歐洲銀行正分秒必爭，力求達成 歐盟加密資產市場規則 (MiCA) 下的新加密託管要求。到 2026 年，凡是持有或交易數位資產的銀行，都必須展現嚴密安全措施——包括客戶密鑰隔離、不可竄改的稽核紀錄，以及因應加密風險的適足資本緩衝。這些「託管測試」成為挑戰：傳統銀行要如何將加密業務融入現有運營，而不需全面翻新核心系統？
好消息是，銀行無需從頭打造新輪子。多種鏈抽象解決方案，讓 MiCA 合規體驗如同安裝外掛程式，而非全面重建。這些方案屏蔽區塊鏈複雜度，使銀行能安全、無縫地將加密資產整合進傳統資產管理體系。
不僅歐洲因 MiCA 標準化推進這種策略，全球範圍內也在逐步興起——例如，巴塞爾新指引對無避險加密曝險提出嚴格資本要求，同時鼓勵託管服務。以下將剖析五大鏈抽象策略，協助銀行順利通過 MiCA 託管要求，自信迎向加密時代。
1. 採用多鏈抽象中樞與 API
加密宇宙的碎片化——不同區塊鏈、協議、錢包、交易格式——是銀行面臨的主要障礙。銀行不必各自連接所有網路，而可選用多鏈抽象中樞，成為統一進入多條區塊鏈的閘口。這些中樞提供單一界面（或 API），讓銀行得以跨多分布式帳本操作，並屏蔽每條鏈的特殊規則。
何謂鏈抽象中樞？ 它本質上是「中介軟體」，能讓銀行不必分別管理每條鏈的託管、交易支付與連線端點。例如，Centrifuge 與 Wormhole 在 2025 年推出的平台，實現「完整鏈抽象及統一管理界面」，供資產管理者於任意區塊鏈高效操作。使用該平台可跨以太坊、Solana 等鏈互動，無須手動處理多個錢包或原生代幣手續費，系統底層自動處理各鏈操作，機構無需新建基礎設施即可支援新型通證資產。
實際案例： 全球財務訊息網絡 SWIFT 近期證明，抽象層如何有效協助機構。在與 Chainlink 跨鏈互通協議實驗中，SWIFT 展現「單一入口」即可讓通證資產在多條公私有鏈流轉。Chainlink 作為 SWIFT 企業級抽象層，連結既有安全網絡至如以太坊等區塊鏈，訊息與資產順暢跨鏈。換言之，鏈接至 SWIFT 的銀行可經一個整合對接無數區塊鏈，如同辦理跨境法幣操作。如此大幅降低營運負擔，銀行無須為每新增帳本開發維護專屬介接，只需善用中樞連繫力。正如 SWIFT 創新主管所言，互通性才是關鍵：機構要「連結整個金融生態」，無需為每座平台承擔「龐大營運挑戰與投資」。
合規優勢： 抽象中樞不僅便利，還能優化合規與管控。透過統一平台處理所有區塊鏈互動，銀行能匯集加密操作的完整稽核紀錄。每筆經中樞執行的鍊上交易皆可集中留存，方便產出 MiCA 所要求、5 ~ 7 年內不可篡改的詳細紀錄。中樞亦能在所有鏈上統一採用安全規範（如白名單地址、基於權限的審批、訊息簽署政策），確保風險控管全面覆蓋，不會有孤島漏洞。實質上，中樞成為銀行 IT 架構的一部分，可指定相同存取與監控權限，遠勝於各自為政的鏈上專案，容易治理管理。
全球應用： 多鏈整合方案雖源於歐洲 MiCA 驅動，卻全球皆適用。美國和亞洲金融機構同樣試點「加密中樞」以整合多個通證網絡。舉例來說，多家銀行已參與互通網（如 Canton Network 或 Polkadot 聯盟）試點，橫跨多元平台管理通證化資產。採用中樞輻射模式，全球銀行無需重建核心系統，即可迅速擴增數位資產服務。此策略切合監管思維：主管機關偏好延用現有架構做新技術模組化疊加，而非將銀行業系統倉促遷往全新高風險架構。
總結來說，抽象中樞讓加密整合化繁為簡。銀行只需一條安全連線，即能啟用公鏈創新服務——從 DeFi 到通證化證券——同時維持一致安全機制。隨著加密市場演化（新鏈持續湧現），提早布建這類彈性裝置的銀行將更輕鬆因應 MiCA 的託管與揭露要求，同步拓展可對客戶提供的服務。所謂「不必重建，而應重塑」：透過 API 層處理多鏈整合的繁雜工夫，銀行便能平穩通過監管檢驗與服務轉型。
2. 用 MPC 保險庫實現密鑰安全託管
加密託管的核心是私鑰管理——這些加密密碼直接控制數位資產。MiCA 對防範加密資產遺失或竊取極為重視，最根本就是以強健託管控管密鑰安全。銀行同時必須確保客戶密鑰分隔（不得以同一鑰匙池集中多名客戶資產），並有明確授權審批流程。機構界廣泛採納的一項前沿方案是多方計算（MPC）保險庫，這項技術可極大提高鑰匙安全與營運合規。
何謂 MPC 保險庫？ 多方計算是一種密碼學技術，讓私鑰永遠不會儲存在單一處所。相反，私鑰被分割為多個「份額」分散於不同方或伺服器。任何一方都無法獲得整組鑰匙；交易須藉協同演算利用這些份額而無需將它們合併為完整私鑰。實務上，銀行可把鑰匙份額分散於例如內部伺服器、雲端 HSM（硬體安全模組）、及受信賴的第三方託管。駭客或內部人員若要盜竊資產，必須同時攻陷所有獨立持份，比竊得單一鑰匙難度高得多。
MPC 為何徹底改變機構遊戲規則： 傳統多重簽章（multisig）方案要求多隻完整私鑰授權交易，但這仍讓每名簽署人暴露完整私鑰，風險未解。MPC 則更為鏈無關且安全——任何時刻皆無完整私鑰出現在任何一地，而授權方可協作簽署交易，大幅拋開單點失效困境。即便某一份額遭入侵也毫無用處。銀行大大歡迎，因其可於數位世界實現如銀行「四眼原則」等內部規範——例如，要求三個獨立部門（各持一份額）共同核准，任何一部門皆不能單獨動用資金。
合規與稽核優勢： 基於 MPC 的託管不僅更安全，也最契合合規與紀錄保存需求。每筆交易需多方合作，有細緻審批紀錄：每次交易發起，系統會記錄參與的份額——也即對應授權人／機器。這些稽核紀錄完整且防竄改，讓監管、合規團隊精確掌握每筆加密交易的「何人、何事、何時」。實質上，MPC 創造出不可變更、細緻的內部審批帳本，正好切合 MiCA 對於加密資產交易和操作全程紀錄的規定。銀行需長年保存一致紀錄，且紀錄越自動詳盡越易隨時交付合規審查。
MPC 解決方案還能將政策控管直接整合於託管系統。例如，MPC 錢包平台可規定高於某金額的交易必須額外經更高層主管或風控人員持份額聯署。常與即時監控和風險檢查集成——如地理限制：若某份額來自未授權位置即禁用簽章，或異常交易次數則要求額外離線授權。這類控管可集中更新，毋需更動區塊鏈底層金鑰，靈活覆蓋所有後續合規需求。由於私鑰份額從不會重新合成， sensitive operations can be paused or intercepted by compliance software mid-process, if needed, without exposing the full keys. This granular control and visibility is simply not possible with a single custodian key or even basic multi-sig, and it’s a strong reason institutions prefer MPC over older methods for large-scale custody.
