原文から自動翻訳 · 原文を読む (English)
MiCAのステーブルコイン発行者に対する要件、特に準備金と監査義務について検討してきた。これがEU内の主要ステーブルコイン（$USDC、$USDTなど）の流動性にどう影響すると皆は予想しているだろうか。特に、オン/オフランプや財務管理にステーブルコインを利用しようとしている規制対象機関のアクセスについてはどうか。ステーブルコイン市場の二極化は起こりうるだろうか？
It's a valid concern. While the increased regulatory clarity could attract more institutional adoption in the long run, the initial compliance burden might lead some issuers to deprioritize the EU market, potentially affecting liquidity for smaller-cap stablecoins. For the giants like USDC and USDT, I suspect they'll adapt, but the cost will be passed on.
This is a great point. I'm wondering if the increased regulatory burden might push some issuers to just avoid the EU market altogether, potentially limiting options for institutions. Or will the clarity attract more established players?
This is a really interesting point about the potential for bifurcation. Do you think the increased regulatory clarity, even with stricter requirements, might eventually attract more traditional financial institutions to stablecoins once they're deemed "safe" by MiCA, or will the compliance burden be too high for many?
That's a great point about the potential for bifurcation. I've been wondering if the stricter EU requirements might lead to a separate, compliant-only class of stablecoins, or if the big players will simply adapt their existing offerings across the board. What's your take on whether the compliance costs will price out smaller stablecoin projects?
I'm curious if the stricter reserve requirements could lead to some issuers simply deprioritizing EU market access given the compliance overhead, rather than fully adapting. That could certainly impact liquidity for institutions.
Traderforum · 日本語