प्रबंधित स्थिरकॉइन को सिक्योरिटीज़ के रूप में: क्या गलत हुआ

प्रबंधित स्थिरकॉइन को सिक्योरिटीज़ अधिनियम के रूप में समझाया गया

In 2019, U.S. lawmakers introduced the “Managed Stablecoins Are Securities Act,” a proposal aimed at bringing certain stablecoins explicitly under federal securities laws. The bill sought to amend the definition of a security to include so-called “managed stablecoins,” categorizing them as investment contracts under the Securities Act of 1933.

While the legislation did not advance, it remains a useful reference point for understanding the regulatory tension between stablecoin innovation and investor protection.

विधायकों ने किस मुद्दे को संबोधित करने की कोशिश की

The proposal emerged amid growing concern over large technology firms and financial platforms experimenting with stablecoin issuance. Regulators feared that some issuers could actively manage reserves, alter backing mechanisms, or profit from yield strategies while marketing their tokens as stable and low-risk.

From a regulatory perspective, these characteristics resemble traditional investment contracts, where purchasers rely on managerial efforts to maintain value.

सामान्य वर्गीकरण की समस्या

The bill’s primary flaw was its lack of precision. By broadly defining managed stablecoins as securities, it risked sweeping fundamentally different token models into a single regulatory category.

स्थिरकॉइन एकरूप नहीं होते। कुछ में सक्रिय आरक्षित प्रबंधन, विवेकाधीन संपत्ति आवंटन, या यील्ड उत्पन्न करने वाली रणनीतियाँ शामिल होती हैं। अन्य को सरल रिडेम्प्शन उपकरण के रूप में संरचित किया जाता है जो ट्रस्ट में रखे अलग-अलग आरक्षित निधियों द्वारा समर्थित होते हैं।

Applying securities law uniformly across these models would impose unnecessary compliance burdens on issuers that do not exhibit investment-contract characteristics.

प्रबंधित बनाम गैर-प्रबंधित स्थिरकॉइन

A more defensible regulatory approach focuses on issuer behavior rather than token mechanics. Stablecoins should only raise securities concerns when an issuer:

• रिटर्न उत्पन्न करने के लिए आरक्षित संरचना का सक्रिय प्रबंधन करता है
• ऐसी विवेकाधीनता लागू करता है जो टोकन मूल्य को महत्वपूर्ण रूप से प्रभावित करती है
• टोकन को अपेक्षित लाभों के आधार पर मार्केट करता है

In contrast, stablecoins structured as redemption claims on segregated assets function more like digital representations of stored value than investment products.

सिक्योरिटीज़ कानून क्यों एक कठोर उपकरण है

Securities regulation is designed to govern capital formation, profit expectation, and managerial reliance. Many stablecoins serve primarily as settlement instruments, liquidity tools, or units of account within digital markets.

Forcing all stablecoins onto securities exchanges would fragment liquidity, reduce utility, and undermine their core purpose as transactional instruments.

नियमक सीख

Although the Managed Stablecoins Act did not become law, its introduction highlighted a recurring challenge in digital asset regulation: applying legacy legal frameworks without sufficient technical nuance.

Subsequent policy discussions have increasingly shifted toward activity-based regulation, reserve transparency requirements, and tailored oversight rather than broad asset-level classification.

दीर्घकालिक प्रभाव

Early proposals like this helped shape later regulatory debates by clarifying what does not work. Today’s stablecoin discussions increasingly differentiate between custodial risk, reserve management, systemic impact, and consumer protection—rather than defaulting to securities classification.

इन शुरुआती विधायी गलतियों को समझना वर्तमान और भविष्य की स्थिरकॉइन नीति का मूल्यांकन करने के लिए महत्वपूर्ण संदर्भ प्रदान करता है।