比較中國香港、新加坡及美國加密貨幣 OTC 交易監理現況及前景

作者：白溱，曼昆區塊鏈

截至最新數據，2024 年第一季度中心化交易所（ CEX ）的加密貨幣交易量達到4.29 兆美元，與前29 兆美元幾個季度相比有顯著增加。相較之下，場外交易（ OTC ）市場主要面向機構和大額個人投資者，儘管其活動顯著，但由於其更私密和客製化的性質，通常不會達到 CEX 的交易量水準。由於缺乏中心化報告，具體的 OTC 交易量數據更難確定，但隨著整體加密貨幣市場的成長， OTC 市場也持續擴展。

OTC 交易 vs 交易所交易

在加密貨幣交易領域， OTC 交易與交易所交易各具特色，適用於不同類型的交易需求和用戶群。兩者在流動性、隱私、價格滑點、靈活性、對手方風險、安全性、法規、易用性和典型用戶等方面存在顯著差異。

1、 OTC 交易

OTC 交易（場外交易）是指交易雙方直接進行的交易，不透過中心化交易所，通常由中介或 OTC 交易台促成。這種方式的最大優勢在於可以處理更大規模的交易，對市場價格影響較小，且提供更高的隱私和匿名性，因為交易不會公開記錄。此外，透過預先商定的價格， OTC 交易能夠最小化大額交易的價格滑點，提供靈活的交易解決方案，包括客製化的交易規模和特定的結算條款。

然而， OTC 交易也存在一些挑戰。由於交易不在交易所進行，參與者面臨較高的對手方違約風險，其安全性依賴 OTC 中介或交易台的聲譽和可靠性。通常， OTC 交易監管較少，雖然提供更多自由但保護較少，且需要找到可靠的 OTC 中介，交易方式可能不太用戶友好。因此， OTC 交易通常適用於尋求轉移大量加密貨幣的機構投資者或高淨值人士。

2、交易所交易

相比之下，交易所交易是在中心化平台上進行的，透過訂單簿匹配買賣訂單。這種方式對各種加密貨幣提供高流動性，適合不同規模的交易。交易所交易透明且公開記錄，允許市場可見性，雖然存在價格滑點的可能性，特別是大額交易需要在多個價格水平上完成。交易所交易的標準化環境有固定的規則和程序，保障了交易的規範。由於有中心化平台的保障，交易所交易的對手方風險較低，交易所採取的安全措施也為用戶提供了更高的安全性，儘管可能成為駭客的目標。交易所交易通常受監管，提供額外的保護但可能有交易限制，其用戶友好的介面和如市場分析工具、交易機器人等附加功能，提升了交易的易用性。

然而，交易所交易也面臨一些挑戰，例如平台可能會受到監管限制，導致某些地區的用戶無法存取。此外，由於交易所需遵循嚴格的 KYC （了解你的客戶）和 AML （反洗錢）規定，這可能會影響用戶的交易隱私。對於一些交易者而言，交易所的費用結構也是一個考慮因素，因為這可能會增加交易成本。整體而言，交易所交易更適合尋求便捷和標準化交易環境的散戶投資者和各種規模的交易者。

綜上所述， OTC 交易和交易所交易各有優劣，選擇哪一種方式主要取決於交易者的特定需求和偏好。對於那些需要處理大額交易且重視隱私和靈活性的用戶， OTC 交易是一個理想的選擇。而對於那些希望享受高流動性、安全性和使用者友善介面的交易者，交易所交易則更為合適。透過了解這兩種交易方式的不同，交易者可以根據自身情況做出更明智的選擇，以實現最佳的交易效果。

