下五类：（1）行情资讯服务；（2）资产聚合类服务；（3）交易及兑换类服务；（4）理财、借贷服务；（5）POS挖矿服务。

Ÿ（1）行情资讯服务

钱包内置丰富的新闻资讯、行情快报、项目简介、K线图、大额资金流动监控、代码活跃度等数字资产市场行情信息。

区块链项目的资讯和行情信息是通证持有者与市场保持同步的需求，也是集聚用户流量的大入口，钱包产品若能很好地集成资讯行情服务不仅能对现有用户产生足够的黏性，还可以带入更多的增量用户。不过资讯行情服务需要投入一定的人力财力，会较大地增加产品的运营成本。目前大部分钱包集成的新闻资讯服务并不是很完善，主要以提供行情信息为主。

Ÿ（2）资产聚合类服务

此类钱包可为用户提供资金聚合服务，通过API接口将用户在多个钱包和交易所的通证持有情况进行汇总聚合，对于API接口服务支持度不佳的平台也可以采用手动维护进行初始输入。

这主要是由于，目前各大交易所以及钱包平台种类较多，每个交易所以及钱包支持的数字资产品种都不一样，因此用户的资金通常会分散到不同的平台，不利于集中管理和查询，因此聚合类服务能较好地满足用户查询的需求。这类钱包需要配合众多交易所、钱包等进行API接口开发，存在一定的开发和维护成本。

Ÿ（3）交易及兑换类服务

钱包内置数字资产交易功能，有接入中心化交易所平台的钱包，如BitPie;也有接入去中心化交易平台的钱包，如Imtoken；还有接入Bancor机制自动化交易平台的钱包，如Tokenpocket。有的钱包推出“闪兑”功能，即不同Token之间按照一定“汇率”进行互换，其后台通常也是用了去中心化交易模式进行货币的兑换。

钱包用户天然拥有交易需求，若Token不用提出钱包就可以实现交易，不但减少了用户提币转币的操作步骤，减少了犯错的概率，也增强了用户黏性，为钱包项目的后续转型提供了很好的发展方向和资金沉淀。不过内置交易所极大地增加了系统的复杂度，为本身对安全性要求较高的钱包类产品引入了更大的风险，用户资金安全性将受到一定程度挑战。

Ÿ（4）理财、借贷服务

钱包内置理财模块，理财类型包括长期固定收益型，余币宝短期灵活型，数字资产P2P融资借贷型，抵押贷款型。目前这些理财模块有的是接入第三方服务，本身不参与提供理财服务；有的是为本身平台的发展提供廉价资金而开发的理财产品，由平台收益来支付用户收益；有的则是将平台募集的数字资产再投入一级或二级市场交易以此来获取超额收益并支付用户收益；还有的则是提供点对点的数字资产借贷交易服务，为资产需求方和提供方提供撮合服务。

对于长期持有的用户来说，数字资产理财服务切中刚需，持有也能获得收益，目前各类钱包提供的理财产品年收益率在4%~20%不等。不过区块链行业发展迅速，数字资产市场波动性较大，流动性不佳的理财产品将面临更大的风险。且目前数字资产理财市场并不成熟，还未出现行业标杆性龙头企业，风险控制经验和能力以及兑付能力还待市场考验。

Ÿ（5）POS挖矿服务

对于支持POS共识算法的区块链项目，一些钱包提供锁仓加入POS挖矿服务，挖矿收益将定期发送给用户。

通常由钱包项目方提供POS挖矿的主节点，符合一定资金要求的数字资产可参与POS挖矿，有固定锁定时间挖矿，也有支持随时可赎回的挖矿模式，钱包项目方将从挖矿收益中按比例抽取分成，钱包项目方和用户都能有较为稳定的额外收益。目前支持POS挖矿较多的币种有：达世币DASH，莱特币LiteBitcoin，小零币ZCoin，量子链Qtum以及超级现金Hcash。

基于以上提供的各类偏交易类的服务，目前钱包的盈利模式如下表所示：

四、区块链技术发展解读

4.1 可扩展性解决方案动态梳理

2018年系对第三代区块链技术探索的一年。当前，以太坊为代表的区块链底层可扩展性有限，难以支撑大规模的应用落地。而可扩展性最直接的表征一般采用TPS（Transactions Per Second）来间接描述，代表了系统每秒能够处理的业务量，是衡量系统吞吐量的核心指标。于是，众多项目在对标以太坊图灵完备智能合约的第二代技术上不断提升TPS。典型代表就是6月份上线主网的EOS.IO。

