원문에서 자동 번역됨 · 원문 읽기 (English)
기존 기업법의 회색 영역에서 운영되는 DAO 및 분산형 프로토콜과 같이 덜 전통적인 구조를 가진 법인에 대한 KYB의 과제에 대해 고민해 왔습니다. 특히 실소유주가 명확한 '개인' 또는 '등록된 법인'이 아닐 때, 규정 준수 팀은 이러한 경우에 대한 실사를 어떻게 처리하고 있습니까? 위험 프레임워크를 완전히 개편하지 않고 암호화폐 공간에 참여하려는 많은 기관에게는 점점 더 커지는 사각지대처럼 보입니다. 단순히 위험을 줄이고 서비스 제공을 거부하는 것 외에 실용적이고 확장 가능한 솔루션이 나타나고 있는 것을 보신 분이 있습니까?
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 · 한국어