以下為圖片的直覺對比。

加密貨幣 OTC 交易監管框架對比

在加密貨幣監管方面，香港、新加坡和美國的法規和監管環境各有特色。以下是對這三個國家 / 地區在加密貨幣監管框架進行梳理。

1、香港

香港的加密貨幣監管由證監會（ SFC ）負責，主要法規包括《反洗錢及反恐融資條例（ AMLO ）》。在香港，虛擬資產交易平台（ VATP ）需要強制許可，並設定待許可製度，且有嚴格的合規要求。在反洗錢方面，香港必須遵守 AMLO 規定的反洗錢條例，注重客戶資產保障和 KYC 流程。 SFC 監管場外交易活動， VATP 必須遵守嚴格的監管標準以保護客戶。在近期發展方面，香港在 AMLO 下加強了監管，並專注於合規和投資者保護，從非法管道攔截資金。面對未來的挑戰，香港需要平衡市場發展與投資者保護，確保監管環境適應不斷變化的市場。

目前，香港的加密貨幣找換店非常活躍，許多店鋪提供場外交易（ OTC ）服務，這些交易通常涉及大額資金，客戶可以在店內用現金或其他形式購買和出售虛擬資產。目前在香港，基本上任何人都可以開設 OTC 虛擬資產店鋪，這在香港現行的虛擬資產監管框架中存在一定的漏洞。

2024 年 2 月 8 日，香港財經事務及庫務局（ FSTB ）啟動了一項公眾諮詢，旨在建立場外虛擬資產交易服務的牌照制度。根據提議， OTC 業者需要向香港海關申請兩年的牌照。在取得執照後，從事虛擬資產交易的人員只能交換在至少一個香港批准的交易平台上可用的虛擬資產。 FSTB 計劃盡快向立法會提交有關 OTC 虛擬資產牌照制度的法案。

• 關於OTC 虛擬資產業務運營商的主要要求包括：
• 如果經營實體OTC 虛擬資產業務：在香港有適合經營的場所；
• 如果經營在線OTC 虛擬資產業務：在香港有管理辦公室、通訊地址及帳簿及記錄存放地點；
• 僱用至少一名合格的合規官；
• 僱用至少一名合格的反洗錢報告官；
• 擁有合適的企業結構，並有經驗豐富且知識淵博的人員經營業務；
• 以誠實、公平、盡職的態度經營業務；
• 實施適當的風險管理措施，包括AML / CFT 方面的政策和程序；
• 保持交易和資金流動記錄，並提供業務使用的相關錢包的完整清單。

根據提議，從香港海關獲得牌照的 OTC 虛擬資產業務將不得進行虛擬資產之間的轉換，但允許提供虛擬資產與法定貨幣之間的轉換服務。如果業務需要進行法定貨幣之間的轉換，則還需在香港取得貨幣服務業者 ( Money Service Operator ) 的牌照。

這些提案也為零售投資者提供了保護措施， OTC 虛擬資產業務不得提供零售投資者在SFC 許可的VATP 上無法買賣的虛擬資產，也不得提供非由香港金管局( HKMA ) 許可的穩定幣發行者發行的虛擬資產。對於符合香港專業投資者資格的人員，這些限制則不適用。

在提案生效後，現有的 OTC 虛擬資產業務需要在六個月的過渡期內行動。在此期間，他們只有在過渡期前三個月內提交了牌照申請，才能繼續運作。

2、新加坡

新加坡的加密貨幣監管由新加坡金融管理局（ MAS ）負責，主要依據《支付服務法（ PSA ）》進行監管。提供任何便利加密資產 OTC 交易的平台可被視為提供加密貨幣服務，並受 PSA 監管。例如，以下與加密貨幣相關的服務目前根據 PSA 被規範為加密貨幣服務提供者：

• Buy or sell cryptocurrency;
• Establish or operate a cryptocurrency exchange;
• Participate in and provide financial services related to the offer and/or sale of cryptocurrency by an issuer;
• Transfer or transfer cryptocurrency from a cryptocurrency address ;
• Guide (or attempt to guide) anyone to buy or sell cryptocurrency (without the cryptocurrency service provider actually having access to any funds or DPT).