我们借鉴计算机网络分层管理、各层标准化设计思想，将区块链与传统互联网OSI模型结合，建立了目前区块链技术可扩展方案的分层模型[2]，包含了三个一级层级：Layer 0层数据传输层，Layer 1层On-Chain公链自身（底层账本）层和Layer 2层Off-Chain扩展性（应用扩展）层。在此基础上，结合区块链架构又可以进一步分解成七个二级层级来梳理可扩展性的解决方向：

[2]详细介绍请参考《火币区块链产业专题报告-区块链技术可扩展方案分层模型》

Ÿ<1>Layer 0层数据传输层与传统OSI七层模型对应，负责优化区块链与传统网络的结合问题。区块链是整个互联网协议层中的最上层，本身还是要依赖于底层的协议为它工作，虽然在比特币P2P网络设计的时候已经考虑了节点之间的发现、节点连接的握手协议、节点间地址广播和数据通信等，鉴于已经有部分项目开始探索P2P网络与传统OSI模型的结合，甚至将改进延伸到数据链路层，本报告倾向将P2P网络和传播机制并入到Layer 0层和传统OSI模型一起作为一类可扩展方案进行归类；

Ÿ<2>Layer 1层解决底层账本问题，负责安全，妥协性能，注重于记账功能。结合区块链架构，Layer 1层可以分解成四个二级层级，从网络层的验证机制上使用诸如分片技术去优化，从数据层的数据区块使用诸如隔离见证和链式结构上使用DAG等技术去优化，从共识层的共识机制去优化；

Ÿ<3>Layer 2层解决广义应用问题，主要负责性能，妥协去中心化，注重于计算功能。结合区块链架构，Layer 2层可以有两个二级层级，通过跨链、状态通道、Plasma、TrueBit等多链并行、链上链下结合甚至是中心化的方式来满足性能需求，借助Layer 1层来保证安全。

目前，涉及不同层级的区块链扩展性解决方案的典型项目众多，汇总如下：

不过，就目前来看，我们认为区块链扩展性的提升，并不是独立依靠某一种解决方案所能实现的，而是更适合采用分层的思路，并拓展至公链体系本身的设计之中。而从分层的角度去设计一个区块链项目，可以有效的规避区块链的三元悖论问题：Layer 1层主要负责安全，妥协性能，注重于记账功能；Layer 2层主要负责性能，妥协去中心化，注重于计算功能，Layer 1层底层设计时就充分考虑好Layer 2层的交互问题。

实践证明，以太坊社区的ETH 2.0也是朝着这个思路进行的，通过分层处理，各取所需，达到动态平衡。而Loom Network做为以太坊上Layer 2层扩展技术Plasma的典型代表，也将自身定位成跑在以太坊上的EOS，可见不仅仅是技术上的分层，包括公链的应用也出现了分层、分场景、分垂直行业的细分苗头。

4.2 隐私性解决方案的升级迭代

我们一直认为，如今，从区块链技术的发展上看，普遍公认的主要有两个阶段：一是以比特币（BTC），莱特币（LTC）等为代表的作为支付货币的第一代区块链；在第一代的基础上，第二代区块链包括智能合约、隐私保护和DAG：

（1）隐私保护技术动态进展及分析

隐私加密保护技术也一直是个热门的方向和刚需，根据区块链技术的特点，目前隐私保护机制主要针对两个方向：传输网络的隐私保护和交易/内容的隐私保护，其中交易/内容的隐私保护就包含了大家常提到的匿名币功能：

传输网络的隐私保护主要通过阻止攻击者依据发现网络拓扑而获得身份隐私信息，将区块链运行在具有隐私保护特性的网络上：

Ÿ<1>例如洋葱网络（Tor，The Onion Network），通信数据首先被多层加密然后再由若干个被称为洋葱路由器组成的通信线路上传播，每个Tor节点只知道最少相关信息，传输时，逐个节点类似剥洋葱皮一样逐层解密，只有最后一层节点会相对脆弱，直接暴露容易受到关注，但是发送者的真实IP等到了很好的保护；