敏感操作如有需要，可以在過程中由合規軟體暫停或介入，而無需暴露完整密鑰。這種細緻的控制與可視性，是單一保管密鑰或基礎多重簽名所無法實現的，也是機構在大規模託管時偏好MPC而棄用舊有方式的重要原因。
Segregation of assets: MPC also helps with client asset segregation, a core MiCA principle. Rather than holding a giant omnibus wallet for all clients (which would be a nightmare to legally and technically segregate), a bank can establish separate MPC vaults for each client or even each account. Because creating new key shares is software-defined (not costly like setting up new hardware wallets), a bank can give each customer their own segregated vault with unique key shares controlling it. Yet the bank’s operations team can manage all these vaults from one interface, since the complexity of key management is abstracted away by the MPC coordinator. The result is each client’s assets are walled off in terms of cryptographic control (no co-mingling of keys), which is exactly what MiCA’s custody rules seek to ensure. In the event of a bankruptcy or hack, that segregation makes it clear which assets belong to customers, and the risk of one compromised key affecting others is minimized.
資產隔離：MPC同時有助於實現客戶資產隔離，這是MiCA的核心原則。不必將所有客戶的資產集中於單一團體錢包（這在法律及技術上都極難切割隔離），銀行可為每位客戶，甚至每個帳戶，建立獨立的MPC金庫。由於新密鑰分片是軟體定義（不像設置新硬體錢包那麼昂貴），銀行可以為每一位客戶提供專屬隔離的金庫並分配獨特的密鑰分片，同時營運團隊仍可透過一組介面管理所有金庫，因為密鑰管理的複雜性已由MPC協調器抽象化。這樣每位客戶的資產在密碼學層面上都被隔離控管（無密鑰混用），完全呼應MiCA對託管的要求。若發生破產或駭客事件，這種隔離能夠清楚區分哪些資產屬於客戶，也能將單一密鑰泄露產生的風險降到最低。
Industry adoption: Recognizing these benefits, banks and custodians across the globe are rapidly adopting MPC. Europe’s emerging crypto custodians, like Vaultody, have built their platforms around MPC to meet stringent compliance needs. Vaultody notes that MPC enables “advanced policy rules, granular access controls, and real-time reporting” without ever exposing the full private key. In the U.S., Bank of New York Mellon – the world’s largest traditional custodian – partnered with Fireblocks, an MPC-based crypto custody provider, to launch its digital asset custody offering. Many other large custodians and fintechs (Coinbase Custody, Gemini, Copper, etc.) have incorporated MPC to secure billions in crypto assets for institutional clients. This broad adoption is a testament to MPC’s maturity and trustworthiness. Regulators, too, are comforted by MPC’s track record: there have been far fewer incidents of theft or loss on MPC-managed wallets compared to early single-key wallets, which underpins confidence that banks using MPC can keep client assets safe.
產業採用：各地銀行和託管機構看準這些優勢，正加速導入MPC。歐洲的新興加密託管業者如Vaultody，即以MPC作為平台核心來滿足嚴格合規需求。Vaultody指出，MPC可實現「進階政策規則、細緻的存取控制及即時通報」，且不需暴露完整私鑰。在美國，全球最大傳統託管行紐約梅隆銀行，與基於MPC的加密託管服務商Fireblocks合作，推出數位資產託管業務。其他大型託管機構及金融科技公司（如Coinbase Custody、Gemini、Copper等）也都導入MPC，為機構客戶加密資產的安全把關，規模達數十億美元。這種廣泛採用顯示MPC技術已經成熟且值得信賴。監管機構也認同MPC過去的紀錄：相比早期單一密鑰錢包，MPC託管錢包的失竊和遺失事件明顯減少，這鞏固了對銀行使用MPC託管客戶資產的信心。
In summary, MPC vaulting is a quintessential “plug-in” upgrade for any bank venturing into crypto custody. It doesn’t alter the nature of blockchain transactions – those remain the same – but it wraps the key management process in a fortress of distributed trust. By doing so, it directly addresses MiCA’s custody tests around security, segregation, and auditability. A bank can integrate an MPC custody platform into its workflow (often via API or software appliance), instantly leveling-up its crypto custody resilience to meet regulatory expectations. The result is a win-win: enhanced protection for customers (and the bank’s reputation) and a clear compliance paper trail that regulators can follow, all achieved without ripping out or replacing the bank’s existing IT systems for approvals and record-keeping.
總結來說，MPC金庫堪稱是銀行踏足加密託管領域時的「即插即用」升級。它並不改變區塊鏈交易本質，但將密鑰管理程序包覆在分散信任的堡壘中。這讓銀行直接符合MiCA對託管在安全性、隔離性和可稽核性的要求。銀行能將MPC平台整合到現有工作流程（通常透過API或軟體方案），立刻提升加密託管的韌性以滿足監管需求。最終實現雙贏：一方面增強客戶資產與銀行聲譽的保障，另一方面創造一條明確的合規稽核軌跡，讓監管單位可追蹤，而且不必大幅翻修或取代既有的IT審批與紀錄系統。
3. Adopting Dual-Rail Settlement Systems in Parallel
In the rush to adopt blockchain, banks don’t have to throw out decades of infrastructure that currently keep traditional assets moving. In fact, regulators and central banks often prefer a cautious approach where new blockchain-based systems run in parallel with legacy systems – what we can call a “dual-rail” settlement approach. Think of it as running two tracks side by side: one track is the traditional ledger (core banking system, RTGS payment network, or centralized securities depository), and the other track is a blockchain or distributed ledger where tokenized assets are settled. Both rails operate concurrently, with bridges between them, giving banks the flexibility to use either or both as needed.
3. 並行採用雙軌結算系統
在加速採用區塊鏈的浪潮中，銀行其實不需捨棄過去數十年維繫傳統資產運轉的基礎設備。事實上，監管機構和央行往往更傾向審慎作法，即讓區塊鏈新系統與舊系統並行運作，這種策略便是所謂的「雙軌（dual-rail）」結算模式。可以想像成兩條鐵道並排運行：一條是傳統帳本（核心銀行系統、RTGS支付網絡、集中式證券保管所），另一條則是以區塊鏈或分散式帳本為載體，進行權益代幣結算。兩軌並行，設有橋梁串聯，銀行可依實際需求靈活採用任一或同時兩者。
How dual-rail works: Rather than an abrupt migration to on-chain processing, a bank implements a DLT platform alongside its existing databases. For example, consider interbank payments: under a dual-rail model, a bank could have a tokenized deposit system where customers’ deposits are mirrored as tokens on a blockchain. This would sit alongside the conventional account database. Payments could then be settled either by traditional means (debiting/crediting accounts in the core banking system) or by transferring the deposit-tokens on the blockchain rail, depending on which is more efficient or available. The critical part is there’s a synchronization layer ensuring that if a token moves on the DLT rail, the corresponding balance on the legacy system is adjusted (and vice versa). In securities, similarly, a bank might keep a traditional custody book but also use a blockchain-based platform like the SIX Digital Exchange (SDX) for certain tokenized securities – with mechanisms to ensure assets can be transferred between the old and new system without discrepancy.
