金融科技监管的合作治理路径
|
摘要
以数据和技术为核心驱动力的金融科技在改变传统金融生态的同时,也在挑战传统金融监管的既定逻辑。针对其主体多元化、金融业务跨界、颠覆性创新与系统性风险并存等特征,金融监管需进行适应性变革,引入多元主体、多元规范、多元机制的合作治理模式。由政府单向监管向多层次、多主体共同治理转变,由控制命令对抗模式向分权协作互动模式转变,形成中央政府与地方政府、行政监管与自我监管良性互动的合作治理格局。在行政监管层面,通过智慧监管实现创新包容理念,借助监管沙盒和监管科技展开互动模式的技术治理;完善中央地方双层监管协调机制,重视地方政府的监管权责,加强地方立法以确保权责一致。在自我监管层面,强调企业微观治理地位并建立"吹哨人"机制,指导"看门人"、同业竞争者参与合作治理。只有在多元主体共享话语权的互动博弈中方能各取优长,避免传统监管模式中单一主体的有限理性、认知局限、监管时滞、利益冲突等问题。
Fintech,with digitalization and datafication as its core,changes deductive logic in the areas of technology commercialization,big data analysis, machine learning and artificial intelligence.Main features of fintech include:closing the link between finance and technology,where highly automatic financial service can be realized via complicated arithmetic and big data;complex recognition and regulation of fintech subjects with distinct information asymmetry;absence of″disintermediation″in providing financial service;special consideration of compliance cost during regulation which,if high,might result in great pressure to fintech enterprises that bring subversive innovation;and greater risk containment compared to traditional financial industries.Meanwhile,fintech is also challenging the established logic of traditional financial regulation and alternating the traditional financial environment.Current financial regulation practices have shown a certain degree of inelasticity,which makes it hard to achieve a balance between stable markets,financial innovation and clear rules.Such inelasticity is primarily manifested in three aspects:the existence of redundant and restrictive regulations amongst the lack in regulations which provide incentives;prevailing mandatory regulations from government control within effective cooperative governance;and dependency on traditional regulatory tools in the absence of data-centered technical governance.Since fintech time is featured by multi-subject,cross-industry financial business,the coexistence of subversive innovation and systematic risk,the supervised often acquire more advantageous information so that they are clearer about the regulation key points and vulnerability,while government has shown limited strength in regulation resources and capacities.Moreover,the sole dependence on administrative subjects makes regulations unrealistic and expensive.Only with an attitude of inclusiveness(i.e.negotiating with,interactively learning from,and even sharing power with multiple subjects)can the regulator make more prospective regulatory measures from a greater point of view.As a result,adaptive reforms must be introduced to bring in cooperative governance of multi-subject,multi-rule and multi-mechanism.Subjects of cooperative governance include various non-governmental subjects.It emphasizes a″new governance mode″to achieve a balance between various subjects such as the state,market and society.Regarding specific modes of cooperative governance,key attention shall be attached to these two aspects:diversification of subjects(i.e.government authorities,enterprises and associations),which means that every subject has its role to play so that mandatory control can be shifted to regulatory governance via interactive learning,feedback and timely adjustment to policies;and diversification of rules(i.e.not only law,but also instruction,contract and industrial standards).In conclusion,the shifts in financial regulatory approaches shall be considered as follows:the shift from single-subject regulation to multi-layered cooperative governance of various subjects,the shift from mandatory adversarial mode to interactive mode with decentralized cooperation,which would eventually form a cooperative governance structure with benign interaction between central government and local governments,administrative regulation and self-regulation.Regarding administrative regulation,an inclusive concept is realized via smart regulation with regulation policy made according to different developing stage of enterprise,and technical governance is realized via regulatory sandbox and regulatory technology.Besides,coordination mechanism for dual level regulation of central and local government shall be improved.Key attention is attached to regulation power and responsibility of local government and local legislation for division in power and responsibility and accountability of various government subjects.With respect to self-regulation,internal compliance of enterprise shall be emphasized and whistleblower mechanisms shall be built so that″gatekeepers″and competitors in the same industry can have access to the governance.Only in this way can the advantage of each party be stimulated during the interaction,where various subject speaks on their behalf,and problems in traditional regulation mode of single subjects,such as limited rationality,restricted cognition,delayed regulation and benefit conflict,can be avoided.
