【評論】亡羊補牢 – 政府處理數字資產交易態度180度改變 [Commentary] The Government’s attitude towards digital asset transactions has changed 180 degrees.
財政司司長陳茂波剛剛突然高調發聲講有意願打造香港為國際虛擬資產中心，愚公認為這情況跟當年阿里巴巴希望在香港上市，但遇上 SFC 堅決不能接受「同股不同權」的事件有很多相似地方。 當阿里巴巴最後成功在紐約交易所上市後，其他創科公司便「拉隊」去了美國。當香港失去這個非常活躍的上市板塊後，影響到其他行業也跟風「離團」。當時無論律師、會計師、審計師、秘書公司等也面對市場凋零下的壓力。香港不得不用「今天的我打倒昨天的我」的態度修改法例，接受「同股不同權」模式，並要求阿里巴巴回到香港上市。
政府今次處理虛擬資產交易市場的處理手法和背景跟上次傳統IPO市場的「後知後覺」事件的處理方式非常一致。 香港自2015年虛擬貨幣交易剛開始受到投資者注意並急速發展開始，一向是全球虛擬資產的交易中心，很多國際知名的虛擬資產項目和交易所也選擇以香港作為根據地。 當內地在2017年間大力打擊虛擬資產交易後，內地發跡的大型交易所 Binance 和火幣等更把資源從內地遷移到香港。在2017到2018這兩年間，香港的酒店及會議展覽場地不時舉辦大型的虛擬資產展覽及研討會，有關 ICO 及 STO 的活動非常頻繁，旅遊、酒店、餐飲業發展蓬勃，盛況空前！
奈何香港之後的社會運動事件及接著疫情爆發，很多線下的虛擬資產國際交流活動被逼暫停。在2021到2022年初的NFT，Web3及元宇宙發展熱潮中，一方面很多新項目出台，另外很多全球知名的傳統金融服務供應商如PayPal、Visa、Meta甚至很多投資銀行及互聯網公司也紛紛高調參與並推出貼近市場需求虛擬資產交易活動。
雖然當時第五波疫情爆發的陰霾仍然籠罩著全球，但虛擬資產交易額因為大家被困在家裡更加集關注中線上活動，反而急速增長。
正當香港面對歷史上最嚴重的人才流失、中美貿易摩擦而導致歐美制裁、沒有完全跟上其他國際城市的疫情解封的多方面問題夾擊之際，很多香港家族辦公室及投資銀行近來正面對著一個更深層次的問題。 事緣明年三月香港將會立法規定金融機構必須持有或使用由證監會發出的 VASP 牌照服務供應商才可以為客戶提供虛擬資產服務。 雖然立法無可厚非，但法例對供應商要求苛刻之外，更只容許專業投資者參與。這新法例意味著香港將不歡迎一般零售虛擬貨幣投資者在香港進行合法交易，等同把這個新興行業拒於城外！
我需然沒有看透未來的「水晶球」，但我可以非常肯定的跟大家講出香港如果不按實際市場變化相應調整政策。未來幾年不但法律界、審計會計、甚至金融服務、資訊科技、會議展覽業界也會受到嚴重衝擊。 簡單講，如果香港沒有零售虛擬資產交易，香港就非常缺乏空間留給熟悉區塊鏈技術的人才發揮。 如果他們選擇移民到新加坡、英國甚至迪拜等地方，在此消彼長的情況下，香港憑什麼去「搶」人才？ 雖然香港要發展虛擬資產交易仍然存在十分多棘手問題，但當政府終於意識到壓抑發展產生的問題大於面對發展的時候，我們就必須做出正確的決定了。「蘇州過後」還有艇接我們的下一代到元宇宙發展嗎？
原文刊登於2022年10月17日明報財經
Financial Secretary Paul Chan has just made a high-profile statement about his intention to build Hong Kong as an international virtual asset center. I hope we do remember that when Alibaba was forced to change their plan to list on the New York Stock Exchange, many other technology companies also altered their plan and left Hong Kong. When Hong Kong lost this very active listing segment, other industries followed. Lawyers, accountants, auditors, secretarial firms, etc. were also under pressure from the waning market. Hong Kong had to use the attitude of "today’s self beats yesterday’s self" to amend the regulations to accept the weighted voting right model and ask Alibaba to return to Hong Kong for listing.
The government’s handling of the virtual asset trading market lately is very much in line with the way it handled the last hindsight incident in the traditional IPO market. Hong Kong has been a global trading hub for virtual assets since 2015, when virtual currency trading first came to the attention of investors and grew rapidly. When the Mainland cracked down on virtual asset trading in 2017, major exchanges such as Binance and Huobi, which were founded in the Mainland, moved their base from the Mainland to Hong Kong. During the two years from 2017 to 2018, Hong Kong hotels, convention and exhibition venues held large scale virtual asset exhibitions and seminars from time to time, and events related to ICO and STO were very frequent.
However, the social movements in Hong Kong and the subsequent outbreak of the epidemic have forced the suspension of many offline international exchange activities on virtual assets. During the NFT, Web3 and Metaverse boom from 2021 to early 2022, many new projects were launched on the one hand, and many of the world’s leading traditional financial service providers such as PayPal, Visa, Meta, and even many investment banks and internet companies also participated in a high profile manner and launched virtual asset trading activities due to market demands.
Although the fifth wave of the epidemic was still looming over the world, the volume of virtual asset transactions grew rapidly as people were trapped at home and focused more on online activities.
At a time when Hong Kong is facing the worst brain drain in its history, the US-China trade frictions that have led to sanctions by the Western countries, and an epidemic handeling that has not quite kept pace with other international cities, many Hong Kong family offices and investment banks have recently been facing a deeper problem. The issue is that from next March as planned, Hong Kong will introduce legislation requiring institutions to hold or use a VASP-licensed service provider issued by the Securities and Futures Commission before they can provide virtual asset services to their clients. While the legislation is not inappropriate, it is demanding on providers and only allows professional investors to participate. This new policy means that retail virtual currency investors will not be welcome to legally trade in Hong Kong, which is tantamount to shutting out this new industry!
I do not have a crystal ball, but I can tell you with certainty that if Hong Kong does not adjust its policies accordingly to the actual market changes. In the next few years, not only the legal profession, auditing and accounting, but also the financial services, information technology, and convention and exhibition industries will be severely impacted. Simply put, if there is no retail virtual asset trading in Hong Kong, there will be very little room for talents who are familiar with blockchain technology. If they choose to migrate to places like Singapore, the UK or even Dubai, how will Hong Kong be able to "steal" the talents when the situation is so much worse? Although Hong Kong still has a lot of problems in developing virtual asset trading, we have to make the right decision when the government finally realizes that suppressing development creates more problems than facing innovation. How can we miss again this very last chance to take our next generation to the Metaverse?