If a company provides cryptocurrency services in Singapore, then it will need to obtain one of the following two main types of licenses: (i) Standard Payment Institution License (Standard Payment Institution License) or (ii) Main Payment Institution License (Major Payment Inst i tut i on). For the Standard Payments License, the specified threshold is accepting, processing or executing cryptocurrency transactions of up to S$3 million per month in a calendar year. In contrast, if a company intends to offer cryptocurrency services without transaction volume or funding caps, it should apply for a major payments institution license. This means that a company will need a major payments institution license if the average monthly total value of all transactions through its cryptocurrency services exceeds the S$3 million threshold in a calendar year. Considering that the PSA is intended to safeguard payment services transactions, the process of applying for a license to provide cryptocurrency services can be very lengthy and cumbersome.

In terms of anti-money laundering, PSA requires compliance with AML/CFT procedures, strict customer due diligence and transaction monitoring. MAS regulates OTC trading under the PSA, ensuring that market makers and OTC trading platforms have specific requirements. In terms of recent developments, MAS has introduced stricter DPT service provider regulations, emphasizing the compliance of services under its jurisdiction. Going forward, Singapore will seek regulatory clarity to address risks associated with cryptocurrencies while promoting innovation.

3. United States

Cryptocurrency regulation in the United States is the responsibility of multiple agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the U.S. Office of National Bank Supervision (OCC) .

Under the supervision of these agencies, cryptocurrency trading platforms and OTC traders are subject to strict regulations and requirements.

First, cryptocurrency trading platforms must register with FinCEN as a money services business (MSB) and implement comprehensive anti-money laundering and know-your-customer measures, including customer identity verification, transaction monitoring, and suspicious activity reporting (SAR). These measures are designed to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing and ensure that trading platforms comply with regulatory standards.

Secondly, the SEC is responsible for regulating cryptocurrency transactions involving securities. If a cryptocurrency is considered a security, trading platforms must comply with the SEC’s securities regulations, including registration and disclosure requirements. The CFTC, on the other hand, regulates trading of cryptocurrencies as commodities, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum futures contracts. Trading platforms need to comply with relevant commodity futures regulations to ensure market transparency and fairness.

In recent years, the SEC and CFTC have continued to issue guidance documents and implement relevant regulations to strengthen supervision of the cryptocurrency market. These measures not only focus on investor protection and market integrity, but also seek to establish a clear regulatory framework in the rapidly evolving digital asset space.

Regarding the recent regulatory developments for virtual assets in the United States, California’s Digital Financial Assets Act (DFAL) will officially take effect on July 1, 2025 next year. DFAL will regulate "digital financial assets" and require companies engaged in "digital financial asset business activities" to obtain a license from the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), but there will be certain exceptions, similar to New York's BitLicense. In order to obtain a BitLicense, a comprehensive application must be submitted to the New York State Department of Financial Services, which includes providing detailed information about business operations, compliance policies, anti-money laundering/know-your-customer procedures, cybersecurity measures, and financial status.

Once California’s DFAL takes effect, it will require OTC cryptocurrency dealers operating in California to be licensed, as well as other companies whose businesses involve the following categories:

• Exchanging or issuing digital financial assets: exchanging, transferring, or storing digital financial assets, or the issuance of convertible digital financial assets.
• Hold electronic precious metals: Hold electronic precious metals or digital certificates on behalf of others, indicating their share in precious metals, or issue shares or digital certificates representing interests in precious metals.
• Exchange Game Currency/Tokens: Exchange game currency or tokens, either to acquire digital financial assets from the game or app publisher, or to acquire real-world currency.

With DFAL, California will become the third state to establish a licensing system for crypto assets, following New York and Louisiana.

In the future, challenges facing the United States include further strengthening regulatory transparency, effectively responding to market manipulation and fraud, and promoting technological innovation and market development while protecting the interests of investors. This requires various regulatory agencies to continuously improve regulatory policies while maintaining sensitivity to market changes to ensure the competitiveness and leadership of the United States in the global cryptocurrency market.

