加密保險 101：如何保護你的錢包、NFT 與 DeFi 持倉

加密貨幣創造了金融新前沿，機會無限——但同時也充滿風險。在過去十年裡，駭客竊取了數十億美元資金自交易所與 DeFi 平台，個人操作失誤造成資產永久損失，甚至軟體漏洞也會引發市場連鎖反應的大規模故障。與傳統銀行存款通常受到政府計畫保險不同，加密資產通常沒有內建安全網。你的幣一旦被盜或智能合約被利用，損失往往只能自行承擔。

這正是加密保險登場的時刻。加密保險是指一系列新興產品，專為數位資產持有人設計，用以對抗盜竊、駭客攻擊、智能合約漏洞及其他加密世界各種突發災難所造成的損失。簡單說，它是將傳統保險（分散風險以減輕災禍財務損失）的精神，帶進區塊鏈與數位代幣的嶄新領域。

隨產業成熟，加密保險需求快速升溫。十年前，想為比特幣等代幣投保幾乎不可能——加密資產的新穎、波動大及曾經發生如 2014 年 Mt. Gox 交易所駭入等駭人聽聞的案子，讓保險公司卻步。但隨著數位資產鎖倉價值飆升至數兆美元並且機構投資者大量進場，對於保障的渴望已大到不能忽視。如今，加密保險規模雖小但成長神速，保費規模已達數億美金，且增速超越整體網路保險產業。然而，以現況估算，僅約 1% 的加密資產投保，遠低於傳統金融大約 7% 的投保比例，呈現出顯著的防護缺口。這既是挑戰，也是機會，促使區塊鏈新創與傳統保險業者爭相創新，設計嶄新解決方案。

在這篇說明文中，我們將深入探討何謂加密保險、其重要性，以及發展演變。將回顧從早期針對交易所的託管保單，到現今去中心化的風險池，歷程轉變。我們將解析加密生態各層面所遭遇的風險——從個人錢包、NFT，到 DeFi 持倉——以及保險如何設計來覆蓋這些威脅。同時對比集中（如 Lloyd’s of London、Coincover 及合規保險業者）與去中心化（如 Nexus Mutual、Risk Harbor 等）提供者的保額範圍、理賠流程及信任度。此外，也會解析主要司法轄區（美國、歐盟、亞洲）在風險揭露及保險要求上的監管新趨勢。最後，本文也評估加密保險目前的核心挑戰——如資本效率問題、預言機風險——並前瞻未來趨勢，例如參數化保單、AI 風險建模、Layer-2 整合與機構參與提升等，這些都有機會重塑這個新興產業。

什麼是加密保險，為何重要

本質上，加密保險是專為數位資產與獨特加密風險量身打造的保險。標準定義為：針對加密貨幣持有人，提供於遭竊、被駭、遺失私鑰等事件時的損失保障的專門保險。實際上有諸多模式。例如，有些保單保障被駭交易所或託管錢包遭竊的比特幣或以太幣，也有產品承保 DeFi 智能合約發生失敗，或保護 NFT，甚至加密礦機等。有一項共通點：就是要將毀滅性損失的風險——如交易所駭入、內賊盜領資金、程式碼嚴重漏洞——從個人或企業轉嫁給保險池。就像汽車保險理賠車禍損失，加密保險能在被盜或毀壞的場合作為經濟補償。

這點為何重要？因為在加密領域，損失通常不可逆。加密交易在區塊鏈上具有最終性；沒有銀行能逆轉詐騙匯款，也無中央機構能歸還被盜幣。如果你的錢包被清空，或所用平台被駭，往往無路可循。這種絕對無情的現實，也讓許多潛在參與者——尤其是機構——裹足不前。保險為投資人提供必要的財務後盾，意味著即使遭遇最壞情況，也有機會回收資產價值。正如一份法規分析所指出，保險是「加密生態中缺失的拼圖」，能給予人們信心，不必擔心資產會一夜蒸發。在缺乏絕對安全（至今還沒有人能做到絕對安全）的情況下，保險是唯一能保障駭客、失誤不致造成全損的辦法。

對一般的加密用戶而言，保險能帶來安心，不必擔心一封網釣信、一個惡意軟體就讓積蓄化為烏有。投資人早已學到，無論是交易所還是個人錢包都可能被攻破。例如 2022 年初，一位 NFT 收藏家就因點擊釣魚連結，損失價值逾 250 萬美元的 Bored Ape NFT。而像 Mt. Gox 崩盤（2014）到 FTX 倒閉（2022）等一連串交易所事故，也讓許多用戶只拿回一點碎銀，甚至血本無歸。此種情況下，一份有效保險可能能救命。雖然目前個人加密保險服務仍有限，Coincover 等業者已開展消費者專屬保障（如個人錢包、NFT 保額上限 10 萬美金）。知道有人會賠付損失，讓新手進入加密市場不再那麼可怕。

對機構參與者而言，加密保險往往是前提。銀行、對沖基金、家族辦公室與企業踏入數位資產領域，通常有受託人責任與風險管理規定，必須投保。他們可能代表客戶或投資者管理巨額資產，需確保安全。「大型機構投資者不會與未充分保險的業者往來」一位產業分析指出。這一點在加密產業尤其重要，因其駭客事件頻繁並具監管不確定性。許多機構級加密託管商也公開強調自身保險來贏取客戶信任。例如美國大型交易所 Coinbase、Gemini、Crypto.com 錢包冷儲存資產都投保上億美元，保單由國際保險公司承保，範圍涵蓋盜竊或網安事件。Gemini 甚至自建附屬保險公司保價兩億美元，在當時創下業界冷錢包保額紀錄。Gemini 風險總監 Yusuf Hussain 指出「保險是大規模採用的最後一道關卡……要讓監管合規的交易系統能提供傳統金融同等保護，才有未來發展。」換句話說，健全的保險機制是推動加密主流化的關鍵，讓機構投資者能「安心，即使最壞情況發生，仍有充分保障」。

需要注意的是，加密保險無法消除風險，但可以轉移和緩解損失。就像房屋保險無法預防火災，但火災發生後可獲理賠；加密保險也無法阻擋駭客，但能補償受害者。這種財務緩衝往往可決定你是否破產。此外保險也具系統效益，因為能降低不可復原損失的恐懼，鼓勵市場參與與穩定性。分析師早已指出，缺乏保障會讓許多有意加入的投資人裹足不前，而有了保險後，「才有必要的安全網，讓一般人敢於持有、使用並投資加密資產」。隨著保險市場擴大，也有助減少加密市場的波動，降低駭客事件後的恐慌與信心危機。

總結來說，加密保險之所以重要，是因為它為這個缺乏備援機制的領域帶來信任與風險管理。它讓加密產業更貼近傳統金融的期望——幾乎所有資產或行為皆可被承保。無論是保護個人錢包的散戶、依法需投保的新創公司，或要求受保託管服務的退休基金，保險的存在象徵著加密產業正在邁向成熟。事實上，這一切並非一蹴可及——保險公司願意進場，足足醞釀了多年。

從冷錢包到去中心化風險池：加密保險的簡史

在比特幣早期（約 2009 到 2015 年），幾乎沒有任何加密資產相關保險。傳統保險公司要為匿名持有數位代幣的用戶承保駭客風險，這在當時幾乎是天方夜譚。2014 年的 Mt. Gox 交易所駭案，價值 85 萬枚比特幣被竊，更突顯極端風險，但當時保險公司多數選擇完全退出而非 underwriting them. The landscape began to shift in the latter half of the 2010s as crypto grew into a significant asset class. Eventually, “the opportunity and demand became too big to ignore”, and a few pioneering underwriters dipped their toes into the market.

承保它們。隨著加密貨幣在2010年代後期成為一個重要的資產類別，市場格局開始出現變化。最終，「這個機會和需求已經大到無法忽視」，一些先驅性的承保人開始嘗試進入這個市場。

Custodial insurance – covering digital assets held by qualified custodians or exchanges – was the first area to gain traction. Insurers were most comfortable with assets in “cold storage”, meaning kept offline in secure vaults, analogous to valuables in a bank safe deposit box. By treating private keys like high-value bearer bonds or diamonds, underwriters could categorize the risk under familiar insurance lines (often the “specie” market, which covers precious metals, art, and the like). One early milestone came in August 2018, when a U.S. qualified custodian called Kingdom Trust secured a Lloyd’s of London policy to protect its clients’ crypto assets from theft or destruction. Kingdom Trust had actually been seeking insurance since 2010, but only as crypto’s profile grew did Lloyd’s syndicates step up to provide a solution. The CEO of Kingdom Trust noted, “From the very beginning we saw insurance as a key factor to bring institutional investors into the marketplace”, highlighting how critical that peace of mind was to potential clients. The Lloyd’s policy for Kingdom Trust was kept confidential in terms of insurer identity and cost, but it was seen as a landmark – “the latest example of a once-reticent insurance industry stepping up to offer protection” for crypto ventures.

託管保險——涵蓋由合格託管人或交易所持有的數位資產——是最早獲得發展的領域。保險公司對於存放於「冷錢包」（即離線儲存在安全保險庫內的資產，類似銀行保險箱中的貴重物品）最為放心。承保人將私鑰視為高價值持有型債券或鑽石一樣，得以將風險歸類到熟悉的保險線（通常是「實物資產」市場，涵蓋貴金屬、藝術品等類資產）。其中一個早期里程碑發生在2018年8月，美國合格託管機構Kingdom Trust成功獲得倫敦勞合社的保單，用於保障其客戶的加密資產免於盜竊或損毀。Kingdom Trust其實早在2010年就尋求保險，但一直到加密貨幣聲勢壯大後，勞合社的保險聯盟才出面提供解決方案。Kingdom Trust的執行長表示，「我們一開始就把保險視為吸引機構投資人進入市場的關鍵因素」，凸顯這份保障對潛在客戶多麼重要。這份勞合社保單的保險公司身分及費用都未公開，但外界普遍認為這是一個指標性事件——「這是過去態度保守的保險業對加密新創願意提供保護的最新例子」。

After 2018, more exchanges and custodians followed suit. Insurers, often through brokers like Aon and Marsh, arranged crime insurance or specie policies for major crypto companies – with a big caveat: coverage was largely limited to cold storage holdings. Hot wallets (online wallets connected to the internet) were typically excluded or only minimally covered due to the high hacking risk. This meant that exchanges could insure the bulk of their assets kept offline, but the funds kept in “hot” wallets to facilitate withdrawals were still a point of vulnerability. Nonetheless, by 2019 a few standard figures emerged: for example, Coinbase reportedly had a $255 million insurance policy covering its hot wallet balances, and BitGo obtained a $100 million Lloyd’s-backed policy for digital assets in cold storage. Insurers were learning how to underwrite these risks by imposing strict requirements (strong cybersecurity, multi-signature controls, background checks on personnel, etc.), and charging hefty premiums to compensate for the uncertainty.

2018年之後，愈來愈多交易所和託管商跟進。保險公司（通常透過Aon、Marsh等經紀商）為主要加密公司安排犯罪保險或實物保險——但有很大但書：保障範圍大多只限於冷錢包持有的資產。熱錢包（連上網路的錢包）因為駭入風險高，通常完全不保，或只給非常有限的保障。也就是說，交易所能為其多數離線資產投保，但為了提領便利而存放於「熱錢包」的資金仍是弱點。不過，到2019年市場已出現一些標準數字：例如Coinbase據傳為其熱錢包餘額投保了2.55億美元保單，BitGo則獲得一張1億美元、由勞合社背書的冷儲存數位資產保單。保險業也在學習如何承保這些風險，開始要求嚴格規範（強健網安、多重簽名控制、人員背景審查等），並收取高溢價以因應不確定性。

One strategy to obtain large coverage was the use of captive insurance companies. In early 2020, the Gemini exchange (led by the Winklevoss twins) made headlines by launching a captive insurer in Bermuda, dubbed Nakamoto Ltd., to insure its custody business. By creating its own licensed insurance vehicle, Gemini was able to arrange a total of $200 million in coverage for the assets it held on customers’ behalf. This was described as the biggest crypto insurance limit in the world at that time. It was achieved by the captive taking on a portion of the risk and then reinsuring the rest through a consortium of traditional underwriters (Marsh, Gemini’s broker, lined up excess insurers from the commercial market). Gemini’s initiative showed both the promise and limitations of early crypto insurance: coverage could be had, but often only through creative solutions and at significant effort and cost. Gemini’s Head of Risk emphasized that insurance was crucial for mainstream adoption and that “clients have become accustomed to [such protections] in traditional finance”. Notably, many insurers still refused to cover hot wallets, so Gemini’s policy – like most others at the time – applied mainly to assets in cold storage, which are considered far less susceptible to attack.

取得高額保險額度的一種策略是設立自營保險公司（captive insurance company）。2020年初，雙胞胎溫克萊沃斯兄弟創辦的Gemini交易所，宣布在百慕達設立名為Nakamoto Ltd.的自營保險公司，為其託管業務提供保險，成為媒體焦點。借此Gemini可為其代客持有的資產安排高達2億美元的保險總額，號稱當時全球加密保險保障極限之最。其做法是自營公司承擔部分風險，再將餘下風險透過傳統保險聯盟（以Marsh為經紀，串聯多家商業超額保險商）再保出去。Gemini的創新舉措展現了早期加密保險的機會與極限：保障是有機會爭取，但往往需靠創意解法並付出大量心力和費用。Gemini的風險負責人強調，保險對於普及至主流市場相當關鍵，「客戶早已習慣於傳統金融中的各種保障」。值得注意的是，當時許多保險公司仍拒絕為熱錢包承保，因此Gemini的保單（如同同時期大多數保單）主要針對冷錢包資產——這些資產被認為較不易遭攻擊。

Around the same period (2019–2020), decentralized alternatives to insurance began to emerge within the crypto community. The first and most prominent of these is Nexus Mutual, which launched in May 2019 as a blockchain-based mutual insurance pool. Nexus Mutual was not a traditional insurer but rather a discretionary mutual structured under UK law – essentially, a member-owned fund for sharing risk. It offered a product called smart contract cover, which would pay out if a designated smart contract (like a DeFi lending protocol) got hacked or exploited. The idea was that crypto users who understood the risks could pool their capital (in Nexus’s case, in the form of its native token NXM) and collectively insure each other against hacks. Over the next few years, Nexus Mutual demonstrated the viability of this model: since 2019 it has underwritten about $5 billion worth of digital asset risk and paid out $18 million in claims on various DeFi-related losses. While those figures are tiny relative to the overall DeFi market, they proved that a decentralized insurance mechanism could function and honor claims even for complex events like protocol exploits. Nexus Mutual’s success also paved the way for a crop of other crypto-native insurance platforms that launched during the DeFi boom of 2020–2021 (we will compare these in detail later).

同一時期（2019–2020），加密社群開始出現去中心化保險替代方案。第一個且最具代表性的是Nexus Mutual，它在2019年5月以區塊鏈為基礎，創立互助性保險池。Nexus Mutual不是傳統保險公司，而是依據英國法律設立的酌情互助會——本質上是會員共同擁有、共擔風險的資金池。它提供一種名為智能合約保障的產品，當指定智能合約（如DeFi借貸協議）遭駭或被利用時予以賠付。其理念是，理解風險的加密用戶可集資（以Nexus自己的原生幣NXM出資），彼此共同承保、對抗駭客攻擊。未來幾年Nexus Mutual證明了這種模式可行：自2019年以來，已對約50億美元數位資產風險承保，並針對各種DeFi損失賠付1800萬美元。雖說和整個DeFi市場相比，這些數據仍屬微小，但它證明即使在協議漏洞等複雜事件下，去中心化保險機制還是能運作並兌現理賠。Nexus Mutual的成功也促成2020–2021年DeFi熱潮期間，更多原生加密保險平台接連誕生（我們稍後會詳盡比較這些）。

Meanwhile, traditional insurers were expanding the scope of coverage beyond just custodied assets. In 2020, Lloyd’s of London underwriters created a new type of policy aimed explicitly at hot wallets – something previously almost uninsurable. In a February 2020 press release, Lloyd’s announced a “first of its kind” crypto wallet insurance solution developed by the Atrium syndicate in partnership with Coincover. This policy was notable for its dynamic limit that could rise or fall with the price of the crypto assets, ensuring the insured value kept up with market fluctuations. It offered theft coverage for online wallets with limits as low as £1,000, targeting both individual crypto holders and smaller companies. Coincover, a UK-based crypto security startup, collaborated on this product, providing the technology layer (a key-backup and transaction monitoring service) that presumably reduced the risk of wallet compromise. The Coincover-Lloyd’s initiative was heralded as removing a major barrier to broader adoption: “a new wave of crypto-curious customers [have been] put off by the lack of adequate protection… With this innovative policy, we can remove these barriers and broaden the appeal of crypto,” said Coincover’s CEO in the Lloyd’s announcement. In short, the traditional insurance market was slowly adapting to crypto’s needs, moving from covering only assets in deep freeze storage to also covering some exposures in active use.

同時，傳統保險商也在擴大保障範圍，不再侷限於託管資產。2020年，倫敦勞合社承保商首創新型保單，專為熱錢包設計——這原本幾乎難以承保。2020年2月的新聞稿中，勞合社宣布與Coincover共同推出「業界首創」的加密錢包保險方案，開發方為Atrium辛迪加。這張保單的特點在於保額會隨加密資產價格動態調整，確保保障金額能因應市場波動。針對熱錢包的竊盜風險，可額外承保低至1000英鎊，對象是一般加密貨幣持有者與中小企業。來自英國的Coincover為這產品提供技術層（如金鑰備份及交易監控服務），據信降低錢包被盜的風險。Coincover-勞合社專案被譽為消除主流應用一大障礙：*「一波對加密產業有興趣的新客戶，卻因缺乏妥善保護望之卻步……透過這份創新保單，我們能移除這些阻礙，並擴大加密貨幣的吸引力，」*Coincover執行長於勞合社新聞稿中表示。簡言之，傳統保險市場正逐步適應加密領域的需求，從過去深度冷藏資產的保障一路進化到現正實際使用中資產的部分風險承保。

The late 2010s and early 2020s also saw traditional insurance talent and capital enter the crypto space via startups. Companies like Evertas (founded in 2017, originally as BlockRe) positioned themselves as specialist crypto insurers working within the Lloyd’s marketplace. In 2022, Chainproof launched as a subsidiary of Quantstamp (a blockchain security firm) with the claim of being “the world’s first regulated smart contract insurance provider”. Chainproof obtained a license through Bermuda’s regulatory sandbox and was backed by major players (the Japanese insurer Sompo and reinsurance giant Munich Re). Its focus is insuring assets held in DeFi protocols – essentially covering the on-chain risks that traditional insurers were not yet serving. Chainproof’s emergence is telling: it highlighted a coverage gap that had existed in the market. Up to that point, if an institution moved assets out of a insured custodial wallet and into a DeFi platform like Compound or Uniswap, those assets became uninsured. Chainproof aimed to fill that gap with a compliant, KYC-based insurance product for non-custodial assets, giving institutions comfort to participate in DeFi without violating regulations or risk mandates. The backing of Munich Re and others also signaled growing confidence among big insurers – they were willing to reinsure crypto risks when partnered with crypto-native expertise (Quantstamp’s auditing experience, in this case).

2010年代末至2020年代初，傳統保險人才與資本也透過新創公司進入加密領域。像Evertas（一開始名為BlockRe，成立於2017年）自詡是倫敦勞合社體系中的專業加密保險公司。2022年，Quantstamp（區塊鏈安全公司）旗下子公司Chainproof成立，自稱*「全球第一家受監管的智能合約保險供應商」*。Chainproof透過百慕達監管沙盒取得執照，並獲得日本保險公司Sompo及再保巨頭慕尼黑再保支持。該公司致力於承保DeFi協議內的資產——本質上是保障傳統保險尚未提供的鏈上風險。Chainproof的出現說明市場一直存在承保斷層：此前，若機構將資產自受保託管錢包移入Compound、Uniswap等DeFi平台，便會失去保險。Chainproof以合規且需實名認證（KYC）的保險方案，專為非託管型資產設計，使機構得以無違法令或風控前提下參與DeFi。慕尼黑再保等機構的加持，也顯示大型保險業者信心提升——當與擁有加密領域專業（如Quantstamp的審計經驗）合作時，他們願意再保加密風險。

By the mid-2020s, the crypto insurance landscape is a mix of traditional and innovative models. On one end, large insurers and brokers are arranging ever-bigger policies for exchanges and custodians – for example, in 2023 the insurer Arch (via Lloyd’s) authorized Evertas to offer a single policy as large as $420 million for crypto custody, reportedly the largest such limit in the industry. On the other end, decentralized insurance pools are expanding coverage to new frontiers like stablecoin depegging and NFT theft, often using parametric triggers and community governance. Between these extremes are hybrid approaches (like Coincover’s insured wallet technology, or the use of captives and risk-sharing consortia) that blend the old and new. It’s still early days – remember, even now only a few percent of crypto assets are insured worldwide – but the progress from virtually zero coverage a decade ago to today’s multifaceted market is significant. “The landscape of insurance products tailored for crypto exposures is rapidly evolving,” observed a partner at law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth in 2025, as insurers compete and innovate to cover emerging risks. Next, we’ll examine exactly what those risks are and how wallets, NFTs, and DeFi positions can be vulnerable, setting the stage for understanding the coverages offered.