Fintech,with digitalization and datafication as its core,changes deductive logic in the areas of technology commercialization,big data analysis, machine learning and artificial intelligence.Main features of fintech include:closing the link between finance and technology,where highly automatic financial service can be realized via complicated arithmetic and big data;complex recognition and regulation of fintech subjects with distinct information asymmetry;absence of″disintermediation″in providing financial service;special consideration of compliance cost during regulation which,if high,might result in great pressure to fintech enterprises that bring subversive innovation;and greater risk containment compared to traditional financial industries.Meanwhile,fintech is also challenging the established logic of traditional financial regulation and alternating the traditional financial environment.Current financial regulation practices have shown a certain degree of inelasticity,which makes it hard to achieve a balance between stable markets,financial innovation and clear rules.Such inelasticity is primarily manifested in three aspects:the existence of redundant and restrictive regulations amongst the lack in regulations which provide incentives;prevailing mandatory regulations from government control within effective cooperative governance;and dependency on traditional regulatory tools in the absence of data-centered technical governance.Since fintech time is featured by multi-subject,cross-industry financial business,the coexistence of subversive innovation and systematic risk,the supervised often acquire more advantageous information so that they are clearer about the regulation key points and vulnerability,while government has shown limited strength in regulation resources and capacities.Moreover,the sole dependence on administrative subjects makes regulations unrealistic and expensive.Only with an attitude of inclusiveness(i.e.negotiating with,interactively learning from,and even sharing power with multiple subjects)can the regulator make more prospective regulatory measures from a greater point of view.As a result,adaptive reforms must be introduced to bring in cooperative governance of multi-subject,multi-rule and multi-mechanism.Subjects of cooperative governance include various non-governmental subjects.It emphasizes a″new governance mode″to achieve a balance between various subjects such as the state,market and society.Regarding specific modes of cooperative governance,key attention shall be attached to these two aspects:diversification of subjects(i.e.government authorities,enterprises and associations),which means that every subject has its role to play so that mandatory control can be shifted to regulatory governance via interactive learning,feedback and timely adjustment to policies;and diversification of rules(i.e.not only law,but also instruction,contract and industrial standards).In conclusion,the shifts in financial regulatory approaches shall be considered as follows:the shift from single-subject regulation to multi-layered cooperative governance of various subjects,the shift from mandatory adversarial mode to interactive mode with decentralized cooperation,which would eventually form a cooperative governance structure with benign interaction between central government and local governments,administrative regulation and self-regulation.Regarding administrative regulation,an inclusive concept is realized via smart regulation with regulation policy made according to different developing stage of enterprise,and technical governance is realized via regulatory sandbox and regulatory technology.Besides,coordination mechanism for dual level regulation of central and local government shall be improved.Key attention is attached to regulation power and responsibility of local government and local legislation for division in power and responsibility and accountability of various government subjects.With respect to self-regulation,internal compliance of enterprise shall be emphasized and whistleblower mechanisms shall be built so that″gatekeepers″and competitors in the same industry can have access to the governance.Only in this way can the advantage of each party be stimulated during the interaction,where various subject speaks on their behalf,and problems in traditional regulation mode of single subjects,such as limited rationality,restricted cognition,delayed regulation and benefit conflict,can be avoided.
引文
[1]Magnuson W.J.,″Regulating Fintech,″Vanderbilt Law Review,Vol.8,No.17(2017),pp.1-58.
[2]王首杰:《激励性规制:市场准入的策略?---对“专车”规制的一种理论回应》,《法学评论》2017年第3期,第82-95页。[Wang Shoujie,″Incentive Regulation:Market Access Strategy?A Theoretical Response to the Regulation of Uber,″Law Review,No.3(2017),pp.82-95.]
[3]Zetzsche D.A.,Buckley R.P.&Arner D.W.et al.,″The ICO Gold Rush,″2017-11-19,http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/research/faculty-publications,2018-03-02.
[4]杨松、张永亮:《金融科技监管的路径转换与中国选择》,《法学》2017年第8期,第3-14页。[Yang Song&Zhang Yongliang,″The Path Switching of Fintech Supervision and China's Choice,″Law Science,No.8(2017),pp.3-14.]
[5]Packin N.G.,″Regtech,Compliance and Technology Judgment Rule,″Chicago-Kent Law Review,Vol.93,No.1(2017),pp.193-218.
[6]Zetzsche D.A.,Buckley R.P.&Arner D.W.et al.,″From Fintech to Techfin:The Regulatory Challenges of Data-driven Finance,″EBI Working Paper Series,Vol.7,No.6(2017),pp.1-36.
