歐洲銀行正爭分奪秒地應對 歐盟加密資產市場法案（MiCA） 下的新加密託管規範。到 2026 年，任何持有或交易數位資產的銀行都必須展現嚴格的安全措施——從分隔客戶金鑰、維持不可篡改的稽核軌跡，到保有充足的資本緩衝應對加密風險。這些「託管考驗」的挑戰在於，傳統銀行該如何把加密業務納入自身營運，卻無須徹底重構核心系統？
好消息是，銀行無須重新打造整體架構。多種鏈抽象解決方案，讓 MiCA 合規更像安裝外掛，而非全面重建。這些方法抽象化了區塊鏈的複雜性，讓銀行可在保有傳統資產安全的基礎下，安全、無縫地整合加密資產。
這類方案不僅在 MiCA 強制統一標準的歐洲逐漸普及，全球各地也有類似策略興起，協助銀行因應監管指南（如巴塞爾協議要求未避險加密曝險的高額資本，以及鼓勵託管服務的豁免）。以下為協助銀行通過 MiCA 託管要求、迎接加密時代的五大鏈抽象策略解析。
1. 採用多鏈抽象中心與 API
銀行面臨的一大挑戰是加密宇宙的碎片化——不同的鏈、協議、錢包與交易格式。與其為每條網路分別打造專屬連接，銀行可利用多鏈抽象中心，作為連接多條鏈的統一閘道。這些中心提供一個單一介面（或 API），使銀行能連結多個分散式帳本，並屏蔽每條鏈的操作差異。
什麼是鏈抽象中心？ 其本質為中介軟體，可「省去對每個帳本分別管理託管、交易支付及區塊鏈端點的需求」。例如，2025 年 Centrifuge 與 Wormhole 上線的平台，就為任意區塊鏈上的基金管理提供「全鏈抽象與統一介面」。資產管理公司或銀行若採用此類平台，在和以太坊、Solana 等不同鏈互動時，無須逐一處理錢包或原生代幣支付手續費，系統將自動完成所有區塊鏈細節。這代表銀行可以把平台直接嵌入現有系統，即刻支援新型態的代幣資產，而無需為每條鏈重新開發基礎設施。
實際案例： 全球金融通訊網絡 SWIFT 近期示範了抽象層對機構的效益。在和 Chainlink 的 Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol 實驗中，證明 SWIFT 可成為跨多條公有、私有鏈移轉代幣資產的「單一入口」。Chainlink 擔綱企業級抽象層，將 SWIFT 現有安全網絡與 Ethereum 等鏈串聯，使訊息與資產可無縫穿梭其中。銀行只需整合 SWIFT，就能如同辦理跨境法幣支付般接觸眾多區塊鏈，大幅減省運維成本，無需針對每條新鏈自行開發對接，直接利用抽象中心的連通能力。SWIFT 創新主管指出，互通性是關鍵：機構需「連結整個金融生態系」，而無需為每一個平台面臨重大運營挑戰或投資。
合規效益： 抽象中心不僅便利，還能提升合規與內控。銀行將所有區塊鏈操作集中於一個平台，能產出統一的加密活動稽核軌跡。每筆經由抽象中心執行的鏈上交易都可於中心化系統紀錄，易於產出 MiCA 規定的 5~7 年不可篡改詳細紀錄。中心也能統一各鏈的安全政策，如地址白名單、角色式審批、訊息簽章規範，避免任何網路落在銀行風險控管制度之外。換句話說，抽象中心猶如企業 IT 架構的延伸，方便治理及監控，比導入多個孤島式鏈專案更易把關。
全球趨勢： 雖源起於歐洲 MiCA 需求，多鏈整合方案於全球皆有應用。在美國及亞洲，金融機構也正嘗試「加密中心」來串接多條代幣網路。例如，部分國際銀行加入以 Canton Network、Polkadot 聯盟等互通網絡，管理跨平台代幣資產。銀行透過「中心—輻射」模式，能安心部署新型資產服務，而不會動搖核心銀行系統。這也契合監管單位的審慎作風：監管者傾向銀行採用既有安全架構，只需以模組方式疊加新科技，而非將傳統銀行全盤搬上風險高的新基建。
總結來說，抽象中心讓加密整合變身外掛任務。銀行能以單一安全連線，把握公鏈從 DeFi 到代幣化證券的創新，而又維持合規的一致防護。隨著市場演進（及新鏈湧現），導入這套彈性基礎的銀行，能輕鬆維持 MiCA 對託管管控與申報的要求，並拓展各類新服務給客戶。這正是「不重建、要重整」的典範：善用 API 層負擔多鏈運作的重任，讓你的銀行在合規與客戶需求間，保持最小干擾的同時，輕鬆通過監管考驗。
2. 以 MPC 多方計算金庫守護金鑰安全託管
加密資產託管的核心在於私鑰管理——決定資產歸屬的密碼學祕鑰。MiCA 對於避免加密資產遺失或竊盜有極高要求，這最終取決於銀行對金鑰的穩固託管機制。此外，銀行也必須確保客戶金鑰隔離（嚴禁多位客戶資產用同一把金鑰），並制定交易授權流程。全球各大機構現正廣泛採用的先進解決方案，是多方計算（MPC）金庫技術，有效強化金鑰安全與營運合規。
什麼是 MPC 金庫？ 多方計算是一種密碼學技巧，使某組私鑰從未在單一地點曝光，而是先切分為多份「分片」，分佈於不同設備、流程或參與者。任何人都無法持有全金鑰，每次簽章都是用這些分片聯合運算、從未還原全金鑰。以銀行實務為例，可將分片分給自家伺服器、雲端 HSM（硬體安全模組）及受信第三方託管人。駭客或內鬼必須同時破解全部分片，才有機會盜領資產——洩漏風險指數級提升。
MPC 對機構的改變： 傳統多重簽章方案（需多把完整金鑰簽核）雖然可雙重把關，但每位簽核者仍持有完整金鑰。MPC 更具鏈中立與安全性——從來就沒有完整私鑰存在任何一地，但授權方依然可以協作簽章，徹底排除單點失誤。即使一個分片被盜，單獨無法運用。銀行特別青睞這種方式，因其完全貼合四眼原則及數位內控，譬如三個部門個別掌控一分片，必須全部同意才能出金，單一部門無權單獨動資產。
合規與稽核優勢： MPC 託管不僅更安全，更天生適合合規與紀錄保存。由於簽章過程涉及多方，每次交易系統都能細緻記錄參與的分片（及其所屬人員或機器），留下高完整性、無法竄改的稽核足跡，讓監管單位與銀行合規團隊隨時掌握每筆加密交易的「人、事、時」。實務上，MPC 建立了銀行內部分層審批的不可篡改細節帳本，直接呼應 MiCA 要求的所有加密資產營運紀錄需留存多年；紀錄越自動化、細緻，要求時越容易展現合規。
MPC 解決方案還可預設政策管控於託管系統，例如 MPC 錢包平台能規定，高於特定金額的交易必須再多取一份分片（如高層主管或風險官簽核）。也常見與即時監控、風控結合，如設地理限制，不允許未授權區域的分片參與簽章，或偵測異常交易速率即強制額外離線審批。這些控管均可在託管平台統一更新，不須調整區塊鏈層…… sensitive operations can be paused or intercepted by compliance software mid-process, if needed, without exposing the full keys. This granular control and visibility is simply not possible with a single custodian key or even basic multi-sig, and it’s a strong reason institutions prefer MPC over older methods for large-scale custody.