到2020年代中期，加密保險市場呈現傳統與創新模式並存的景象。一方面，大型保險商與經紀人持續為交易所及託管商安排愈來愈高額的保障——例如2023年，保險商Arch（透過勞合社平台）授權Evertas提供高達4.2億美元的單一託管保險，據說是業界最高紀錄。另一方面，去中心化保險池向新領域拓展，如穩定幣脫鉤（depegging）、NFT竊盜等，往往運用參數觸發與社群治理。介於這兩者之間的則有混合方案（如Coincover的受保錢包技術、自營保險機制或風險共擔聯盟），結合舊有與新型模式。市場發展仍在早期——要知道，全世界目前受保的加密資產只占極少數——但從十年前幾乎零保障，到現在百花齊放的局面，已是巨幅進步。正如Hunton Andrews Kurth律師事務所合夥人在2025年所觀察：「針對加密風險量身打造的保險商品面貌正迅速演變。」接下來，我們將深入分析這些風險究竟為何，以及錢包、NFT和DeFi持倉如何曝險，為了解各項保障內容做準備。

Understanding the Risks: Wallets, NFTs, and DeFi

Cryptocurrency assets, by their nature, live in a high-risk environment. To appreciate what crypto insurance covers, it’s important to unpack the types of threats and losses that crypto holders face. These can be broadly categorized by where and how you store or use your assets – whether in a personal wallet, as a unique NFT, or locked in a DeFi protocol. While there is overlap between these categories (for example, any online system

加密貨幣資產本質上處於高風險環境。要了解加密保險所涵蓋的範圍，必須分析加密持有者面臨的威脅類型與損失情形。大致可根據資產的儲存地點與使用方式分類——無論是存在個人錢包、作為獨特NFT，或是鎖定於DeFi協議之中。當然，這些類別間有重疊之處（例如，任何連線系統……can fall prey to hackers), each has distinct risk factors. Let’s break down the risk landscape:

（可能成為駭客的目標），每種方式都有其獨特的風險因素。我們來細分一下目前的風險環境：

1. Personal Crypto Wallets (Hot and Cold): If you self-custody your crypto, the security of those funds depends entirely on safeguarding your private keys. A hot wallet typically refers to a software wallet connected to the internet (like a mobile app or browser-based wallet). Hot wallets are convenient for frequent use but are notoriously vulnerable to theft by external attackers. Hackers can deploy malware to sniff out private keys, phish users into revealing seed phrases, or exploit software bugs in the wallet itself. There have been countless cases of individuals waking up to find their wallet emptied out after inadvertently installing a malicious app or clicking a fraudulent link. Social engineering is another danger – an attacker might impersonate support staff and trick a user into divulging recovery phrases. Hot wallet risks extend to institutional holders as well: exchanges and fintech apps maintain online wallets for operational liquidity, and those have been prime targets for cybercriminals. For instance, the Ronin Network hack in 2022 (linked to the Axie Infinity game) saw attackers steal roughly $615 million by compromising validator keys – effectively draining a hot wallet pool. Insiders can be threats too; there have been cases of exchange employees colluding to siphon funds, which is why many insurance policies specifically list insider collusion as a covered peril for custodians.

2. 個人加密錢包（熱錢包與冷錢包）：如果你自行保管自己的加密貨幣，這些資金的安全性完全取決於你對私鑰的保護。一個 熱錢包 通常是指連接到網際網路的軟體錢包（例如手機應用程式或瀏覽器錢包）。熱錢包雖然使用方便、適合頻繁交易，但其對外攻擊的脆弱性極高，容易被盜。駭客可能部署惡意軟體來竊取私鑰，引誘使用者輸入助記詞，或是利用錢包自身的軟體漏洞。已經有無數案例顯示，許多人只因不小心安裝了惡意應用程式或點擊了釣魚連結，隔天醒來就發現錢包已被清空。社交工程也是一大威脅——攻擊者或許會偽裝成客服人員，誘騙用戶吐露恢復短語。熱錢包的風險同樣存在於機構持有者：交易所和金融科技應用為了營運所需，也會維持線上錢包，這些成為網路犯罪集團的首要目標。例如，2022年發生的 Ronin Network 駭客事件（與Axie Infinity遊戲相關），攻擊者經由取得驗證者私鑰竊取了約6.15億美元，等同把熱錢包池的資產一網打盡。內部人員也是一種潛在威脅；已有交易所員工共謀盜領資金的案例，因此許多保險政策會特別將內部共謀列為托管加密資產的承保風險之一。

By contrast, a cold wallet means your private keys are stored offline – perhaps on a hardware device or even on paper in a safe. Cold storage is far more secure against online hacking. However, it introduces different risks: physical theft, loss, or damage. If someone breaks into your safety deposit box and steals your hardware wallet, or if you simply misplace the device (and have no backup of the keys), the crypto can be gone forever. Fire or flood can destroy paper backups. Some insurance policies will cover physical loss or destruction of private keys in certain cases, but often they do not cover a user’s own error or negligence (for example, misreading an address and sending crypto to the wrong recipient is typically not insurable). Indeed, “losses resulting from mistakes by the asset owner” are generally excluded from crypto insurance – insurers expect you to exercise basic caution. Thus, while cold wallets drastically reduce hack risk, they don’t eliminate all risk. Notably, a new kind of product has arisen where a third-party like Coincover holds an encrypted backup of your key and provides a guarantee (backed by insurance) that even if you lose access, they can help recover your funds or compensate you up to a limit. This is essentially an insured key recovery service, blending technology and insurance to tackle the age-old issue of lost keys.

相較之下，冷錢包則表示你的私鑰是離線儲存的—可能在硬體裝置或甚至寫在紙上、保存在保險箱裡。冷儲存對於線上駭客攻擊有極強抵抗力。然而，它也帶來不同的風險：實體竊盜、遺失或損毀。如果有人闖入你的保管箱把硬體錢包偷走，或你只是不小心搞丟裝置（而且沒有私鑰備份），你的加密貨幣就可能永遠消失。火災或水災也可能毀損紙本備份。有些保險方案會在特定條件下承保實體遺失或毀損，但通常不包括用戶自身的失誤或疏忽（例如，看錯地址把加密貨幣轉到錯誤收件人，這基本上不會獲得賠償）。事實上，「資產持有人自身錯誤導致的損失」基本上被排除在加密保險之外—保險公司期望你應有基本謹慎。因此，雖然冷錢包大幅降低了被駭的風險，但並不能消除所有風險。值得注意的是，近年出現了一種新型產品，例如Coincover這類第三方公司會存放加密保護的私鑰備份，並以保險做後盾，保證即使你遺失存取權，他們也能協助恢復資金或按上限賠償你。這本質上是一項帶有保險的私鑰恢復服務，結合技術與保險來對付丟失私鑰這個老問題。

To sum up wallet risks: theft (via hacking or malware) is the big one for hot wallets, whereas custody loss (via accidents or theft of the device) is the main issue for cold wallets. Both individual users and companies face these dangers. Many top exchanges mitigate it by keeping ~98% of assets in cold storage and only ~2% in hot wallets – and then insuring at least part of that hot portion. For everyday users, comprehensive wallet insurance is still rare, but providers like Coincover offer personal wallet protection policies that can reimburse theft from a hot wallet up to a certain amount, provided you use their technology for monitoring transactions. It’s important for users to understand that insurance for self-custodied funds usually won’t cover personal blunders (like forgetting a password or falling for a phishing scam), unless the policy explicitly includes such events. And of course, no insurance covers the market risk – if your coins drop 50% in value due to price swings, that’s not insurable . Crypto insurance is about operational and security risks, not investment losses.

總結錢包風險：熱錢包最大風險是竊盜（被駭或惡意軟體）；冷錢包的主要風險則是託管損失（裝置失竊或意外）。這些危險，不論是個人還是機構用戶，都可能遇到。多數大型交易所會將約98%的資產存放在冷錢包，僅有約2%存放於熱錢包—然後針對熱錢包部分配置保險。對一般用戶而言，全面性的錢包保險仍然稀少，不過像Coincover等業者會提供個人錢包保障，只要你用他們的技術來監控交易，就可以在熱錢包遭竊時獲得一定額度的賠償。使用者必須明白，自保型資金的保險通常不會承保個人疏失（如忘記密碼或被釣魚詐騙），除非保單明文列入此類事件。而且當然，沒有人壽險能承保市場風險—如果你的幣價因波動下跌50%，那絕對無法賠償。加密保險所承保的是操作和安全風險，不包括投資損失。

2. Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs): NFTs introduced new kinds of assets – digital collectibles, artwork, in-game items – that can be highly valuable (some NFTs sold for millions of dollars) and uniquely identifiable on blockchains. The risks to NFTs often mirror those to regular crypto tokens: they reside in wallets, so if your wallet is compromised, your NFTs can be transferred out and stolen. We’ve already mentioned one dramatic example: an NFT collector lost dozens of Bored Ape Yacht Club NFTs worth over $2.5 million to a wallet hack initiated by a phishing scam. Another incident in February 2022 saw the largest NFT marketplace, OpenSea, suffer an exploit where attackers stole 250 NFTs (valued around $1.7 million) from users by abusing a migration feature. These underscore that NFTs are just as susceptible to hacking and theft as cryptocurrencies – despite the term “non-fungible,” which simply means unique, not un-stealable. If anything, the public nature of NFT holdings (viewable on-chain) can make high-value collectors targets for phishing and social engineering.

3. 非同質化代幣（NFTs）：NFT帶來了新型態資產—數位收藏品、藝術品、遊戲道具—這些都可能價值不斐（有些NFT甚至售價數百萬美元），且在區塊鏈上具有唯一識別性。NFT所面臨的風險，往往與一般加密貨幣類似：它們儲存在錢包中，因此只要你的錢包被盜，你的NFT也會被轉移、竊取。前文已提過一個戲劇性例子：一位NFT收藏者因釣魚詐騙，數十枚Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT（總值逾250萬美元）被駭走。還有2022年2月，最大NFT市場OpenSea遭到利用平台遷移功能漏洞，駭客盜走250個NFT（約價值170萬美元）。這些都說明NFT與加密貨幣一樣容易成為駭客和竊盜目標—雖然NFT稱為「非同質化」，其實僅代表唯一，不等於不可被盜。此外，NFT持有資訊公開（可在鏈上查詢），反而讓高價收藏家更容易被詐騙和社交工程鎖定。

NFTs also carry some unique wrinkles: valuation and authenticity. Insurance relies on being able to value the insured asset and verify the loss. But NFT valuations can be extremely volatile and subjective, akin to fine art. An NFT that sold for $300,000 last month might only fetch $50,000 next year if the hype fades. This poses a challenge – should an insurer pay the purchase price, the value at time of loss, or some agreed value? Insurers worry about the asset not holding value after a loss as well; for example, stolen NFTs are sometimes resold quickly (even for less), and because they’re unique, a buyer can easily check if an NFT was stolen (it’s one-of-a-kind and tracked on-chain). Paradoxically, that doesn’t always prevent a sale, but it raises questions about recoverability and title. All these factors make underwriting NFT risks complex. As a result, until recently hardly any insurer offered retail NFT insurance. One 2022 analysis noted that “as of the date [of publication], only one insurance product [for NFTs] has generally been made available – through Coincover”, which offered consumer and corporate NFT cover up to $100k for individuals. In March 2022, the broker IMA announced it was investing in R&D specifically to figure out NFT risk assessment and underwriting, seeing the lack of coverage as an opportunity.

NFT還有一些特殊困難：評價與真偽鑑定。保險需釐清資產的價值及損失情形，但NFT價格波動極大，且主觀認定成份濃厚，很像精品藝術品。上月售價30萬美元的NFT，熱潮過後明年可能僅值5萬美元。這帶來挑戰—保險究竟該付購買價、損失時價或是協議價？保險商也擔心賠付後該資產繼續市場價值不保，比如被盜NFT有時很快又被賤賣，因其唯一性，買家也易察覺是贓品（鏈上可查）。矛盾的是，如此情況仍時有成交，造成可追回性與歸屬權的疑慮。上述這些都令NFT保險的承保（underwriting）更行複雜。結果，直到最近幾乎沒有零售NFT保險產品。2022年的一份分析提到，「於發文時，市面僅有一款NFT保險產品普及流通—即Coincover所提供者」，對消費者與企業NFT資產提供個人最高10萬美元保障。2022年3月，保險經紀IMA宣佈投入NFT風險評估與保險方案的開發，視缺乏市場產品為商機。

Key risks for NFTs beyond theft include: smart contract vulnerabilities in the NFT’s contract or marketplace (for instance, a bug that lets someone mint duplicates or transfer tokens without permission), and metadata loss if the NFT’s artwork or data is stored off-chain on a service that fails. A standard property or cyber policy often doesn’t neatly cover these scenarios, and indeed some explicitly exclude crypto tokens or intangible digital assets. For companies dealing in NFTs (like marketplaces), cyber insurance can cover things like platform hacks or server failures, but for individual collectors, such coverage is not accessible in traditional markets. That’s why specialized crypto insurance is needed. When insuring an NFT, the policy must clarify what exactly is being insured – the token itself, the underlying media, the validity of metadata? As Coincover’s Vice President Sharon Henley succinctly put it in a Motley Fool interview: “What are you buying protection for? Just the token? The validity of the metadata? ... It’s important to understand what protection you are buying.”. Because the NFT ecosystem is so new, insurance wordings for NFTs are still evolving, and customers must read terms closely to know what triggers a claim. Over time, as NFT markets stabilize and more loss data emerges, we may see tailored NFT insurance policies (perhaps akin to fine art insurance) that address these nuances. But for now, NFT insurance is usually folded into general crypto wallet policies (covering theft of any assets in the wallet, fungible or non-fungible) or offered via bespoke arrangements.

NFT的主要風險除了竊盜，還有合約本身與交易市場的智慧合約漏洞（例如，某個bug能讓人未經授權鑄造副本或轉移代幣）、以及如果NFT藝術品或資料屬於鏈下儲存，遇到服務終止/毀損時的資料遺失。一般財產或網路保險常無法涵蓋這些狀況，甚至明文排除加密代幣或無形數位資產。對從事NFT業務（如交易市集）的公司來說，網路保險可以承保平台被駭、伺服器故障等，但個人收藏者在傳統市場中難以獲得此類保障，因此才需要專屬加密資產保險。投保NFT時，保單必須明確界定保的是什麼—是代幣本身？還是底層媒體或metadata的有效性？就如Coincover副總裁Sharon Henley在 Motley Fool 專訪中簡明指出：*「你究竟在為什麼買保障？僅是代幣？還是metadata的完整性？......必須清楚自己買到什麼保險。」*因為NFT生態系仍新穎，NFT相關保單條文也在發展中，投保人必須細讀條款才能知道什麼情境才有理賠。未來，當NFT市場穩定且損失事件累積出統計後，或許會有量身打造的NFT保險（像精品藝術品保險那樣），針對這些細節加以保障。但目前，NFT相關保障多數納入一般加密錢包險中（只要錢包資產被盜，不論同質/非同質資產都涵蓋），或是採客製方案。

3. Decentralized Finance (DeFi) Positions: If you’re involved in DeFi – for example, lending coins on a protocol like Aave, providing liquidity on Uniswap, or using yield aggregators – you face a set of risks distinct from simply holding crypto. Smart contract risk is paramount: a flaw in the code of a DeFi protocol can be exploited by attackers to drain funds. These exploits can be devastating. In 2021 alone, over $10.5 billion was reported lost to DeFi hacks and exploits. Notable cases include the Rari Capital hack ($80 million lost due to a reentrancy bug) and the Beanstalk governance attack ($181 million stolen when an attacker used a flash loan to gain voting power and pass a malicious proposal). DeFi platforms can also fail due to economic design flaws: even if the code works as intended, a protocol’s mechanism might not withstand certain market conditions. The collapse of the TerraUSD (UST) stablecoin in May 2022 is a prime example. UST’s algorithmic design “worked” as coded, but when market confidence evaporated, the stablecoin de-pegged from $1 and death-spiraled to mere cents, inflicting an estimated $17 billion in losses to holders. From an insurance perspective, that was not a hack but an economic failure – yet it caused real losses that some insurance providers decided to cover via special “depeg insurance” policies.

4. 去中心化金融（DeFi）部位：若你參與DeFi活動—譬如在Aave上放款、於Uniswap提供流動性、或使用收益聚合器—你面臨的風險與單純持有加密資產不同。首要風險是智慧合約漏洞：只要DeFi協議的程式碼有缺陷，駭客可藉此竊取資金。這類攻擊可能極具破壞力。單在2021年，DeFi駭客與漏洞造成的損失超過105億美元。著名案例有Rari Capital被重入漏洞（reentrancy bug）攻擊損失8000萬美元，以及Beanstalk被治理攻擊（攻擊者用閃電貸壟斷投票權通過惡意提案，盜走1.81億美元）。DeFi平台也可能因經濟設計缺陷而失敗：就算程式碼無誤，協議設計本身遇上一些極端市場狀況也未必撐得住。例如2022年5月穩定幣TerraUSD（UST）崩潰，就是一大例證。UST的機制「運作正常」，但市場信心崩潰時，穩定幣脫鉤後一路歸零，讓持有人估計損失170億美元。從保險角度，此為經濟機制失靈而非資安攻擊，卻造成真實損失，因此有些保險商推出*「脫鉤保險」*來承保這類情形。

DeFi users also risk oracle failures or manipulations. Many protocols rely on price feeds (oracles) to determine asset values and trigger actions like liquidations. If an oracle reports incorrect data – whether due to outage, lag, or an attacker deliberately skewing a low-liquidity price feed – it can lead to wrongful liquidations or theft. A case in point: Inverse Finance suffered a $15 million loss in 2022 when an attacker manipulated the price of Inverse’s governance token used as collateral, tricking the protocol into under-collateralized lending. Such oracle manipulation

DeFi用戶還暴露於預言機（oracle）失誤或被操縱的風險。許多協議必須仰賴價格預言機來判斷資產價值，並觸發清算等行動。若預言機回報錯誤數據—無論是服務中斷、延遲，還是有心人士利用流動性低的市場刻意操縱價格—都可能導致錯誤清算或被竊。實際案例：2022年，Inverse Finance因預言機價格被操縱，讓攻擊者將協議治理代幣當成抵押品，騙取超額借貸，造成約1500萬美元損失。這類預言機操控……attacks are unique to DeFi’s on-chain automation and have been on the rise, accounting for hundreds of millions in DeFi losses.

攻擊方式是DeFi鏈上自動化所特有的，並且有上升趨勢，已經造成DeFi損失數億美元。

Another risk category is governance attacks in decentralized protocols. If a project’s governance tokens are concentrated or cheaply available, a malicious actor might accumulate enough to pass proposals that redirect funds. The Beanstalk exploit mentioned used this exact strategy – the attacker temporarily amassed a majority vote and executed a fraudulent withdrawal of funds.

另一類風險則是去中心化協議中的治理攻擊。如果一個專案的治理代幣過於集中或容易取得，惡意行為者可能會累積足夠代幣，通過改變資金流向的提案。前述的Beanstalk漏洞就是利用了這一精確手法——攻擊者暫時掌握了多數投票權，進行了欺詐性資金提領。

Finally, there’s custodial risk in DeFi bridging CeFi: many DeFi users still rely on centralized exchanges to on-ramp/off-ramp fiat or move funds between blockchains. If those centralized entities freeze withdrawals or go bankrupt (as happened with platforms like Celsius and Voyager in 2022), users’ DeFi positions might become stranded or lose value. This has led to some insurance or cover products for “exchange default” or “custodian risk”, where a DeFi cover provider will pay out if a major exchange holding your assets halts withdrawals. Essentially, even though it’s not a smart contract failure, it’s recognized that CeFi failures can impact DeFi users, so some mutuals have begun offering protection that bridges that gap.