雙軌的運作方式：這不是一次性的鏈上搬遷，而是銀行將DLT平台與現有資料庫並行運作。例如在銀行間支付中，雙軌模型下，銀行可以設置一個代幣化存款系統，讓客戶的存款被映射為區塊鏈上的代幣，同步存在於傳統帳戶資料庫。支付結算時，銀行可根據效率或可用性，選擇用傳統方式（在核心銀行系統中記帳）或將代幣於區塊鏈上轉移。重點是有同步層，確保當代幣在區塊鏈軌移動時，舊系統上的相應餘額也能更新，反之亦然。在證券領域，銀行可能同時保有傳統託管帳冊，也可利用類似SIX Digital Exchange（SDX）這類區塊鏈平台來管理部份代幣化證券，設計轉換機制以確保資產可在新舊系統間無誤流轉。
Regulatory comfort through redundancy: This approach directly addresses regulator concerns about going “all-in” on a new tech. For instance, the Bank of England explicitly floated a dual-rail strategy in a 2024 discussion, suggesting wholesale tokenized money could “sit alongside RTGS balances”, letting banks choose whichever rail best meets their needs. In practice, that means if the blockchain network were to have an outage or if a smart contract behaved unexpectedly, the bank could fall back to the tried-and-true RTGS system to settle transactions. Conversely, if the legacy system is slow (say, it’s outside working hours and RTGS is closed), the token rail might be used for instant atomic settlement. Having both options increases resilience. Japan, in its digital yen pilot, is likewise building a full conventional backup for every blockchain function to guard against glitches. MiCA doesn’t mandate how a firm uses technology; it sets outcomes like reliable service, accurate records, and asset safeguarding. Dual-rail designs help achieve those outcomes by backing up one system with another, thereby greatly reducing the risk of any single point of failure – a key consideration under operational resilience rules (in Europe, the DORA regulation also emphasizes this kind of resilience).
冗餘設計帶來監管信心：這種架構直接回應監管機構對「全押新技術」的疑慮。舉例來說，英國央行於2024年公開討論雙軌策略，建議大額代幣化貨幣可以「與RTGS餘額並存」，讓銀行根據需求靈活選擇通路。實務上，若區塊鏈網路當機或智能合約意外行為發生，銀行可退回傳統RTGS系統繼續結算；反之，若舊系統過慢（例：非上班時間、RTGS關閉），也可臨時用代幣軌道實現即時、原子級結算。雙軌選項提升系統韌性。日本數位日圓試點亦為每一區塊鏈功能建立完整的傳統備援，以防突發狀況。MiCA並未規定必用哪種技術，而是要求結果，包括服務穩定、紀錄正確、及確保資產安全。雙軌設計正可實現這些目標，以一軌備份另一軌，大幅降低單點故障風險——這也是歐洲DORA營運韌性規則強調的重點。
Audit trails and legal certainty: Another big benefit of dual systems is the ability to cross-verify records. When every transaction happens on a blockchain and is reflected in a traditional database, you create two synchronized ledgers. This can simplify auditing and reconciliation. If there’s ever a discrepancy, the bank can investigate the differences between the rails. In fact, during this transitional era, many jurisdictions require a “golden record” off-chain even for on-chain transactions. For example, a tokenized bond trade might be settled on blockchain, but the definitive legal record could still be an entry in a centralized depository or a PDF confirmation stored traditionally. By running dual rails, a bank can comply with such legal requirements effortlessly: every token movement automatically updates the off-chain record which remains the legally recognized source. MiCA itself hints at this in spirit – it treats crypto custody in line with traditional custody concepts, implying that regulators expect continuity in how records are kept and how ownership is evidenced, even if a blockchain is involved. Dual-rail setups give that continuity, bridging new tech with old rulebooks.
稽核與法律確定性：雙軌系統另一關鍵優勢是可交互驗證紀錄。當每筆交易既上鏈、也同步於傳統資料庫時，就產生兩組協作帳本，大幅簡化稽核與對帳流程。若發生落差，銀行可對兩軌資料進行核查。事實上，過渡時期許多法域會要求鏈上交易同時保有「離鏈黃金紀錄」，例如一筆代幣化債券買賣在區塊鏈上完成後，最終法律確認紀錄仍可能是集中保管機構的帳冊登載或傳統PDF確認書。透過雙軌，銀行輕鬆滿足這類法律要求——每次代幣移動都會自動同步到離鏈紀錄，那才是法律所認定的最終依據。MiCA精神上也支持這點——其將加密託管比照傳統託管觀念，意味監管方預期即便用到區塊鏈，記錄與產權證明仍需連續延續。雙軌架構恰好讓新科技與舊法規無縫銜接。
Use case – tokenized deposits and CBDC experiments: A concrete example of dual-rail in action is the concept of tokenized commercial bank money. In April 2025, HSBC announced it had settled its first tokenized deposit payment. This likely means HSBC created a digital representation of a customer deposit on a blockchain and transferred it to another party, instead of using the regular interbank payment network. However, HSBC didn’t turn off its regular systems – this was an incremental step. If needed, they could have converted that token back to a normal ledger entry. Similarly, projects like Switzerland’s Project Helvetia and Australia’s Project Dunbar have tested exchanges of assets between traditional RTGS and DLT platforms, effectively using both rails and linking them. Even central bank digital currency pilots often use this approach: the new CBDC runs parallel to cash and existing electronic money, ensuring a smooth coexistence during trial phases.
應用場景——代幣化存款與CBDC實驗：雙軌實務的明確例子就是代幣化商業銀行貨幣。2025年4月，匯豐銀行宣布完成首筆代幣化存款交易，表示匯豐將客戶存款數位化，於區塊鏈上進行轉帳，而非傳統銀行間清算網。惟其既有系統並未關閉，此舉屬於漸進而非突變；有需要時，該代幣仍可轉回正常帳冊記錄。同理，瑞士Project Helvetia與澳洲Project Dunbar等專案也測試在傳統RTGS與DLT平台間互換資產，串接雙軌應用。即使是中央銀行數位貨幣（CBDC）試驗，亦多採並行方式：新CBDC與現金、既有電子貨幣同時運作，確保試行時期系統平順共存。
How this helps MiCA compliance: From a MiCA perspective, dual-rail can be a lifesaver in meeting stringent operational and security standards. MiCA demands that crypto-asset service providers (CASPs, which include banks offering custody or trading) have robust continuity plans and incident management. If a bank’s entire crypto operation is on one blockchain and that chain halts, the bank is in trouble. But if the bank has a parallel rail, it can switch critical processes to that rail, fulfilling its obligations to safeguard clients’ access to their assets. Dual systems also aid in segregation – for example, a bank might dedicate the blockchain rail primarily for client transactions, while keeping its own (proprietary) assets on the traditional systems, or vice versa, making a clear separation between client asset flows and the bank’s funds. This could exceed MiCA’s baseline requirement that client assets be technically and legally segregated from the firm’s own.