敏感操作在必要時，可以由合規軟體於流程中途暫停或攔截，且無須暴露完整金鑰。這種細緻的控制力與可視性，是單一託管金鑰或傳統多重簽章都無法達成的，因此也成為機構在大規模託管時，偏好採用MPC（多方計算）的重要原因。
Segregation of assets: MPC also helps with client asset segregation, a core MiCA principle. Rather than holding a giant omnibus wallet for all clients (which would be a nightmare to legally and technically segregate), a bank can establish separate MPC vaults for each client or even each account. Because creating new key shares is software-defined (not costly like setting up new hardware wallets), a bank can give each customer their own segregated vault with unique key shares controlling it. Yet the bank’s operations team can manage all these vaults from one interface, since the complexity of key management is abstracted away by the MPC coordinator. The result is each client’s assets are walled off in terms of cryptographic control (no co-mingling of keys), which is exactly what MiCA’s custody rules seek to ensure. In the event of a bankruptcy or hack, that segregation makes it clear which assets belong to customers, and the risk of one compromised key affecting others is minimized.
資產隔離： MPC 也有助於落實客戶資產隔離，這是 MiCA 核心原則之一。相較於用一個大帳戶合併保存所有客戶資產（這在法律和技術上都難以隔離），銀行可以為每位客戶甚至每個帳戶，建立獨立的 MPC 金庫。由於新金鑰分片的建立屬於軟體層面（不像新增硬體錢包那樣昂貴），銀行可以讓每個客戶都擁有專屬分離的金庫，且由獨特金鑰分片控管。但銀行營運團隊依舊能從單一介面統一管理所有金庫，因金鑰管理的複雜性由 MPC 協調器抽象化處理。如此一來，每位客戶的資產在密碼學控管上完全隔離（金鑰不會混合），這正是 MiCA 託管規範想要達到的效果。若發生破產或駭客事件，這種隔離也能明確區分資產歸屬，同時大幅降低單個金鑰損害影響其他客戶的風險。
Industry adoption: Recognizing these benefits, banks and custodians across the globe are rapidly adopting MPC. Europe’s emerging crypto custodians, like Vaultody, have built their platforms around MPC to meet stringent compliance needs. Vaultody notes that MPC enables “advanced policy rules, granular access controls, and real-time reporting” without ever exposing the full private key. In the U.S., Bank of New York Mellon – the world’s largest traditional custodian – partnered with Fireblocks, an MPC-based crypto custody provider, to launch its digital asset custody offering. Many other large custodians and fintechs (Coinbase Custody, Gemini, Copper, etc.) have incorporated MPC to secure billions in crypto assets for institutional clients. This broad adoption is a testament to MPC’s maturity and trustworthiness. Regulators, too, are comforted by MPC’s track record: there have been far fewer incidents of theft or loss on MPC-managed wallets compared to early single-key wallets, which underpins confidence that banks using MPC can keep client assets safe.
產業採用現況： 體認到上述優勢，全球各地的銀行及託管機構紛紛快速導入MPC。歐洲的新興加密資產託管業者，如Vaultody，就以MPC為核心打造平台，以符合嚴格的法遵需求。Vaultody強調，MPC可實現「進階政策規則、細緻存取控管，以及即時報告紀錄」，而且完全無需暴露完整私鑰。在美國，全球最大傳統託管銀行紐約梅隆銀行（BNY Mellon）也與MPC加密託管業者Fireblocks合作，推出數位資產託管服務。眾多大型託管機構與金融科技業者（如Coinbase Custody、Gemini、Copper等）皆已導入MPC，為機構級客戶守護上百億美元加密資產。如此廣泛的採用證明MPC成熟度及可信度。監管機構也對MPC的管理績效感到安心：MPC錢包發生竊案或遺失事件明顯遠少於早期單一金鑰錢包，強化了銀行若用MPC，可以真正保護客戶資產的信心。
In summary, MPC vaulting is a quintessential “plug-in” upgrade for any bank venturing into crypto custody. It doesn’t alter the nature of blockchain transactions – those remain the same – but it wraps the key management process in a fortress of distributed trust. By doing so, it directly addresses MiCA’s custody tests around security, segregation, and auditability. A bank can integrate an MPC custody platform into its workflow (often via API or software appliance), instantly leveling-up its crypto custody resilience to meet regulatory expectations. The result is a win-win: enhanced protection for customers (and the bank’s reputation) and a clear compliance paper trail that regulators can follow, all achieved without ripping out or replacing the bank’s existing IT systems for approvals and record-keeping.
總結來說，MPC 金庫堪稱每家進軍加密託管業務銀行必備的「外掛式」升級方案。它不會改變區塊鏈交易的本質——那些依舊如常——但會將金鑰管理過程包裹在一個分布式信任的「堡壘」中。這正面呼應MiCA在安全性、隔離性、稽核可追蹤性上的託管規範要求。銀行只需將MPC託管平台整合進現有流程（通常透過API或軟體應用部署），立即能夠大幅提升加密託管韌性，滿足監管期待。這帶來雙贏：一方面加強了客戶資產（以及銀行聲譽）的保護，另一方面提供完整、便於監管機關追查的法遵紀錄，全程也無需大幅更動銀行本來的審核與紀錄 IT 系統。
3. Adopting Dual-Rail Settlement Systems in Parallel
3. 採行雙軌（Dual-Rail）結算系統並行運作
In the rush to adopt blockchain, banks don’t have to throw out decades of infrastructure that currently keep traditional assets moving. In fact, regulators and central banks often prefer a cautious approach where new blockchain-based systems run in parallel with legacy systems – what we can call a “dual-rail” settlement approach. Think of it as running two tracks side by side: one track is the traditional ledger (core banking system, RTGS payment network, or centralized securities depository), and the other track is a blockchain or distributed ledger where tokenized assets are settled. Both rails operate concurrently, with bridges between them, giving banks the flexibility to use either or both as needed.