最後，還有DeFi對接CeFi時的託管風險：許多DeFi用戶仍仰賴中心化交易所進行法幣出入金或跨鏈資金移轉。如果這些中心化平台凍結提領或破產（如2022年發生在Celsius和Voyager等平台），用戶的DeFi持倉可能會陷入困境或蒙受損失。這促使市面上出現針對「交易所違約」或「託管風險」的保險或保障產品，當主要交易所凍結你的資產時，DeFi保險提供者會賠付。基本上，儘管這不是智能合約失誤，但CeFi失靈確實會影響DeFi用戶，因此有些互助型保險開始提供銜接保護。

Given these myriad risks, it’s clear why an entire new class of insurance – often called “DeFi cover” rather than traditional insurance – has sprung up. DeFi cover products now exist across about eight broad categories, including protocol hack cover, stablecoin depeg cover, yield-bearing token cover (protecting against, say, a Yearn vault’s share price deviating due to a shortfall), and others. Each comes with its own defined triggers and exclusions, since standardizing this is still a work in progress. For example, protocol cover might cover a combination of technical exploits, operational failures, and maybe even governance attacks – but each provider defines the scope differently. As a user, it’s essential to read the fine print: one cover might pay on any kind of hack, another only if funds are irretrievably lost (so if a hacker returns funds, that might not trigger a claim).

考量到上述眾多風險，不難理解為什麼會出現一整個新類型的保險——通常被稱為「DeFi Cover」而非傳統保險。DeFi Cover產品目前涵蓋大約八個主要類別，包括協議駭客保險、穩定幣脫鉤保險、收益型代幣保險（例如保護Yearn保險庫因短缺導致價格偏離的情況），以及其他類型。每種產品都有明確的理賠觸發條件與除外責任，因為標準化仍在進行中。例如，協議保險可能涵蓋技術漏洞、操作失誤，甚至治理攻擊——但每家提供者定義的範圍都不同。對用戶而言，閱讀細則至關重要：有的保障任何駭客攻擊均可理賠，有的則限定資金必須完全無法追回才會賠（如果駭客後來歸還資金，可能不會觸發理賠）。

The bottom line is that DeFi positions carry high risk but also high need for insurance. When you deposit assets into a smart contract, you are exposing yourself to the code and design of that contract. If it breaks, your assets could be irretrievable – a risk very different from, say, having money in a bank (where various regulations and guarantees exist). Crypto insurance for DeFi is trying to fill that void. As of now, only a small fraction of the total value locked (TVL) in DeFi is covered by insurance, but as more horror stories emerged (like UST’s collapse), user interest in cover has grown. In fact, the UST depeg in 2022 became a test case that boosted confidence in DeFi insurance: between Nexus Mutual, InsurAce, Risk Harbor and others, roughly $22–25 million was paid out to users who had bought depeg cover for UST or related protocols. Those payouts (98% of UST depeg claims were approved in InsurAce’s case) demonstrated that these alternative insurers could step up in a crisis, arguably “rescuing” some investors from total ruin. It proved the need for insurance has never been more apparent, as one InsurAce team member noted after the Terra incident.

總而言之，DeFi持倉風險高，但對保險的需求也極高。當你將資產存入智能合約時，你完全暴露在其程式碼與設計風險下。一旦出問題，資產可能無法追回——這和銀行存款（受多種法規與擔保保障）大不相同。DeFi專屬的加密保險正嘗試填補這個缺口。至今，DeFi總價值鎖倉（TVL）中只有極小部分受到保險保障，但隨著恐怖事件不斷浮現（如UST崩盤），用戶對cover的興趣持續上升。事實上，2022 年 UST 脫鉤危機成為提振 DeFi 保險信心的測試案例：Nexus Mutual、InsurAce、Risk Harbor 等合計賠付了約 2200-2500 萬美元給購入 UST 或相關協議脫鉤保險的用戶。這些賠付（例如 InsurAce 98% 的 UST 脫鉤索賠獲批）證明這些替代型保險商能在危機時刻挺身而出，某種程度上「拯救」了一批投資人免於全軍覆沒。正如一位 InsurAce 團隊成員於 Terra 事件後所說，保險的重要性從未如此明顯。

In summary, crypto users face an array of risks: theft and hacking, technical failure, human error, fraud, and even regulatory seizures or freezes (the latter is another risk – e.g., a government might sanction a protocol or address, potentially affecting access to funds). Traditional insurance typically doesn’t cover these well in the crypto context, which is why specialized crypto insurance products are evolving. Whether it’s your personal wallet getting hacked, your expensive JPEG being stolen, or your DeFi yield farm imploding due to a bug, the scenarios are scary – but understanding them is the first step to mitigation. Now that we’ve surveyed what can go wrong, let’s look at who is offering protection against those events: the providers of crypto insurance, both centralized and decentralized.

總結來說，加密用戶面臨各式風險：竊盜和駭客、技術故障、人為失誤、詐騙，甚至是監管機關沒收或凍結（後者也是一種風險——如政府對某協議或地址進行制裁，進而影響資金存取）。傳統保險在加密領域通常無法提供完善保障，這也是為什麼專業的加密保險產品逐步發展中。無論是你的錢包被入侵、昂貴的 NFT 被竊，還是你的 DeFi 農場因程式漏洞爆炸，這些場景都令人膽寒——但認識風險是減緩損失的第一步。既然已經盤點了潛在風險，接下來讓我們看看有誰在提供相關保護：也就是去中心化和中心化的加密保險提供者。

Centralized vs. Decentralized Crypto Insurance Providers

中心化 vs. 去中心化加密保險供應者

Crypto insurance today is delivered via two broad models: traditional, centralized insurance providers (including established insurers or startups working within the traditional insurance framework), and decentralized insurance platforms that leverage blockchain, tokens, and community pooling of risk. Both aim to cover crypto risks, but they operate very differently. Let’s explore each side and then compare some of the major players, their products, and how they stack up in terms of coverage and trust.

現今的加密保險主要分為兩種模式：傳統的中心化保險供應者（包含傳統保險業者或在傳統框架下營運的新創公司），以及利用區塊鏈、代幣和社群風險共擔的去中心化保險平台。兩者都是為了保障加密相關風險，但運作方式大相逕庭。以下我們將介紹各自的運作模式，並比較主要廠商、產品與其保障範圍及信任度。

Traditional and Centralized Providers

傳統與中心化保險供應者

On the centralized side, we have organizations that look much like conventional insurers or brokers – they underwrite policies through legal contracts, often backed by large insurance balance sheets or through the Lloyd’s of London marketplace. They typically require customers to go through KYC (Know Your Customer) identity verification and often work with businesses or high-net-worth clients more than retail hobbyists. These providers bring the credibility and regulatory compliance of the insurance industry, but sometimes with less flexibility and higher barriers (like lengthy underwriting or limited coverage scopes).

在中心化一端，是類似傳統保險公司或經紀人的組織——他們透過法律合約承保，通常有大型保險資本支持，或通過倫敦勞合社（Lloyd’s of London）市場分擔風險。他們多半要求客戶進行KYC身分認證，且服務對象偏向企業或高資產人士而非一般散戶。這類供應者帶來了保險業的公信力與法規遵循，但同時也更不彈性、進入門檻較高（如核保流程冗長、承保範圍有限）。

Lloyd’s of London deserves first mention as a historic insurance marketplace that has been instrumental in crypto insurance’s development. Lloyd’s is not a single company but a marketplace of syndicates that underwrite insurance risks. Over the past few years, Lloyd’s syndicates have launched several innovative crypto policies. We discussed the Atrium syndicate’s hot wallet policy with Coincover in 2020 – a pioneering move that for the first time offered a Lloyd’s-backed guarantee for hot wallet theft, complete with a dynamic limit tracking crypto prices. That policy was backed by a panel of Lloyd’s insurers (including heavyweights Tokio Marine Kiln and Markel) through Lloyd’s Product Innovation Facility – essentially a sandbox for novel risks. Its successful launch demonstrated that the centuries-old Lloyd’s market, famous for insuring ships and treasures, could adapt to insuring digital tokens. As Lloyd’s Head of Innovation put it, “There is a growing demand for insurance that can protect cryptocurrency... Lloyd’s is the natural home for insurance innovation because of the unique ability of syndicates to collaborate to insure new things.”. Indeed, Lloyd’s collaborative model is well-suited to crypto’s challenges – multiple underwriters can each take a slice of a large crypto risk, spreading it out. This happened for the Kingdom Trust policy (the insurer wasn’t named, but likely multiple syndicates participated) and for others. In 2023, as noted, Arch Syndicate 2012 at Lloyd’s (managed by Arch Capital) partnered with the crypto-specialist firm Evertas to authorize a huge $420 million policy for custodial assets. That policy is essentially Arch (a traditional insurer) providing capacity while Evertas (as a Lloyd’s “coverholder”) assesses and underwrites the risk on their behalf. Evertas boasted this was the largest single crypto insurance limit available from one insurer, without needing a whole lineup of insurers to co-insure. Such moves by Lloyd’s syndicates are boosting the available capacity for insuring big players like exchanges, which is critical in the post-FTX era where regulators and customers alike want reassurance that funds won’t simply evaporate.

倫敦勞合社（Lloyd’s of London）作為歷史悠久的保險市場，對加密保險的發展貢獻良多，值得率先提及。Lloyd’s 並非單一公司，而是多個承保團體承擔保險風險的市集。過去幾年，Lloyd’s下的多個成員推出多項創新型加密保單。2020年，Atrium成員攜手Coincover推出熱錢包保單——這是首個由Lloyd’s擔保的熱錢包失竊保證，並具有跟隨加密幣價格動態調整的保額。該保單由Lloyd’s多家保險公司（包括巨頭Tokio Marine Kiln和Markel）經由Lloyd’s新產品創新平台共同承保，這個平台本質上是新型風險的沙盒。此政策的成功推出也證明，這個以保海運與珍寶聞名數世紀的老牌市場，能與時俱進，承保數位代幣資產。正如Lloyd’s創新主管所說：「保護加密貨幣的保險需求正在成長……Lloyd’s是保險創新的天然基地，因為我們的成員能協作承保各類新興風險。」。事實上，Lloyd’s的共保模式很適合加密的難題——多位承保人共同分攤大型加密風險。例如Kingdom Trust政策（實際承保人未具名，但很可能有多個成員共同參與）等案例。2023年，正如前述，Lloyd’s旗下Arch Syndicate 2012（由Arch Capital管理）與加密專家Evertas攜手，為託管資產核發高達4.2億美元保單。這其實是Arch（作為傳統保險公司）提供承保資本，Evertas作為Lloyd’s「承保人」進行風險評估和核保。Evertas強調，這創下單家保險商可提供的最大加密保險額度，無需眾多公司共同承保。Lloyd’s各成員的舉措，正提升交易所等大戶的保險可用量，在FTX事件之後，這對監管機構與用戶全民都特別重要——沒人希望資金無端蒸發。

Apart from Lloyd’s, a few traditional insurance companies and brokers have formed crypto-specific offerings. For example, in the brokerage world, Aon and Marsh each established digital asset risk teams that have helped arrange policies for dozens of crypto firms. Marsh was involved in placing a $150 million excess policy for Coinbase a few years back and in Gemini’s captive solution. On the insurer side, companies like Munich Re (one of the world’s largest reinsurers) have been quietly studying crypto risks and even providing reinsurance to startups (Munich Re reinsured the Chainproof pilot policy in 2022, as mentioned). Sompo, a large Japanese insurer, directly invested in Chainproof and supports its underwriting. Allianz reportedly began developing crypto insurance products as well. And specialty insurer Arch not only works via Lloyd’s but also has Arch Insurance (UK) writing crypto policies. Meanwhile, a number of lesser-known carriers in the London and European market – often those with expertise in cyber insurance or specie – have started to underwrite crypto on a case-by-case basis. In the U.S., the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has cautioned insurers about crypto exposures and largely forbids regulated insurance companies from holding crypto on their balance sheets, but it hasn’t stopped surplus lines insurers (who operate outside standard regulations for high-risk policies) from covering crypto ventures in certain niches.

除了Lloyd’s之外，還有數家傳統保險公司與經紀行組成了專門針對加密的產品。例如，在經紀領域，Aon和Marsh都成立了數位資產風險團隊，協助數十家加密公司取得保單。幾年前，Marsh協助Coinbase投保1.5億美元的超額保單，也參與了Gemini的自有保險解決方案。在保險公司方面，慕尼黑再保（Munich Re，全球最大再保公司之一）低調研究加密風險，甚至替新創提供再保（2022年就有替Chainproof的試點方案再保，如前述）。日本大廠Sompo直接投資Chainproof並支持其核保。據報導，安聯保險（Allianz）也開始開發加密保險產品。而專業保險公司Arch不僅透過Lloyd’s，也有Arch Insurance（UK）撰寫加密保單。同時，倫敦和歐洲市場的多家小型保險商——往往有網路險或貴重品保險經驗——也以個案評估方式承保加密產業。在美國，全國保險監理官協會（NAIC）提醒保險業者注意加密曝險，並大致禁止受監管保險公司持有加密資產於資產表，但對於高風險保單採「餘額線」模式的保險商（不受標準監管）則未禁止承保特定加密相關領域。

Coincover is a prominent example of an insurtech bridging into crypto. Founded in 2018 in the UK, Coincover markets itself not exactly as an insurer, but as a “crypto security and insurance” provider. What they offer is a blend of technology and insurance: they have a system that can, for instance, protect a wallet’s private key (through encrypted key backup and transaction monitoring) and if something goes wrong, an insurance-backed guarantee kicks in to compensate the loss. Coincover’s services are used by some wallet providers and exchanges to add an extra layer of protection. According to a law firm review, Coincover provides “security services and limited coverage for individuals holding assets in nearly 20 wallets and exchanges including Crypto.com”. For example, Ledger, the hardware wallet maker, partnered with Coincover for its optional Ledger Recover service – which stores encrypted key shares and is backed by an insurance

Coincover是進軍加密市場的金融科技保險公司代表之一。2018年創立於英國，Coincover自稱不是純粹的保險公司，而是「加密安全與保險」供應商。他們結合技術和保險服務：例如有系統可以保護錢包私鑰（透過加密備份與交易監控），一旦發生問題，就啟動具保險支持的保障機制進行賠償。Coincover的服務受到部分錢包和交易所採用，作為額外防護層。一家律師事務所的評估指出，Coincover為用戶提供安全服務與有限保險保障，涵蓋將近20家錢包和交易所（如Crypto.com）。舉例來說，硬體錢包大廠Ledger就與Coincover合作推出Ledger Recover可選服務——該服務將用戶加密份鑰儲存備份，並有保險支持。guarantee if the service fails. In the NFT space, Coincover rolled out consumer NFT protections up to $100k in 2022. Essentially, Coincover acts as a policyholder-facing intermediary: the actual insurance is underwritten by big insurers (like Lloyd’s syndicates) but Coincover is the brand and interface. From a user’s perspective, if you have Coincover protection on your wallet, you might be entitled to reimbursement if, say, your wallet provider’s systems are breached resulting in your funds being taken. Coincover’s approach shows how centralized providers often integrate with crypto platforms: instead of selling a policy directly to a retail user, they partner with a wallet service or exchange to bundle insurance as a value-add. This makes distribution easier and ensures proper security measures (since the partner must implement Coincover’s tech). Coincover’s existence and growth highlight a truth about crypto insurance: technology risk mitigation and insurance often go hand in hand. Insurers want to see robust security practices in place (multi-sig wallets, encryption, monitoring) and sometimes the insurer or an insurtech will provide those tools to reduce the likelihood of a claim.

若服務失效時保證賠償。在 NFT 領域，Coincover 於 2022 年推出了最高 10 萬美元的消費者 NFT 保護。本質上，Coincover 扮演的是面向保單持有人的中介角色：實際的保險由大型保險公司（如 Lloyd’s 托管人）承保，但 Coincover 則是品牌與操作介面。從用戶角度來看，若你的錢包有 Coincover 保護，像是錢包服務商系統遭駭導致資金被盜，可能就能獲得賠償。Coincover 的做法體現了集中式供應商如何與加密平台整合：不是直接向一般用戶銷售保單，而是與錢包或交易所合作，以附加價值方式包裝保險，降低分銷難度並確保安全措施得以落實（因合作方必須實作 Coincover 技術）。Coincover 的存在與成長，凸顯了一個有關加密保險的事實：技術風險管理和保險往往是相輔相成的。保險公司希望看到健全的安全作法（多簽錢包、加密、監控），有時保險商或保險科技公司也會主動提供這些工具，以減少事故發生機率。

Another key centralized player is Chainproof. As detailed earlier, Chainproof is a regulated insurance provider specifically targeting DeFi smart contracts. It operates with a traditional insurance structure (policies, claims handling, regulatory oversight from Bermuda, etc.), but its underwriting is deeply tied into blockchain security expertise. By incubating Chainproof, Quantstamp essentially acted as a technical underwriter – using its experience of auditing over $200 billion in digital assets to assess protocol risk. Chainproof’s launch was significant in that it explicitly aimed to cater to institutional investors in DeFi who could not use the unlicensed crypto mutuals due to compliance reasons. For example, a U.S. hedge fund might be interested in providing liquidity on a DeFi platform but be prohibited by internal rules from doing so unless the risk of hack is insured by a regulated carrier. Chainproof (with Sompo and Munich Re behind it) could issue a legitimate insurance policy to that fund, satisfying their risk committee. Initially, Chainproof planned to insure a small set of audited DeFi protocols with a coverage limit around $10 million as a pilot, and then scale up. They also secured reinsurance support letters from major reinsurers, which is notable – it indicates the traditional reinsurance sector’s willingness, in principle, to backstop crypto risk if packaged correctly. Chainproof and similar efforts (like possibly one from Euler Finance’s team, who were rumoured to explore an on-chain insurer) show a convergence between centralized capital and crypto-specific risk modeling.

另一個重要的集中式業者是 Chainproof。如前所述，Chainproof 是一個受監管的保險供應商，專門針對 DeFi 智能合約。它運作上採用傳統保險結構（如保單、理賠處理、百慕達監管等），但其核保深度結合區塊鏈安全專業。Quantstamp 孵化 Chainproof，本質上就是扮演技術核保人的角色，憑藉審核超過 2,000 億美元數位資產的經驗評估協議風險。Chainproof 上線意義非凡，因其公開針對因合規因素不得參與無執照加密互助計畫的 DeFi 機構投資人。例如，一家美國對沖基金或有意在 DeFi 提供流動性，但內規要求風險須由受監管保險商承保，否則不得參與。Chainproof（背後有 Sompo 與 Munich Re）就能為該基金出具有效保單，滿足風險委員會要求。最初，Chainproof 計畫為少數通過審計的 DeFi 協議提供保額約 1,000 萬美元的試辦保險，後續再擴大。他們也取得主要再保公司支持函，這很關鍵——代表傳統再保險行業原則上願意在正確架構下承擔加密風險。Chainproof 及類似嘗試（如 Euler Finance 團隊據稱也有探索鏈上保險商）展現了集中資本和加密專屬風險建模的趨勢匯流。

We should also mention Evertas, the U.S.-based crypto insurance company. Evertas was one of the first startups purely focused on insuring crypto. It obtained a license as a Bermuda insurer and also became a Lloyd’s coverholder in 2022. Its strategy is to work closely with big insurers (like Arch at Lloyd’s) to extend coverage limits and create insurance programs for things like exchanges, custodians, and even mining equipment. The Reuters report in 2023 about Evertas/Arch’s $420M policy also noted Evertas can now insure crypto mining hardware up to $200M in value – effectively property insurance for large mining farms. This kind of diversification (covering both crime (theft of keys) and property (mining infrastructure)) by a crypto-specialist firm is another sign of market maturation. Evertas has indicated that currently only 2–3% of crypto assets are insured but that conservative insurers are increasingly deciding that “there’s enough of a business and enough demand to support insuring this new space”. Evertas and similar firms often underwrite a variety of policy types: from crime insurance (which pays out if private keys are stolen by a thief) to specie insurance (covering assets in vaults) to professional liability (for crypto service providers who might get sued), etc. In essence, they are translating the traditional insurance lines (property, crime, liability, directors & officers, etc.) into crypto contexts. For instance, a Tech E&O (Errors & Omissions) or Cyber policy for a crypto exchange might cover losses from a security breach, while a Directors & Officers (D&O) policy for a crypto company’s executives would cover legal defense if they’re sued over mismanagement (which has happened in crypto too).