如何幫助MiCA合規：就MiCA而言，雙軌架構對於滿足嚴格的營運及安全標準至為關鍵。MiCA要求加密資產服務供應商（CASP，包括提供託管及交易的銀行）需具備強韌的持續營運計劃與事故處理機制。若僅有一條區塊鏈軌道，一旦該鏈停頓整個業務即受影響；但有備用軌道時，即可切換重要作業，確保資產持續可及，履行對客戶保障的責任。雙軌亦有助於隔離：如銀行可以讓區塊鏈軌僅供客戶交易，將自有資產留於傳統系統，或反之，以明確分隔客戶資產與銀行自資金流，甚至超越MiCA對於「技術與法律隔離」的最低門檻要求。
Gradual scalability: Dual-rail strategies also mean banks can scale into crypto gradually, which is practical for meeting compliance milestones. Leading up to the full MiCA compliance deadline (end of 2024 for most provisions), a bank might run a pilot on the secondary rail with a subset of clients or asset types. It can gather data, refine its controls, and demonstrate to regulators how the new rail behaves under stress – all while
漸進式擴展：雙軌策略也意味銀行能循序漸進地進入加密領域，便於逐步達成合規各階段要求。在全面MiCA合規期限（多數規範於2024年底生效）前，銀行可先選定次要軌道，在部分客戶或資產類型上試點，累積數據、優化控管、展示新軌在壓力下的表現，同時……having the safety net of the main rail. By the time MiCA is fully effective (2026 for those with interim exemptions), the bank can show it has a stable integrated environment. Globally, this phased approach aligns with how regulators envision modernization: the BIS (Bank for International Settlements) predicts a phase where financial systems operate in “hybrid models” – essentially dual rails – before full adoption of tokenized systems. During this hybrid phase, compliance can actually be stronger, not weaker, because every transaction goes through double validation (on two systems) and staff are running both legacy and new risk checks in parallel.
擁有主要軌道作為安全網。到了 MiCA 完全生效時（對於臨時豁免者為 2026 年），銀行可以展現其穩定整合的運作環境。放眼全球，這種分階段的方式符合監管機構對現代化的願景：國際清算銀行（BIS）預測，金融系統將會經歷一段「混合模式」（事實上就是雙軌制）運作期，然後才會全面採用代幣化系統。在這個混合階段，合規性事實上有可能比以往更強，而非變弱，因為每一項交易都會同時經過兩個系統的雙重驗證，員工也會同時執行傳統與新系統的風險檢查。
In essence, dual-rail settlement is the epitome of plug-in vs. rebuild. The bank isn’t discarding what works; it’s adding a new capability alongside. This strategy satisfies conservative regulators that innovations aren’t undermining stability, and it gives banks a chance to learn by doing in a controlled way. For the purpose of MiCA custody tests, a dual-rail approach can demonstrate that a bank has belt-and-suspenders control: even if the “belt” (blockchain) were to fail, the “suspenders” (legacy system) prevent a free-fall in asset control or record accuracy. That kind of assurance can go a long way in audits and license applications, showing that the bank is using technology to enhance reliability, not gamble with it.
從本質上說，雙軌結算體現了「外插式融入」而非「徹底重建」。銀行並未捨棄已經行之有效的系統，而是加上一項新能力。這種策略能讓保守的監管機構確認創新並未破壞穩定性，同時讓銀行有機會在受控環境下以實作來學習。對 MiCA 託管測試而言，雙軌制可證明銀行具備「雙重防護」控管：即使「皮帶」（區塊鏈）失效，「吊帶」（傳統系統）也能防止資產控管失靈或紀錄失準。這類保證對於稽核和申請執照起到很大幫助，證明銀行在用科技提升可靠性，而非拿穩健當賭注。
4. Using Tokenized Assets with Standard Identifiers (ISIN “Wrapping”)
4. 以標準識別碼（ISIN「包裹」）使用代幣化資產
One subtle but powerful way to make crypto feel less alien to traditional banking systems is to embed familiar identifiers and standards into tokenized assets. In traditional finance, virtually every financial instrument – stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. – is identified by codes like ISINs (International Securities Identification Numbers), CUSIPs, or SEDOLs. These codes are the backbone of trading, settlement, and custody systems; they enable automation and clear communication about which asset is which. When it comes to digital assets, especially security tokens or any token meant to represent an underlying asset, “wrapping” them with standard identifiers can massively simplify integration into banks’ workflows and compliance processes.
讓加密貨幣對傳統銀行系統而言不再那麼陌生的其中一個隱晦而有力的方式，就是把熟悉的識別碼與標準嵌入代幣化資產中。在傳統金融體系中，幾乎每一項金融商品——無論是股票、債券、基金等等——都透過 ISIN（國際證券識別碼）、CUSIP 或 SEDOL 這類代碼加以識別。這些代碼是交易、結算與託管系統的骨幹，能讓自動化作業與資產溝通變得清晰、可辨。針對數位資產，尤其是證券型代幣或代表底層資產的任何代幣，給予「標準識別碼包裹」能大大簡化其與銀行作業及合規流程的整合。
The concept of token-wrapped ISINs: This essentially means assigning or associating an ISIN (or similar standardized code) to a tokenized asset. For example, if a corporate bond is issued on a blockchain, it can be allocated a traditional ISIN code just like a paper bond would. Or if a crypto asset has characteristics of a security, it could be registered to get an ISIN. The Association of National Numbering Agencies (ANNA), which oversees the ISIN system globally, has already moved in this direction. They introduced a framework for “digital token identifiers” (DTIs) and extended ISINs (XT-ISIN) for digital assets. Over 1,600 tokens have been assigned DTIs under the new system, and ANNA is now rolling out “referential ISINs based on the DTIs, recognized by a new XT prefix.”. In plain language, a cryptocurrency or token can now have an identifier that looks and functions much like the ISINs used for stocks and bonds, bridging the data gap between old and new finance.
所謂「代幣包裹 ISIN」的概念： 這本質上是為一個代幣化資產分配或掛鉤一組 ISIN（或類似的標準化代碼）。舉例來說，如果一檔公司債是在區塊鏈上發行，就能像傳統紙本債券一樣獲得正規 ISIN 編碼。又或者若某加密資產具有證券屬性，也能申請分配 ISIN。全球負責 ISIN 系統的國家編碼機構協會（ANNA）其實已經開始推動這一方向——他們推動了「數位代幣識別碼」（DTI）框架，並為數位資產擴充 ISIN（XT-ISIN）。在新系統下，已有超過 1,600 種代幣被分配 DTI，ANNA 也正推出以 DTI 為基礎的新「參照型 ISIN」（使用 XT 前綴）。通俗來說，如今加密貨幣或代幣可以擁有一組外觀跟作用皆類似於股票、債券 ISIN 的識別碼，彌合新舊金融資料落差。
Why this matters for banks: Think of the operational steps a bank must take to add a new asset type to its custody or trading platform. The asset needs to be recognized in internal systems, risk models, databases, etc. Those systems are often keyed by these standard codes. If a token lacks an ISIN or any standardized reference, everything from booking a trade to reporting positions becomes a custom process. That’s error-prone and costly. On the other hand, if a token has an ISIN code, a bank can slot it into many existing processes with minimal tweaks. A tokenized bond with ISIN “XT1234567890” can be reported to regulators, included in portfolio statements, and risk-weighted using existing software, just as if it were a regular bond – because the systems see a format they recognize. It “reduces friction” and makes tokens more recognizable and trustworthy to institutions, as industry analyses have noted.