[7]Paech P.,″The Governance of Blockchain Financial Networks,″Modern Law Review,Vol.80,No.6(2017),pp.1073-1110.
[8]Pasquale F.,″A Rule of Persons,Not Machines:The Limits of Legal Automation,″University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper,Vol.3,No.8(2018),pp.1-80.
[9]宋华琳:《论政府规制中的合作治理》,《政治与法律》2016年第8期,第14-23页。[Song Hualin,″On Cooperative Governance in Government Regulation,″Journal of Politics and Law,No.8(2016),pp.14-23.]
[10][美]奥利·洛贝尔:《作为规制治理的新治理》,宋华琳、徐小琪译,北京:中国财政经济出版社,2014年。[Lobel O.,The New Governance as Regulation,trans.by Song Hualin&Xu Xiaoqi,Beijing:Chinese Financial&Economic Publishing House,2014.]
[11]Colaert V.,″RegTech as a Response to Regulatory Expansion in the Financial Sector,″2017-3-23,https://corporatefinancelab.org,2018-04-10.
[12]Eyers J.,″Welcome to the New World of′Regtech′,″Australian Financial Review,Vol.6,No.3(2016),pp.43-56.
[13]Arner D.W.,Barberis J.&Buckley R.P.,″Fintech and Regtech in a Nutshell and the Future in a Sandbox,″CFA Institute Research Foundation,Vol.3,No.4(2017),pp.1-20.
[14]宋华琳:《迈向规制与治理的法律前沿---评科林·斯科特新著〈规制、治理与法律:前沿问题研究〉》,《法治现代化研究》2017年第6期,第182-193页。[Song Hualin,″Towards the Legal Frontiers of Regulation and Governance:A Review on Colin Scott's Regulation,Governance,and Law:Addressing Current Challenges,″The Study on Legal System Modernization,No.6(2017),pp.182-193.]
[15]Zetzsche D.A.,Buckley R.P.&Barberiset J.N.et al.,″Regulating a Revolution:from Regulatory Sandboxes to Smart Regulation,″2017-08-19,http://law.fordham.edu/fordham-journal-of-corporatefinancial-law/jcfl.htm,2018-04-18.
[16]Enriques L.,″Financial Supervisors and RegTech:Four Roles and Four Challenges,″2018-02-12,http://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu,2018-04-13.
[17]Lin T.C.W.,″Compliance,Technology and Modern Finance,″Brooklyn Journal of Corporate,Financial and Commercial Law,Vol.11,No.4(2016),pp.159-182.
[18]王浦劬、臧雷振:《治理理论与实践:经典议题研究新解》,北京:中央编译出版社,2018年。[Wang Puqu&Zang Leizhen,Governance in Theory and Practice:New Perspectives on a Classical Topic,Beijing:Central Compilation&Translation Press,2018.]
[19]周仲飞、李敬伟:《金融科技背景下金融监管范式的转变》,《法学研究》2018年第5期,第6-17页。[Zhou Zhongfei&Li Jingwei,″Transformation of Financial Regulation Paradigm Against the Background of Financial Technology,″Chinese Journal of Law,No.5(2018),pp.6-17.]
[20][美]欧姆瑞·本·沙哈尔、卡尔·E.施耐德:《强制披露的失败》,陈晓芳译,北京:法律出版社,2015年。[Shahar O.B.&Schneider C.E.,The Failure of Mandated Disclosure,trans.by Chen Xiaofang,Beijing:Law Press·China,2015.]
[21]Raskin M.,″The Law and Legality of Smart Contracts,″Georgetown Law Technology Review,Vol.1,No.2(2017),pp.305-341.
[22]冯果、吴双:《技法融合:应用区块链实现金融精准扶贫的法治进路》,《上海政法学院学报》2018年第2期,第24-32页。[Feng Guo&Wu Shuang,″Integration of Techniques and Law:The Path of Poverty Alleviation Through the Application of Block Chain,″Journal of Shanghai Institute of Political Science and Law,No.2(2018),pp.24-32.]
[23]Gadinis S.&Mangels C.,″Collaborative Gatekeeper,″Washington and Lee Law Review,Vol.73,No.2(2016),pp.800-910.
[24]Bromberg L.,Godwin A.&Ramsay L.,″Cross-Border Cooperation in Financial Regulation:Crossing the Fintech Bridge,″Capital Markets Law Journal,Vol.13,No.1(2018),pp.59-84.