還應該提及美國的加密保險商 Evertas。Evertas 是最早專注於加密資產承保的新創之一，獲得百慕達合格保險牌照，並於 2022 年成為 Lloyd’s coverholder。其策略是與大型保險業者（如 Lloyd’s 的 Arch）密切合作，擴大保額並為交易所、託管機構、甚至礦機等領域設計保險方案。路透 2023 報導指出，Evertas/Arch 推出 4 億 2 千萬美元保單，且 Evertas 現可為價值最高 2 億美元的礦機投保——等同於大型礦場的財產保險。這類多元化（既涵蓋犯罪（私鑰被竊），又覆蓋財產（礦場設施））正是市場成熟徵兆。Evertas 指出，目前僅 2–3% 加密資產投保，但保守派保險商越來越認同「市場規模與需求足以支撐這新領域保險」。Evertas 與同業經常承保多元保單：從犯罪保險（私鑰遭竊者得賠）、實物保險（保保險庫資產）、到專業責任（服務商被告可理賠）等。實質上，就是把傳統保險線（財產、犯罪、責任、董監事等）帶進加密應用。例如：加密所的科技錯誤與遺漏保（E&O）或網安保單會理賠資安事故，加密公司的董監事保單則護航高管被控管理疏失時的法律辯護費（這在加密領域早已發生過）。

It’s worth noting that centralized crypto insurance providers often limit coverage and impose strict conditions. Most policies require detailed underwriting assessments – insurers will scrutinize the applicant’s security protocols, require audits, and often put sublimits or exclusions on certain things. A common exclusion in custodian policies is any loss due to the custodian’s own staff negligence or user error outside the custodian’s control. Another typical limitation: policies might only cover thefts and not any mysterious disappearance of assets unless proven to be theft (to avoid disputes about whether a loss was due to hacking or an inside job). These insurers also need to resolve how to pay claims: do they pay in fiat, or crypto, or give the option? The volatility of crypto prices is a challenge – if an exchange insures $100 million worth of Bitcoin and Bitcoin’s price doubles, is the insurer suddenly on the hook for $200 million unless the policy had a cap? That’s why the Lloyd’s-Coincover policy with a dynamic limit was so interesting: it addressed this by pegging coverage to the coin’s real-time value. Absent that, insurers tend to specify a limit in fiat terms and may update it periodically or at renewal.

值得注意的是，集中式加密保險商通常會限制保障範圍並加嚴條件。多數保單都要求詳細核保評估——保險公司會徹查申請人的安全制度、要求第三方審計，並常針對部分事項設立次限額或除外責任。例如保管機構保險常見除外責任：若損失因保管方員工疏失或用戶自誤（不受保管方控管）導致則不理賠。另一常見限制，是保單只承保明確竊盜，不賠不明原因消失，除非能證明為竊案（避免對損失起因為外部駭客抑或內部人有爭議）。理賠方式亦需釐清：以法幣？以加密貨幣？還是兩者擇一？加密價格波動大也帶來挑戰：若某交易所給比特幣 1 億美元保額，後來幣價翻倍，保險商是否要賠到 2 億？除非保單有設封頂。因此 Lloyd’s-Coincover 的動態保額很有意思：其做法是掛鉤幣價實時波動給付。否則，多數保險都會標明法幣上限，週期性或續保時再調整。

Coverage limits among centralized providers vary widely: small startups might get a $5 million policy, whereas big exchanges can now secure $100-$750 million in total insurance via layers (though often that total is spread across multiple insurers and types of cover). The Arch/Evertas single-policy $420M is exceptional; more commonly, several insurers each take, say, $50M slices to collectively cover a few hundred million. By comparison, decentralized pools (Nexus Mutual, etc.) currently have capital in the low hundreds of millions at most, limiting how much they can cover per protocol (Nexus usually had per-risk limits in the few millions historically, though they recently can offer up to $20M per risk via syndicate pools).

集中業者的承保額度差異大：新創通常只能購得 500 萬美元保單，大型交易所則可層疊安排，獲得總計 1 億 ~ 7.5 億美元保額（但往往分配於多家保險公司及不同險種）。Arch/Evertas 的單一 4.2 億美元保單屬異例；最常見是數家保險各承擔舉例 5,000 萬，合計覆蓋幾億。相比之下，去中心化資金池（如 Nexus Mutual 等）現有資本僅數億美元，單一協議保額受限（Nexus 近年多為單筆數百萬美元，近期則可透過聯合資金池提升為單一風險最高 2,000 萬美元）。

Before moving to the decentralized providers, let’s summarize a few notable centralized insurance providers and their roles:

在介紹去中心化保險業者前，這裡簡要整理值得注意的集中式保險角色：

• Lloyd’s syndicates (Atrium, Arch, etc.): Pioneering hot wallet cover, large custody policies, generally working via brokers to insure exchanges, custodians, wallet providers. Lloyd’s provides the infrastructure for many crypto insurance deals, leveraging multiple insurers to share risk. It also fosters innovation through facilities like the Product Innovation Facility.
• Lloyd’s 托管人（Atrium、Arch 等）：率先提供熱錢包保險、大型託管保險，通常通過經紀人為交易所、託管人、錢包商承保。Lloyd’s 提供許多加密保險交易的基礎設施，靠多家保險公司分擔風險。亦倡議產品創新，比如 Product Innovation Facility。
• Coincover: An insurtech offering insured wallet protection and NFT protection to consumers and businesses. It’s a conduit for insurance – partnering with underwriters to cover specific losses (like hacking of a wallet, or scams involving their “protected” transactions service). Coincover emphasizes prevention (key backup, transaction scanning) combined with an insurance-backed guarantee.
• Coincover：保險科技新創，為企業與消費者提供錢包與 NFT 保護。自身定位為通路角色——與核保人合作保障特定損失（如錢包駭入，或其「受保護交易」服務被詐）。主打預防措施（私鑰備份、交易檢查）結合保險擔保。
• Evertas: A specialist insurer acting within Lloyd’s and elsewhere, focused on large commercial policies for crypto companies. They bring insurance industry rigor to crypto underwriting, claiming to be the first dedicated crypto insurer. Through partnerships (like with Arch) they’ve pushed the envelope on capacity.
• Evertas：專精型業者，於 Lloyd’s 及全球擔任加密企業大型保單承保人。引入保險業嚴謹流程自稱是首家專屬加密保險公司。透過與 Arch 等合作推高可承保額度上限。
• Chainproof: A regulated DeFi insurer bridging the gap for institutional DeFi coverage. Backed by big insurance but run by crypto security experts, Chainproof is central in that it issues normal policies, but unique in focusing on non-custodial risks (smart contracts) that traditional insurance barely touched before.
• Chainproof：專為 DeFi 提供合規投保的保險商。大保險商提供資本支持，由鏈上安全專家負責營運。特色是保單結構傳統，但標的聚焦非託管風險（智能合約），這在傳統保險過去鮮少觸及。
• Traditional brokers (Aon, Marsh) and insurers (Munich Re, etc.): Not customer-facing in the crypto community but working behind the scenes to structure deals. They’ve helped many exchanges quietly get coverage (often those deals aren’t publicized unless the exchange chooses to announce it). For example, Robinhood disclosed it had coverage from Lloyd’s for its crypto assets; Coinbase and Gemini both have extensively worked through these channels to get their insurance.
• 傳統保經（Aon、Marsh）及保險公司（Munich Re 等）：非面向終端用戶，主要幕後安排交易。他們幫不少交易所低調取得保險（通常未公開，除非業者自行公告）。例如 Robinhood 公開其加密資產由 Lloyd’s 承保；Coinbase 與 Gemini 也時常透過這些管道投保。

Centralized providers often cover not just theft but also professional liability and compliance-related covers. For instance, if a crypto custodian must have a “financial institutions bond” or crime bond (which covers insider theft, etc.), insurers like Chubb or Travelers have started to include endorsements to address crypto in such bonds. Similarly, D&O insurance for crypto firms is now a hot area – executives want protection in case they get sued by investors or investigated by regulators, which in crypto is a real possibility. In Hong Kong, as the regulatory regime for crypto trading platforms ramps up, D&O cover is becoming a focus to guard executives against legal actions. These are all still under the centralized insurance domain and are gradually being offered as the legal clarity improves.

集中式業者常不只承保竊盜，也涵蓋專業責任與合規相關保障。例如加密託管需有「金融機構保證保險」或犯罪保（承保內賊盜竊等），保險業如 Chubb、Travelers 已開始針對加密資產在此類保險加註條款。同樣，針對加密公司的董監事責任保險近年備受關注——高層領導人渴望避免被投資人起訴或監管機構調查時得不到保障，這在加密領域確實常見。香港平台監管政策漸趨完善，D&O 保障成為業界護身焦點。上述皆屬集中保險範疇，隨法律框架日益明朗，這類產品供給也漸增。

Decentralized Insurance Platforms

In parallel to the traditional players, a vibrant ecosystem of decentralized insurance platforms (often called DeFi insurance or cover protocols) has taken root. These platforms operate on blockchain networks (mostly Ethereum and compatible chains) and use smart contracts, tokens, and community governance to provide coverage. They generally do not have formal insurance licenses; instead, they function as member-sharing communities or DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) that pool funds to compensate members if certain events occur. While not “insurance” in the legal sense (some

去中心化保險平台

與傳統業者並行的是欣欣向榮的去中心化保險平台生態系（通常稱作 DeFi 保險 或 cover protocols）。這些平台部署於區塊鏈網絡（多數在以太坊及其兼容鏈），透過智能合約、代幣與社群治理提供保障。大多數並無正式保險執照；運作型態更像是會員共擔社區或 DAO（去中心化自治組織），在特定事件下集中資金賠償成員。雖法律上未必完全屬於「保險」（有些…jurisdictions might consider them a form of self-insurance or mutual aid), they perform a similar economic role. Let’s look at some of the major decentralized providers and how they work:

有些司法管轄區可能將它們視為一種自保或互助形式），但它們發揮著類似的經濟角色。讓我們來看看幾個主要的去中心化保險提供者及其運作方式：

Nexus Mutual – launched in 2019, Nexus is the pioneer of DeFi insurance. It is structured as a discretionary mutual, meaning Nexus can decide to pay claims at its members’ discretion even if legal technicalities aren’t met (this flexibility is why it’s not called “insurance” legally, but practically it operates very much like insurance for members). Nexus started by offering Smart Contract Cover, protecting against unintended uses of smart contract code (hacks/bugs) on various DeFi protocols. Over time, they expanded into covers for centralized exchange failures, custodian insolvency, and even stablecoin depeg events. To use Nexus, one must become a member (which involves basic KYC and buying at least a small amount of its membership token NXM). Cover premiums are paid in NXM or ETH, and claims are assessed by member voting. Nexus has a capital pool, primarily in ETH, which backs all the active covers; its solvency is managed through a bonding curve that adjusts NXM token price relative to the pool’s assets and liabilities (kind of like an automated insurance balance sheet). As of late 2024, Nexus Mutual’s pool was around $200 million (denominated in ETH). This pool size limits how much coverage they can write for a given risk – typically they set a maximum per protocol or per cover. However, Nexus has been innovating: they introduced the concept of “syndicate” pools within Nexus, allowing members to stake on specific risks in exchange for higher yields. This parallels how Lloyd’s of London works with “Names” backing syndicates – in fact, Nexus’s founder Hugh Karp likened Nexus members to Lloyd’s investors taking on risks for rewards.

Nexus Mutual－於2019年推出，是DeFi保險的先驅。它的結構屬於裁量互助會，意味著即使未完全符合法律技術細節，Nexus也可以由會員決定是否賠付（這也是為什麼它在法律上不被稱作「保險」，但實質上對會員而言運作方式非常像保險）。Nexus 起初提供智慧合約保障，防範DeFi協議上智能合約代碼被非預期利用（駭客/漏洞）。隨著時間發展，他們擴展到集中交易所失敗、託管機構破產，甚至穩定幣脫鉤（depeg）事件的保障。要使用Nexus，必須成為會員（需簡單KYC並且至少購買少許NXM會員代幣）。保費可用NXM或ETH支付，理賠由會員投票決定。Nexus有一個主要以ETH為主的資金池，為所有有效保障提供支撐；它的償付能力由一條債券曲線管理，根據池內資產和負債自動調整NXM代幣價格（有點像自動化的保險資產負債表）。截至2024年底，Nexus Mutual的資金池約為2億美元（以ETH計價）。這池子大小也限制了他們針對單一風險可承保額度－通常會針對每個協議或每一保單設定上限。不過，Nexus不斷創新：他們引入了「聯營」資金池的概念，允許會員針對特定風險質押以獲取更高收益。這有點類似倫敦勞合社（Lloyd’s of London）的聯營模式—事實上，Nexus創辦人Hugh Karp曾將Nexus會員比喻為勞合社投資人，承擔風險以換取報酬。

Nexus’s track record is notable. Since 2019, it has reportedly underwritten about $5 billion in coverage and paid out $18 million in claims on events ranging from the 2020 MakerDAO collapse to various exchange hacks. Those claim payouts demonstrate that the mutual model can function – members, who have an incentive to maintain the mutual’s reputation, have generally voted to pay valid claims. There have been some criticisms though: because NXM token holders share the pool, some argue they have an incentive to deny claims to avoid losses. This potential conflict of interest was pointed out by competitors like Risk Harbor. In one instance in 2020, Nexus initially declined claims for a bZx hack due to a technicality (the loss didn’t meet policy wording), which caused controversy. Nexus ended up revising its wording to avoid such issues and paid out other high-profile claims (e.g., $2.4M for Yearn Finance’s exploit in 2021). The governance and claims process is thus a key aspect of decentralized insurers. Nexus uses a quorum and majority vote among token-staked claims assessors; if they vote no incorrectly, there’s theoretically a governance backstop to overturn, but it hasn’t often been needed. Importantly, Nexus Mutual requires KYC and is not globally open – it geoblocks U.S. users due to regulatory caution. So it’s decentralized in operation, but not permissionless to join.

Nexus 的表現備受矚目。自2019年以來，據稱已承保約50億美元，並針對2020年MakerDAO崩盤到多起交易所駭客事件累計理賠1800萬美元。這些理賠證明互助型模式確實可行——會員有動機維護互助會聲譽，因此大多數情況下會投票賠償正當的理賠申請。不過也有批評聲浪：因為NXM 代幣持有者共享資金池，有人認為他們有動機否決理賠以避免損失。這點被如Risk Harbor 這類競爭者指出。在2020年一次bZx駭客事件中，Nexus起初因技術細節（損失並未符合保單用詞）拒賠，引發爭議。Nexus最終調整了條款避免出現類似問題，並對其它重大案件理賠（例如2021年Yearn Finance漏洞，理賠240萬美元）。因此，治理與理賠流程是去中心化保險的關鍵。Nexus採用達到法定人數與多數投票的代幣質押型理賠審查員；如果投票錯誤拒賠，理論上有治理後備機制可以推翻，但實際使用不多。需要注意的是，Nexus Mutual必須KYC，並未完全開放全球——由於法律合規風險，會區塊美國用戶。換言之，它在營運上去中心化，但不是完全無需許可即可加入。

InsurAce – launched in early 2021, InsurAce is another leading DeFi insurance protocol. It positioned itself as a more user-friendly multi-chain insurance platform, launching on Ethereum but then expanding to Binance Smart Chain, Polygon, Avalanche, and others. InsurAce offers portfolio-based coverage: users can buy one cover that spans multiple protocols or assets, which was a novel feature to optimize premiums. They have their own token, INSUR, which is used for governance and to reward capital providers and claims assessors. InsurAce’s approach to claims involves a community vote by INSUR stakers (a bit like Nexus’s, but with their token instead of NXM). One of InsurAce’s defining moments was the Terra UST depeg in May 2022. InsurAce had sold a number of “UST depeg” covers that would pay if UST fell below a certain value. When UST utterly collapsed, InsurAce moved quickly – they triggered claims 48 hours after the depeg event and ultimately paid out around $12 million to 155 claimants. They claimed a 98% approval rate on those claims. This prompt response likely helped InsurAce gain credibility (Cointelegraph even ran a story highlighting how that insurer “came to the rescue” for UST holders). However, InsurAce also faced some criticism for its handling of that event: it controversially announced a reduction of the claims filing period from the standard 15 days to 7 days for UST, catching some users off guard and leading to accusations of trying to limit payouts. InsurAce defended it as a necessary measure given the circumstances, but it underscores that decentralized insurance platforms can also face trust issues if governance decisions appear self-serving. Nonetheless, after Terra, InsurAce reported it had covered $340 million in assets across 140 protocols with thousands of users, and it continued to evolve its “v2” with updated tokenomics and features.

InsurAce－於2021年初推出，是另一家領先的DeFi保險協議。它定位成更易用的多鏈保險平台，最初部署在以太坊，後續拓展到幣安智能鏈、Polygon、Avalanche等多條鏈。InsurAce 提供投資組合型保障：用戶可以購買橫跨多個協議或資產的一個保障，這是為了優化保費而開發的新功能。他們有自己的代幣 INSUR，主要用於治理、獎勵資金提供者和理賠審查員。InsurAce 理賠方式是由 INSUR 質押者社群投票（某種程度上類似 Nexus，但是真用他們自己的代幣）。InsurAce最重要的時刻之一，就是2022年5月Terra UST脫鉤事件。InsurAce售出了多份「UST去鉤」保單，若UST跌破某個值就賠付。當UST徹底崩盤時，InsurAce動作迅速—於去鉤後48小時內啟動理賠，最終向155位投保人支付約1200萬美元。他們稱這些理賠通過率達98%。這種迅速反應大幅提升了InsurAce公信力（Cointelegraph甚至專文報導這家保險商「出手拯救」UST持有者）。然而InsurAce也因這事件受到一些批評：其爭議性地宣布把UST理賠申請期限由標準15天縮短至7天，讓某些用戶措手不及，被指有意降低賠付。InsurAce辯稱這是考量當時狀況的必要措施，但也凸顯去中心化保險平台若治理決策被視為自利，將遭遇信任危機。儘管如此，Terra事件後，InsurAce報告他們已為140個協議、共3.4億美元資產提供保障，且擁有數千名使用者，持續推動「v2」版本和更新Token經濟模型與功能。

Risk Harbor – this platform took a different philosophy: eliminate governance from the claims process entirely. Launched in mid-2021 with backing from funds like Pantera and Coinbase Ventures, Risk Harbor is a parametric DeFi insurance marketplace. When you buy cover on Risk Harbor, the payout conditions are predefined in the smart contract. For example, you might buy cover that pays 1 ETH if a specific pool’s token price drops by X% due to a hack – the logic to detect that is coded, perhaps checking an exchange rate or redemption rate. If the event occurs, the smart contract automatically makes the payout from the liquidity pool, no human vote needed. Risk Harbor’s founders argued that discretionary assessment introduces bias – “when a governance process decides... they tend to lean towards [claims] not being legitimate because they don’t want to pay their money”. Their solution: put the rules on-chain so that there’s no wiggle room – either the parameters are met and you get paid, or not. This concept is often called “parametric insurance”, meaning payout is triggered by an objective parameter (like a hurricane wind speed in traditional parametric insurance, or an asset price in DeFi) rather than an adjuster’s judgement. Risk Harbor originally started with coverage for things like stablecoin depeg (they actually took over Terra’s own insurance protocol called Ozone after Terra’s collapse), and yield token protection (covering scenarios where a yield-bearing token like cUSDC can’t be redeemed 1:1 due to a hack). They set up a two-sided marketplace: protection buyers pay premiums, and underwriters provide capital to the pools to earn yields and premiums. Underwriters effectively bet that the covered event won’t happen (if it never happens, they keep premiums; if it does, they lose some funds to payouts). Risk Harbor’s innovation is significant because it aims for trustless, instant claims – something very appealing for users who might otherwise worry if a DAO will vote to pay them. On the flip side, designing good parametric triggers is hard; too narrow, and they won’t cover many real losses (false negatives), too broad, and they might pay when not truly needed (false positives). Risk Harbor avoids reliance on an external oracle feed for some products by cleverly using on-chain redeemability as the trigger (e.g., if a yield token can’t be redeemed for at least X% of its supposed value, the pool pays out). This reduces oracle risk because the condition is observable from the protocol’s own state. Pantera Capital’s co-CIO Joey Krug said Risk Harbor should be more capital efficient than others in part because underwriters can earn yield on their capital while it’s backing covers (similar to how Berkshire Hathaway invests insurance float).