Ÿ<2>除了Tor之外，门罗币采用了另一种替代Tor的匿名通信协议I2P，相对于Tor协议使用同一条网络链路实现数据的发送和接收，I2P使用多条链路发送数据和接受数据，能够更好的隐藏IP。

交易/内容的隐私保护则主要有混币、环签名、零知识证明、同态加密和安全多方计算等：

Ÿ<1>混币主要是打乱输入输出之间的关联性，将大量的输入和输出全部混淆在一起，这样就很难发现一一对应关系，但它的本质并不是基于密码技术，更像是物理反应；发展初期会基于可信中介，然后逐渐演变成去可信中介的机制CoinShuffle、TumbleBit等，典型代表就是Dash项目；

Ÿ<2>环签名是环中一名成员利用自己的私钥和其他成员的公钥进行签名，整个过程不需要征得其他成员的允许，验证者只知道签名来自这个环，但不知道谁是真正的签名者，特性可以简称为“拉你入环、与你何干”。它解决了对签名者完全匿名的问题，允许一个成员代表一组人进行签名而不泄漏签名者的信息，典型代表就是Monero项目；

Ÿ<3>零知识证明属于密码学技术，可在不泄露数据本身情况下证明某些数据运算真实性，它允许两方（证明者和验证者）来证明某个提议是真实的，而且无需泄露除了它是真实的之外的任何信息，典型代表ZCash项目；

Ÿ<4>同态加密是一种无需对加密数据进行提前解密就可以执行计算的方法，应用场景多为安全外包计算；

Ÿ<5>安全多方计算是解决一组互不信任的参与方之间保护隐私的协同计算问题，它要确保输入的独立性，计算的正确性，同时不泄露各输入值给参与计算的其他成员。应用场景如电子选举、电子投票、电子拍卖、秘密共享、门限签名等。

（2）基于隐私保护技术的区块链应用动态与分析

上述经典的传输网络的隐私保护和交易/内容的隐私保护技术在应用场景上有衍生出了匿名网络，匿名货币，加密智能合约，密文数据计算等应用，2018年，相关项目体系逐步成熟：

而上述项目之中，2018年最为引人注目的便是基于MimbleWimble的匿名货币Beam和Grin。MimbleWimble技术于2016年就已出现，系基于混币和同态加密的全同态（加法和数乘操作）思路，并结合UTXO来对比特币交易的隐私性予以改进的隐私技术，最终精髓落在了Pedersen承诺（C = r*G + v*H）上。

2016年7月19日，Tom Elvis Jedusor将MimbleWimble白皮书放入比特币研究频道并消失；后来Ignotus Peverell启动了一个名为Grin的Github项目，并致力于将Mimblewimble论文落地；Blockstream的Andrew Poelstra在2017年斯坦福BPASE大会上展示了这项工作，之后Grin开始受到很多主流关注，Grin在2019年1月15日主网上线；同时在2018年4月又出现了另一个Mimblewimble项目Beam，它是C++从头开始写，并于北京时间2019年1月3日22：00上线。

4.3 互通性、跨链技术进展解读

随着越来越多的公链涌现，单一的链已难以支撑起人们日益多样化的区块链应用需求，跨链势在必行。目前的区块链世界就好比互联网时期的单机时代，链与链之间高度异构化，彼此难以互通，所有的数据和服务都局限于孤岛式的区块链中。未来，或许各个区块链系统能通过某一标准化跨链协议进行链接，区块链系统间能协同工作，为更多的用户、更多的服务提供支撑。不同的是：互联网是信息自由流通的网络，而区块链跨链网络则是价值自由流通的网络。跨链技术的成熟将成为价值网络时代到来的充分条件。2018年，跨链领域动态动态如下：

（1）跨链功能目前基本已成公链类项目标配

2018年是一大波公链项目落地的元年，除了解决目前底层平台性能低等问题，各公链项目也将目光不约而同地投向了跨链网络的方向。经火币区块链研究院整理分析，目前市值TOP100的平台类项目中，有约65%的项目将支持跨链功能、侧链/子链，或提供跨链相关接口和协议，为平台未来的可扩展性早早打下基础。