為何這對銀行很重要：想像一下，銀行若要將新資產類型導入其託管或交易平台，得先讓資產能在內部作業系統、風險模型、資料庫等被識別，而這些系統幾乎都以標準代碼為主鍵。如果一個代幣缺乏 ISIN 或任何標準參照碼，從交易登帳到部位申報往往就得走客製化流程，既容易出錯也提高成本。反之，只要代幣擁有 ISIN，銀行就能用現有流程稍作調整直接納管。一檔 ISIN「XT1234567890」的代幣化債券能被報給監管單位、列入投資組合報表，也能用現有軟體風險加權，就如同一般債券。因系統能辨識熟悉的格式，這「降低摩擦」，並如產業分析所述，大幅提升代幣之可辨識度與信任度。
From a MiCA compliance standpoint, standard identifiers aid in transparency and reporting. MiCA requires clear documentation for any tokens that qualify as crypto-assets, and it mandates that if a token is a financial instrument (like a tokenized stock), it actually falls under existing securities law (MiFID II) rather than MiCA. In other words, a token that is basically a security must be treated like one. That is much easier to do if it has all the trappings of a security – including an ISIN and inclusion in the normal reference data frameworks. A bank can then apply its standard MiFID compliance checks (e.g. transaction reporting, market abuse monitoring) to that token with minor adjustments, because it appears in the system as just another instrument code.
就 MiCA 合規而言，標準識別有助於資訊透明化與報告。MiCA 要求任何被歸類為加密資產的代幣都要有明確文件，而且規定若代幣屬於金融工具（如代幣化股票），則必須依既有證券法（MiFID II）而非 MiCA 處理。換句話說，凡「本質上為證券」的代幣，就必須以證券角度對待。若能具備完整證券規格——例如 ISIN 及納入標準參照資料架構——這點就容易許多。銀行便可對該代幣施以 MiFID 下既有合規檢查（如交易申報、市場濫用監控），僅需微幅調整，因為它就是系統裡的另一組商品代碼。
Meeting custody tests through standardization: When assets are identified in a standard way, it’s easier to ensure segregation and accurate bookkeeping. For instance, in a custodial ledger, each line item might be an ISIN plus quantity. If a bank holds Bitcoin for clients, Bitcoin itself is not a security, but efforts are underway to also standardize major crypto with identifiers (the ISO 24165 DTI standard covers cryptocurrencies). If Bitcoin has a DTI/ISIN entry in the global database, a bank could theoretically treat each client’s BTC holdings similar to how it treats a foreign currency holding or a commodity, identified by a code. It ensures that client assets are clearly delineated and tracked, helping meet MiCA’s requirement that client holdings are “independently identifiable” at all times. Moreover, having standardized codes might facilitate third-party audits or reconciliations – auditors could see an ISIN/Digital Token ID on statements and independently confirm the asset’s details (like its underlying project, rights, etc.) from an authoritative registry.
標準化有助於託管測試： 資產以標準方式編碼更易於資產分離與帳務正確。例如，在託管台帳上，每一筆明細記錄都即 ISIN 加數量。若銀行託管比特幣給客戶，比特幣本身雖非證券，但業界也正為主流加密貨幣推廣識別碼標準（如 ISO 24165 DTI 標準）。如果比特幣在全球資料庫有 DTI/ISIN 編號，銀行就能把每位客戶的 BTC 存量視同外幣或商品持有，用代碼標示。這可確保客戶資產清楚分開且持續監控，符合 MiCA 所要求「客戶持有需隨時可獨立識別」標準。此外，標準化編碼也有助於第三方稽核或對帳——查核人只需看報表上的 ISIN/數位代幣 ID，就能從官方權威處獨立核實該資產細節（如其底層專案、權利等）。
Cross-border and global alignment: Europe isn’t alone in pushing for this kind of standardization. Regulators worldwide, through IOSCO and other forums, encourage the development of identifiers for digital assets to improve surveillance and risk management. The U.S. SEC has hinted that if crypto tokens are securities, they should be treated as such when it comes to reporting – which implies using CUSIP/ISIN frameworks. In fact, some security token platforms in the U.S. already obtain CUSIPs for the tokens they issue, so that broker-dealers and clearing firms can handle them. The ISO’s DTI initiative that ANNA is part of is global in scope, ensuring that the same token gets one identifier recognized everywhere (much as ISINs are international). When banks adopt these identifiers, they are future-proofing their operations for a world where digital and traditional assets converge.
跨境與全球接軌： 歐洲非唯一推動這類標準化的地區。全球監管機構，包括 IOSCO 等組織，皆鼓勵建立數位資產識別碼以利監理與風險管理。美國證管會（SEC）也曾暗示，若加密代幣屬於證券，報告時就應以證券對待——這隱含須採用 CUSIP/ISIN 框架。事實上，美國已有部分證券型代幣平台為其所發行代幣申請 CUSIP，好讓經紀商、清算機構能納管。ANNA 參與的 ISO DTI 計劃具全球視野，保證同一代幣會有一組全球皆認可的識別碼（正如 ISIN 具國際性）。銀行採用這些標準碼，即為日後數位資產與傳統資產融合預作準備。
Example – tokenized bond with ISIN: Suppose a European investment bank helps issue a bond on a blockchain under the EU’s DLT Pilot regime (a sandbox for trading security tokens). By assigning that bond token an ISIN, the bank can custody it for clients just as it would any bond. The client’s portfolio statement might list “Bond X 5% 2030 – ISIN: XT0000ABCDE1 – holding: 100 tokens”. From a client perspective and a regulator perspective, this is clear and familiar. The bank’s internal risk models see “Bond X” with its ISIN and can apply the usual calculations for credit risk, etc. There’s no ambiguity that could lead to errors in capital calculations or compliance reports. This is crucial for capital buffers as well – under banking rules (Basel III), the risk weight of an asset often depends on its type (sovereign bond vs. corporate, etc.). If a token lacks classification, a bank might be forced to treat it as high-risk due to uncertainty. With an ISIN and associated data, the bank can slot it into the correct risk category (perhaps even a lower risk bucket if it’s a high-quality bond), thereby optimizing capital usage while still complying fully.
範例－帶有 ISIN 的代幣化債券： 假設一間歐洲投資銀行協助在區塊鏈上發行債券，並採用歐盟 DLT Sandbox 計劃（針對證券型代幣交易的沙盒），假如該債券代幣指定有 ISIN，則銀行就可如同一般債券般為客戶託管。客戶投資組合報表上可能會列為「Bond X 5% 2030 – ISIN: XT0000ABCDE1 – 持有：100 單位」。對客戶和監管者而言這格式清楚且熟悉。銀行內部風險模型也能識別「Bond X」並套用既有信用風險計算，不會產生模糊地帶導致資本計算或合規報告誤差。這對資本緩衝也很關鍵——根據銀行業（巴塞爾 III）規範，資產風險權重很大程度取決於資產類型（如國債或企業債等）。若代幣缺乏歸類，銀行可能被迫將其歸入高風險資產。藉助 ISIN 與相關資訊，銀行即能妥善分類（如果是高品質債券也許還能納入較低風險桶），讓資本運用最佳化又能符合法規。
Plug-in rather than rebuild: Incorporating standard identifiers is perhaps the lowest-hanging fruit among our strategies, but its impact is big. It’s largely a matter of updating reference data and software to recognize the new codes – a far cry from designing new systems from scratch to track blockchain transactions. Most core banking and custody software can be updated (or may already be updated by vendors) to include the new identifier schemas for digital assets. Once that’s done, everything else – accounting, client reporting, regulatory filings – can include crypto holdings in the same breath as traditional holdings. This makes MiCA compliance (which will require periodic reports on crypto asset exposures, for instance) much simpler to integrate into the bank’s existing regulatory reporting engine. Instead of creating a parallel reporting process for “crypto stuff,” the bank can generate one unified report of all assets, since everything is tagged in a common language of ISINs and financial instrument codes.