(1)参见何迪《冯果教授沪上畅谈大数据时代的金融监管与法治演进》,2017年12月18日,http://www.sohu.com/a/211135121_778854,2018年1月5日。
(1)关于金融监管的三难困境,美国乔治城大学的Chris Brummer教授等认为,金融科技时代的金融监管不再只是面临传统的金融安全、金融消费者保护、金融创新的博弈,与之更密切相关的是市场稳定、金融创新与规则简明。值得一提的是,规则简明意指如何在金融市场和参与主体均趋于复杂且变动不居的情况下实现规则的确定性、可预测性与稳定性,并传达出实然意义的法治价值。参见Brummer C.&Yadav Y.,″The Fintech Trilemma,″Georgetown Law and Economics Research Paper,Vol.12,No.3(2017),pp.11-23。
(2)此前,美国证券交易委员会主席Jay Clayton发表公开声明,指出仅仅强调代币的实用功能并不能否定其证券的本质。整合了营销活动的代币及代币发行行为,具有从企业盈利、企业家活动中盈利的特征,符合证券的本质,须受证券法监管。
(1)包容也是一项权力关系平衡原则,从合作治理的角度而言,笔者以为包容的理念是实现合作治理的前提,体现了监管者更为宏观的格局与视野。
(2)金融科技的发展分为以下阶段:金融科技1.0时代,金融服务业开始与技术密切相关;金融科技2.0时代的特点是通信和交易数字技术、金融数字化的不断发展;金融科技3.0时代,初创公司、电子商务和社交媒体公司已经开始直接向公众以及包括银行在内的企业提供金融产品和服务,金融科技已扩大至财务和投资、内部运营和风险管理、支付和基础设施、数据货币化以及消费者界面这五个关键领域;金融科技4.0时代将以数据货币化和依赖数字身份为特征。
(1)金融监管资源长期向大型、系统性金融机构倾斜,与多层次的金融供给要求不完全匹配。利用监管科技可以提升监管效率,在一定程度上弥补监管资源有限的缺陷。
(1)当前多头监管却缺乏有效的合作协调监管体制容易造成监管真空与监管重复并存、监管标准不一。例如一方面金融科技企业之间分属于不同的监管机构主管,因业务性质差异,其接受的监管标准不统一;另一方面金融科技企业和传统金融机构之间即使业务性质相同,目前的监管标准也不统一,意味着尚存在监管套利的风险。
(1)金融的核心是风险,风险本身就意味着不确定性。因此,如果让金融风险回到完全可控的状态中,将会阻碍金融的现代化。金融监管需要确保的是坚守不发生系统性金融风险的底线。
(1)关于监管沙盒的准入范围,世界上不同国家及地区有不同的做法,例如我国香港地区将沙箱的准入限制在受监管银行或与银行有合作的企业的范围内;而英国和澳大利亚的沙盒测试向传统金融机构之外的金融科技企业乃至初创公司开放,本质上是一种有限业务牌照机制。笔者认为后者的开放范围更为适宜,一方面可以促进金融创新,另一方面也可避免尚不成熟的技术过早进入市场。
(1)地方金融办的监管职能和监管对象缺乏统一的制度安排。在2017年全国金融工作会议明确地方金融办负责对“7+4”类机构和“两非”领域进行属地监管与风险处置后,目前还有一些地区的地方监管存在监管职能分散、监管边界不清和多头监管等问题,容易引发监管缺位。
(2)模糊的职能定位亦体现在当其审慎监管职能与行为监管职能冲突时,地方金融办有可能从金融机构审慎角度出发,忽视对金融消费者的保护。
(3)例如,在行使处罚权的过程中,地方金融监管部门因自身法律定位而缺乏相应职权的法律授权,经常需要银监局的配合。
(1)当前对“智能合同”尚无一致的定义,法律专业人员将其定义为各方之间具有法律约束力的正式协议;而计算机工程师则将其视为计算机代码,即在计算机程序中执行预选操作数据和计算机指令的安排。
[2]王首杰:《激励性规制:市场准入的策略?---对“专车”规制的一种理论回应》,《法学评论》2017年第3期,第82-95页。[Wang Shoujie,″Incentive Regulation:Market Access Strategy?A Theoretical Response to the Regulation of Uber,″Law Review,No.3(2017),pp.82-95.]
[3]Zetzsche D.A.,Buckley R.P.&Arner D.W.et al.,″The ICO Gold Rush,″2017-11-19,http://www.law.unsw.edu.au/research/faculty-publications,2018-03-02.