在積極導入區塊鏈的浪潮中，銀行並不需要完全淘汰已運行數十年的傳統資產基礎設施。事實上，監管單位與中央銀行更傾向於審慎做法，也就是讓基於區塊鏈的新結算系統與現有系統並行運作——這可稱為「雙軌結算」模式。你可以想像是兩條平行軌道：一條是傳統帳冊（如核心銀行系統、RTGS支付網絡或集中式證券保管機構），另一條則是區塊鏈或分散帳本，專責於代幣化資產的清算。兩條軌道同時運作，彼此有橋接，讓銀行在需要時可彈性選用其中一軌或雙軌並用。
How dual-rail works: Rather than an abrupt migration to on-chain processing, a bank implements a DLT platform alongside its existing databases. For example, consider interbank payments: under a dual-rail model, a bank could have a tokenized deposit system where customers’ deposits are mirrored as tokens on a blockchain. This would sit alongside the conventional account database. Payments could then be settled either by traditional means (debiting/crediting accounts in the core banking system) or by transferring the deposit-tokens on the blockchain rail, depending on which is more efficient or available. The critical part is there’s a synchronization layer ensuring that if a token moves on the DLT rail, the corresponding balance on the legacy system is adjusted (and vice versa). In securities, similarly, a bank might keep a traditional custody book but also use a blockchain-based platform like the SIX Digital Exchange (SDX) for certain tokenized securities – with mechanisms to ensure assets can be transferred between the old and new system without discrepancy.
雙軌運作方式： 銀行不是直接將所有業務遷移上鏈，而是在現有資料庫旁邊部署一個DLT（分散式帳本技術）平台。以銀行間支付為例：在雙軌模式下，銀行會有一套代幣化存款系統，讓客戶的現金存款以區塊鏈上的代幣映射存在，這與傳統帳戶資料庫並存。支付時，既可依傳統方式（在核心銀行系統沖銷帳戶）結算，也可在區塊鏈軌道轉移存款代幣，由效率或可用性決定。關鍵在於設有同步層，確保當代幣於DLT軌道移動時，傳統系統上的對應餘額也一併修正（反之亦然）。證券領域也是相同概念，銀行可以維持傳統託管帳冊，同時針對部分代幣化證券使用如SIX Digital Exchange (SDX)這類區塊鏈平台，同樣設有機制確保兩套系統間可正確轉移資產，不致出現落差。
Regulatory comfort through redundancy: This approach directly addresses regulator concerns about going “all-in” on a new tech. For instance, the Bank of England explicitly floated a dual-rail strategy in a 2024 discussion, suggesting wholesale tokenized money could “sit alongside RTGS balances”, letting banks choose whichever rail best meets their needs. In practice, that means if the blockchain network were to have an outage or if a smart contract behaved unexpectedly, the bank could fall back to the tried-and-true RTGS system to settle transactions. Conversely, if the legacy system is slow (say, it’s outside working hours and RTGS is closed), the token rail might be used for instant atomic settlement. Having both options increases resilience. Japan, in its digital yen pilot, is likewise building a full conventional backup for every blockchain function to guard against glitches. MiCA doesn’t mandate how a firm uses technology; it sets outcomes like reliable service, accurate records, and asset safeguarding. Dual-rail designs help achieve those outcomes by backing up one system with another, thereby greatly reducing the risk of any single point of failure – a key consideration under operational resilience rules (in Europe, the DORA regulation also emphasizes this kind of resilience).
雙軌模式帶來監管上的信心：這種作法可以直接解決監管單位對「全押新技術」的疑慮。例如英格蘭銀行於2024年討論文件中，便明確提出雙軌策略，主張批發型代幣化貨幣可以「與RTGS餘額並存」，讓銀行可按情況選擇最合適的軌道。實際操作上，假如區塊鏈網絡中斷或某智能合約出現異常，銀行即可退回傳統RTGS系統結算；反過來，若傳統系統處理速度較慢（如下班後RTGS關閉），就可以啟用代幣軌道進行即時結算。有這兩套系統大幅提升營運韌性。日本在數位日圓試驗中也同樣為每一區塊鏈功能建立完整傳統備援，防範突發異常。MiCA並未規定一定要採用哪種技術，只要求達到諸如服務可靠、紀錄準確、資產保障等結果。雙軌設計正好以備份方式提升這些結果，極大降低任何單一故障點的風險——也是營運韌性規範（如歐洲DORA法規）重點強調的方向。
Audit trails and legal certainty: Another big benefit of dual systems is the ability to cross-verify records. When every transaction happens on a blockchain and is reflected in a traditional database, you create two synchronized ledgers. This can simplify auditing and reconciliation. If there’s ever a discrepancy, the bank can investigate the differences between the rails. In fact, during this transitional era, many jurisdictions require a “golden record” off-chain even for on-chain transactions. For example, a tokenized bond trade might be settled on blockchain, but the definitive legal record could still be an entry in a centralized depository or a PDF confirmation stored traditionally. By running dual rails, a bank can comply with such legal requirements effortlessly: every token movement automatically updates the off-chain record which remains the legally recognized source. MiCA itself hints at this in spirit – it treats crypto custody in line with traditional custody concepts, implying that regulators expect continuity in how records are kept and how ownership is evidenced, even if a blockchain is involved. Dual-rail setups give that continuity, bridging new tech with old rulebooks.