In general, the similarities and differences in cryptocurrency regulation between Hong Kong, Singapore and the United States are reflected in regulatory agencies, legal frameworks, licensing requirements, anti-money laundering requirements, over-the-counter trading supervision, recent developments, and challenges and future directions. The regulatory environment and policies in each region have different focuses, reflecting different market needs and regulatory objectives.

The following is a visual comparison of the pictures.

Outlook for Cryptocurrency OTC Trading

As mentioned earlier, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United States, as global financial centers, have their own characteristics in the regulation of cryptocurrencies and their OTC trading. Below we analyze in detail the prospects and friendliness of these three regions in OTC trading.

1. Hong Kong

Hong Kong has adopted an active regulatory attitude towards cryptocurrency over-the-counter trading (OTC trading) through the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), showing that it attaches great importance to this field. Hong Kong demonstrates its commitment to investor protection and regulatory clarity under the licensing regime introduced under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Terrorism Fiscal Ordinance (AMLO). This system is implemented to ensure that market participants operate in a regulated environment. However, stringent compliance requirements and the transition from the non-compliance period may present initial challenges for market participants, requiring them to adapt to the new regulatory environment. Although this process is complex, it will help build a more stable and credible market in the long term.

Hong Kong is working hard to position itself as a regulated hub for crypto activities, a move that may attract institutional investors looking for a compliant platform. By providing a regulated and transparent market environment, Hong Kong is expected to become a major hub for cryptocurrency trading in Asia, attracting more international and local investors.

2. Singapore

Singapore’s regulatory framework under the Payment Services Act (PSA) is evolving to strengthen protective measures and impose stricter supervision on digital payment token (DPT) service providers involved in over-the-counter transactions. The Monetary Authority of Singapore’s (MAS) strict approach to licensing and compliance, as well as its recent emphasis on custody responsibilities, demonstrate Singapore’s stance on the crypto market as both cautious and supportive. These measures not only enhance market transparency and security, but also enhance investor confidence.

Singapore combines strict regulatory oversight with efforts to promote innovation, making it highly attractive to companies looking to operate compliantly in a safe regulatory environment. By balancing regulatory stringency and supporting innovation, Singapore provides a conducive environment for cryptocurrency businesses to grow, making it a leader in fintech innovation in the Asia-Pacific region.

3. United States

The cryptocurrency OTC trading environment in the United States is complex due to the dual supervision of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), as well as the anti-money laundering and know-your-customer regulations of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Compliance obligations, cryptocurrency market participants face strict regulatory requirements. Although some regulatory clarity has been achieved in recent years regarding the trading of securities and commodities, stringent requirements and occasional regulatory uncertainty can still create challenges for new market participants.

Despite the many challenges, the US market remains attractive due to its deep liquidity and market maturity. These features may attract larger institutional players once compliance hurdles are overcome. The U.S.’s financial market sophistication and innovative capabilities have allowed it to maintain an important position in the global cryptocurrency market, attracting companies looking to operate in large-scale and mature markets.

Overall, Singapore is expected to attract wider cryptocurrency OTC activity with its clear regulatory framework, strong investor protection measures, and supportive stance towards financial technology innovation. Hong Kong and the United States are also actively promoting their respective regulatory and market development strategies. Although each has its own challenges, it also provides different opportunities and environments for cryptocurrency market participants. By understanding and adapting to the regulatory characteristics of these regions, market participants can better plan their global presence strategies.

Summary

As global acceptance of cryptocurrencies continues to increase, Hong Kong, Singapore and the United States, as global financial centers, have demonstrated different strategies and advantages in the regulation of cryptocurrencies and their OTC transactions. Market participants should choose the most suitable region for layout and development based on their own needs and goals. In the ever-evolving global cryptocurrency market, it is critical to understand and adapt to local regulatory dynamics in order to seize opportunities and achieve sustainable growth.

以上是比較中國香港、新加坡及美國加密貨幣 OTC 交易監理現況及前景的詳細內容。更多資訊請關注PHP中文網其他相關文章！