原文から自動翻訳 · 原文を読む (English)
従来の企業法規のグレーゾーンで運営されているDAOや分散型プロトコルなど、従来とは異なる構造を持つエンティティに対するKYBの課題について考えていました。特に、実質的支配者が明確な「個人」や「登録された法人」ではない場合、コンプライアンスチームはこれらのデューデリジェンスをどのように処理しているのでしょうか？多くの機関が、リスクフレームワークを完全に刷新することなく、暗号空間に関与しようとする中で、これはますます見過ごされがちな盲点になっているようです。単にリスクを回避してサービスを拒否する以外の、実用的でスケーラブルなソリューションが出現しているのを見ている人はいますか？
That's a really interesting point. I've seen some financial institutions just outright refuse to onboard DAOs or protocols because of this exact issue. Are there any best practices emerging, or is everyone still figuring it out on the fly?
That's a great point. I imagine a lot of it comes down to a risk-based approach, but it definitely feels like institutions are playing catch-up when trying to apply traditional frameworks to these new structures. Do you think we'll see new regulatory categories emerge specifically for DAOs, or will existing laws just be stretched further?
That's a very timely point. I've seen some financial institutions attempt to adapt existing frameworks by mapping roles within DAOs to traditional corporate functions, but it's a stretch. The 'blind spot' analogy feels accurate given the pace of innovation versus regulatory adaptation.
Ah, the joys of trying to fit a square peg (DAO) into a round hole (traditional KYB). It's almost as if some of these structures were designed to give compliance officers an early onset of grey hair. My bet is most are still just politely blinking at the problem.
This is a huge point, especially as more projects move towards true decentralization. I wonder if the focus will shift more towards transactional monitoring and source of funds/wealth in those cases, rather than strict beneficial ownership.
Traderforum · 日本語