稽核追蹤與法律確認：雙軌制的另一大優勢，是能交互驗證交易紀錄。當每一筆交易同時紀錄於區塊鏈及傳統資料庫，就形成兩套同步帳冊，有助於日後稽核與對帳。一旦出現數據差異，銀行可直接比對查明事由。其實，現階段許多司法管轄區即便已採用鏈上結算，仍會要求「黃金紀錄」需保存在鏈外。例如一筆代幣化債券交易可能在鏈上結算，但法律上的確定紀錄仍存於集中保管機構帳冊或紙本/PDF確認書。雙軌運作讓銀行輕鬆滿足這類法定要求：每次代幣移動自動同步更新鏈外紀錄，而該紀錄正是法律認可的依據。MiCA精神即大致如此——將加密託管視為延續傳統託管概念，意味監管機關期待紀錄方式與權利證明邏輯一脈相承，即便納入區塊鏈。雙軌設計正是新技術與舊法規之間的橋樑。
Use case – tokenized deposits and CBDC experiments: A concrete example of dual-rail in action is the concept of tokenized commercial bank money. In April 2025, HSBC announced it had settled its first tokenized deposit payment. This likely means HSBC created a digital representation of a customer deposit on a blockchain and transferred it to another party, instead of using the regular interbank payment network. However, HSBC didn’t turn off its regular systems – this was an incremental step. If needed, they could have converted that token back to a normal ledger entry. Similarly, projects like Switzerland’s Project Helvetia and Australia’s Project Dunbar have tested exchanges of assets between traditional RTGS and DLT platforms, effectively using both rails and linking them. Even central bank digital currency pilots often use this approach: the new CBDC runs parallel to cash and existing electronic money, ensuring a smooth coexistence during trial phases.
實例說明——代幣化存款與CBDC測試： 雙軌運作最具體的案例，就是商業銀行代幣化貨幣。2025年4月，匯豐銀行宣布完成首筆代幣化存款支付。這表示匯豐將客戶的存款以數位代幣形式記錄在區塊鏈上，並用該代幣進行交易轉帳，而非透過傳統銀行間支付網絡。同時，匯豐並未關閉原本的系統，這只是一個漸進式的應用。必要時，該代幣可以轉回傳統帳冊紀錄。同樣，瑞士的Helvetia計畫與澳洲Dunbar計畫也測試過在RTGS和DLT平台間交換資產，真正連結並運用兩條軌道。央行數位貨幣（CBDC）現有試點也大多走這種路線：新發CBDC和現金、現有電子貨幣並行，試行階段避免衝擊既有運作。
How this helps MiCA compliance: From a MiCA perspective, dual-rail can be a lifesaver in meeting stringent operational and security standards. MiCA demands that crypto-asset service providers (CASPs, which include banks offering custody or trading) have robust continuity plans and incident management. If a bank’s entire crypto operation is on one blockchain and that chain halts, the bank is in trouble. But if the bank has a parallel rail, it can switch critical processes to that rail, fulfilling its obligations to safeguard clients’ access to their assets. Dual systems also aid in segregation – for example, a bank might dedicate the blockchain rail primarily for client transactions, while keeping its own (proprietary) assets on the traditional systems, or vice versa, making a clear separation between client asset flows and the bank’s funds. This could exceed MiCA’s baseline requirement that client assets be technically and legally segregated from the firm’s own.
對MiCA合規的幫助： 以 MiCA 觀點來看，雙軌制簡直是各項營運與安全標準的「救命解方」。MiCA 規定加密資產服務提供者（CASP，包括提供託管或交易的銀行）必須建立健全的持續營運與事故管理計畫。若銀行所有加密服務都建在一條鏈上，萬一那條鏈掛掉就徹底癱瘓；但若有備用軌道，銀行可將關鍵業務切換到備援軌道，落實保障客戶資產存取權利。雙系統同樣有利於資產隔離——例如銀行可讓區塊鏈軌道主要服務於客戶交易，而自有（自營）資產仍留在傳統系統（或反之），如此一來，客戶資產流與銀行自有資金完全區隔。這甚至超越MiCA要求的「技術與法律雙重隔離」。
Gradual scalability: Dual-rail strategies also mean banks can scale into crypto gradually, which is practical for meeting compliance milestones. Leading up to the full MiCA compliance deadline (end of 2024 for most provisions), a bank might run a pilot on the secondary rail with a subset of clients or asset types. It can gather data, refine its controls, and demonstrate to regulators how the new rail behaves under stress – all while
漸進式擴張： 雙軌策略還讓銀行得以循序漸進涉足加密業務，這對於因應法規合規階段目標非常實用。配合法規生效（大部分條款於2024年底起生效），銀行可以初期只在副軌道針對部分客戶或資產類型進行試點，邊蒐集數據、優化控管，同時向監管機關展示新軌道在各種極端情境下的表現——且這一切都能與現有基礎設施並存，風險可控。having the safety net of the main rail. By the time MiCA is fully effective (2026 for those with interim exemptions), the bank can show it has a stable integrated environment. Globally, this phased approach aligns with how regulators envision modernization: the BIS (Bank for International Settlements) predicts a phase where financial systems operate in “hybrid models” – essentially dual rails – before full adoption of tokenized systems. During this hybrid phase, compliance can actually be stronger, not weaker, because every transaction goes through double validation (on two systems) and staff are running both legacy and new risk checks in parallel.
在擁有主軌安全網的保障下。等到MiCA全面生效（對於臨時豁免者來說為2026年）時，銀行可以展示其擁有一個穩定且整合的環境。從全球來看，這種分階段的方法與監管機構對現代化的藍圖一致：國際清算銀行（BIS）預測，金融系統將會經歷一段「混合模式」運作的階段——本質上就是雙軌並行——然後才會全面採用代幣化系統。在這個混合階段，合規性其實可以更強而不是更弱，因為每一筆交易都需要在兩個系統中進行雙重驗證，而且員工同時並行執行傳統以及新系統的風險檢查。
In essence, dual-rail settlement is the epitome of plug-in vs. rebuild. The bank isn’t discarding what works; it’s adding a new capability alongside. This strategy satisfies conservative regulators that innovations aren’t undermining stability, and it gives banks a chance to learn by doing in a controlled way. For the purpose of MiCA custody tests, a dual-rail approach can demonstrate that a bank has belt-and-suspenders control: even if the “belt” (blockchain) were to fail, the “suspenders” (legacy system) prevent a free-fall in asset control or record accuracy. That kind of assurance can go a long way in audits and license applications, showing that the bank is using technology to enhance reliability, not gamble with it.
本質上，雙軌交割體現的正是「外掛式」而非「重建式」的思維。銀行並不會丟棄已經有效的機制；而是在其基礎上增加新的功能。這種策略可以讓保守的監管機構信服創新並未破壞穩定性，同時也讓銀行有機會在可控範圍內學習並實踐。就MiCA託管測試而言，雙軌做法可以證明銀行具有「雙重保障」的控管力：即使「皮帶」（區塊鏈）失效，「吊帶」（傳統系統）仍可防止資產控管或紀錄正確性的自由落體式失誤。這種保障在稽核及執照申請時非常有價值，展現銀行用科技強化可靠性而不是拿未來冒險。
4. Using Tokenized Assets with Standard Identifiers (ISIN “Wrapping”)
One subtle but powerful way to make crypto feel less alien to traditional banking systems is to embed familiar identifiers and standards into tokenized assets. In traditional finance, virtually every financial instrument – stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. – is identified by codes like ISINs (International Securities Identification Numbers), CUSIPs, or SEDOLs. These codes are the backbone of trading, settlement, and custody systems; they enable automation and clear communication about which asset is which. When it comes to digital assets, especially security tokens or any token meant to represent an underlying asset, “wrapping” them with standard identifiers can massively simplify integration into banks’ workflows and compliance processes.