Risk Harbor－這個平台採用了完全不同的理念：徹底消除理賠流程中的治理。2021年中期推出，獲得Pantera、Coinbase Ventures等基金支持，Risk Harbor是一個參數化的DeFi保險市場。在Risk Harbor上購買保障時，賠付條件預先寫進智慧合約。例如，你可以購買一份保障：只要某個資金池因駭客導致其代幣價格下跌X%，就支付1 ETH——用於檢測事件的邏輯預編碼完成，可能會檢查一個匯率或贖回率。如果事件發生，智慧合約會自動從流動池支付理賠，不需人工投票。Risk Harbor創辦人認為，裁量式審查會引入偏見——「當治理機制來決定時……大家會傾向於判定理賠不成立，因為不想付出自己的錢。」他們的解法就是把規則上鏈，沒有灰色地帶—條件達成就賠，不達成就不賠。這個概念常稱為「參數化保險」，意即賠付是由客觀參數觸發（如傳統風險保險的風速參數，或DeFi中的資產價格），而不是理賠員的主觀判斷。Risk Harbor最初主要保障的場景包括穩定幣去鉤（崩盤後其實還接管了Terra自己的Ozone保險協議）與收益代幣保護（如某帶息代幣cUSDC因駭客無法1:1贖回時保障）。他們設計了雙邊市場：保障買家支付保費，承保人提供資金給資金池以獲取利息與保費。承保人本質上是在「下注」保障事件不會發生（若未發生，收取保費；若發生，部分資金用於理賠）。Risk Harbor的創新十分重要，因為它致力於無信任、即時理賠——這點對擔心DAO會否投票賠付的用戶極具吸引力。反過來講，設計好的參數觸發變數並不容易：太狹窄會漏掉真損失（「假陰性」），太寬則可能不必要時誤賠（「假陽性」）。Risk Harbor對某些產品避免外部預言機餵價風險，巧妙地以鏈上贖回能力作為觸發依據（例如帶息代幣若無法以至少其應有價值的X%贖回，就自動賠付），這樣觸發條件能直接從協議合約狀態觀察，降低預言機風險。Pantera合夥人Joey Krug表示，Risk Harbor 應當比其他平台更具資本效率，部分原因在於承保資金可在保障期間產生收益（類似Berkshire Hathaway如何投資保險資金浮存金）。

Unslashed Finance – another DeFi cover project launched in 2021, Unslashed offered a range of insurance products (exchange hack insurance, protocol hack cover, stablecoin depeg, even one for crypto hedge fund liquidation events). Unslashed’s model allowed underwriters to provide capital to different risk “buckets” and earn premiums. They raised a $2 million seed and gained some traction, reportedly covering notable protocols and exchanges. Unslashed had an interesting approach where they tried to instantly tokenize insurance policies, meaning your coverage was an NFT token you could potentially trade or sell. Claims on Unslashed were assessed by a committee of independent claims assessors to avoid token holder bias, and if there was disagreement it could escalate to arbitration. They paid some claims (e.g., for the Cream Finance hack in 2021). However, Unslashed has been quieter recently, and some community members noted challenges like capital withdrawal issues. It highlights that not all early projects thrive – insurance is a tough business to bootstrap because you need enough capital to be credible and enough buyers to generate premiums, a classic chicken-and-egg.

Unslashed Finance－這是另一個於2021年推出的DeFi保險專案，提供多元保險產品（交易所駭客保險、協議駭客保障、穩定幣去鉤，甚至是加密避險基金清算保險）。其模式允許承保人向不同風險「池」投入資本以賺取保費。他們融得200萬美元種子輪資金並取得一定市場認可，據稱承保過多家知名協議與交易所。Unslashed有個有趣創新：試圖即時將保單代幣化，也就是你的保障憑證是NFT，可以用來交易或出售。Unslashed的理賠由獨立審查團處理，以避免代幣持有人偏見。如果爭議無法解決，還可升級到仲裁程序。他們確實理賠過幾件案件（如2021年Cream Finance駭客事件）。但近期Unslashed動靜較少，社群成員反映過如資本退出困難等問題。這也說明，並非所有早期專案都能成功——保險業務很難從零開始，既要有充足資本建立信任，同時又要足夠多買家產生保費收入，是典型的「雞生蛋」困境。

Sherlock – a unique player, Sherlock is primarily a smart contract auditing and bug bounty platform, but it also provides “coverage” to protocols that use its audit services. Essentially, Sherlock’s model is B2B: a DeFi protocol goes through Sherlock’s audit, and then Sherlock will offer to cover up to $2 million in losses if an exploit occurs on the audited code. Protocols pay a fee (like an insurance premium) for this coverage. Meanwhile, Sherlock has a capital pool sourced from stakers who earn yield (and Sherlock’s token, SHER, is involved in governance and rewards). Sherlock aims to align incentives by having skilled security experts on its team and only covering protocols it has vetted. This is somewhat like an insurance warranty on an audit. However, Sherlock has faced its own test: when the Euler Finance hack happened in March 2023 (Euler had been audited and

Sherlock – 這是一家獨特的玩家，主要是智慧合約稽核與漏洞懸賞平台，同時也為使用其稽核服務的協議提供「保障」。基本上，Sherlock 的商業模式是B2B：一個DeFi協議通過Sherlock稽核後，Sherlock可承諾對於稽核過程中代碼若被利用所造成的損失，最高賠付200萬美元。這項保障需由協議方支付費用（類似保費）。同時，Sherlock有一個由質押用戶提供資本而成的資金池，質押者可獲利息（其代幣SHER參與治理和獎勵）。Sherlock的理念是在團隊中擁有資安專家，且只保障自己已審核過的協議，藉以建立正向誘因。這有點像「稽核保固」的保險。不過，Sherlock 也遭遇過挑戰：當2023年3月 Euler Finance 發生駭客事件（Euler當時已被稽核且…covered by Sherlock)，導致了重大賠付責任。幸運的是，Euler 的駭客最終歸還了大部分資金，但這次事件也顯示出 Sherlock 的準備金有可能被一掃而空（根據 DLNews 報導，Sherlock 的金庫大幅縮水，引發了償付能力的擔憂）。Sherlock 是將保險與風險緩解措施（此案例中為審計）捆綁，提供更全面安全方案的例子。

在比較這些去中心化解決方案時：

• 支援產品：去中心化平台最初主要針對協議駭客保險（智能合約失效），之後擴展到穩定幣脫鉤、託管人／交易所違約、收益代幣保險等。Nexus 和 InsurAce 現在涵蓋範圍相當廣泛——從 DeFi 駭客事件到 CeFi 事故皆有涉獵。Risk Harbor 則專注於特定參數型案例（穩定幣、收益代幣、跨鏈橋風險）。新一代產品有人提出懲罰保險（針對 PoS 網路的質押者——例如 Chainproof 曾經在以太坊質押保險領域進行相關探索）。
• 承保額度：通常低於傳統保險。以 Nexus Mutual 為例，單一協議承保額可能僅為數百萬美元（雖然他們近期透過辛迪加模式和經紀合作，宣稱對新產品可達最高 $20M 的區塊鏈風險承保）。InsurAce 每個保單也有限制，通常單用戶承保額不高（總額在數百萬美金左右）。去中心化資金池必須謹慎控制曝險。而傳統 Lloyd’s 世界裡可以湊集上億美金承保——但相對的代價是必須克服傳統市場的高成本和准入困難。
• 理賠流程：這是一大區別特色。Nexus Mutual：由會員治理投票決定；需提交理賠申請，然後由一組負責理賠評審（其持有 NXM 並會因誤判被 slashed）的成員評估，最後投票決定。一般需數天解決。InsurAce：由評審處理申請，然後由 INSUR 質押者社群投票；以 UST 案為例，啟動後約一個月才賠付。Risk Harbor：沒有治理程序——只要區塊鏈條件達成，立即領賠款；若未滿足，則不賠付，可做到近乎即時反應（像是 Risk Harbor 的 UST 保險，TWA 價格條件觸發時自動理賠）。Unslashed：有第三方評審與仲裁，屬半去中心化。Sherlock：則是團隊決策（更偏向中心化）。
• 代幣經濟學：這些協議普遍有作為治理與經濟激勵工具的原生代幣。NXM（Nexus）用於參與治理，並根據互助會資本動態定價；僅互助會成員能持有，不能在外部自由流通（有包裝版但不反映動態定價）。INSUR（InsurAce）是一般 ERC-20，用於獎勵及投票，市價浮動。Risk Harbor 創始初期並未強調代幣（甚至沒有），聚焦於協議本身功能；稍後可能會因治理平台參數而發代幣，但理賠並不需代幣投票。許多早期保險代幣在初期熱潮後下跌，部分原因是保險本屬慢速增長型生意——如 NXM、INSUR 市價波動大。代幣模式也涉及獎勵承保人（資本提供者），吸引他們鎖定資金進入池內，如產生通膨則會壓抑幣價，若無實質保費收入作平衡。
• 用戶信任與透明度：去中心化平台通常會公開其承保協議清單、可用容量、有時連理賠紀錄與財報都在鏈上透明呈現，這是傳統保險罕見的透明度。用戶隨時可查資金池規模。信任建立來自於履行合法理賠——Nexus 與 InsurAce 廣受好評正是因為有過理賠紀錄，但也因為投票決策的潛在利益衝突而有部分質疑者。像 Risk Harbor 嘗試用自動理賠減少信任問題——用戶只需信任其參數設計與預言機能涵蓋足夠風險；但也存在智能合約自身風險：諷刺的是保險協議自身合約依然可能遭駭。2020 年底 Cover Protocol（獨立於 Nexus 的保險 DAO）就因被攻擊而崩潰，這也警醒大家 DeFi 保險本身必須高度安全。迄今 Nexus、InsurAce、Risk Harbor 均未被駭，但用戶考量風險，或選擇偏好受監管、至少有資產負債表與法律義務的保險公司，以防 DeFi 保險被一個 bug 掏空。
• 法規與會員層面：除 Nexus 外，大多數去中心化協議無須 KYC，全球開放（但部分司法轄區用戶或受限或需自我審慎評估）。Nexus 要求 KYC，讓部分 DeFi 原教旨主義者覺得麻煩，但官方選擇了英國互助會法律道路，以增加合規性。其餘類似一般 DeFi 協議，未來或面臨監管問題（是否為無照經營保險業務？官方多宣稱只是「承保」或互助產品、非正式保險，但規模變大後還是有被質疑甚至約談的可能）。

實際上，許多加密用戶甚至未注意到這些 DeFi 保險選項。深入 DeFi 的玩家已開始把購買 cover 列入策略——尤其是收益農民為避險，或 DAO 金庫為資產投保。值得一提的是生態整合發展：例如 Nexus Mutual 的保障可透過 Yearn App 或像 Armor 這樣的聚合介面購買（Armor 就是將 Nexus 的 cover 拆包成小單位出售的新項目）。還有像 OpenCover 的 Base DeFi Pass，把 Nexus Mutual 保障直接綁定進產品包裝，一次購買保 Base 多個網路協議的保險。這類將 DeFi 保險直接嵌入用戶體驗的趨勢會越來越明顯，因為理想上，購買 cover 應該簡單到進協議頁面一鍵即可下單。

比較中心化與去中心化供應者，各有優缺點。中心化保險具備法律強制力——有正式保險契約，理論上如未理賠可起訴（雖然實務難度大且罕見）。去中心化 cover 則較像社群承諾：賠付也許更快（尤其參數型 cover），且能保障一些傳統保險不碰的嶄新風險（如特殊 DeFi 攻擊類型等）。DeFi 保險賠付通常使用加密貨幣，鏈上損失理賠更便捷；而 Lloyd’s 保單多為法幣賠付（但也有新型業者願意用幣賠，實為折換）。在金融實力上，大型保險公司或辛迪加會讓人更有安全感——有監管、資本金要求、再保險等。但 DeFi 互助會資金池，萬一遇到多重駭客事件仍有枯竭風險（Nexus 的質押與比例賠付機制只是盡量避免同時申領過多，但重大連鎖事件仍可動搖所有保險者）。

一個有趣的混合概念是「傳統保險再保或托底 DeFi 平台」——即傳統再保公司同意對 DeFi 互助會超過特定門檻的損失理賠。雖然目前這類案例極少，但未來不排除發生，屆時就能結合兩種優勢——鏈上分銷效率加上海量傳統再保池應對巨災事件。

總結供應商現況：加密保險市場高度多元，一邊是 Lloyd’s of London 大廳大談數位資產風險，另一邊 DAO 用代幣治理理賠；各大供應商均有特色與強項——或是 Lloyd’s 幾百年保不可能保的經驗，或是 Nexus Mutual 用原生鏈工具看懂智能合約風險勝過任何傳統精算師。對用戶來說，可信度與賠付能力是關鍵：查清對方過往理賠紀錄（信任度往往和履約經驗正相關），並確認可承保上限是否適合需求。在風險分散面亦可靈活運用——大額持幣者不妨多層次組合（例如冷錢包由 Lloyd’s 保，DeFi 倉位用 Nexus cover，各自保障不同風險面向）。

在講過市場供應者與運作方式後，接下來要看看法規層面如何塑造這個產業。保險產品從不會脫離法律與規範——這些規定直接影響業者提供哪些保障，部份情況下甚至要求加密公司必須購買保險。

穿梭美國、歐洲與亞洲法規架構

隨著加密保險成長，各地法規也在演進中陰影下展開。產業本身的保險監理規定和更廣泛的加密法規都會影響實務。在此，我們將探討全球主要區域——美國、歐洲（EU/英國）與亞洲——對加密保險及相關風險揭露的監管態度與措施。

美國：美國聯邦層級目前尚無針對加密保險的專屬監管規定，但近年來有越來越多官方重大動向，顯示主管機關關注風險防護議題。美國監管單位已明確指出，加密資產不享有與銀行存款或證券帳戶相同的自動保障。例如 FDIC（聯邦存款保險公司）反覆公開聲明自己不承保加密資產，並且要求部分加密業者停止暗示其資產受到 FDIC 承保。相反地，任何insurance is through private policies.

在保險監管方面，美國全國保險監管人協會（NAIC，負責協調各州保險監管）一直採取審慎態度。NAIC 事實上禁止受美國監管的保險公司在資產負債表上持有超過極少數額的加密貨幣，理由是其波動性太高——這限制了哪些保險公司可以直接承保加密風險。因此，美國大多數的加密貨幣保險都是通過超額與特殊險種（excess & surplus lines）市場進行，由專門的保險公司（通常設立在百慕達或倫敦等地）承保較不尋常的風險，所受監管較少。像紐約這樣的州，通過 BitLicense 的體系對加密公司進行監管，並且間接鼓勵其購買保險——紐約金融服務局（NYDFS）對持有 BitLicense 的公司發出的指引建議他們應維持忠誠保證保險（fidelity bond）或其他用於覆蓋客戶資產潛在損失的保險（實際上，許多持有 BitLicense 的公司都有購買這類保險）。舉例來說，當 NYDFS 向 Coinbase 和其他公司發放牌照時，就注意到他們針對託管資產安排的保險。監管要求也逐漸寫進細節條款：美國證券交易委員會（SEC）在規定券商與投資顧問託管加密貨幣時，要求揭露託管方是否擁有涵蓋加密資產損失的保險。事實上，當 SEC 核准首檔比特幣期貨 ETF 時，明確要求基金說明書中警示投資人，加密資產不像股票那樣由 SIPC（證券投資者保護公司）保障，但也必須詳列託管方或基金所持有的任何私人保險。這種對風險資訊透明化的推動是一大主題——監管機構希望用戶知道到底有沒有安全網。

另一個層面是，美國金融監管機構越來越認為缺乏保險已成為系統性風險議題。2021 年，總統金融市場工作小組（President’s Working Group on Financial Markets）對穩定幣的報告建議發行方應有類似存款保險的保障機制，以防止擠兌——這實質上暗示著應該設有保險或明確的儲備擔保。雖然尚無具體措施出台，但國會相關提案正在討論中。例如，2025 年提到的 "Genius Act" 就以規範穩定幣和某些加密活動為目標。如果該法案通過，可能會強制規定必須為儲備購買保險，或至少進行充份資訊揭露。

同時，各州監理方式不一。有些州要求從事加密業務的資金傳輸業者設立保證保險（surety bond）或購買保險。例如，羅得島的數位資產商業法要求持牌人必須為客戶利益維持保證保險或信託帳戶——等同於成立一個保障基金，有時可以透過保險來滿足這要求。在懷俄明州，特殊目的存款機構（SPDI，特殊加密銀行）必須就特定營運風險投保，以確保其安全健全經營，這是監管的一環。

總結美國情況：市場普遍意識到「風險未解決」（包括缺乏保險）阻礙了機構大規模進入。監管機關正鼓勵業者設法投保，至少必須對是否有保險保持資訊透明。隨著加密專屬法律（或許在 2024—2025 年內）陸續出台，未來可能會對某些業者明訂強制保險規定或同等替代方案（例如，穩定幣發行方需要證明儲備已投保，或交易所必須為一定比例熱錢包投保）。美國若對加密資產給予更明確法律定位（如部分代幣視為證券或商品並設專屬法規），則保險業者更容易評估與承保，因為他們可在明確監管環境下運作。隨著 SEC/CFTC 在 2024 年底減少即刻監管行動——或許等候新法出台——業界已注意到這給加密業帶來「順風」效應，也推動加密資產保險業。簡單說，清楚的規範有助於保險業者願意進場。

歐盟與英國：歐洲在 2023 年通過 MiCA（加密資產市場規則），這是全球首部全面加密法，涵蓋加密資產發行人、加密資產服務提供者（CASPs，諸如交易所、錢包）、及穩定幣。雖然 MiCA 沒有全面強制要求保險，但對業者提出嚴格的謹慎性要求與風險揭露內容。例如，CASP 業者需有程序確保客戶資產安全，並可能需要安排保險或具同等效果的賠償機制才能取得執照（尤其針對託管服務）。各國具體要求會有差異，但 MiCA 設下了大致基調。有些歐盟國家早已有類似規範：德國對加密託管公司執照的要求，雖未明文硬性規定，但通常須有一定資本且多數業者會持有某種保險或保證金，視為最佳實踐。法國則由 AMF 監管，自願性執照制度下，某些情況下會建議須有專業責任保險。

MiCA 明文要求之一：資產參照型代幣（穩定幣）發行人須在白皮書裡揭露風險因素與免責聲明，包括說明這類加密資產沒有歐盟存款保障。因此，必須明確讓用戶知悉，除非發行人自願提供，這類資產不像銀行存款那樣有官方保險。在傳統金融體系下，歐盟部分投資服務受投資人賠償機制保障，但加密資產不適用（除非重新歸類為證券，這超出 MiCA 的範圍）。這代表所有對應加密資產的保險都屬於私人保單，MiCA 等於強制業者對缺乏官方保障公開披露，間接促使業者購買保險來安撫客戶。

英國現已與歐盟分離，正規劃自己的監管體系。2023 年《金融服務與市場法》（Financial Services and Markets Act）將部分加密資產業務納入監管（例如更易監督穩定幣支付）。英國金融行為監管局（FCA）正就加密行銷與營運規範諮詢意見。現階段尚未強制投保，但英國監管單位非常重視消費者保護。例如，FCA 可能要求加密公司在廣告裡須附加風險警示（如「你不受金融服務補償計畫（FSCS）或金融申訴專員辦公室保障」）。FSCS 是英國對金融服務的補償機制，相當於美國 FDIC，但不涵蓋加密損失。英國可能考慮制定如同 MiCA 的法規，把保險納入消費者保障討論（例如要求大型交易所證明具備足夠保險或資本以承擔損失）。此外，倫敦是國際保險市場重鎮，監管部門對於加密保險業活動也很了解——倫敦勞合社（Lloyd’s）還與英格蘭銀行等共同研究加密議題。Lloyd’s 保險承保人 James Croome 指出，市場採用率上升和監管需求推動倫敦對加密保險需求大增。他也提到，與數位資產交易和託管相關的規則越來越精細與廣泛，促進保險解決方案出現。換句話說，隨著規則逐步確立（如強制冷錢包占比、審計等），保險公司有了明確承保標準。