[4]杨松、张永亮:《金融科技监管的路径转换与中国选择》,《法学》2017年第8期,第3-14页。[Yang Song&Zhang Yongliang,″The Path Switching of Fintech Supervision and China's Choice,″Law Science,No.8(2017),pp.3-14.]
[5]Packin N.G.,″Regtech,Compliance and Technology Judgment Rule,″Chicago-Kent Law Review,Vol.93,No.1(2017),pp.193-218.
[6]Zetzsche D.A.,Buckley R.P.&Arner D.W.et al.,″From Fintech to Techfin:The Regulatory Challenges of Data-driven Finance,″EBI Working Paper Series,Vol.7,No.6(2017),pp.1-36.
[7]Paech P.,″The Governance of Blockchain Financial Networks,″Modern Law Review,Vol.80,No.6(2017),pp.1073-1110.
[8]Pasquale F.,″A Rule of Persons,Not Machines:The Limits of Legal Automation,″University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper,Vol.3,No.8(2018),pp.1-80.
[9]宋华琳:《论政府规制中的合作治理》,《政治与法律》2016年第8期,第14-23页。[Song Hualin,″On Cooperative Governance in Government Regulation,″Journal of Politics and Law,No.8(2016),pp.14-23.]
[10][美]奥利·洛贝尔:《作为规制治理的新治理》,宋华琳、徐小琪译,北京:中国财政经济出版社,2014年。[Lobel O.,The New Governance as Regulation,trans.by Song Hualin&Xu Xiaoqi,Beijing:Chinese Financial&Economic Publishing House,2014.]
[11]Colaert V.,″RegTech as a Response to Regulatory Expansion in the Financial Sector,″2017-3-23,https://corporatefinancelab.org,2018-04-10.
[12]Eyers J.,″Welcome to the New World of′Regtech′,″Australian Financial Review,Vol.6,No.3(2016),pp.43-56.
[13]Arner D.W.,Barberis J.&Buckley R.P.,″Fintech and Regtech in a Nutshell and the Future in a Sandbox,″CFA Institute Research Foundation,Vol.3,No.4(2017),pp.1-20.
[14]宋华琳:《迈向规制与治理的法律前沿---评科林·斯科特新著〈规制、治理与法律:前沿问题研究〉》,《法治现代化研究》2017年第6期,第182-193页。[Song Hualin,″Towards the Legal Frontiers of Regulation and Governance:A Review on Colin Scott's Regulation,Governance,and Law:Addressing Current Challenges,″The Study on Legal System Modernization,No.6(2017),pp.182-193.]
[15]Zetzsche D.A.,Buckley R.P.&Barberiset J.N.et al.,″Regulating a Revolution:from Regulatory Sandboxes to Smart Regulation,″2017-08-19,http://law.fordham.edu/fordham-journal-of-corporatefinancial-law/jcfl.htm,2018-04-18.
[16]Enriques L.,″Financial Supervisors and RegTech:Four Roles and Four Challenges,″2018-02-12,http://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu,2018-04-13.
[17]Lin T.C.W.,″Compliance,Technology and Modern Finance,″Brooklyn Journal of Corporate,Financial and Commercial Law,Vol.11,No.4(2016),pp.159-182.
[18]王浦劬、臧雷振:《治理理论与实践:经典议题研究新解》,北京:中央编译出版社,2018年。[Wang Puqu&Zang Leizhen,Governance in Theory and Practice:New Perspectives on a Classical Topic,Beijing:Central Compilation&Translation Press,2018.]
[19]周仲飞、李敬伟:《金融科技背景下金融监管范式的转变》,《法学研究》2018年第5期,第6-17页。[Zhou Zhongfei&Li Jingwei,″Transformation of Financial Regulation Paradigm Against the Background of Financial Technology,″Chinese Journal of Law,No.5(2018),pp.6-17.]
[20][美]欧姆瑞·本·沙哈尔、卡尔·E.施耐德:《强制披露的失败》,陈晓芳译,北京:法律出版社,2015年。[Shahar O.B.&Schneider C.E.,The Failure of Mandated Disclosure,trans.by Chen Xiaofang,Beijing:Law Press·China,2015.]
[21]Raskin M.,″The Law and Legality of Smart Contracts,″Georgetown Law Technology Review,Vol.1,No.2(2017),pp.305-341.
[22]冯果、吴双:《技法融合:应用区块链实现金融精准扶贫的法治进路》,《上海政法学院学报》2018年第2期,第24-32页。[Feng Guo&Wu Shuang,″Integration of Techniques and Law:The Path of Poverty Alleviation Through the Application of Block Chain,″Journal of Shanghai Institute of Political Science and Law,No.2(2018),pp.24-32.]