未来，谁的链能更好地与其他链兼容，更好地支持跨链互通将成为影响其生死存亡的关键因素。孤掌终究难鸣，还需兼容和互通打通生态圈，这意味着能链接更多的资源和用户，有更多引流渠道，生态建设也将更水到渠成。

（2）跨链资产互换逐步向跨链资产转移发展，但还有待成熟

跨链资产互换通常指两条链上的不同用户之间进行资产互换，但每条链上的资产总量并无增减，只是资产所有权发生了变化，且这个所有权改变的过程需在两条链同步发生。跨链资产转移，是资产价值的转移，各链中可用的资产总量将相应增加或者减少，即真正将资产从一条链转移到了另一条链。

跨链资产互换的实现较为简单，只要保证两条链之间的交易为原子交易即可，通常通过哈希时间锁技术实现，例如比特币闪电网络，以及部分跨链项目均实质上采用的均是这种技术；这种模式的跨链需要用户同时在两条链上都有账号，仅仅能实现资产交换。而跨链资产转移的实现难度就相对大很多，在保证原子交易的基础上还需要确认在两条链上的交易有效性，可以通过公证人、中继或是榫卯模式来具体实现[3]详细介绍请参考《火币区块链产业专题报告-跨链篇》。资产转移的模式实现了资产真正在链间的流动，可实现跨链资产交易、跨链钱包、跨链交易所、跨链预言机等多种功能。

随着跨链价值流通需求的日渐强烈，去中心化跨链交易所、跨链钱包的呼声越来越高，跨链资产互换的简单功能已难以满足未来可能爆发性的资产转移需求，跨链资产转移功能已成为跨链项目的必要功能。但是该技术目前还并不成熟，未经历过时间的检验，也未大规模应用过，安全层面存在较高的风险。

（3）2018年，三大类跨链项目开始落地

2017-2018年是跨链项目启动之年，诞生、落地了一批以跨链平台、侧链平台或者母子链平台为主题的项目。主要包括三大类跨链项目：

Ÿ第一类：是想通过侧链或子链的设计实现底层平台的交易扩容，支持高并发、高TPS，以Loom Network、Liquid、Lisk、Aelf等为典型；

Ÿ第二类：是搭建主动兼容型跨链平台，主动去兼容已有的区块链项目，他们通常是有不同数据结构、不同共识机制的异构链，并会一条一条地去适配已有的异构链，将其接入到跨链平台，Wanchain是该类项目的典型；

Ÿ第三类：是建立被动兼容型跨链平台，为区块链项目建立一个同构化的底层平台，基于这个平台可快速开发独立的区块链并可方便地促成跨链互联，实现被动兼容，Cosmos和Polkadot是这类项目的典型代表。

2018年，从跨链项目的开发进度来看，约54%的跨链项目已上线主网。也有33%的项目还在开发过程中。目前主网上线的项目以第一类和第二类项目为主，即侧链/子链和主动兼容跨链平台项目为主，第三类项目难度系数较大，有望在2019年主网落地，若其被证可行，则将为我们打开区块链跨链网络一扇全新的天窗，新的价值网络雏形或将诞生。

4.4 区块链以外分布式账本技术动态

区块链是一种分布式账本技术，而分布式账本技术却不局限于“区块链”这一种具体技术体现形式。为了改进原有技术、满足更多的实际业务应用场景，更多的分布式账本技术正在被探索和应用当中。其中最重要的便是DAG：

（1）DAG的另辟蹊径，1.0版本回顾

DAG（Directed Acyclic Graph，有向无环图）是目前除了“区块+链”式结构以外的另一种用于实现底层账本技术的数据结构，表现为一张有向图，并且从图中的任意顶点出发都无法回到该点（无环）。基于DAG的分布式账本技术在近年来被提出后，被认为有希望替代狭义上的区块链技术。对比传统区块链网络，每个区块中有很多笔交易，矿工打包好后统一发送；DAG 网络中并没有“区块”概念，最小单元是“交易”。DAG就是通过这种方式来突破扩展性的限制。

DAG的概念在2018年受到了相对较高的关注度。我们在Reddit上进行了词频统计。可以看到，DAG的相对热度在2017年底和2018年一季度相对较高，前者与DAG 1.0项目IOTA于2017年底市值快速爆发有关，而后者与部分DAG 2.0项目在一季度开始逐步涌现有关：