亞洲：亞洲各地監管態度不一，下文聚焦幾個領頭者：香港、新加坡、阿聯酋（雖西亞/中東，但產業上與亞洲密切連動）、日本。

• 香港近年來重新定位自己為加密友善中心（與過去幾年路線迥異）。香港證券及期貨事務監察委員會（SFC）於 2023 年 6 月實施新的虛擬資產交易平台牌照制度（即加密貨幣交易所牌照）。這一制度對保險提出明確要求：持牌交易所必須為部分客戶資產購買保險。SFC 歷來要求受監管的加密交易所須就熱錢包與冷錢包兩者全面投保——熱錢包必須承保犯罪失竊險。還明文規定至少 98% 客戶資產存放於冷錢包，最初預期冷錢包資產需投保 50%，熱錢包資產則通常須投保 100%（因為熱錢包資產比例極低）。這一標準頗為嚴格，業界一度難以找到願意承保熱錢包的保險人。香港監管單位意識到困難後，表示將放寬 98% 冷錢包規定，並「使保險標準與國際趨勢接軌」，以便業界能實際遵循。這表示未來可能不再要求硬性承保冷錢包 50%，而是採用風險為本的彈性標準，要求業者證明具備足夠保險或資本籌備來覆蓋潛在損失。不過，香港的政策方向明確顯示保險已視為投資者保障的關鍵環節——很少有司法管轄區法律明令要求加密保險。另外，隨著愈來愈多加密業者上市或融入主流金融圈，香港也正關注董監事責任險 (D&O insurance)。這意味香港加密公司的負責人開始尋求責任保險，以因應未來潛在的訴訟或監管風險，而香港監管機關也預期保險會扮演重要角色。

• 新加坡同為主要加密樞紐，但方式不同。新加坡金融管理局（MAS）2023 年收緊規範，要求數位支付代幣服務業者須將客戶資產隔離管理，且至少有 90% 存於冷錢包。然而，MAS 並未強制要求投保 保險覆蓋這些資產的情況。相反地，透過強制大部分資產離線（並假定遠離高風險收益活動），他們的目標是降低損失發生的機率。新加坡金融管理局（MAS）曾經徵詢意見是否應要求客戶資產有保險或信託帳戶的緩衝，但最終選擇了資產隔離與資產維護要求（業者必須持有一定的流動性資產緩衝）。但相關規定明確說明公司應向客戶揭露沒有保險，且即便是隔離保管在破產時也未必能完全保障他們——因此許多新加坡的加密貨幣公司自願為熱錢包的10%部位購買保險，以進一步安撫客戶。實際上，有數家新加坡交易所宣布了保險安排（以新加坡為基地的 Crypto.com 就曾宣傳其冷錢包有7.5億美元的保險，這很可能涵蓋其全球業務）。所以，MAS 的立場是：強調預防性監管（透過冷錢包、良好的內部控制確保資產安全），讓保險成為自願性補充層級。此外，在 FTX 等倒閉事件後，MAS 極力強調消費者風險警示。規定加密貨幣商品廣告需揭露「你有可能損失全部資金」等風險聲明。這種透明度也促使較嚴謹的業者主動表示：「但我們有保險能覆蓋 XYZ，能夠減低部分風險。」

• 阿拉伯聯合大公國（杜拜）：阿聯酋，特別是杜拜的虛擬資產監管局（VARA, Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority），在將保險納入加密監管框架方面，是最積極的領先者之一。VARA 為虛擬資產服務提供者（VASP）制定的規範，直接要求已取得執照的加密交易所及託管機構必須持有特定保險。VARA 要求其資產託管需有保險（防範駭客、盜竊、內部詐欺等），也要求依業務性質投保責任保險如專業賠償保險（PI）、董事及高級職員責任保險（D&O）等。基本上，想在杜拜取得牌照的加密公司，必須提出 VARA 認可的保險計畫。阿聯酋中央銀行甚至原則上支持數位資產託管風險保險。這造成本地市場競相提供「量身定做」的加密保險——官員指出，隨著數百家新創業者申請執照，有「迫切需求」。有了法規明定保險，阿聯酋將自己定位為重視風險管理的法域，顯然意在吸引機構業務，宣稱「我們規定執照公司必須投保，你的資金在這裡更安全」。VARA 未來很可能會進一步細化細節（如最低保額、認可的保險公司名單），但方向明確：保險是他們監管方針的基石之一。

• 日本：日本是最早對加密交易所訂立規範的國家之一（Mt. Gox 事件後，2017 年開始交易所執照制度）。日本法規要求交易所必須具備一定的安全措施，並承擔因失竊導致加密資產損失時賠償客戶的責任——這本質上迫使交易所必須持有備用資金自保，或者購買保險。部分日本交易所確實購買了保險，例如三井住友保險於 2019 年在日本推出了加密交易所專屬保險產品，最高可承保 1000 萬美元。此外，2018 年 Coincheck 勒索駭客事件（被盜 5.3 億美元 NEM）後，日本監管進一步要求加強防護，Coincheck 收購方曾公開表示購有部分保險（但公司最終以自有資金全額賠償用戶）。因此，日本的狀況是：法規雖未明確強制保險，但對業者的賠付義務要求極嚴（實質上必須具備資本或保險）。另外，日本規定交易所必須維持一定比例的備用資金對應客戶資產，這通常意味他們會多持一些法幣作為儲備以彌補加密資產損失——屬於一種準保險機制。

亞洲其他地區方面：南韓曾考慮立法要求交易所至少需購買最低額度的保險（2021年當地交易所爆發問題後，法案草案建議最低3億韓元、約250萬美元，對於大型駭客事件來說其實杯水車薪）。不確定該法案是否通過，但韓國交易所如Upbit、Bithumb均有購買保險（多半額度很低，如500萬美元保單，相對其資產規模幾乎是象徵性）。澳洲則如 WTW 報告中所述，正邁向正式加密監管，建議將交易所與託管業者視為金融服務行業，因此可能需履行專業賠償險（PI）規定。這意味著強制最低保險（澳洲現行金融顧問與交易所依法都需投保專業賠償險）。隨澳洲從相對自由化走向執照管理模式，可預期保險將會成為標準（不管是強制還是強力勸導）的行業配備。

關於風險揭露則是另一個角度：全球監管機構都強調，若加密業者不像傳統金融有保障機制，則必須明確告訴消費者。歐盟、英國、美國、新加坡、香港——現在都要求或即將要求加密廣告與客戶入門文件必須載明加密貨幣並無銀行保險或政府擔保。這可能讓人覺得負面，但反過來促使嚴謹業者強調：「但我們有私人保險應對 XYZ 事件可保障你」，作為市場區隔。這等於提高消費者意識，讓大家都會問：「我的交易所有保險嗎？保額多少，保什麼內容？」換言之，監管聚焦於揭露，間接促使產業朝更透明且普及保險的方向邁進。

總結來說，各地監管框架正逐步為加密風險管理建立防護網。有些地方（如香港、阿聯酋）已將保險寫入執照條件，有些地方（如美國、歐盟）則強調揭露、鼓勵審慎做法，將來隨立法進程演變，可能走向強制要求。此趨勢有利於加密保險市場發展：合規推動保險需求。當監管要求交易所資產隔離、規畫損失預案時，保險業者自然可成為解決方案的一環。挑戰是如何平衡監管目標與市場供給——香港就發現，如果規定必須買到保險而市面上相應產品（如熱錢包保險）供給嚴重不足，產業甚至會卡住。隨時間推移，全球標準也可能出現，或業界公會甚至政府協助成立互助保障池（比如部分地區討論設立「交易所違約保險基金」，由業者共同繳納、類似某些國家的投資人賠償基金）。但在這之前，主要仍靠各公司自行購買私人保險，監管機關則各自執行或推廣這件事。

檢視過監管現況後可以發現，加密保險產業並非孤島——合規要求、資訊揭露及消費者保護三大因素都很有影響力。接下來我們將聚焦於加密保險目前仍面臨的挑戰：包括結構性資本效率不彰、技術（預言機）操作風險、治理難題，以及再保險規模受限等，若要促使此產業真正發展，這些問題須獲得解決。

加密保險市場的挑戰

雖然加密保險已有長足進展，仍面臨諸多顯著挑戰，使其有別於傳統保險市場。其中一部分挑戰來自加密產業本身特性，也有部分來自於加密保險業尚處初創階段。我們來看幾個主要問題：資本效率低落、預言機操作風險、治理難題、再保險發展受限等。

資本效率低落：保險的本質是以資本共同承擔潛在損失，但一個高效率的共保池並不需要每投保1美元就準備1美元的準備金——那等於100%完全擔保，實際很少發生，因為統計上並不會同時全體理賠。傳統保險仰賴大數法則與組合分散來降低資本比率（也會購買再保險因應極端事件）。加密保險——特別是去中心化類型——資本就明顯未發揮效率。早期的加密互助組織基本都需全額資本覆蓋——例如要賣出一千萬美元保單，Nexus Mutual 必須備有約一千萬美元或更多，因為欠缺長期歷史數據，必須謹慎操作。結果就是保費相較於保障金額偏高、成長受限於能吸引多少資本。資本效率也受價格波動影響：若準備金池以 ETH 為主，遇到 ETH 大跌 50%，相對於保單責任就瞬間資本不足。Nexus 的系統用債券曲線設計遇此情形會降價、抑制新單、直到資本回補，但整體來說仍很難拿捏。

部分創新針對這些問題著手：Risk Harbor 模型嘗試提升資本效率，讓核保人押注資產時也可以同時賺取收益（例如平時把資本存入 Aave 產生收益，理賠才動用）。另一個方法是採用參數型理賠，允許只賠部分（例如損失賠90%而非全損），降低必須預備的資本並提高預測性。不過，根本問題在於加密風險規模與現有保險資本嚴重失衡。我們前文提到，目前僅約 1-2% 的加密資產有保險。部分原因是保險公司對——committing large capital without more data. As one industry paper pointed out, “with no history of claims or best practices, policies today are bespoke… coverage is complex”, making underwriters demand a lot of capital and high premiums for safety. Over time, as loss history develops, pricing models will improve and capital can be used more efficiently (similar to how cyber insurance started very pricy and gradually insurers optimized it).

在缺乏更多數據的情況下投入大量資本。正如一份產業報告指出，“由於沒有理賠歷史或最佳實踐，目前的保單多為量身訂做……保障範圍很複雜”，這使得承保方為了安全起見要求大量資本投入和高額保費。隨著時間推移與損失歷史逐步累積，定價模型會越來越完善，資本也能運用得更有效率（類似於早期網路保險很昂貴，隨著保險公司逐漸優化而降價的過程）。

Another angle is capital sourcing: Crypto insurance mutuals largely rely on crypto community members to stake capital, who expect very high returns (since they could otherwise just yield farm elsewhere). In contrast, traditional insurance can tap into huge global capital markets content with single-digit returns because of lower risk profiles. Bridging these two is challenging. One promising trend is the idea of insurance-linked securities (ILS) for crypto – essentially packaging crypto insurance risks into a bond-like instrument that pension funds or ILS funds could invest in. There have been early discussions about this; for example, there are ILS structures for cyber risk now, and something similar could emerge for crypto hacks (the search result snippet we saw mentioned ILS with $500 million potential, suggesting investor interest). If crypto risk can be made palatable to outside investors via ILS or reinsurance, that could flood the sector with capital and dramatically improve efficiency (because then a DeFi insurer doesn’t have to over-collateralize with crypto whales’ money; they can offload some risk to professional markets). Right now, capital inefficiency keeps premiums high – a big cover can cost 2-5% of the sum insured in premium per annum for crypto, which is higher than many analogous covers in finance. Reducing that via smarter modeling and external capital is a priority for the future.

另一個角度是資本來源：加密保險互助多仰賴加密社群成員質押資本，這些人期待極高的報酬（否則他們完全可以轉去做收益農場）。相較下，傳統保險則能動用全球龐大的資本市場，只要個位數報酬率即可滿足，因整體風險較低。要拉近這兩者的差距其實很困難。現在有一個頗具潛力的新趨勢：推動加密的保險連結證券（ILS）——簡單說就是把加密保險風險包裝成類債券商品，好讓退休基金或ILS基金投資。這方面已有初步討論，比如目前已有人為網路風險設計ILS結構，將來類似機制也有機會應用到加密駭客事件（我們查詢到的搜尋結果就提到“有5億美元潛力”的ILS，顯示投資人興趣）。如果能通過ILS或再保把加密風險讓外部投資人接受，會為這一行業帶來大量資本，大幅提高效率（因為這樣DeFi保險公司就不用一直用大戶、鯨魚的加密資本來過度抵押，可以把部分風險分散給專業市場）。現階段，資本運用沒效率導致保費高漲——大型保障的年化保費常達保額的2-5%，高於傳統金融同類產品。未來重要方向就是用更聰明的模型加上外部資本來改善這一狀況。

Oracle and Data Reliability Risks: The reliance on oracles and data feeds in crypto insurance (especially parametric covers) introduces a unique risk of manipulation or failure. If an insurer uses an on-chain oracle to decide claims, a malicious actor might try to game that oracle. For example, imagine an insurance that pays out if a certain token’s price drops below $0.50. An attacker who holds a policy might attempt a price oracle manipulation – using flash loans and low-liquidity exchanges to momentarily crash the reported price below $0.50, trigger the insurance payout, and profit. Such attacks have been observed in DeFi generally: Chainalysis noted that in 2022, at least 41 oracle manipulation attacks on DeFi protocols resulted in over $400 million stolen. An insurance-specific case hasn’t been publicized yet (likely because insurance pools are still relatively small and not every attacker focuses on them), but the threat is real. Parametric insurance is only as good as its data sources. If those sources are exploitable or even just glitchy, it can lead to wrong payouts or no payout when needed.

預言機與數據可靠性風險：加密保險（尤其是參數型保險）嚴重依賴預言機與數據來源，這造就一種獨特的被操弄或失效風險。如果保險公司用鏈上預言機來判斷理賠，惡意分子可能會試圖操縱這個預言機。舉例來說，假設某保險只要有某個代幣的價格跌破$0.50就出險。持有保單的人，可能利用閃電貸與流動性稀少的市場，在極短時間內把報價壓到$0.50以下，觸發理賠然後獲利。這種攻擊在DeFi領域已屢見不鮮：Chainalysis統計指出2022年DeFi協議至少發生了41 起預言機操控，損失總額超過4億美元。雖然尚未有明確加密保險遭此攻擊的公開案例（可能是因為保險池體量還小，也不是每個駭客會鎖定這種對象），但風險是真實存在的。參數型保險的可靠度完全取決於其數據來源。如果這些來源能被利用或本身有漏洞，會產生錯誤理賠或該賠卻沒賠的狀況。

To mitigate this, crypto insurers are very careful in choosing oracles: often they’ll use time-weighted average prices (TWAP) over a period to make it harder to spoof an instantaneous price. They may use reputable oracles like Chainlink that fetch data from multiple exchanges. Some require a combination of oracle triggers and human validation (like maybe the DAO can veto a payout if they suspect manipulation). Risk Harbor tried to avoid oracles by basing triggers on direct protocol states (e.g., checking a cToken exchange rate on Compound – which itself could theoretically be manipulated through a protocol attack, but not via an external price feed). Nonetheless, oracle risk is a big challenge. The more automated and trustless you make insurance, the more you lean on data that can be corrupted. Conversely, if you include human judgment to check for manipulation, you reintroduce some trust/centralization. So it’s a tricky balance.

為了減緩這類風險，加密保險公司會格外謹慎選擇預言機：通常會取一段期間的加權平均價格（TWAP），以避免瞬間報價被操縱。他們可能會選用連接多個交易所、聲譽良好的預言機如Chainlink。有些則要求預言機觸發條件與人工審核並用（比如DAO發現異常時可否決理賠）。Risk Harbor則嘗試規避預言機，改以協議本身的狀態作為理賠觸發依據（例如檢查Compound的cToken兌換率——理論上這一數值也有可能被協議攻擊操弄，但不會像外部價格那樣好操控）。無論如何，預言機風險仍是一大挑戰。保險機制越自動化、越去信任，越需要靠能被篡改的數據；反之，只要加入人工判斷以防操控，就又帶回部分信任／中心化，這當中需要微妙平衡。

Even beyond malicious manipulation, there’s the problem of data availability. Crypto markets run 24/7 globally; an insurer might rely on an API or oracle that could have downtime. If a claim needs proof of loss during a period an oracle was down, what happens? Traditional insurance can investigate after the fact, but on-chain covers might have to specify fallback data sources or risk having gaps. These technical nuances are something the average user might not consider, but the insurance protocol developers certainly do.

除了惡意操控外，還有數據可用性的問題。加密市場全年無休，全球運作；保險公司可能依賴的API或預言機，有機會中斷。如果理賠需要在預言機斷線期間舉證怎麼辦？傳統保險可事後調查，但鏈上保單就得事先規定備援數據來源，否則會有保的漏洞。這些技術細節一般用戶可能沒留意，但保險協議的開發者一定會考慮到。

Governance and Claims Challenges: In decentralized insurance, governance issues can be a make-or-break factor in user trust. We touched on how member-owned platforms face inherent conflicts: token holders might be tempted to deny valid claims to preserve the treasury, undermining the promise of insurance. While to date major protocols like Nexus Mutual have largely avoided outright scandal (most claims that were widely seen as valid got paid), the potential for contentious claims is always there. For example, after the Terra UST collapse, Nexus Mutual did not cover UST depeg because that risk wasn’t covered by their wording then, whereas InsurAce did because they had an explicit depeg cover. Some criticized Nexus for not having such a product or for not making an exception – but doing so would’ve been outside their rules. This shows one governance issue: scope of coverage – mutuals have to decide what risks to cover and exclude. If they are too generous, they risk insolvency; if too strict, they leave users unprotected or unhappy.

治理與理賠挑戰：在去中心化保險領域，治理問題會直接決定用戶信任度。我們之前提到會員制平台面臨的根本矛盾：持幣人可能會為了守住金庫而否決合理的理賠，這就破壞了保險的本質承諾。雖然目前主流協議如Nexus Mutual大致上未出現重大醜聞（多數公認合理的理賠最後都有被執行），但有爭議的理賠潛在風險始終存在。比如Terra UST崩盤後，Nexus Mutual因為條款並未明訂包含脫鉤風險而未理賠，反觀InsurAce則有明訂脫鉤保障而進行理賠。有些人批評Nexus沒提供相關商品或未破例處理——但這其實不符他們的規則。這凸顯一個治理問題：保障範圍如何設定——互助平台必須決定哪些風險要保、哪些不保。範圍過廣會拖垮資金池，過窄則無法保護用戶或讓用戶滿意。

Another aspect is claims processing speed. DeFi users expect things fast. Traditional insurance might take weeks or months to settle a complex claim (with investigation, paperwork, etc.). DeFi insurers strive to be quicker – InsurAce resolved UST claims in about one month, which in insurance terms is swift for a catastrophe scenario. Nexus can take a week or two depending on voting periods. Risk Harbor can be instant if criteria are met, but finality of data can still mean you wait hours/days for prices to be confirmed. If governance is slow or seen as arbitrary, users might not bother with insurance at all (why pay premium if you’re not confident it pays when needed?). So governance mechanisms need to balance speed with fairness and rigor.

另一個重點是理賠速度。DeFi用戶習慣一切很快，傳統保險遇到複雜案件常要耗時數週至數月（要調查、要文件）。DeFi保險追求更快——像InsurAce處理UST脫鉤理賠約一個月內完成，在保險業算是極速。Nexus則視投票周期，一到兩週。Risk Harbor符合條件時甚至能即時理賠，但數據確定到最終，有時還是要等數小時甚至數天。如果治理過慢或予人主觀印象，用戶可能真不想投保（不確定能賠時誰願意繳保費？）。所以治理機制要在速度、公平與審慎之間找到平衡。

Disputes and coverage definitions are another challenge: as mentioned, what exactly constitutes a “hack” or “exploit” can be debated. If funds are lost due to a user interface bug versus a smart contract bug, is that covered? If a protocol pausing withdrawals (like some did during crises) saves funds but you can’t access your money for a week, does that count as a loss (some covers include “withdrawal halt” coverage, like Unslashed and InsurAce have offered). These fine details can lead to governance headaches. Traditional insurance has legal language and courts to interpret it; decentralized insurance has code and community votes, which is a new paradigm. We’ve yet to see a situation where a claimant disputes a denial from a DeFi insurer in court – possibly because amounts are small and users are pseudonymous – but if crypto insurance becomes big, there could be legal challenges: e.g., a user sues a foundation behind a mutual, claiming the process was unfair or misrepresented. That would be precedent-setting territory.

