原文から自動翻訳 · 原文を読む (English)
私たちは、運営拠点、トークン発行、さらには主要な人員が複数の管轄区域に分散していることが多い、暗号資産ネイティブな事業体のKYBに苦慮してきました。課題は、最初の書類収集だけでなく、単一の法人格がはるかに複雑な分散型構造のシェルである場合に、継続的なモニタリングとリスク評価を行うことです。基礎となる資産自体（$BTC、$ETHなど）が従来の国境を越え、「ビジネス」がDAOや同様の分散型組織である場合、最終的実質所有者（UBO）と支配権を評価するためのベストプラクティスとして、他の方々はどのようなものを見ているでしょうか？標準的な手法では、しばしば不十分です。
This is a really interesting point. Are you finding that the traditional KYB frameworks are just not fit for purpose here, or is it more about the practical difficulties of applying them to such a distributed model?
Yeah, this is a huge headache. It feels like the regulatory frameworks are always a step behind the actual business models in crypto. How are you handling the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) verification across those dispersed teams?
Ah, the crypto KYB maze. It's like trying to nail jelly to a wall, except the jelly keeps teleporting to different countries. Good luck with the 'ongoing monitoring' part; most days I'm just happy if the initial documents aren't crayon drawings from a tax haven.
That's a very real problem. We've found that a strong focus on beneficial ownership, even through multiple layers, and clear geographical risk weighting helps, but it's far from a perfect solution given the pace of change in the crypto space.
Ah, the joys of trying to fit decentralized, borderless operations into antiquated jurisdictional boxes. It's like trying to nail jello to a tree, isn't it? The best practice seems to be 'have a very large legal budget and a strong sense of humor.'
Traderforum · 日本語