外插而非重建： 將標準識別碼納入，可能是所有策略中門檻最低但效用極高的一項。大致只需更新資料參照與軟體設定，使其能辨識新代碼，遠比從零設計追蹤區塊鏈交易系統輕鬆。多數核心銀行與託管軟體都能更新（甚至已有廠商先行），支援數位資產識別碼結構。這步完成後，會計、客戶報表及監管申報等作業，都能把加密資產與傳統資產同時編入處理。如此一來，即便 MiCA 日後規定必須對加密資產曝險定期報告，也可輕鬆融入既有監管報表引擎。銀行無須為「加密業務」另設一套報告流程，只要一份涵蓋所有資產的統一報告，因為一切都以 ISIN 與金融商品碼的通用語言劃歸。
In summary, token-wrapped ISINs and standard identifiers act like an adaptor between the new world and the old. They allow banks to treat tokens not as exotic aliens but as just another entry in the ledger – one that existing systems can comprehend. For meeting regulatory tests, this drastically cuts down on ambiguity and manual intervention. The bank’s compliance officers can more easily certify that “Asset A in our custody = Asset A reported to regulators,” because they’re using the same naming conventions and IDs regulators expect. It’s a strategy that may not grab headlines, but quietly, it builds a foundation of clarity, consistency, and compatibility that any compliance reviewer will appreciate.
總結來說，使用「代幣包裹 ISIN」及標準識別碼，便如搭起了新舊金融之間的轉接頭。銀行可將代幣不再當作陌生異類，而是帳上可清楚識別的一筆資產，現有系統都能理解。面對監管測試，這能大大降低模糊地帶與人工介入。合規人員也更易確保「我行託管資產 A = 向主管機關申報資產 A」——彼此用的命名規範與 ID 都是監管機構認可的通用標記。這策略雖然不會搶頭條，卻默默為合規者建立了清楚、一致、相容的穩固地基。
5. Leveraging Custody Tech Partnerships and Turnkey Solutions
5. 導入託管科技合作與一站式解決方案
Perhaps the most straightforward way for banks to accelerate their MiCA readiness is by partnering with specialist fintech providers that
也許銀行最直接加快 MiCA 合規部署的方式，就是與專業金融科技供應商建立合作......offer turnkey digital asset infrastructure. Over the past few years, a number of technology firms – from well-funded startups to spin-offs of established custodians – have built secure, compliant crypto custody platforms. Instead of building everything in-house (which can take years and considerable expertise), banks can integrate these pre-built solutions or even white-label them, effectively outsourcing the heavy lifting of blockchain custody while retaining control over their client relationships.
提供一站式數位資產基礎設施。過去幾年來，許多科技公司——從資金充足的新創企業到老牌託管機構的分支——都已建立了安全且合規的加密資產託管平台。銀行無需從零開始自行建構（這可能需時多年且需大量專業知識），而是可以整合這些預先建好的解決方案，甚至以白牌方式導入，有效將區塊鏈託管的繁瑣工作外包，同時仍能掌控他們的客戶關係。
The rise of custody-as-a-service: Recognizing the opportunity, fintech companies like Fireblocks, Metaco, Copper, Taurus, and others have developed platforms that do everything from key management (often using MPC, as discussed) and transaction handling to compliance monitoring for digital assets. Banks can deploy these as on-premise appliances or cloud services, and connect them to their core banking systems via APIs. For example, Fireblocks provides a secure wallet infrastructure that connects to dozens of blockchains and liquidity providers, accessible through one integration. Metaco’s platform (called Harmonize) is designed to integrate with a bank’s existing custody core, enabling the bank to “store, issue and settle security tokens alongside traditional assets” in one system.
託管即服務的興起：看準這個機會，像 Fireblocks、Metaco、Copper、Taurus 等金融科技公司，開發出涵蓋金鑰管理（通常運用前述的MPC多方計算）、交易處理乃至數位資產合規監控等全方位的平台。銀行可以選擇將這些解決方案部署在自家機房或者雲端服務，並透過 API 與核心銀行系統串接。例如，Fireblocks 提供一個安全錢包基礎設施，只需單一整合便能連接數十條公鏈及流動性供應商；Metaco 的平台（Harmonize）則設計用來與銀行現有的託管核心系統整合，使銀行能夠「在同一系統內同時儲存、發行及結算安全型代幣與傳統資產」。
Major banks are already taking this route. BNP Paribas Securities Services, one of Europe’s largest custodians, publicly announced that to build out its digital asset custody, it “selected two major fintechs – Fireblocks and METACO” rather than starting from scratch. Fireblocks tech was used in a live experiment where BNP Paribas helped issue a tokenized bond on Ethereum, demonstrating the viability of the solution. Meanwhile, Metaco’s software will be integrated into BNP’s core custody platform to allow managing crypto and traditional assets side by side. The goal BNP stated was to “offer our clients a single view of all these different types of assets for complete transparency, greater operational efficiency and risk management”, ultimately providing “full connectivity across traditional and digital assets” on a “multi-asset, multi-provider platform”. In plain terms, BNP Paribas is plugging in modules from specialized providers to upgrade its existing systems into a crypto-ready state – a clear plug-in strategy in line with our theme.
大型銀行已經走上這條路。例如，歐洲最大託管機構之一的法國巴黎銀行證券服務公開宣布，他們在發展數位資產託管時，「選擇了兩大金融科技公司 —— Fireblocks 和 METACO」，而不是從零開始自行開發。BNP 曾在一次實驗中利用 Fireblocks 技術協助在以太坊上發行代幣化債券，證明該方案可行。與此同時，Metaco 的軟體將整合進 BNP 核心託管平台，使其能同步管理加密資產與傳統資產。BNP 指出的目標，是「為我們的客戶提供對所有類型資產的單一視角，實現完全透明、更高營運效率及風險控管」，最終在「多資產、多供應商平台」上實現「傳統與數位資產的全面連通」。簡單來說，法國巴黎銀行正以外掛模組的方式，引進專業供應商的方案升級既有系統，使其具備加密資產即用能力——正好印證我們討論的外掛策略。
Faster compliance and deployment: By partnering with established crypto custody providers, banks inherit a lot of built-in compliance features. These providers have often already undergone security audits, cryptoasset insurance arrangements, and even regulatory approvals in some cases (for instance, some are registered as CASPs or have SOC2 certifications for operational security). This means a bank can be more confident in meeting MiCA’s stringent authorization requirements (which include demonstrating technological and operational capability) by citing the proven solution they’ve integrated. Rather than the bank having to explain its self-built cryptographic key storage to regulators, it can show that it uses a vendor like Fireblocks, which is known to use industry best-practice MPC, has auditable trails and policies, and perhaps is used by dozens of other compliant institutions. It essentially leverages collective knowledge – the vendor’s platform is shaped by working with many clients and often already addresses common regulatory concerns (such as role-based access, transaction whitelisting, and separation of duties).