理賠爭議與保障定義則是另一大挑戰：如前述，到底什麼算“駭客攻擊”或“漏洞”本身就很有爭議。若損失因UI（介面）bug，而不是智能合約bug造成，要賠嗎？如果一個協議為了救資金暫停提款（如某些危機狀況），你一週取不回錢，算不算損失（有些保單像Unslashed及InsurAce會列入保障）？這些細節極易引發治理爭議。傳統保險有法條及法院解釋，去中心化保險靠的是code和社群投票，這其實是新典範。迄今我們還未見過有人對DeFi保險公司理賠拒絕提告——可能金額較小、用戶多假名——但如果加密保險規模變大，很可能會有用戶控告基金會程序不當或誤導。這將成為具有先例意義的案例。

For centralized crypto insurers, governance issues manifest differently: primarily, insurers might exclude too many risks or impose such strict warranties (conditions) that claims get denied on technicalities. Some early crypto policies were notorious for exclusions – e.g., excluding any losses from blockchain failure (so if the hack exploited a flaw in Ethereum itself, not covered), excluding insider theft unless proven in court, etc.. Such exclusions can make coverage feel illusionary. There’s also a knowledge gap: many traditional underwriters initially lacked deep understanding of crypto tech, which could lead to mispricing or misjudging risks (they might either overcharge, or underwrite something they shouldn’t). Over time this is improving as specialist teams form.

對於中心化加密保險公司來說，治理問題的表現方式又不同：主要是保單可能排除過多風險，或附加嚴苛條件，使得理賠容易僅憑技術細節而被拒賠。有一些早期加密保單排除條款非常有名——比如排除所有區塊鏈底層失效的損失（所以若有人利用Ethereum本身漏洞駭入，無法理賠），或內部人盜竊未經法院證實就不賠等。太多排除會讓保障變得像“有名無實”。同時，還有資訊落差問題：許多傳統核保初期對加密科技一知半解，常導致錯誤定價或風險誤判（不是暴利就是承保了不該承保的）。隨著專業團隊成立，這點正在改善。

Reinsurance and Capacity Constraints: The crypto insurance market’s ability to grow is in part throttled by the availability of reinsurance – insurance for insurers. Reinsurance helps insurers write more policies by absorbing parts of their risk. In the crypto space, reinsurance participation has been minimal thus far, partly because reinsurers wait for data and want regulatory clarity. However, we see signs of change: Munich Re supporting Chainproof, Arch acting as effectively a reinsurer/backer for Evertas’s large policy, and there are reports of some reinsurers quietly providing quota-share treaties for crypto custodian risks (i.e., splitting the losses and premiums with a primary insurer). The challenge is reinsurers fear the aggregation risk – the scenario where one event causes many losses at once. In crypto, that could be something like a major blockchain vulnerability or a broad market crash causing multiple failures. If many exchanges or protocols got hit simultaneously, insurers and reinsurers could face correlated claims (unlike, say, house fires which are usually independent events). This is similar to cyber insurance, where a single malware outbreak could hit many insureds; reinsurers handle that by limiting coverage and collecting data to model worst-case aggregates.

再保與資本承接限制：加密保險市場成長，部分受限於再保險（保險公司的保險）能否取得。再保險能分擔部分風險，讓保險公司敢開出更多單。在加密領域，目前再保險參與度仍不高，一來等數據累積，一來還在等監管明朗。但近來已有改變跡象：慕尼黑再保支持Chainproof，Arch實質承接Evertas大額保單再保險，還有消息指部分再保公司低調承接了加密託管風險的配額分保（即與主保險公司分攤損益）。關鍵挑戰是再保公司怕“聚集風險”——也就是一個事件同時造成大量賠案。在加密世界，這可能是某區塊鏈出現重大漏洞，或整體市場暴跌致多協議同時出事；如果多家交易所、協議被同時攻擊，主保與再保都會同時面對理賠浪潮（不像住宅火災通常是獨立事件）。這又類似於網路保險——一但惡意軟體爆發，很多被保人會同時受害；再保公司會用限制承保範圍、蒐集資料建模來控管最壞情境。

Without reinsurance, each insurer/mutual is limited by its own capital. This is why Nexus’s pool is only so big, or why Lloyd’s syndicates only offer so much per policy. As reinsurance opens up, capacity will expand. We’re beginning to see dedicated crypto insurance brokers like “Native” – as mentioned in the CoinDesk piece – emerging to connect crypto firms with both Nexus Mutual and traditional markets. Native, for instance, will operate an MGA (managing general agent) on top of Nexus Mutual and also seek reinsurance for the risks. This indicates a path where hybrid solutions bring more capital: perhaps

沒有再保險，每個保險公司／互助會能承擔的風險完全受限於自己的資本池。這也是為什麼像Nexus的資金池規模有限，Lloyd's辛迪加單一保單金額也有限制。隨著再保險通路打開，承保容量會增加。我們已看到像Native這種專注加密保險的經紀平台崛起——正如CoinDesk文章提到，他們可以協助加密公司同時連接Nexus Mutual與傳統市場。Native 舉例來說，會在 Nexus Mutual 上作為MGA（管理型總代理）並爭取相應的再保分擔。這顯示未來混合解決方案有望導入更多資本：或許a corporate buys a policy that is 50% covered by Nexus (on-chain pool) and 50% by a traditional reinsurer behind the scenes. Such blending can overcome the capacity shortfall. However, reinsurers will demand reliable risk assessment – so challenges remain in building models for crypto hacks, assessing security of protocols, etc. Quantstamp partnering with Sompo is an example of how that expertise transfer can happen.

一家企業購買一份保單，其中50%由Nexus（鏈上資金池）承保，另外50%由傳統再保險公司在幕後承保。這種混合模式能克服承保容量不足的問題。然而，再保險公司會要求可靠的風險評估——因此，像建立加密駭客事件模型、評估協議安全性等挑戰仍然存在。Quantstamp 與 Sompo 的合作，就是專業知識轉移如何發生的例子。

Another challenge related to reinsurance is lack of standardization. Each crypto insurance policy tends to be somewhat bespoke, which makes it harder to package and transfer risk. The industry is actively working on more standardized policy wordings (Lloyd’s has put some into its wordings repository). Once policies are more uniform (e.g., a standard “Digital Asset Custody Policy” wording that multiple insurers use), reinsurers can more easily write treaties covering them. We’re moving in that direction, but it takes time.

另一個與再保險相關的挑戰是缺乏標準化。每一份加密保險通常都較為客製化，這讓風險的打包與轉移變得更困難。產業正在積極推動更標準化的保單條款（Lloyd’s 已經把部分條款放入其標準條款資料庫）。當保單趨於一致（例如，業界普遍採用標準版本的「數位資產託管保單」條款）時，再保險公司會更容易為它們訂立再保合約。我們正朝這個方向努力，但還需要時間。

Market Education and Trust: Beyond these technical and financial issues, a softer but important challenge is simply convincing more crypto holders to buy insurance. Many retail users either aren’t aware it exists or assume it’s too expensive or not worth the hassle. Some hardcore DeFi folks ironically trust code more than insurance (they might say, “why trust a Nexus Mutual vote when I could just diversify or self-insure by holding a buffer?”). Insurance uptake might require more education, possibly some high-profile success stories (e.g., if an exchange hack happens and insured customers all get made whole quickly, whereas uninsured ones on another exchange lose out – that contrast would drive home the value). Right now, people often realize the value only after a loss (like after losing money on Terra, some started insuring their positions elsewhere). Overcoming skepticism – especially given a few mishaps like Cover Protocol’s demise or InsurAce’s claim window controversy – is an ongoing effort. Transparency helps; as noted, protocols publicly showing what they’ve paid (Nexus publishes claim stats on their dashboard) builds confidence.

市場教育與信任：除了上述技術與財務問題之外，更柔軟但同樣重要的挑戰是如何說服更多加密資產持有人購買保險。許多散戶根本不知道有這種保險存在，或認為保費太貴、不值得麻煩。有些死忠 DeFi 用戶甚至反而更相信程式碼而不是保險（他們可能會說：「我為什麼要信 Nexus Mutual 的投票，不如直接分散投資或留資金自保？」）。保險普及可能需要更多教育，甚至一些高知名度的成功案例（例如，如果某交易所被駭客攻擊，有保險的客戶可以很快全數理賠，而另一間沒有保險的交易所客戶卻完全損失 —— 這樣的對比就能凸顯保險價值）。目前，大部分人往往是在損失之後才意識到保險的重要性（例如在 Terra 事件中虧錢後，有人開始其他地方投保）。要克服市場懷疑，特別是在發生像 Cover Protocol 倒閉或 InsurAce 賠償申請時限爭議等意外後，需要持續努力。提高透明度很有幫助；正如提過的那樣，協議如果能公開他們實際理賠金額（如 Nexus 在儀表板發布出險數據），有助於建立信心。

Finally, there are some external challenges that could influence crypto insurance: Regulatory uncertainty (which we covered; if U.S. regs remain unclear, some insurers will stay away or charge more for that uncertainty), macroeconomic factors (a severe bear market reduces the dollar value of pools and premiums, squeezing insurers’ finances; conversely, a bull run increases values and potential exposure if coverage limits aren’t adjusted), and new technology changes (for example, the merge to Ethereum 2.0 or widespread Layer-2 adoption might change the threat landscape and insurers have to catch up; or quantum computing risks to cryptography could emerge in a few years – insurers might exclude such “Acts of Quantum” risk unless solutions are found).

最後，也有一些外部因素會影響加密保險：監管不確定性（如前文所述；若美國法規依然模糊，某些保險業者就會選擇退出或對此加收不確定性的風險保費）、總體經濟因素（熊市時資金池及保費美元價值大幅減少，壓縮保險商的財務狀況；牛市時若保費不及時調整，池子金額大幅上升，潛在賠付暴增）、以及新技術變革（例如以太坊2.0合併或 Layer-2 大規模採用可能造成威脅格局改變，保險業須趕上；又如量子電腦對密碼學的威脅，數年內可能成真——保險公司可能會將這類 “量子事件” 風險排除在保障項目外，除非有相對應的解決方案）。

In summary, while crypto insurance has momentum, it must overcome these challenges to reach its full potential. It needs to deploy capital more effectively (possibly via traditional partnerships), manage the intricacies of oracle data and on-chain processes securely, ensure fair and efficient governance of claims, and tap into broader reinsurance markets. The companies in this space are well aware of these issues – many of the current innovations (parametric covers, bridging Nexus with brokers, using AI for risk analysis, etc.) are targeted at solving them. That leads us into a forward-looking view: what does the future hold for crypto insurance, and how will these challenges be met?

總結來說，儘管加密保險正在成長，要發揮其全部潛力還必須克服上述種種挑戰。這包括更有效地運用資本（包括與傳統業者合作）、安全可靠地處理預言機數據和鏈上流程的複雜性、確保公正高效的理賠治理、並進一步拓展再保險市場。這個領域的企業對這些問題都相當清楚，而許多當前的創新（如參數型保障、將 Nexus 與經紀結合、利用 AI 進行風險分析等）都是針對解決上述問題而來。這也引導我們展望未來：加密保險的未來會是什麼樣子？這些挑戰又將如何被克服？

The Future: Closing the Coverage Gap

未來發展：補上保險覆蓋缺口

What might crypto insurance look like in the coming years? Given the rapid evolution so far, we can expect significant growth and innovation aimed at closing the vast coverage gap (recall, around 98-99% of crypto assets are currently uninsured). Several key trends are likely to shape the future of this sector: the rise of parametric and automated coverage, the use of AI in risk modeling, deeper integration with Layer-2 scaling and cross-chain ecosystems, increasing institutional participation, and a blending of traditional and decentralized insurance capacities.

未來幾年加密保險可能會呈現什麼樣貌？鑑於當前這個領域的高速發展，我們預期將有重大的成長與創新，目標就是填補極大的覆蓋缺口（要知道，當前大約98-99%的加密資產都沒保險）。有幾股關鍵趨勢將影響這個產業的未來：參數型與自動化保險的興起、AI 在風險建模上的運用、更深入整合 Layer-2 擴容與跨鏈生態系、機構參與度提升，以及傳統與去中心化保險承保能力的融合。

Parametric and Automated Coverage: As touched on, parametric insurance – where a payout is triggered by a predefined metric rather than a case-by-case adjustment – is a natural fit for crypto. We’re likely to see a proliferation of parametric products. For example, beyond stablecoin depeg covers (which are already parametric, paying out if a stablecoin price stays below a threshold for a period), we might get market volatility covers (paying if an exchange’s downtime exceeds X hours or if a coin’s price flash-crashes beyond a set percentage), or protocol performance covers (paying if a DeFi protocol’s TVL drops by Y% in a day, indicating a possible exploit or bank run). Parametric policies can be bundled with smart contracts for trustless execution. An appealing vision is a world where if a hack or exploit happens, insurance payouts execute immediately and automatically on-chain, providing liquidity to victims when they need it most. This immediacy is something traditional insurance can’t match (they often take months to pay after big disasters), but crypto insurance potentially can. Consider how Risk Harbor handled UST depeg – once UST hit the trigger price, claims could be redeemed without any further debate. That meant some users got funds quickly, possibly enabling them to reinvest or cover obligations, whereas others who had to wait for manual processes had more uncertainty.

參數型與自動化保險：如前文所述，參數型保險——即理賠金額由預設的指標觸發，而不是逐例手動審核——非常適合加密產業。我們很可能會看到參數型產品大量湧現。例如，除了穩定幣脫鉤保險（這已經是參數型，若穩定幣價格持續低於某一門檻就自動理賠）外，還可能出現市場波動保險（如某交易所停機超過X小時、或某幣價閃崩超過固定百分比即可理賠）、協議效能保險（如某DeFi協議 TVL 一天內暴跌Y%，代表可能發生駭客事件或擠兌，則觸發理賠）等。這些參數型保單可與智能合約結合實現「無信任」自動執行。理想願景是：萬一發生駭客或漏洞時，理賠金能即時自動在鏈上發放，讓受害者在最需要的當下得到資金。這類即時性，是傳統保險本來無法匹敵的（傳統保險常常要等數月才賠款），而加密保險卻有機會做到。例如 Risk Harbor 處理 UST 脫鉤事件時，只要 UST 觸及預設價格，申請人即可無需更多爭議直接兌現索償。這使得一些用戶能很快收到資金，或許讓他們有機會重投市場或償還義務，而等待手動理賠的其他人則充滿不確定性。

Parametric coverage does have to guard against the oracle issues we mentioned, but improvements in oracle infrastructure (like decentralized oracle networks with multiple data sources and cryptographic proofs) will mitigate this. Also, parametric crypto insurance might start to incorporate off-chain events relevant to crypto. For instance, one could imagine a policy that pays if a certain government bans crypto trading or if internet outages occur that affect mining – these would need oracles that report real-world events (some companies are working on oracles for weather, regulatory news, etc.). The Jenner & Block article noted an example: a company (Arbol) using smart contracts to issue weather insurance stored as NFTs – parametric by nature. As DeFi and the real world interface more (think of crops whose prices or yields might be tokenized, or carbon credits on blockchain), parametric insurance on-chain could extend to those domains too, blending into the broader InsurTech trend. But within crypto, the big immediate area is to cover more protocols and events with fewer manual steps.

參數型保險確實必須提防預言機問題，但隨著預言機基礎設施改進（譬如多數據來源、加密證明的去中心化預言機網絡），這些風險將可減緩。此外，參數型加密保險也可能開始納入與加密產業相關的鏈下事件。例如，可以想像有一種保單，當某國政府禁止加密交易或網路中斷影響挖礦時即理賠——這就需要能回報現實世界事件的預言機（已經有公司在開發用於天氣、監管新聞等的預言機）。Jenner & Block 文章中就提到一例：Arbol 公司用智能合約發行以NFT儲存的天氣保險保單—本質上也是參數型。隨著 DeFi 與現實世界互動加深（像農產品價格或產量代幣化、碳權上鏈等），鏈上的參數型保險也可以延伸到這些領域，和更廣泛的金融科技趨勢融合。不過，就加密產業目前最迫切的需求，還是如何以更少人工步驟，涵蓋更多協議與事件。

We might also see composable insurance – insurance policies themselves become tokens that can be traded or used in DeFi. For example, if you have a coverage token for a protocol hack cover, perhaps you could post that as collateral elsewhere, or sell it on a secondary market if you exit that protocol. This adds liquidity to insurance and allows market-driven pricing. Some projects attempted this (Unslashed’s tokenized covers, Nexus exploring tokenizing NXM once fully collateralized, etc.). A liquid market for insurance risk could entice more investors to provide capacity, essentially creating a decentralized reinsurance market where people trade risk like any other asset.

我們還可能會看到可組合保險——保險本身作為代幣（token），可買賣或用於 DeFi 應用。例如，你持有某協議駭客險的承保 token，就可在別處用作抵押，或當你退出該協議時，把它賣到流通市場。這提升保險資產的流動性，也讓價格更貼近市場。已有部份專案實驗這類做法（如 Unslashed 的保險代幣，Nexus 也嘗試資訊全額抵押後將 NXM 代幣化）。有流動性的保險風險市場，能吸引更多投資人投入，實質上建構出一個像買賣其他資產一樣的去中心化再保險市場。

AI and Advanced Risk Modeling: Insurance has always been a data-driven industry, leaning on actuarial science. In crypto, there is a dearth of long-term historical data, but an abundance of real-time granular data (blockchains are transparent ledgers). This is a perfect playground for Artificial Intelligence and machine learning to step in. AI could help in several ways:

AI 與先進風險建模：保險業一向依賴數據與精算科學。在加密產業，雖然長期歷史資料稀缺，但即時、細緻的鏈上數據非常豐富（區塊鏈即是公開帳本）。這正好為人工智慧和機器學習大顯身手提供條件。AI有多種可能應用：

• Smart Contract Analysis: AI models (especially those oriented to code analysis, maybe using techniques from security auditing) could rapidly assess smart contract risk. A large language model trained on solidity code and past exploits might predict the likelihood of a vulnerability in a given contract. This could augment human audits, giving insurers an automated risk score for a DeFi protocol. For example, if an AI flags a contract as highly complex with multiple external call patterns (often a risk for reentrancy), an insurer might charge a higher premium or require more caution.

• 智能合約分析：AI模型（特別是用於程式碼分析，結合資安審計技術）可以快速評估智能合約風險。一個經過 solidity 程式碼和過去漏洞資料訓練的大型語言模型，能預測某合約產生漏洞的機率。這可輔助人工審核，为保險業者自動產生某DeFi協議的風險評分。例如，AI 若判斷某合約結構極為複雜且有多重外部呼叫（這常是重入攻擊風險），保險商便可能調高保費或要求更高風控。

• Anomaly Detection: AI can monitor blockchain transactions in real time to detect anomalies (like sudden draining of funds from many addresses, or sharp changes in protocol metrics) that might indicate hacks in progress. An insurer could use this for early warning – perhaps freezing coverage on a protocol if an attack is detected (though that raises fairness questions) or simply to gather data to refine risk models.

• 異常偵測：AI 可以即時監控區塊鏈交易，發現異常（如大量地址資金突然被提走，或協議指標劇烈變化），可能即時顯示某駭客事件正在發生。保險公司可藉此早期預警——譬如偵測到攻擊就凍結對該協議的保障（雖然這會產生公平性爭議），或純粹用於收集數據、優化風險模型。

• Pricing and Portfolio Optimization: Given the volatility of crypto, AI can simulate thousands of scenarios (Monte Carlo simulations, etc.) faster and perhaps more holistically than traditional actuarial models. For instance, an AI could model correlated risks – what happens if Ethereum has a bug while at the same time market crashes? It might identify unlikely but possible multi-protocol failure scenarios that traditional methods wouldn’t catch due to lack of precedent. This helps insurers set premiums that are adequate yet not overly conservative.

• 價格與投資組合優化：加密資產高度波動，AI 可以用比傳統精算模式更快、更全面模擬千百種情境（如蒙地卡羅模擬）。AI可以模擬關聯風險——例如以太坊出現漏洞同時市場暴跌會如何？它可辨識超乎想像但確實可能發生的多協議同時失效情境，而這一點傳統模式可能因缺乏前例而漏掉。這有助保險定出既合理又不過度保守的保費。

• Fraud Detection: If crypto insurance expands to cover things like theft from individual wallets, AI will be crucial in claims adjudication to spot fraudulent claims. For example, analyzing whether a supposed “hack” of a user’s wallet was actually self-inflicted or an inside job could be done by tracing blockchain forensics with AI pattern recognition. Insurers like Coincover already use a “risk engine” to analyze transactions and determine if a withdrawal was likely unauthorized. As criminals get smarter (maybe trying to game insurance by simulating hacks), AI will be needed to stay ahead.

