투자의 귀재

블록체인 Defi 관련해서 OECD 가 보고서를 쓰다니.

놀라워서 읽어 보고 정리한다.

물론 Defi 가 날로 커지고 있으니, 이와 관련한 Risk 에 대해

정책 당국자의 입장에서 미리 학습하고 선제적인 대응을 해야 한다는 것이 주요 내용이지만,

Defi 시장이 지금 시점에서는 매우 커지고 있다는 사실은 부인하기 어려운 사실로 보인다.

Preface 와 Executive Summary 에 대해서

관심갔던 문장들을 발췌해서 공유해본다. 

Preface

The provision of financial services by DeFi applications in ways that do not comply with financial regulations expose retail and institutional participants to risks.

The market cap of stablecoins issued by the largest issuers exceeded USD 150 billion at the end of 2021, reflecting a nearly 500 percent increase over the last year, with DeFi recording a 50-fold increase over the same period, albeit from a very low level.

The increasing institutional investor interest in crypto-assets, coupled with the heavy use of stablecoins in DeFi protocols, is also sharply increasing interconnectedness between traditional and decentralised financial markets.

Nevertheless, supervisory authorities and international standard-setters have a role in assessing risks involved in DeFi, exploring ways to enforce existing rules in decentralised structures, and addressing any regulatory gaps where these may exist.

Executive Summary

Collateralised lending is the fastest growing DeFi product accounting for more than half...

DeFi lending activities try to mirror market-based lending (securities lending, repos) rather than traditional consumer/retail bank lending...

While DeFi is built upon distributed ledger technology (DLT) applications, DLT-based financial applications are not by default part of DeFi.

DeFi projects include its non-custodial nature...

... with some investors joining this market in a search for yield or for what they perceive as an alternative inflation hedge, despite any evidence of crypto-asset performance during inflationary periods.

As crypto-asset activity is increasingly becoming mainstream, the boundaries of

the two systems become more porous...

DeFi applications have the potential to provide benefits to financial market participants in terms of speed of execution and transaction costs...

Given the open source nature of protocols, DeFi may promote innovation in financial services and could have some potential to promote financial inclusion depending on the design and transaction arrangements.

For example, increased transaction fees linked to network congestion or complexity of smart contracts inhibit small transactions as users are dis-incentivised to execute small-valued transaction with disproportionately high fees, effectively being priced out.

Anonymity (or pseudonymity) and lack of customer due diligence (CDD) and completion of other AML/CFT processes by most DeFi applications gives rise to risks of money laundering, terrorism financing, and other illicit use, facilitating misconduct.

... can induce massive automatic liquidations

especially given the volatility of the underlying collateral, and the use of automation and innovative technological processes.

key operations (e.g. code development, crypto-asset mining) are held in the hands of a relatively small set of persons or entities.

For example, the issuance of governance tokens has some characteristics of securities/investment contracts and their issuance, promotion or trading in DeFi platforms could be considered non-compliant in many jurisdictions.

Examples of such could include organised governance structures (e.g. Decentralised Autonomous Organisation (DAO)); holders of controlling shares of governance tokens; identified parties benefiting from the operation of DeFi services through profit sharing mechanisms or fees; or holders of admin keys, all of which could be considered as potential regulatory access points.

Therefore, regulatory bodies may want to consider encouraging or engaging in investor protection updates to raise financial consumer awareness of potential risks.

Growing interconnections between traditional, centralised finance (CeFi) and DeFi and growing transmission channels of risk...

stablecoins are not the only source of financial stability risks: leverage, concentration risks, the potential for regulatory arbitrage and risk of contagion are additional dimensions that require the attention and possible action by macroprudential authorities.

While DeFi could end up being a short-lived phenomenon, deeper consideration of what value DeFi services could bring to users, the financial system and the real economy could be beneficial.

with no defined jurisdiction and geographical location for their operations.

과거 서브프라임 위기처럼

알 수 없는 채널을 통해 위기가 계속 번저나갈 수도 있지 않나라고 우려를 표하면서,

이에 대해 선제적으로 대응을 해야한다고 촉구하고 있다.

정책당국자 뿐만 아니라 금융소비자에게도.

또한 Defi 의 규제포인트를 찾는 것과 더불어,

기존 금융을 어떻게 혁신하는게 좋은지 고민하는 것도 중요한것 같다.

기존 금융 시스템이 더이상 소비자에게 채택이 안되는게 아닌건지 

아니면 시대적인 흐름이 계속 변해가고 있는건지 

그렇다면 이를 선제적으로 대응해서 기존 금융을 어떻게 바꾸어 낼 것인지를 연구해보면서 

Defi 와의 접점을 찾아보는 것은 어떨지 생각해본다. 

물론, 여기 보고서처럼

Defi 의 현존하는 많은 문제점들 역시 하나하나씩 다 짚고 넘어가야할 부분이다.