更快合規、更快上線：透過與成熟加密託管服務供應商合作，銀行自然繼承了大量內建的合規功能。這些供應商通常已經經過資安稽核、安排加密資產保險，甚至在某些情況下取得監管機構的批准（例如有些已註冊為 CASP 或取得 SOC2 運營安全認證）。這代表銀行能更有把握滿足 MiCA 嚴格的核准要求（包括證明技術與運營能力），可直接引用其整合的成熟方案。銀行無需向監管機構解釋自製金鑰儲存系統，而可說明其採用如 Fireblocks 等知名的第三方方案——這些解決方案以產業最佳實踐（如MPC）著名，具備可稽核的記錄及政策，往往也已被其他合規機構大量採用。本質上，這就是善用集體智慧——供應商的平台是與無數客戶合作磨練而成，很多常見的監管問題（如角色設定、交易白名單、權責分離）早已內建並完善解決。
From a time-to-market perspective, this is invaluable. MiCA’s clock is ticking – by the end of 2024 all crypto custody providers (including banks) in the EU need to be compliant, or at least well on the way if they are transitioning under the grace period to 2026. A bank that started today to build a fully in-house custody solution might struggle to meet that timeline, whereas partnering allows it to hit the ground running. For example, when BNY Mellon decided to offer crypto custody, it reportedly did so by using Fireblocks technology and was able to launch the service relatively quickly. Similarly, Standard Chartered partnered via its venture Zodia Custody (developed with Northern Trust) to handle the technical side, and Société Générale launched its Forge platform but still uses or collaborates with tech providers for certain functions.
從市場時效角度來看，這種策略極具價值。MiCA 施行時間表已經啟動——2024年底前，歐盟所有加密託管供應商（包括銀行）都必須合規，過渡期則最晚到 2026 年。若銀行今天開始獨立自建完整託管系統，時間上大概率來不及，反之與外部合作則能直接啟動服務。例如 BNY Mellon 決定提供加密託管時，據稱正是藉由使用 Fireblocks 技術，得以相對快速推出服務。同樣，渣打銀行通過與 Northern Trust 合資成立的 Zodia Custody 處理技術層，法國興業銀行推出 Forge 平台但若干功能仍靠第三方或合作供應商。
Integration and plug-in nature: These partnerships are designed to integrate smoothly. Many custody tech platforms offer APIs and SDKs that banks can use to integrate with existing customer channels (like online banking apps or trading interfaces). So a bank’s client might not even know that behind the scenes the crypto wallet is powered by a third-party platform – they just see it as another account in their banking app. The bank, meanwhile, manages that wallet through a console that enforces the bank’s policies and limits. Importantly, the best providers allow customization to the bank’s needs. For instance, a bank can set up its organizational structure in the platform – say, traders can initiate transactions but require approval from operations for large amounts, etc., reflecting the bank’s internal controls. This mirrors how banks already operate with, e.g., SWIFT payments (where one team enters a payment, another approves). The difference is the tech provider has already built the base system, so the bank only configures rules rather than coding them from the ground up.
整合與外掛特性： 這些合作設計成可以順暢整合。許多託管技術平台都提供 API、SDK，讓銀行能將其接入自己既有的客戶渠道（比如網銀 App、交易介面）。因此，銀行客戶可能完全不知背後的加密錢包是第三方平台，只覺得又多了一個新帳戶在銀行 App 裡。銀行則透過控制台來管理該錢包，執行銀行自訂政策與額度審核。關鍵是，頂尖供應商通常允許銀行客製化設定。例如，銀行可在平台上建構自家組織結構——如交易員能發起交易，但大額需運營部門批准，完整反映銀行內部風控流程。這正如銀行處理 SWIFT 付款（某部門輸入，另一部門核可），差別只是技術供應商早已搭好基礎，銀行只需設定規則，無需從頭寫程式碼。
Another angle is white-label offerings. Some fintechs allow banks to operate under the bank’s own branding but use the fintech’s custody infrastructure in the backend. This can extend to other services beyond custody, like brokerage or staking, but within the scope of MiCA, custody is the focus. If a white-label custody solution is already MiCA-compliant as a service, a bank basically inherits that compliance (though the bank still bears regulatory responsibility to supervise the provider). MiCA does allow outsourcing of certain functions, as long as the CASP (bank) ensures the outsourced provider meets the rules. So banks are documenting their vendor due diligence, but regulators are likely comforted seeing known names in the vendor list.
另一個角度是白牌解決方案。有些金融科技公司允許銀行以自有品牌經營，但後台其實是用該金融科技公司的託管基礎設施。這種白牌合作甚至可延伸到託管以外的服務（如經紀、質押），但 MiCA 聚焦的核心仍是託管。如果白牌託管服務本來就合乎 MiCA，銀行等同直接承接合規認證（雖然監管責任仍需銀行負責監督供應商）。MiCA 的確允許外包特定職能，只要 CASP（銀行）確保外包方遵守規定。因此銀行會記錄供應商盡職調查，監管機關看到名氣大的供應商名單也會比較放心。
Capital efficiency and risk management: Interestingly, leveraging third-party custody tech can also help with the capital buffer aspect. Under forthcoming Basel rules, as noted earlier, assets held purely in custody (on behalf of clients, without the bank taking exposure) are not subject to the harsh 1250% risk weight that direct crypto holdings would be. By using strong custody solutions, banks can confidently assert that they are not taking those assets onto their own balance sheet (they’re simply safekeeping), which keeps additional capital requirements manageable. Some banks may also choose to insure digital assets in custody against theft (much like a safe deposit box insurance) – often, custody tech providers facilitate connections to insurance underwriters or have insurance baked in. This again helps cover MiCA’s requirement to “safeguard” assets and, in effect, acts as a kind of capital buffer by transferring risk to insurance.
資本效率與風險管理： 有趣的是，善用外部託管科技還能協助解決資本緩衝問題。根據即將上路的巴塞爾新規，單純替客戶保管、銀行未承擔風險的資產，不會被算進嚴格的 1250% 風險權重（這是銀行若直接持有加密資產才會遇到的要求）。銀行運用強健的託管方案時，可以放心聲明這些資產未進入銀行資產負債表（純屬保管），從而將額外資本需求維持在可控範圍。有些銀行還會選擇為託管中的數位資產投保防盜（類似保險箱保單）——通常託管技術供應商能幫助對接保險公司，或本身已內建保險機制。這再度有助銀行符合 MiCA 對「資產保護」的要求，某程度也等同將風險分散至保險公司、間接形成資本緩衝。
Global examples of partnership strategy: Outside Europe, we see similar moves: U.S. Bank partnered with NYDIG to offer Bitcoin custody to its clients, and Australia’s ANZ invested in custody tech rather than building anew. These moves all underscore that handling crypto internally from scratch is not the only way – nor the quickest or safest way – for regulated institutions. As a result, we’re even seeing M&A activity where large financial market infrastructure firms acquire crypto custodians to fold their tech in (for example, Nasdaq was exploring offering crypto custody via acquisitions, and the London Stock Exchange bought a custody tech firm). This trend means banks that haven’t moved yet will find an even more mature vendor market ready to serve them in 2025 and beyond, with plug-and-play modules that meet not just MiCA, but also other regulations (like anti-money-laundering tools, travel rule compliance, etc., included by default).