有一種細膩但強大的方式，能夠讓加密資產不再讓傳統銀行系統感到陌生，那就是將熟悉的識別碼和標準嵌入到代幣化資產中。在傳統金融領域，幾乎每一項金融工具——股票、債券、共同基金等——都會由ISIN（國際證券識別碼）、CUSIP或SEDOL等代碼來識別。這些代碼正是交易、交割、託管系統的基石；它們能實現自動化與清楚地溝通資產身分。在數位資產領域，特別是證券型代幣或任何代表底層資產的代幣時，若以標準識別碼「包裹」這些代幣，可以大幅簡化它們整合進銀行流程與合規程序的難度。
The concept of token-wrapped ISINs: This essentially means assigning or associating an ISIN (or similar standardized code) to a tokenized asset. For example, if a corporate bond is issued on a blockchain, it can be allocated a traditional ISIN code just like a paper bond would. Or if a crypto asset has characteristics of a security, it could be registered to get an ISIN. The Association of National Numbering Agencies (ANNA), which oversees the ISIN system globally, has already moved in this direction. They introduced a framework for “digital token identifiers” (DTIs) and extended ISINs (XT-ISIN) for digital assets. Over 1,600 tokens have been assigned DTIs under the new system, and ANNA is now rolling out “referential ISINs based on the DTIs, recognized by a new XT prefix.”. In plain language, a cryptocurrency or token can now have an identifier that looks and functions much like the ISINs used for stocks and bonds, bridging the data gap between old and new finance.
所謂「代幣包裹ISIN」的概念： 本質上，是將一組ISIN（或類似的標準代碼）指派或關聯給某個代幣化資產。舉例來說，若有一檔公司債在區塊鏈上發行，它可以像傳統紙本債券一樣分配一組ISIN。又或是某個加密資產具有證券屬性，也可以註冊取得ISIN。國際編碼機構協會（ANNA，ISIN全球主管單位）已經往這個方向邁進。他們已針對數位資產推出「數位代幣識別碼」（DTI）和延伸型ISIN（XT-ISIN）架構。目前已有超過1,600個代幣納入DTI系統，ANNA也正逐步推出「基於DTI的參照性ISIN，採用XT前綴的新識別碼」。簡而言之，如今加密貨幣或代幣可以配有與股票、債券所用ISIN相似的識別碼，彌補新舊金融數據落差。
Why this matters for banks: Think of the operational steps a bank must take to add a new asset type to its custody or trading platform. The asset needs to be recognized in internal systems, risk models, databases, etc. Those systems are often keyed by these standard codes. If a token lacks an ISIN or any standardized reference, everything from booking a trade to reporting positions becomes a custom process. That’s error-prone and costly. On the other hand, if a token has an ISIN code, a bank can slot it into many existing processes with minimal tweaks. A tokenized bond with ISIN “XT1234567890” can be reported to regulators, included in portfolio statements, and risk-weighted using existing software, just as if it were a regular bond – because the systems see a format they recognize. It “reduces friction” and makes tokens more recognizable and trustworthy to institutions, as industry analyses have noted.
對銀行而言，這點非常重要：想像一下，銀行要把一個新資產類型加入其託管或交易平台時所需要的流程。這項資產必須在內部系統、風險模型、資料庫等地方都能被正確識別。而這些系統通常都是靠標準代碼關聯。如果某個代幣沒有ISIN或標準識別，從交易登錄到頭寸申報都要改成自訂流程，容易出錯也很耗時耗錢。相反地，若代幣有ISIN，一個銀行可以幾乎不需大幅改造就能把它納入既有流程。像配有ISIN「XT1234567890」的代幣債券，可以像一般債券一樣向監管機關申報、列入資產報表、利用既有軟體計算風險權重——因為系統識別的就是熟悉格式。這正如產業分析指出的，可「降低摩擦」、大大提高代幣在機構間的可識別性與信任度。
From a MiCA compliance standpoint, standard identifiers aid in transparency and reporting. MiCA requires clear documentation for any tokens that qualify as crypto-assets, and it mandates that if a token is a financial instrument (like a tokenized stock), it actually falls under existing securities law (MiFID II) rather than MiCA. In other words, a token that is basically a security must be treated like one. That is much easier to do if it has all the trappings of a security – including an ISIN and inclusion in the normal reference data frameworks. A bank can then apply its standard MiFID compliance checks (e.g. transaction reporting, market abuse monitoring) to that token with minor adjustments, because it appears in the system as just another instrument code.
從MiCA合規角度來說，標準化識別碼有助於透明度與申報。MiCA要求任何符合加密資產定義的代幣都需有明確的文件，而且規定若代幣性質屬於金融工具（如代幣化股票），就要納入現有證券法（MiFID II）而非MiCA規管。換句話說，基本上屬於證券的代幣就得依證券處理。若這個代幣已有ISIN等證券「外觀」並呈現在一般參考資料架構中，這種作業變得容易許多。銀行只需要微調就能將一般MiFID合規檢查（如交易申報、市場濫用監控）套用到該代幣上，因為系統只是視它為另一個常規資產代碼。
Meeting custody tests through standardization: When assets are identified in a standard way, it’s easier to ensure segregation and accurate bookkeeping. For instance, in a custodial ledger, each line item might be an ISIN plus quantity. If a bank holds Bitcoin for clients, Bitcoin itself is not a security, but efforts are underway to also standardize major crypto with identifiers (the ISO 24165 DTI standard covers cryptocurrencies). If Bitcoin has a DTI/ISIN entry in the global database, a bank could theoretically treat each client’s BTC holdings similar to how it treats a foreign currency holding or a commodity, identified by a code. It ensures that client assets are clearly delineated and tracked, helping meet MiCA’s requirement that client holdings are “independently identifiable” at all times. Moreover, having standardized codes might facilitate third-party audits or reconciliations – auditors could see an ISIN/Digital Token ID on statements and independently confirm the asset’s details (like its underlying project, rights, etc.) from an authoritative registry.
