发展受监管的数字资产二级市场的必要条件

S. Johnstone
{"title":"发展受监管的数字资产二级市场的必要条件","authors":"S. Johnstone","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3379623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The component parts of a more complete market system in digital assets are steadily being assembled. The initial focus on the primary market has increasingly expanded to the secondary market. Cryptoexchanges are a particular subject of interest given their growing predominance and the exchange-like or intermediary-like roles they may undertake at various times. \n \nThis paper considers the pathway issues for the development of a regulated secondary market in digital assets. It explores the conditions necessary to develop a regulatory framework that does not also serve to reshape and confine the possibilities offered by cryptographic consensus technology. \n \nTo achieve core regulatory objectives, what regulation attaches to will need to be sensitive to the characteristics of different centralized and decentralized cryptoexchange models as well as the digital assets traded on them. The problem of establishing accountability and anchoring locus in relation to decentralized cryptoexchanges is considered. How the common characteristics of digital assets impact on the ability to develop secondary market regulation that meaningfully meets policy objectives is reviewed. \n \nThe potentially discriminating effect of imposing regulatory oversight on an industry in which different models of operation are still emerging must be carefully weighed. It is suggested that development of the regulatory framework should be model-neutral, form-independent and remain focused on the oversight of functions and establishing accountability for wrongdoing. Regulation should not be prematurely imposed in a manner that may inhibit the ability of private market regulation to develop effective outcomes that align with public policy concerns. Any development of regulatory oversight must also contemplate the involvement of intermediaries providing services specific to digital assets as well as intermediaries already involved in traditional markets. \n \nIt is proposed that it is necessary to cease looking at the regulation of exchange systems and intermediary conduct in isolation from the characteristics of digital assets. There is a clear prospect for a more fundamental interaction between secondary market activity and the asset design process that could better facilitate the formation of regulatory building blocks. This depends on the development of an effective public-private partnership.","PeriodicalId":138725,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Markets & Investment (Topic)","volume":"124 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Requisites for Development of a Regulated Secondary Market in Digital Assets\",\"authors\":\"S. Johnstone\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3379623\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The component parts of a more complete market system in digital assets are steadily being assembled. The initial focus on the primary market has increasingly expanded to the secondary market. Cryptoexchanges are a particular subject of interest given their growing predominance and the exchange-like or intermediary-like roles they may undertake at various times. \\n \\nThis paper considers the pathway issues for the development of a regulated secondary market in digital assets. It explores the conditions necessary to develop a regulatory framework that does not also serve to reshape and confine the possibilities offered by cryptographic consensus technology. \\n \\nTo achieve core regulatory objectives, what regulation attaches to will need to be sensitive to the characteristics of different centralized and decentralized cryptoexchange models as well as the digital assets traded on them. The problem of establishing accountability and anchoring locus in relation to decentralized cryptoexchanges is considered. How the common characteristics of digital assets impact on the ability to develop secondary market regulation that meaningfully meets policy objectives is reviewed. \\n \\nThe potentially discriminating effect of imposing regulatory oversight on an industry in which different models of operation are still emerging must be carefully weighed. It is suggested that development of the regulatory framework should be model-neutral, form-independent and remain focused on the oversight of functions and establishing accountability for wrongdoing. Regulation should not be prematurely imposed in a manner that may inhibit the ability of private market regulation to develop effective outcomes that align with public policy concerns. Any development of regulatory oversight must also contemplate the involvement of intermediaries providing services specific to digital assets as well as intermediaries already involved in traditional markets. \\n \\nIt is proposed that it is necessary to cease looking at the regulation of exchange systems and intermediary conduct in isolation from the characteristics of digital assets. There is a clear prospect for a more fundamental interaction between secondary market activity and the asset design process that could better facilitate the formation of regulatory building blocks. This depends on the development of an effective public-private partnership.\",\"PeriodicalId\":138725,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PSN: Markets & Investment (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"124 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PSN: Markets & Investment (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3379623\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Markets & Investment (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3379623","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一个更完整的数字资产市场体系的组成部分正在稳步组装。最初对一级市场的关注已日益扩大到二级市场。鉴于其日益增长的主导地位以及它们在不同时期可能承担的类似交易所或中介的角色,加密交易所是一个特别感兴趣的主题。本文考虑了监管数字资产二级市场发展的路径问题。它探讨了制定监管框架所需的条件,该框架也不会重塑和限制加密共识技术提供的可能性。为了实现核心监管目标,监管机构需要对不同集中式和分散式加密交易所模型的特点以及在这些模型上交易的数字资产保持敏感。考虑了与去中心化加密交换相关的问责制和锚定轨迹的建立问题。审查了数字资产的共同特征如何影响制定有效满足政策目标的二级市场监管的能力。对一个仍在出现不同运营模式的行业实施监管可能产生的歧视性影响,必须仔细权衡。建议监管框架的制定应是模式中立、形式独立的,并继续侧重于监督职能和建立对不法行为的问责制。不应过早地实施监管,以免妨碍私人市场监管产生符合公共政策关切的有效结果的能力。任何监管的发展都必须考虑到为数字资产提供特定服务的中介机构以及已经参与传统市场的中介机构的参与。有人建议,有必要停止脱离数字资产的特征来看待对交易系统和中介行为的监管。二级市场活动与资产设计过程之间存在更根本的互动,从而更好地促进监管基石的形成,这是一个明显的前景。这取决于发展有效的公私伙伴关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Requisites for Development of a Regulated Secondary Market in Digital Assets
The component parts of a more complete market system in digital assets are steadily being assembled. The initial focus on the primary market has increasingly expanded to the secondary market. Cryptoexchanges are a particular subject of interest given their growing predominance and the exchange-like or intermediary-like roles they may undertake at various times. This paper considers the pathway issues for the development of a regulated secondary market in digital assets. It explores the conditions necessary to develop a regulatory framework that does not also serve to reshape and confine the possibilities offered by cryptographic consensus technology. To achieve core regulatory objectives, what regulation attaches to will need to be sensitive to the characteristics of different centralized and decentralized cryptoexchange models as well as the digital assets traded on them. The problem of establishing accountability and anchoring locus in relation to decentralized cryptoexchanges is considered. How the common characteristics of digital assets impact on the ability to develop secondary market regulation that meaningfully meets policy objectives is reviewed. The potentially discriminating effect of imposing regulatory oversight on an industry in which different models of operation are still emerging must be carefully weighed. It is suggested that development of the regulatory framework should be model-neutral, form-independent and remain focused on the oversight of functions and establishing accountability for wrongdoing. Regulation should not be prematurely imposed in a manner that may inhibit the ability of private market regulation to develop effective outcomes that align with public policy concerns. Any development of regulatory oversight must also contemplate the involvement of intermediaries providing services specific to digital assets as well as intermediaries already involved in traditional markets. It is proposed that it is necessary to cease looking at the regulation of exchange systems and intermediary conduct in isolation from the characteristics of digital assets. There is a clear prospect for a more fundamental interaction between secondary market activity and the asset design process that could better facilitate the formation of regulatory building blocks. This depends on the development of an effective public-private partnership.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信