????當美聯儲（Federal Reserve）主席珍妮特?耶倫本周二宣布美聯儲無權監管比特幣時，許多比特幣的粉絲都感到歡欣鼓舞。

????美聯儲無疑是許多比特幣信徒眼中的頭號大敵，他們認為美聯儲對美元的管理太失敗了，使得比特幣這樣一種去中心化貨幣的建立成為必須。

????但是如果有人認為比特幣可以脫離政府監管機構，獨自成長成一支全球領先的貨幣形式，那么這種想法不可謂不幼稚。就連一向鼓吹比特幣的知名投資人巴里?希爾伯特都認為，在比特幣發展的下一個階段，可能會有一些華爾街大銀行參與進來，通過設置ETF基金或其它金融產品的方式刺激這種貨幣升值。

????美聯儲的一個顧問委員會今年五月初的一次會議的備忘錄顯示，美聯儲也預見到了類似的趨勢，這種趨勢將使美聯儲必須對比特幣進行監管。顧問委員會本身沒有制訂政策的權力，它只能幫助有投票權的美聯儲官員了解銀行業的想法。但是這些備忘錄還是可以對未來美聯儲的比特幣政策起到管中窺豹的效果。

????耶倫本周二稱，美聯儲之所以無權監管比特幣，是由為比特幣屬于“銀行業之外發生的一次創新”。但如果美聯儲管理下的銀行真的在籌劃從事比特幣業務，那么耶倫的邏輯就不再站得住腳了。

????美聯儲的顧問委員會是由銀行業的精英組成的，他們自然比旁人更加了解銀行業是否有這方面的計劃。據備忘錄顯示，顧問委員會贊同西爾伯特的說法，認為現有銀行將在比特幣未來的發展過程中扮演重要的角色，包括“如果比特幣的采用加速了，尤其是隨著多幣種賬戶的激增以及對比特幣信用的擔憂逐步消減，銀行業可以加大參與比特幣資金流動的力度。”

????雖然顧問委員會沒有具體透露銀行業將如何把比特幣納入現有業務，但它對比幣特未來對經濟的影響表示樂觀：

????比特幣雖然顛覆了傳統的商業渠道，但它并不對經濟活動造成威脅，而是可以作為一種利好……它的全球流動性為商家和服務提供者打開了新的市場……在促進資本從發達國家向發展中國家流動的過程中，將起到促進消費的作用。

????顯然，美聯儲的顧問們明白比特幣正在走“牛市”。但他們認為比特幣作為一種現象還不足以對美國經濟造成任何威脅，因此他們稱，對比特幣“更多地是好奇感而不是威脅感。”他們認為，只有當比特幣變得比其它匯款方式更便宜、更快捷、更具地域靈活性的情況下，消費者才會大范圍采用比特幣。而要達到這個目標，比特幣就需要金融服務業的幫助，而不是出離于銀行業之外獨善其身。

????那么如果消費者和金融機構真的都開始玩比特幣了該怎么辦？美聯儲顧問委員會的建議是，像管理其它金融服務產品一樣管理比特幣，比如用“業務連續性計劃要求”監管比特幣的交易機構，以及“召開一個預防比特幣詐騙的論壇，對比特幣的風險和成本進行披露”等等。該顧問委員會還建議比特幣中介公司要像銀行一樣接受反洗錢法規的監管。

????這些措施顯然會增加比特幣中介企業的成本，而增加的成本最終會轉嫁到終端用戶身上。由于比特幣最大的優勢之一就是在線交易的低成本性，因此這些措施無疑會導致有人放棄使用比特幣。美聯儲顧問委員會的備忘錄也強調了這一點：比特幣技術的流行，正是由于它有能力擺脫政府和現有金融行業在貨幣和資金流動上扮演的角色。但是比特幣要想充分發揮所有的潛力，卻顯然需要這兩者的支持。（財富中文網）

????譯者：樸成奎

????When Janet Yellen stated in February that the Federal Reserve had no authority to regulate bitcoin, many fans of the virtual currency were elated.

????After all, for many believers in virtual currency, the Federal Reserve is enemy No. 1, an institution that has so badly mismanaged the U.S. dollar as to necessitate the creation of a decentralized currency like bitcoin.

????But the idea that bitcoin could ascend to the status of a leading global currency without government regulators is naive. Even bitcoin booster and investor Barry Silbert has argued that the next stages of bitcoin's development will involve big Wall Street banks getting in on the action by, for instance, setting up ETFs and other products that will facilitate the currency's rise.

????And recently released minutes from a Federal Reserve Advisory Committee meeting in early May suggest that the Fed foresees a similar trend, which would necessitate federal bitcoin regulation.

????The Advisory Committee can't dictate policy -- it's assembled to help voting Fed officials benefit from and understand the concerns of the banking industry -- but the minutes can shed light on what Fed policy might look like in the future.

????Indeed, even Yellen's argument in February that the Fed didn't have the authority to regulate bitcoin was based on the the idea that currency was an "innovation happening outside the banking industry." If Fed-regulated banks are in fact looking to get involved in bitcoin, this reasoning is no longer valid.

????The Advisory Committee is composed of elite members of the banking industry, so the body is better equipped to understand its plans than most. And according to the minutes, the committee agrees with Silbert that incumbent banks will have a role to play in bitcoin's future, concluding, "Should adoption accelerate, banking could participate increasingly in Bitcoin fund flows, especially as multicurrency accounts proliferate and reputational concerns subside."

????Though the committee didn't offer details on how the banking industry might incorporate bitcoin into its business, it was optimistic about the currency's potential effect on the economy:

????Bitcoin does not present a threat to economic activity by disrupting traditional channels of commerce; rather, it could serve as a boon ... Its global transmissibility opens new markets to merchants and service providers ... Driving capital flows from the developed to the developing world should increase consumption.

????Clearly, the bankers advising the Fed understand the bull case for bitcoin, though they argue that it is still too small a phenomenon to pose any sort of risk to the U.S. economy, calling it "more a curiosity than a threat." They foresee more consumers adopting bitcoin only if it can prove to be cheaper, faster, and more geographically flexible than alternative modes of transmitting money, and they see bitcoin doing this with the help of the financial services industry rather than in spite of it.

????When consumers and the financial industry do come on board, the Committee advises regulating it much like other financial services products, like supervising bitcoin exchanges with "requirements for business continuity planning," and "a forum for fraud prevention and disclosure of bitcoin's risks and costs." It also recommended that bitcoin businesses be subject to anti-money-laundering regulations, just as banks are.

????These measures, of course, could greatly increase costs for companies that deal in bitcoin, costs that would have to be passed on to end users. And since one of the main arguments for bitcoin is its lower costs for online transactions, these measures would surely undercut some of the reason to use it. These minutes underscore a central tension in the bitcoin story: It is a technology whose popularity is tied to its ability to undercut the government and incumbent financial industry's role in currency and money transmission, but one that clearly needs the blessing of both to reach its full potential.