透過標準化通過託管測試： 當資產以標準方式識別時，更容易確保障分隔與帳務正確性。舉例來說，在託管帳簿上，每筆項目可寫成「ISIN＋數量」。如果銀行幫客戶託管比特幣，比特幣本身雖不屬於證券，但對主要加密資產進行標準化識別（如ISO 24165 DTI標準）已現正推展中。若比特幣在全球資料庫中有DTI/ISIN條目，銀行便可理論上用管理外幣或大宗商品存款的方式，以代碼識別每個客戶的BTC，清楚區分與追蹤資產，協助銀行滿足MiCA關於客戶部位「隨時可獨立識別」的要求。此外，標準化代碼也有利於第三方稽核或核對作業——審計人員能在報表看到ISIN/數位代幣ID，並從公正的登記處獨立查證該資產詳情（如其底層專案、權益等）。
Cross-border and global alignment: Europe isn’t alone in pushing for this kind of standardization. Regulators worldwide, through IOSCO and other forums, encourage the development of identifiers for digital assets to improve surveillance and risk management. The U.S. SEC has hinted that if crypto tokens are securities, they should be treated as such when it comes to reporting – which implies using CUSIP/ISIN frameworks. In fact, some security token platforms in the U.S. already obtain CUSIPs for the tokens they issue, so that broker-dealers and clearing firms can handle them. The ISO’s DTI initiative that ANNA is part of is global in scope, ensuring that the same token gets one identifier recognized everywhere (much as ISINs are international). When banks adopt these identifiers, they are future-proofing their operations for a world where digital and traditional assets converge.
跨境與全球趨勢一致： 歐洲推動標準化識別並非孤例。全球各地監管機構透過IOSCO等組織，同樣鼓勵為數位資產開發識別碼以強化監管與風險管理。美國證交會（SEC）甚至暗示，若加密代幣屬於證券，那在申報時就該以證券規格處理——也就是使用CUSIP/ISIN架構。事實上，美國已有部分證券型代幣平台會為其發行的代幣取得CUSIP，以便券商與結算機構能順利處理。由ANNA參與的ISO數位代幣識別碼（DTI）計畫本身也是全球性的，確保同一顆代幣全球用一組識別碼（如同ISIN是國際通行）。銀行採用這種識別碼，就是為了因應數位資產與傳統資產融合的未來存好準備。
Example – tokenized bond with ISIN: Suppose a European investment bank helps issue a bond on a blockchain under the EU’s DLT Pilot regime (a sandbox for trading security tokens). By assigning that bond token an ISIN, the bank can custody it for clients just as it would any bond. The client’s portfolio statement might list “Bond X 5% 2030 – ISIN: XT0000ABCDE1 – holding: 100 tokens”. From a client perspective and a regulator perspective, this is clear and familiar. The bank’s internal risk models see “Bond X” with its ISIN and can apply the usual calculations for credit risk, etc. There’s no ambiguity that could lead to errors in capital calculations or compliance reports. This is crucial for capital buffers as well – under banking rules (Basel III), the risk weight of an asset often depends on its type (sovereign bond vs. corporate, etc.). If a token lacks classification, a bank might be forced to treat it as high-risk due to uncertainty. With an ISIN and associated data, the bank can slot it into the correct risk category (perhaps even a lower risk bucket if it’s a high-quality bond), thereby optimizing capital usage while still complying fully.
範例—帶有ISIN的代幣債券： 假設某歐洲投資銀行協助在區塊鏈上，依歐盟DLT試點計畫（為證券型代幣交易打造的沙盒）發行債券。該債券代幣被賦予ISIN後，銀行就可以像託管普通債券那樣替客戶管理。客戶的投資組合報表上可能會寫「Bond X 5% 2030 – ISIN: XT0000ABCDE1 – holding: 100 tokens」。對客戶與監管者來說，這很直觀且熟悉。銀行內部風險模型會用ISIN識別「Bond X」，並可照常套用信用風險等計算。這樣便不會有導致資本計算或合規申報出錯的不確定性。這對資本緩衝機制也很關鍵——依銀行監理規則（巴塞爾協議III），資產的風險權重通常取決於類別（如主權債還是公司債等）。若代幣分類不明，銀行就可能因風險未知被迫用高風險對待；但有了ISIN和對應資料後，銀行可將它正確歸入對應風險類別（若是高品質債券甚至放低風險組別），有效管理資本，同時無縫合規。
Plug-in rather than rebuild: Incorporating standard identifiers is perhaps the lowest-hanging fruit among our strategies, but its impact is big. It’s largely a matter of updating reference data and software to recognize the new codes – a far cry from designing new systems from scratch to track blockchain transactions. Most core banking and custody software can be updated (or may already be updated by vendors) to include the new identifier schemas for digital assets. Once that’s done, everything else – accounting, client reporting, regulatory filings – can include crypto holdings in the same breath as traditional holdings. This makes MiCA compliance (which will require periodic reports on crypto asset exposures, for instance) much simpler to integrate into the bank’s existing regulatory reporting engine. Instead of creating a parallel reporting process for “crypto stuff,” the bank can generate one unified report of all assets, since everything is tagged in a common language of ISINs and financial instrument codes.
外掛而非重建： 導入標準識別碼可說是各項策略中含金量最高、實作門檻最低的一環，但其效益極大。這主要只需要更新參考資料與軟體，使其能讀懂新代碼——遠比從零設計區塊鏈追蹤系統輕鬆。大多數核心銀行和託管系統皆可升級（甚至軟體廠商可能已支援），將新數位資產識別碼納入。完成後，會計、客戶報告、監管申報等流程就都能像傳統資產一樣納入加密資產。如此一來MiCA合規（如需定期申報加密資產曝險等）就很容易與銀行既有報告引擎整合。銀行毋須另外建立「加密專屬」報告線，只需產出一份綜合資產報表——因為所有項目都用ISIN與金融標準代碼掛號。
In summary, token-wrapped ISINs and standard identifiers act like an adaptor between the new world and the old. They allow banks to treat tokens not as exotic aliens but as just another entry in the ledger – one that existing systems can comprehend. For meeting regulatory tests, this drastically cuts down on ambiguity and manual intervention. The bank’s compliance officers can more easily certify that “Asset A in our custody = Asset A reported to regulators,” because they’re using the same naming conventions and IDs regulators expect. It’s a strategy that may not grab headlines, but quietly, it builds a foundation of clarity, consistency, and compatibility that any compliance reviewer will appreciate.