[23]Gadinis S.&Mangels C.,″Collaborative Gatekeeper,″Washington and Lee Law Review,Vol.73,No.2(2016),pp.800-910.
[24]Bromberg L.,Godwin A.&Ramsay L.,″Cross-Border Cooperation in Financial Regulation:Crossing the Fintech Bridge,″Capital Markets Law Journal,Vol.13,No.1(2018),pp.59-84.
(1)参见何迪《冯果教授沪上畅谈大数据时代的金融监管与法治演进》,2017年12月18日,http://www.sohu.com/a/211135121_778854,2018年1月5日。
(1)关于金融监管的三难困境,美国乔治城大学的Chris Brummer教授等认为,金融科技时代的金融监管不再只是面临传统的金融安全、金融消费者保护、金融创新的博弈,与之更密切相关的是市场稳定、金融创新与规则简明。值得一提的是,规则简明意指如何在金融市场和参与主体均趋于复杂且变动不居的情况下实现规则的确定性、可预测性与稳定性,并传达出实然意义的法治价值。参见Brummer C.&Yadav Y.,″The Fintech Trilemma,″Georgetown Law and Economics Research Paper,Vol.12,No.3(2017),pp.11-23。
(2)此前,美国证券交易委员会主席Jay Clayton发表公开声明,指出仅仅强调代币的实用功能并不能否定其证券的本质。整合了营销活动的代币及代币发行行为,具有从企业盈利、企业家活动中盈利的特征,符合证券的本质,须受证券法监管。
(1)包容也是一项权力关系平衡原则,从合作治理的角度而言,笔者以为包容的理念是实现合作治理的前提,体现了监管者更为宏观的格局与视野。
(2)金融科技的发展分为以下阶段:金融科技1.0时代,金融服务业开始与技术密切相关;金融科技2.0时代的特点是通信和交易数字技术、金融数字化的不断发展;金融科技3.0时代,初创公司、电子商务和社交媒体公司已经开始直接向公众以及包括银行在内的企业提供金融产品和服务,金融科技已扩大至财务和投资、内部运营和风险管理、支付和基础设施、数据货币化以及消费者界面这五个关键领域;金融科技4.0时代将以数据货币化和依赖数字身份为特征。
(1)金融监管资源长期向大型、系统性金融机构倾斜,与多层次的金融供给要求不完全匹配。利用监管科技可以提升监管效率,在一定程度上弥补监管资源有限的缺陷。
(1)当前多头监管却缺乏有效的合作协调监管体制容易造成监管真空与监管重复并存、监管标准不一。例如一方面金融科技企业之间分属于不同的监管机构主管,因业务性质差异,其接受的监管标准不统一;另一方面金融科技企业和传统金融机构之间即使业务性质相同,目前的监管标准也不统一,意味着尚存在监管套利的风险。
(1)金融的核心是风险,风险本身就意味着不确定性。因此,如果让金融风险回到完全可控的状态中,将会阻碍金融的现代化。金融监管需要确保的是坚守不发生系统性金融风险的底线。
(1)关于监管沙盒的准入范围,世界上不同国家及地区有不同的做法,例如我国香港地区将沙箱的准入限制在受监管银行或与银行有合作的企业的范围内;而英国和澳大利亚的沙盒测试向传统金融机构之外的金融科技企业乃至初创公司开放,本质上是一种有限业务牌照机制。笔者认为后者的开放范围更为适宜,一方面可以促进金融创新,另一方面也可避免尚不成熟的技术过早进入市场。
(1)地方金融办的监管职能和监管对象缺乏统一的制度安排。在2017年全国金融工作会议明确地方金融办负责对“7+4”类机构和“两非”领域进行属地监管与风险处置后,目前还有一些地区的地方监管存在监管职能分散、监管边界不清和多头监管等问题,容易引发监管缺位。
(2)模糊的职能定位亦体现在当其审慎监管职能与行为监管职能冲突时,地方金融办有可能从金融机构审慎角度出发,忽视对金融消费者的保护。
(3)例如,在行使处罚权的过程中,地方金融监管部门因自身法律定位而缺乏相应职权的法律授权,经常需要银监局的配合。
(1)当前对“智能合同”尚无一致的定义,法律专业人员将其定义为各方之间具有法律约束力的正式协议;而计算机工程师则将其视为计算机代码,即在计算机程序中执行预选操作数据和计算机指令的安排。