全球合作策略案例： 不只歐洲如此，全球也有相同趨勢：美國銀行與 NYDIG 合作為客戶託管比特幣，澳洲 ANZ 則選擇投資託管技術而非從零開始重建。這些案例強調，受監管機構不必一定自行從頭開發加密託管——這既不是最快也不是最安全的路。事實上，市場甚至出現金融市場基建巨頭併購加密託管公司的趨勢（如 Nasdaq 探討透過收購提供加密託管，倫敦證交所則直接買下一家託管科技公司）。因此，尚未行動的銀行在 2025 年及以後，將看到一個更成熟的供應商市場，隨時可提供 plug-and-play 模組，不僅滿足 MiCA 要求，也預設含反洗錢、旅遊規則等其他監管配套。
In essence, custody tech partnerships epitomize making compliance a plug-in. The bank combines its strengths (customer trust, regulatory license, balance sheet) with the fintech’s strengths (agile development, crypto-native security, multi-chain support). The outcome is that the bank can offer a compliant crypto custody service with much less internal development, thereby meeting MiCA’s tests. It can focus on developing policies and governance – the areas regulators care deeply about – rather than on the nitty-gritty of writing blockchain integration code. This strategy not only accelerates compliance but can also jump-start the bank’s business in digital assets, since these tech platforms often support a roadmap of features (staking, DeFi access, tokenization) the bank can activate down the line once basic custody is in place. It’s a modular approach: get the core custody plug-in now to pass the regulatory hurdle, and later expand services by simply toggling on additional features from the provider.
本質上，託管科技合作正是將合規「模組化、外掛化」的典範。銀行能把自身優勢（客戶信任、監管牌照、資產負債表）與科技公司的專長（快速開發、原生加密安全、多鏈支援）結合起來，最終低開發負擔就能提供合規的加密託管服務，順利通過 MiCA 關卡。銀行可把重心放在制度規劃與治理（正是監管機關最關心的面向），而非埋頭寫區塊鏈串接程式。這套策略不僅加速合規，也能讓銀行加速開展數位資產新業務。這些科技平台往往已規劃好功能路線圖（如質押、DeFi 接入、資產代幣化等），等基本託管包部署完，就能隨時再打開新功能服務。這是一種模組化流程：先安裝託管核心模組，先過監管門檻，未來只需再啟用廠商的其他外掛就可擴大服務。
Final thoughts
The approaching MiCA regime heralds a new era where banks treating crypto-assets must meet the same rigor and safeguards long expected in traditional finance. The prospect might seem daunting – after all, distributed ledgers and tokens operate on very different rails from the centralized systems banks have honed for decades. However, as we’ve detailed, banks have a toolkit of chain-abstraction strategies at their disposal that can dramatically simplify this convergence. By using multi-chain hubs, they avoid fragmentation and gain one-stop access to the crypto ecosystem with consistent oversight. Through MPC vaulting, they transform key management from a potential single point of failure into a robust distributed process with in-built compliance checks, satisfying both security and audit requirements. With dual-rail settlements, they
最後思考
即將上路的 MiCA 規範預示著一個新時代——銀行在處理加密資產時，必須達到和傳統金融相同的高度審慎與防護標準。這畫面或許令人卻步，畢竟，分散式帳本與代幣的運作方式，和銀行數十年來習慣的集中系統大異其趣。然而，如本文所討論，銀行其實有一套鍊抽象的策略工具，能夠大幅簡化兩者的融合：運用多鏈中樞可避免業務破碎化，一表式接通整個加密生態且持續監管；透過 MPC 金庫，將金鑰管理從單點失效轉化為強健的分散式流程，內建合規檢查，同時滿足安全與稽核需求；再配合雙軌結算機制，銀行就能——smartly balance innovation and continuity, ensuring that new digital asset operations enhance rather than compromise reliability. By standardizing tokens with identifiers that slot into existing databases, they make these assets speak the language of legacy systems and regulators alike. And by partnering with crypto custody specialists, they accelerate their journey, plugging in battle-tested technology instead of spending precious time reinventing it.
聰明地平衡創新與延續性，確保新的數位資產操作是在提升，而不是犧牲可靠性。透過將代幣標準化，並賦予能夠直接整合現有資料庫的識別碼，這些資產得以用現有系統和監管單位都能理解的語言溝通。此外，與加密資產託管專家合作，讓他們可以加速前進，直接導入成熟可靠的技術，而不用花費寶貴的時間從頭打造。
Together, these approaches can make MiCA compliance feel less like a costly IT overhaul and more like adapting a few key components – very much a plug-in paradigm. Importantly, these strategies are not only useful for EU MiCA rules; they position banks to handle the evolving global regulatory landscape. The Basel Committee’s crypto framework (effective 2025) explicitly encourages strong custody practices by not penalizing them with high capital charges, meaning banks worldwide have incentive to build secure custody services. The SEC’s focus on qualified custodians in the US similarly nudges banks to up their custody tech game or partner with those who have it. Chain-abstraction plays give banks a way to meet these expectations efficiently.
結合這些方法，MiCA 合規將不再像是一場昂貴的資訊系統大改造，而更像是調整幾個關鍵元件——真正實現外掛模組式的架構。更重要的是，這些策略不僅適用於歐盟 MiCA 規範，也讓銀行做好面對全球監管趨勢變化的準備。巴塞爾銀行監理委員會的加密資產規範（2025 年生效）明確鼓勵穩健的託管措施，並未對此施加高資本要求，意味著全球銀行都有誘因發展安全的託管服務。美國證管會（SEC）對合格託管人的關注，同樣促使銀行提升自身託管科技或與專業廠商合作。鏈抽象化（chain-abstraction）策略，則讓銀行能有效率地符合這些期待。
In deploying these solutions, banks will find that compliance is not just about avoiding penalties – it can be a springboard to new business models. Once the infrastructure is in place to safely and cleanly handle digital assets, banks can expand offerings to include things like tokenized securities trading, on-chain collateralized lending, or digital currency payments, all within a compliant framework. Those that move early will have an advantage in serving the growing client demand for digital asset services under the trust umbrella of a regulated bank.
在導入這些解決方案的過程中，銀行會發現合規不僅僅是為了規避罰則——它還可以成為新商業模式的跳板。一旦具備能安全、合規處理數位資產的基礎設施，銀行即可拓展服務內容，如代幣化證券交易、鏈上抵押借貸或數位貨幣支付，且全都在合法合規的架構下展開。搶先行動的銀行，將更有優勢滿足客戶對受監管銀行數位資產服務日益增長的需求。
Ultimately, achieving MiCA’s custody standards is a milestone in the broader journey of banking modernization. The five strategies outlined serve a common purpose: they abstract complexity and embed compliance by design. Banks that leverage them will be able to confidently say to regulators and clients, “We can support the innovation of crypto-assets while upholding the safety and integrity you expect from us.” In doing so, they aren’t just passing a test – they’re preparing their institutions for the future of finance, where traditional and crypto rails merge into a stronger, more versatile financial system. The road to 2026 is paved with challenges, but with the right abstractions in place, banks can travel it securely at full speed, rather than crawling with caution. The tools are ready – it’s time to plug in and turn the key on a new chapter of compliant crypto banking.
最終，達成 MiCA 的託管標準不僅是合規，也是銀行現代化進程中的重要里程碑。文中概述的五大策略，有著共同的目的：讓複雜度抽象化，在設計之初就融入合規性。善用這些方法的銀行，可以自信地向監管機關和客戶宣示：「我們既能支持加密資產的創新，也能守住大家對我們安全性與正直性的期待。」這不只是為了及格，而是讓銀行自身為金融未來做好準備——屆時，傳統與加密金融軌道將匯流成一個更強大、靈活的體系。邁向 2026 年的路途中挑戰重重，但有正確的抽象化工具，銀行就能全速前行，而非步步為營。工具已備齊——是時候插上電、開啟合規加密銀行新篇章了。