總結來說，「代幣包裹ISIN」以及標準化識別碼就像是連結新舊世界的轉接頭。它們讓銀行可以將代幣當做帳冊中的一個常規列項來看待——這是既有系統能理解的格式。於監管測試來說，這大幅減低了不確定性與人工干預需求。銀行合規人員也更容易證明「我方託管的A資產=向監管申報的A資產」，因為命名習慣與ID都按監管標準執行。這種策略也許不會成為新聞焦點，卻默默奠定了清晰、一致、可相容的基礎，是任何合規審查都會青睞的作法。
5. Leveraging Custody Tech Partnerships and Turnkey Solutions
Perhaps the most straightforward way for banks to accelerate their MiCA readiness is by partnering with specialist fintech providers that
或許，銀行加速MiCA就緒最直接的方式，就是與專業金融科技業者合作——以下為您將內容翻譯為繁體中文（台灣用法），並按照您的指示保留 markdown 連結不翻譯：
提供一站式數位資產基礎建設。過去幾年，許多科技公司——從資本充沛的新創公司到傳統託管機構的衍生企業——都已建立安全且合規的加密貨幣託管平台。銀行無需全部自行開發（這可能需要數年與大量專業知識），可以整合這些現成解決方案，甚至採用白牌（White-label）方式，將區塊鏈託管的重擔外包，同時仍保有與客戶關係的主控權。
託管即服務的興起：看到市場機會，像 Fireblocks、Metaco、Copper、Taurus 等金融科技公司，已推出可以處理金鑰管理（常見的多方計算 MPC）、交易處理及數位資產合規監控的平台。銀行可將這些平台部署於本地硬體或雲端服務，並透過 API 連接至核心銀行系統。例如，Fireblocks 提供能連接數十個區塊鏈和流動性供應商的安全錢包基礎架構，僅需一次整合即可串接。Metaco 的平台（稱為 Harmonize）則設計可與銀行現有的託管核心系統整合，讓銀行能在同一套系統中「儲存、發行並清算證券型代幣與傳統資產」。
大型銀行已著手採用這條路線。歐洲最大託管銀行之一的法國巴黎銀行證券服務（BNP Paribas Securities Services）公開宣布，為建立其數位資產託管服務，「選擇了兩家主要金融科技公司——Fireblocks 和 METACO」，而非自頭開始研發。Fireblocks 技術於一項實驗中被採用，讓 BNP Paribas 成功協助在以太坊上發行代幣化債券，展現出該方案的可行性。與此同時，Metaco 的軟體將被整合進 BNP 的核心託管平台，讓銀行能同時管理加密資產與傳統資產。BNP 指出，其目標是「為我們的客戶提供所有不同資產類別的單一視圖，以達到完全透明、更高的營運效率與風險管理」，最終能在「多資產、多供應商平台」上「實現傳統與數位資產的完整連接」。簡而言之，BNP Paribas 正透過專業供應商的模組升級原有系統，打造支援加密的解決方案——這正是本文主題所述的插拔式（Plug-in）策略。
更快速的合規與部署：透過和成熟的加密託管供應商合作，銀行可以直接承襲多項內建的合規元件。這些業者通常已完成安全稽核、加密資產保險安排、甚至在部分區域取得監管核准（例如有些已註冊為 CASP，或獲得 SOC2 營運安全認證）。這讓銀行在面對 MiCA 嚴格的授權門檻（包括技術與營運能力的證明）時更具信心，只需報告其集成的已驗證解決方案。銀行無需向監管機構解釋自主研發的密鑰儲存設計，而是用業界公認、實踐最佳多方計算（MPC）、具備可查核紀錄且被大量合規機構採用的 Fireblocks 等廠商作為實例。等於借力使力——供應商平台能結合廣泛客戶回饋，多數常見監管疑慮（如角色分層管理、交易白名單、職責分離）多已預先解決。
從上市時程來看，這無價可比。MiCA 倒數計時——到 2024 年底，歐盟所有加密託管服務提供商（包括銀行）必須符合法規，或在過渡期中明顯邁向 2026 的合規落日規定。若銀行今日才開始完全自主打造託管方案，往往很難及時達標；合作則能大幅加快落地。例如，美國紐約梅隆銀行（BNY Mellon）宣布提供加密託管，就是基於 Fireblocks 技術，讓服務快速推出。同樣的，渣打銀行則透過其投資事業 Zodia Custody（與 Northern Trust 合作開發）專注技術面，而法國興業銀行則啟動其 Forge 平台，但特定功能仍與科技供應商合作或使用其解決方案。
整合與插拔特性： 這類合作設計講究順暢整合。多數託管技術平台都提供 API 及 SDK，供銀行整合進現有客戶通路（如網銀 app 或交易系統）。因此，銀行客戶甚至不知道幕後的加密錢包由第三方平台支援——在他們眼中只是銀行 app 裡的另一個帳戶。而銀行可透過後台管理台控管錢包權限與限額。優質供應商更提供客製化彈性，滿足銀行獨特需求。例如，銀行可在平台上建構組織權限架構——如交易員能發起交易，但大量交易須經營運部門審核，貼合銀行的內控制度。這與銀行既有的 SWIFT 支付運作方式相似（一組人錄入，一組人審批），差異在於平台商已建好基礎架構，銀行只需調整規則設定，不必從零寫程式。
另一個面向是白標（white-label）方案。部分金融科技商允許銀行以自家品牌經營，但後台採用其託管基礎建設。這服務甚至可延伸至託管以外，例如券商或質押，但在 MiCA 框架下，託管為重點。如果白標託管服務本身已符合法規，銀行基本就承襲了合規（雖然銀行仍有持續監督供應商的法定責任）。MiCA 容許特定外包情形，只要 CASP（銀行）確保外包單位符合規範。因此，銀行需詳列供應商盡職調查，監管機關通常也會因名牌廠商加分感到安心。
資本效率與風險管理： 有趣的是，採用第三方託管技術對資本緩衝也有幫助。根據即將上路的巴塞爾準則，純粹代客保管的資產（未計入銀行自身資產負債表）不適用於直接持有加密資產的嚴格 1250% 風險權重。採用強健託管方案，銀行可明確表示自己僅保管資產，並未承擔市場部位，資本要求維持可控。有些銀行還會為託管中的數位資產投保（類似保險箱保險）——通常，託管平台能協助串接保險業者或內建保險，這也符合 MiCA「保障」資產的法定要求，實際上就是將風險轉移到保險業，是資本緩衝一種形式。
全球合作案例： 歐洲之外類似合作亦頻見：美國銀行（U.S. Bank）與 NYDIG 合作為客戶提供比特幣託管，而澳洲澳紐銀行（ANZ）也是投資託管技術而非從零開發。這些動作皆顯示，受規監管的機構不必自行閉門造車，才能進駐加密領域——也未必最快或最安全。因此，市場還出現大量併購（M&A）現象，大型金融基礎設施商併購加密託管公司整併其技術（例：納斯達克曾計畫藉收購進入託管市場，倫敦證券交易所直接買下託管技術公司）。這趨勢意謂著，至 2025 年及之後，即使現在尚未啟動的銀行，也將發現更多成熟供應商以隨插即用模組助其合規，滿足 MiCA 及其他要求（如反洗錢、Travel Rule 等配套工具也內建）。
本質上，託管科技合作體現了合規成為「插拔式組件」。銀行結合自身優勢（客戶信任、監管執照、資產負債表）與金融科技優勢（敏捷開發、原生加密資安、多鏈支援）。最終讓銀行能用更少內部開發，迅速提供符合法規的加密託管服務，通過 MiCA 審查。銀行可專注於政策與治理（正是監理機關最關注的領域），而非花力氣於區塊鏈底層整合開發。此策略不僅加速合規，還可為銀行數位資產業務快速起步 —— 這些平台多數支援未來功能（質押、DeFi、代幣化），等託管底盤到位，銀行便可再逐步開啟附加功能，是一種模組化路線：現在取得核心託管組件通過監管門檻，日後按需要「打開」其他供應商模組即可擴大業務服務範疇。
結語
