目前的加密貨幣監管狀態是“第 22 條軍規”，這是一系列荒謬且矛盾的規則和要求，無法遵循。
馬塞洛·M·普拉特斯 (Marcelo M. Prates) 是央行律師和研究員。
在約瑟夫·海勒的著名小說中，《第二十二條軍規》指的是一項規定，即尋求免除戰鬥職責的飛行員可以提出請求，聲稱自己瘋了。 有一個問題：提出請求意味著請願人神智正常，因此沒有資格獲得豁免。
在 2024 年的美國，SEC 的「進來註冊」方法是加密貨幣的第 22 條軍規。
SEC 主席 Gary Gensler 經常表示，向 SEC 註冊以遵守證券監管非常簡單，“這只是我們網站上的一張表格。” 儘管知道如何做，加密貨幣發行商和交易所「只是選擇不這樣做」。 SEC 主席聽起來像是加密貨幣公司在 SEC 的歡迎下不合理（如果不是非法）頑固地不提交所需的註冊。 這種特徵隱藏了一個陷阱。
即使我們像 Gensler 那樣假設所有加密代幣都是證券並且應該在 SEC 註冊（這是有爭議的）並且註冊過程很簡單（事實並非如此），成功的註冊也會導致死胡同。 與任何註冊證券一樣，註冊加密代幣只能透過註冊經紀交易商在註冊交易所進行交易。 但這在今天是不可能的。
金融業監理局（FINRA）是一個監管經紀交易商的自律組織，僅批准了少數機構處理加密代幣。 在這些機構中，只有一家是特殊目的經紀交易商 Prometheum，該公司在獲得批准近一年後仍然不活躍，並且尚未上市交易代幣。
另請參閱：有抱負的加密貨幣銀行的困境表明了幣安的問題
此外，美國證券交易委員會也不允許任何目前註冊的交易所或經紀自營商列出、託管或交易加密代幣。 美國證券交易委員會的觀點是，任何願意使用加密代幣的註冊機構「都不能從事傳統證券的交易、影響交易、維持託管或運營傳統證券的替代交易系統」。
此外，到目前為止，幾乎沒有加密代幣在 SEC 註冊。 這就是第22 條軍規：發行人在找到可以與其合作的註冊交易所和經紀交易商之前不會註冊其加密代幣，並且註冊交易所和經紀交易商在看到足夠多的加密代幣之前不會開始使用加密代幣註冊代幣以使商業模式在經濟上可行。
The reality for fintech isn’t much brighter. Because of the lack of a specific federal licensing framework, fintech firms using technology to offer more efficient and cost-effective financial products and services — from debit cards and loans to mobile payments and remittances — must partner with banks. This fintech-banking partnership is known as banking-as-a-service or BaaS.
Even when the fintech startup is a licensed money transmitter at the state level, it must partner with a bank to make and receive payments in dollars since only banks can directly access the payments system. As a result, licensed banks in the U.S. end up serving as gatekeepers to financial innovation, as new ideas in the financial system have to be implemented through them.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the national banking regulator, has been increasingly wary of BaaS arrangements, making it more difficult and costly for banks to keep “third-party relationships” with fintech firms. Regulators say they’re concerned with how fintech partners onboard customers, monitor transactions and handle sensitive information, as well as how banks manage these risks to ensure compliance with the applicable rules and regulations.
Because of this hardened regulatory stance and the enforcement actions and fines that may follow, many banks are “derisking” by reducing or outright ending fintech partnerships. At the same time, federal regulators aren’t open to crafting a licensing regime for fintech or allowing non-banks to directly access the payments system by having a Fed master account.
There we have another Catch-22: in the present regulatory environment, fintech can only survive in the U.S. with the active collaboration of banks, but federal regulators don’t want banks to partner with fintech companies. What can be done?
See also: In Lejilex vs. SEC, Crypto Goes on Offense in the Courts | Opinion
Only Congress can solve these puzzles. State legislators have been active on both fronts, designing bespoke regulatory frameworks for crypto, like the BitLicense in New York or the Digital Financial Assets Law in California, and fintech, like the special purpose depository institution (SPDI) charter in Wyoming
But none of these state laws and regimes relieve state-compliant institutions from facing troubles at the federal level. Just ask Coinbase, which holds a BitLicense but is being sued by the SEC “for operating as an unregistered securities exchange, broker, and clearing agency,” or Custodia, a chartered SPDI that wasn’t allowed to hold a Fed master account and thus cannot directly offer basic payment services.
國會必須採取行動保持金融創新的活力。 為加密貨幣和金融科技制定量身定制的許可和監管聯邦框架對於維持美國資本和金融市場的健全、競爭力和包容性至關重要。 用海勒的話來說，加密貨幣和金融科技公司應該接受這樣一個想法：它們「要麼永遠生存，要麼在嘗試中死去」。