• 偵測詐欺：如果加密保險未來擴展到承保個人錢包失竊等情境，AI 將對理賠鑑定至關重要，可以辨識詐騙申請。例如，用 AI 處理區塊鏈溯源，分析所謂「錢包駭客」是否其實是用戶自導自演或內部人士作案。保險公司如 Coincover 已使用「風險引擎」分析交易，判斷提款是否很可能未授權。隨著不法分子愈來愈精明（甚至可能「造假駭客」來騙保），AI將更不可或缺。

• Personalization: AI might allow personalized insurance pricing. In DeFi

• 客製化：AI 也有機會實現 保險價格個人化。在 DeFi ...cover, everyone currently pays similar rates for covering a given protocol. But perhaps in the future, if you can connect your wallet and let an AI assess your personal risk exposure (e.g., how you manage your keys, your on-chain behavior like whether you interact with risky contracts), it could adjust your premium. This is akin to telematics in car insurance (where safe drivers get discounts). For example, a user who uses hardware wallets and multi-sig and only interacts with well-audited protocols might pay less for wallet insurance than someone constantly aping into unaudited contracts. This raises privacy issues, but if done voluntarily, it could incentivize safer behavior.

翻譯：
cover，目前大家對於特定協定的保險費率都差不多。但是未來或許你能連接錢包，讓 AI 評估你的個人風險暴露（例如你怎麼管理私鑰、你的鏈上行為，包括你是否與高風險合約互動），進而調整你的保費。這就類似車險裡的車聯網（駕駛得越安全折扣越多）。例如，一位使用硬體錢包、多人多簽，且只與經過審計的協定互動的用戶，相較於經常投入未審計合約的人，可能會付較低的錢包保險費。這確實會引發隱私顧慮，但如果是自願參與的話，反而能激勵大家採取更安全的行為。

Integration with Layer-2s and Multi-Chain Ecosystem: As blockchain usage spreads across multiple chains and scaling solutions, insurance will follow. We already see Nexus Mutual’s product for Base (Coinbase’s Layer-2) offering a single cover that spans many Base protocols. This trend – one-to-many coverage – will likely expand. Perhaps a user will buy “DeFi All Risk Cover” which automatically covers all their positions across Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, etc., for certain perils. To do that efficiently, insurance protocols likely need to be present on those networks. Gas costs on Ethereum L1 have been a barrier; moving to L2 not only reduces user cost but allows more frequent dynamic interactions (like updating covers, or smaller premium payments by streaming). We can expect platforms like InsurAce to deploy on more chains and new insurers to maybe launch natively on L2s or sidechains where they can serve those ecosystems tightly.

翻譯：
與 Layer-2 以及多鏈生態的整合：隨著區塊鍊應用擴展到多鏈與各種擴容解決方案，保險必然也會跟上。像 Nexus Mutual 已針對 Base（Coinbase 的 Layer-2）推出單一保單能覆蓋多個 Base 生態協定的產品。這種一對多覆蓋的趨勢預計會持續擴大。未來，或許用戶只需購買一份「DeFi 全風險保險」，即可自動涵蓋其在 Ethereum、Arbitrum、Polygon 等主流鏈上的各種持倉，針對特定風險給予保障。要高效實現這點，保險協議可能必須部署於這些網路上。以太坊 L1 的高 gas 費用須是一大障礙，轉向 L2 不僅降低用戶成本，也使保單更新、分期繳納保費（如流式付款）等動態互動更頻繁。我們可以預見像 InsurAce 這樣的平台將部署到更多鏈上，也新有保險業者直接在 L2 或側鏈原生上線，緊連這些新生態。

Also, consider bridges – cross-chain bridges have been notorious points of failure (Ronin, Poly Network, Wormhole hacks each in the hundreds of millions). Insurance for bridge risk is in demand. A possible future is protocols or even the bridge operators themselves obtaining insurance or creating mutual pools to cover bridge failures. For instance, one could envision a “Bridge Mutual” where several big bridges pool funds to compensate users in case of a hack, possibly facilitated by an insurer or DAO. This might even become a standard requirement if bridges want to attract users (knowing that if the bridge gets exploited, users will be made whole up to a limit could instill trust).

翻譯：
還有 Bridging 跨鏈橋也是臭名昭著的風險核心（如 Ronin、Poly Network、Wormhole 等駭客事件都是上億美元規模）。對於橋接風險的保險需求越來越明顯。未來可能出現的是，協議方或橋協營運方自己購買保險或成立共同基金池，專門承擔橋接失敗的損失。例如，可以想像會有一種「橋梁互助組織」，數個大型跨鏈橋協力注資共同基金，由合作的保險公司或 DAO 運作，用來補償用戶因駭客事件損失的資產。若跨鏈橋想吸引用戶，這甚至可能成為未來的標準配備（只要知道橋接有被保障，至少在一定限度內用戶能獲得賠償，自然更易建立信任）。

Moreover, as Layer-2 adoption grows and more retail users enter via those cheaper networks, insurance might become an expected feature integrated at wallet or protocol level. For example, an L2 wallet might have a toggle: “Secure my assets – cost 0.1% of holdings per year” which behind the scenes buys insurance coverage from a partner insurer for your wallet. This is the idea of embedded insurance – seamlessly built into user experience. It could be key for mass adoption because mainstream users might demand the kind of protection they’re used to (like FDIC for banks). If the wallet or platform offers it by default (with an opt-out if you don’t want to pay), adoption skyrockets without users having to go out of their way.

翻譯：
同時，隨著 Layer-2 普及和更多散戶從低手續費網路入門，保險功能很可能會被直接整合進錢包或協定層。例如，一個 L2 錢包有個開關：「保障我的資產，每年成本 0.1%」— 實際上就是自動向合作的保險公司購買錢包保險。這就叫嵌入式保險－－直接和使用者體驗無縫結合。這對大規模普及至關重要，因為主流用戶往往習慣有如 FDIC 那樣的安全保障。如果錢包或平台預設就有（用戶若不想付費可選擇關閉），那麼普及速度會遠遠快於現在使用者需額外研究投保的狀況。

Institutional Interest and Expansion: The future of crypto insurance is tightly linked to institutional adoption of crypto. As more banks, asset managers, and corporations engage with digital assets, the “big guns” of insurance will likely enter. We’ve begun to see signs: large brokers (Aon, Marsh) are actively advertising crypto insurance solutions, and large insurers like Allianz and AIG have reportedly been studying the area. In a 2025 industry survey, insurers noted that regulatory clarity (like MiCA in EU) made them more willing to insure crypto ventures. With clearer rules, the fear of, say, accidentally insuring an unlicensed illegal operation diminishes.

翻譯：
機構興趣與擴張：加密保險的未來與機構資本進場息息相關。當越來越多銀行、資產管理公司與企業涉及加密資產，保險行業裡的*「大咖」*自然會跟進。現在已有明顯跡象，像 Aon、Marsh 等大型經紀行積極推廣加密保險方案，而 Allianz（安聯）、AIG 等保險巨頭也據稱正在深入研究這領域。在 2025 年的一項產業調查中，業內保險公司表示監管規範明朗（如歐盟 MiCA）讓他們更願意承保加密相關業務。規則愈明確，要是意外承保到未持牌或非法經營的對象的疑慮也會大大減少。

One specific area is custody for institutional investors. As traditional custodians (like BNY Mellon, State Street) roll out crypto custody services, they bring with them the expectation of insurance. They will either self-insure via captives or demand robust coverage from the market. This could drastically increase capacity as new insurers join to cover these reputable firms. Also, pension funds or ETFs holding crypto might require insurance on the underlying assets (for instance, any spot Bitcoin ETF, if approved in the U.S., will likely carry insurance on the custody of the bitcoins). That could mean hundreds of millions in demand overnight, spurring insurers to allocate more capacity.

翻譯：
其中一個專門領域是機構投資人的託管業務。當傳統託管機構（如 BNY Mellon、State Street）推廣加密資產託管服務時，他們自身或其客戶自然要求承保。不少會自建保險公司（Captive）自保，有的則會向市場尋求完善保單。這會迅速提升業界總承保量，吸引更多新保險公司進場。再如，持有加密資產的退休基金、ETF 等，也可能要求為標的資產投保（譬如美國若核准現貨比特幣 ETF，託管的比特幣多半也會投保）。光這一塊就可能瞬間創造上億美元需求，促使業者投入更多資源。

Collaboration between Traditional and DeFi Insurance: The lines may blur, with traditional insurers possibly using DeFi platforms as “risk or distribution channels.” For example, an insurer could provide reinsurance to a Nexus Mutual syndicate behind the scenes, or conversely, a DeFi insurer might reinsure a portion of its book with Lloyd’s. There’s mention by InsurAce’s CMO that one key trend will be “the emergence of bridges between traditional insurance and blockchain-based cover, enabling higher capacities and greater flexibility… benefitting DeFi with higher capacity and traditional insurance with higher efficiency.”. This paints a picture of hybrid models. Perhaps a user buys a policy on a DeFi interface, but unbeknownst to them, part of that risk is offloaded to a traditional insurer’s balance sheet. Smart contracts could automatically settle with the reinsurer or vice versa. Such synergy could overcome many current challenges – DeFi gets more capital and credibility; traditional insurers get tech that lowers admin costs and gives them access to a new customer base.

翻譯：
傳統與 DeFi 保險的協作：兩者的邊界正漸趨模糊，傳統保險公司很可能將去中心化保險平台作為其風險分散或市場通路。例如，傳統保險商可在暗中為 Nexus Mutual 這類互助組織做再保險，又或 DeFi 保險協議將部分風險給倫敦 Lloyd’s 再保。InsurAce 首席行銷長也曾指出，一大趨勢就是*「傳統保險與區塊鏈保單之間將出現橋梁，拓寬總承保量、提升彈性…讓 DeFi 擁有更高容量、傳統保險享有更高效率。」* 這意味著混合型模式：用戶在 DeFi 前端購買保單，其部分風險實際被轉嫁到傳統保險業的資產負債表上。智慧合約能自動和再保公司結算，反之亦然。這種協同效應能解決現有許多難題——DeFi 得到資本與更高公信力，傳統保險則獲得降低行政成本的技術、以及全新客群。

Regulatory & Government Involvement: In the long run, if crypto becomes integral to the financial system, governments might step in to provide or mandate certain safety nets. We could see something like government reinsurance for systemic crypto events (not unlike how some countries’ governments backstop terrorism insurance because private market can’t cover a 9/11-scale event alone). Or if a central bank issues a CBDC (central bank digital currency), they might require any wallet dealing with it to have insurance or similar guarantee. There’s also the possibility of public-private insurance funds: for example, a broad industry fund that covers exchange failures (which could be semi-mandatory like the FDIC insurance fund, funded by exchange fees). That is speculative, but if another mega-exchange collapse occurred, regulators might be pressured to implement something akin to that.

翻譯：
法規與政府介入：若長期看，加密貨幣若真成為金融體系不可或缺的一環，政府終究可能主動提供或強制要求某些安全網。未來不排除會有政府再保加密系統性事件（就像某些政府承擔恐怖攻擊保險巨災責任，因為民間市場單靠私營實在無法負擔 911 等級的災難）。又例如，若央行發行 CBDC（數位央行貨幣），也有可能規定所有錢包必須附帶保險或保證。還可能出現公私合營的產業基金，例如類似 FDIC，專為交易所倒閉事件設半強制性的行業基金（用交易手續費資助）。這些目前雖屬推測，但若又發生類似 FTX 那種規模的崩潰，監管機構很可能會推動這類機制。

On the technological horizon, new risks might also come into play – quantum computing threatening cryptographic keys (insurance might start excluding that or offering special cover for “post-quantum risk” if someone’s Bitcoins are stolen by a quantum attack in the future). Insurers will have to keep adapting coverage definitions as the tech evolves (e.g., covering slashing risk in proof-of-stake networks is a novel thing that wasn’t relevant in Bitcoin’s early days; as Ethereum moved to PoS, new products emerged for slashing insurance).

翻譯：
隨著技術進步，也會出現新風險——像量子電腦威脅到加密金鑰安全（未來保單可能會明文排除這類風險，或為「後量子風險」推出特殊保險：例如比特幣若因量子攻擊被盜也能獲賠）。保險公司必須隨科技演進調整保單定義（比如權益證明網絡的處罰（slashing）風險，以前比特幣時代根本沒這回事，隨 Ethereum 轉 PoS 催生了新型「Slash 保險」產品）。

Overall, the future of crypto insurance looks likely to be more integrated, more automated, and more capacious. We will probably talk less about “crypto insurance” as a niche and more about just “insurance” in a crypto-enabled world. The goal is that as the market matures, crypto insurance becomes as commonplace and as trusted as insurance in traditional finance. A sign of that maturity will be when even everyday crypto users start assuming that certain protections are in place. For example, if you use a major exchange, you might one day see a badge, “Assets insured up to $X by Underwriter A” much like you see FDIC insured signs in banks. Or when using a DeFi lending pool, the UI might show, “Covered by Nexus Mutual – click to view terms” and users will just factor that into their decisions.

翻譯：
總的來說，加密保險未來必會更整合、自動化、規模更大。到了某個階段，大家會不再專門談「加密保險」，而是直接談「保險」在區塊鏈世界的應用。待市場成熟之後，加密保險將和傳統金融保險一樣普及和受信任。一個標誌就是——連普通用戶都自然而然認為，基本保護是理所當然。有天你打開主流交易所，或許能看到類似「由某某保險公司承保 $X」的徽章，正如銀行外經常掛著 FDIC 標誌。又或者在 DeFi 借貸池 UI 看到「由 Nexus Mutual 承保－點擊查閱條款」，用戶只需將保障納入日常決策即可。

In concluding this comprehensive overview, it’s clear that crypto insurance has moved from a fringe idea to a critical component of the digital asset ecosystem. It provides a safety net that enhances trust, encourages participation, and can dampen the shocks from the crypto world’s notorious risks. Challenges remain in making it scalable and foolproof, but the trajectory is promising. As one industry executive aptly said, we’re likely to see “more and more investors seek ways to protect their digital assets, driven by the increasing popularity of DeFi platforms and new risk management techniques”. The future will bring tighter collaboration between decentralized innovation and traditional insurance wisdom, resulting in higher capacity and more diverse coverage options for all crypto market participants. Ultimately, insurance helps transform crypto from a wild west into a sustainable, trustable part of global finance – providing that when bad days do come, as they inevitably will, there’s a safety net to catch the fall.

翻譯：
總結這篇全面回顧，可以很清楚看出，加密保險已經從邊緣想法成長為數位資產生態的關鍵組成。它提供了安全網，增強信任、促進參與，也能減緩加密圈著名的各種風暴衝擊。雖然要將它做大做強、滴水不漏仍有挑戰，但發展脈絡很樂觀。正如某位產業領袖說的，我們大概會看到*「越來越多投資人，為了保護自己數位資產，在 DeFi 熱潮與新風險管理工具帶動下，主動尋求保險方案」*。未來會是去中心化創新與傳統保險智慧結合愈發緊密，高容量、多樣化的保障選項將給所有參與者更多選擇。說到底，保險能讓加密圈從蠻荒之地，變成可持續且值得信任的全球金融拼圖——一旦總有壞日子到來，至少還有個安全網幫大家兜底。

Final thoughts

Crypto insurance, once a novel experiment, is fast becoming an essential pillar of the cryptocurrency and DeFi ecosystem. It answers the urgent question: “What happens if things go wrong?” By offering financial protection against thefts, hacks, and other calamities, insurance instills a layer of confidence in a realm famous for its risks. We began by examining what crypto insurance is and why it’s important – drawing parallels to traditional safeguards and highlighting how it can catalyze broader adoption by assuring both retail users and institutions that they won’t be left helpless in the face of losses. We traced the history of crypto insurance from its fledgling steps (when coverage was scarce and focused on basic custodial risks) to the emergence of decentralized mutuals and risk pools that now complement and compete with Lloyd’s of London syndicates.

翻譯：
加密保險，曾經被視為新奇實驗，如今卻正迅速成為密碼貨幣與 DeFi 生態不可或缺的支柱。它回應了一個所有人急需解答的問題：「萬一出事怎麼辦？」 透過針對盜竊、駭客與其他災難提供財務保障，保險為這個風險聞名的領域注入一層信心。我們先探討了加密保險是什麼、為什麼重要——不僅繪出和傳統保障手段的平行脈絡，也凸顯它如何促進主流用戶和機構安心進場，進而推動整體普及。我們也梳理了加密保險歷史，從早期（當時能保的範圍狹小，只是初步託管風險）到去中心化互助與風險池的出現，這些現在既能和倫敦 Lloyd’s 等傳統巨頭互補也已能分庭抗禮。

In analyzing risks across wallets, NFTs, and DeFi, we saw that no part of the crypto world is risk-free – hot wallets can be hacked, cold wallets can be lost, NFTs can be stolen or lose value, and DeFi protocols can implode from exploits or economic design flaws. These are precisely the perils that

翻譯：
我們在分析錢包、NFT 以及 DeFi 等不同場景時發現，加密世界沒有任何一環是「無風險」——熱錢包會被駭、冷錢包會丟失、NFT 會被偷或歸零，DeFi 協議也可能因漏洞或經濟設計失當而爆雷。這些，正是保險需要出手承擔的種種風險.....Below is the translation for your specified content, following your instructions to skip translation for markdown links:

創新型保險產品正在解決的挑戰。我們探討了集中式服務供應商所扮演的角色——從透過經紀人和保險同業合作社運作的老牌保險公司（例如Lloyd’s與Coincover合作承保熱錢包保單），到Evertas、Chainproof等專注於加密貨幣的保險公司，這些公司正搭建傳統承保與加密技術之間的橋樑。同時，我們也深入研究了去中心化保險模型，如Nexus Mutual、InsurAce、Risk Harbor等，比較它們在承保範圍、理賠、資本管理上的做法。每種模式各有優勢：去中心化平台在承保鏈上風險和促進社群驅動的保險方面表現突出，而集中式業者則帶來了龐大的資本和嚴格的監管規範。這兩種模式越來越常見的是合作，而不是衝突，藉由結合彼此長處來擴大保障範圍。

監管環境也在調整，以適應甚至有時要求加密貨幣保險。例如，香港和杜拜等司法管轄區已將客戶資產保險納入交易所執照必備條件之一，全球各地的監管機構也要求公開客戶持有的加密資產是否已投保。這類規範不僅保護消費者，同時也增強保險產品本身的正當性，吸引更多新業者進入市場。在美國和歐洲，雖然直接要求的案例尚屬少數，但整體趨勢是對風險管理有更高期待，而這往往意味著須要有保險或類似的金融保障措施。

我們也談及了加密保險目前面臨的難題。它必須克服資本效率上的瓶頸（目前的互助資金池遠超所需擔保且規模相對潛在需求偏小），同時解決技術層面的難題，例如資料預言機（oracle）被操控的風險，以及去中心化理賠治理的障礙。此外，如何與再保險世界接軌，也是持續中的工作——但像慕尼黑再保（Munich Re）、Arch這類全球再保公司正逐步投入，顯示這些挑戰正一一被克服。

展望未來，加密保險的前景充滿活力且令人樂觀。我們預計，會有更多自動化的參數型保障方案，利用智能合約近乎即時地實現賠付，人工智慧更進一步融入風險評估，優化定價並即時偵測威脅，而保險體驗將與日常加密產品更加無縫結合。更重要的是，隨著機構和散戶用戶越來越期望加密領域具有與傳統金融相同程度的保障，加密保險市場將大幅擴展。Layer-2擴容、跨鏈應用等趨勢將開拓更多舞台，也很可能孕育出跨多平台、一次性涵蓋多資產的整合型保單。大型傳統保險公司加入，以及有利的監管環境逐步成形，都將為市場注入更多承保容量與穩定性，使得系統能夠吸收更大的損失，而不需單靠個人承擔。

總結來說，加密保險正從一個小眾理念逐步演進成為支撐加密產業信譽與韌性的關鍵風險管理工具。它翻轉了「not your keys, not your coins」這句口號，加上一句：「無論你自己保管金鑰，還是託付他人，都不需獨自承擔風險」。透過審慎發展、健全治理，以及創新區塊鏈項目與傳統保險專業的協同合作，加密保險將持續進化。它為您的錢包、NFT和DeFi頭寸提供了務實的保障途徑，使參與者能以更安心的心態投身這個新金融的前線。隨著加密趨向主流金融，堅實的保險層將確保遇到不可預期的事件時，損失能被有效緩衝，信心亦能迅速恢復，最終加強整個加密生態圈的穩定與信任。