MiCA 新法制即將啟動，預示銀行在經營加密資產時，必須達到與傳統金融相同的嚴謹標準與安全機制。這一願景或許令人卻步——畢竟分散式帳本與代幣運作模式跟銀行數十年磨練的集中式系統截然不同。但如前文所述，銀行手頭已有一套「鏈抽象」的工具組，可大幅簡化傳統金融與數位資產的結合。透過多鏈樞紐，銀行避免了系統碎片化，一站式接軌加密生態並維持統一監控。用 MPC 儲存金鑰，把單點故障轉變為分散式且內建審查流程的安全機制，滿足資安和稽核要求。藉由雙軌清算......smartly balance innovation and continuity, ensuring that new digital asset operations enhance rather than compromise reliability. By standardizing tokens with identifiers that slot into existing databases, they make these assets speak the language of legacy systems and regulators alike. And by partnering with crypto custody specialists, they accelerate their journey, plugging in battle-tested technology instead of spending precious time reinventing it.
巧妙地在創新與延續之間取得平衡，確保新的數位資產營運能提升而非犧牲可靠性。透過以標準化的代幣識別碼嵌入現有資料庫，讓這些資產能同時與傳統系統與監管機構「對話」。與加密資產託管專家合作，更可加速進程，直接導入經過實戰驗證的技術，省下寶貴的時間，無須重新發明輪子。
Together, these approaches can make MiCA compliance feel less like a costly IT overhaul and more like adapting a few key components – very much a plug-in paradigm. Importantly, these strategies are not only useful for EU MiCA rules; they position banks to handle the evolving global regulatory landscape. The Basel Committee’s crypto framework (effective 2025) explicitly encourages strong custody practices by not penalizing them with high capital charges, meaning banks worldwide have incentive to build secure custody services. The SEC’s focus on qualified custodians in the US similarly nudges banks to up their custody tech game or partner with those who have it. Chain-abstraction plays give banks a way to meet these expectations efficiently.
結合這些做法，能讓MiCA合規不再像昂貴的大型IT改造，而更像只是調整幾個關鍵元件——十足是外掛插件的模式。更重要的是，這些策略不僅適用於歐盟MiCA規範，也讓銀行有能力應對全球不斷演進的監管環境。巴塞爾委員會的加密貨幣框架（2025年生效）明確鼓勵堅實的託管作法，並未以高額資本要求予以懲罰，這代表全球銀行都有動機發展安全的託管服務。美國SEC強調「合格託管人」的規定，也同樣推動銀行提升託管科技或與擁有這些能力的夥伴合作。而「鏈抽象化」的策略，正好讓銀行有效率地滿足這些新要求。
In deploying these solutions, banks will find that compliance is not just about avoiding penalties – it can be a springboard to new business models. Once the infrastructure is in place to safely and cleanly handle digital assets, banks can expand offerings to include things like tokenized securities trading, on-chain collateralized lending, or digital currency payments, all within a compliant framework. Those that move early will have an advantage in serving the growing client demand for digital asset services under the trust umbrella of a regulated bank.
在導入這些解決方案的過程中，銀行會發現合規不只是為了避免處罰——它甚至可能成為新商業模式的跳板。一旦擁有穩健且合規的數位資產基礎設施，銀行就能擴展服務，包括代幣化證券交易、鏈上抵押放款、或數位貨幣支付，而且一切都在合法合規的架構下。那些率先踏出腳步的銀行，將能領先回應市場對於受監管銀行數位資產服務日益增長的信任需求。
Ultimately, achieving MiCA’s custody standards is a milestone in the broader journey of banking modernization. The five strategies outlined serve a common purpose: they abstract complexity and embed compliance by design. Banks that leverage them will be able to confidently say to regulators and clients, “We can support the innovation of crypto-assets while upholding the safety and integrity you expect from us.” In doing so, they aren’t just passing a test – they’re preparing their institutions for the future of finance, where traditional and crypto rails merge into a stronger, more versatile financial system. The road to 2026 is paved with challenges, but with the right abstractions in place, banks can travel it securely at full speed, rather than crawling with caution. The tools are ready – it’s time to plug in and turn the key on a new chapter of compliant crypto banking.
最終，達成MiCA的託管標準，是銀行現代化長路上的一項重要里程碑。這裡所提的五大策略有著共同目標：將複雜抽象化，並在設計之初即內嵌合規要求。善用這些策略的銀行，將能自信地對監管機構和客戶表示：「我們能在維護金融安全與誠信的同時，支持加密資產的創新。」這麼做，他們不僅僅是在通過一場考驗，更是在為金融未來做準備——一個傳統金融與加密資產系統融合，成為更強大、更有彈性的金融新時代。邁向2026的道路雖充滿挑戰，但有了正確的抽象化導入，銀行能以全速安全地前進，而不是小心翼翼地慢爬。工具已就位——現在正是接上外掛、啟動合規加密銀行新篇章的時刻。