관리형 스테이블코인, 증권: 무엇이 잘못됐는가

관리형 스테이블코인 증권법 설명

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.

입법자들이 해결하고자 했던 문제

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.

포괄적 분류의 문제점

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.

Stablecoins are not monolithic. Some involve active reserve management, discretionary asset allocation, or yield-generating strategies. Others are structured as simple redemption instruments backed by segregated reserves held in trust.

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

관리형 스테이블코인과 비관리형 스테이블코인

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

• 수익을 창출하기 위해 준비금 구성을 적극적으로 관리한다
• 토큰 가치에 실질적인 영향을 미치는 재량을 행사한다
• 예상 수익을 근거로 토큰을 마케팅한다

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

증권법이 거친 도구인 이유

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.

규제에서 얻은 교훈

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.

장기적인 영향

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.

Understanding these early legislative missteps provides valuable context for evaluating current and future stablecoin policy.