（2）从“DAG 1.0”向“DAG 2.0 ”发展

DAG的发展其实和狭义上区块链技术的进展是有类似之处的，即早期的一些DAG项目和狭义的第一代区块链都是以支付作为其主要手段的，而当DAG实现智能合约等较强可编程功能支持以及实现较高的交易扩展性后，可认为其进入第二代的阶段。2018年，DAG技术即处在从1.0向2.0的发展阶段。不过这一演进过程并不顺利。DAG尽管具有异步、高并发的特性，但在具体实现上仍然需要考虑到共识、智能合约等问题的具体解决方法。2018年，DAG技术正在这些问题上在探索新的解决方案。

共识问题及解决尝试：

DAG 异步通讯的特性一定程度上提高了双花攻击的可能性。除了IOTA的Coordinator、Byteball的Witness等比较经典的解决方案以外，不少DAG项目在尝试用新的思路来解决这类技术问题：

Ÿ一些项目，例如HyCon、Conflux等是通过传统的PoW并采用SPECTRE、GHOST等策略来实现共识；

Ÿ还有一些项目，如Logos Network，是通过拜占庭共识协议或综合多层共识的方式来解决一致性问题；

Ÿ另一些项目，如Mixin等，是在共识的基础上加入了TEE（可信执行环境）来进一步增强安全性及交易可靠程度。

智能合约实现问题及解决尝试：

另一个在实现DAG时需要关注的重点是可编程性或智能合约的实现。由于DAG自身特性，智能合约的实现存在一定难度。目前的解决思路包括首先实现非图灵完备的智能合约或可编程脚本，或者采用类似Layer2的分层理念，将智能合约运行在更高层次的子链、侧链或状态通道内，底层仍然使用DAG来实现Layer1的账本扩展。

不过整体来看，DAG类项目在2018年整体进展并不快：已实现“DAG 1.0”的项目在努力加入可编程的扩展特性；一些原先就定位在“DAG 2.0”上的项目，一部分推迟了主网上线时间，另有一些则仍然依赖于主链或Witness等中心化的方式来运行测试网。这些探索的结果都有待在2019年进一步观察。

<<: Vitalik Buterin refutes rumors: Constantinople upgrade Create2 new smart contract creation function does not have a vulnerability

>>: Next article | Global Blockchain Industry Panorama and Trends Annual Report (2018-2019)

Is it good for a woman to have a broken left hand?

summary

Report Content

1.1 Winter is coming, and the digital asset market continues to cool down

1.2 The cold winter is here, and the financing of blockchain and digital assets has plummeted

1.3 On-chain activity has reached a bottleneck, but core indicators such as computing power and mining difficulty are still healthy

1.3.1 On-chain activity data growth stagnates

1.3.2 Hash value (computing power), mining difficulty and number of nodes are still on the rise

1.4.1 The asset issuer has expanded from private to state

1.4.2 Asset issuance is compliant, and securities token issuance is currently ahead of DAICO

1.4.3 Financialization of trading markets, expansion of trading targets to derivatives and index products

1.4.4 Clearing and Settlement Transformed to Stablecoin

1.4.5 Institutionalization of Market Participants

2.1 Latest developments and trends in global blockchain and digital asset regulation

2.2 Review of regulatory trends in major countries and regions around the world

2.2.1 United States: Multiple regulators, sound system, early implementation, maturity (4 stars)

2.2.2 Switzerland - Category is clear, regulatory style focuses on substance over form, maturity (3 stars)

2.2.3 Hong Kong—From differentiated supervision to undifferentiated supervision typical, maturity (3 stars)

2.2.4 Japan - Early practitioner of digital asset legalization, maturity (3 stars)

2.2.5 Singapore—continuous iteration, comprehensive supervision, maturity (4 stars)

2.2.6 Malta - Actively embrace, clear supervision through legislation, maturity (4 stars)

2.3 Compliance infrastructure: Compliance exchanges, compliance custody, securities digital assets, stablecoins

4.1 可扩展性解决方案动态梳理

4.2 隐私性解决方案的升级迭代

4.3 互通性、跨链技术进展解读

4.4 区块链以外分布式账本技术动态

Recommend