本研究系統性探討全球虛擬資產（Virtual Assets, VA）與資產代幣化發展對傳統金融體系之影響，並整合金融穩定委員會（FSB）、國際證券委員會組織（IOSCO）與巴塞爾銀行監理委員會（BCBS）等國際監理指引，建構適用於金融機構風險治理分析框架，以評估虛擬資產相關風險之系統性特徵。

研究結果顯示，虛擬資產風險已呈現高度系統性傳導性，主要源於穩定幣設計缺陷所引發之流動性危機（如 TerraUSD 脫鉤事件），以及多功能加密資產集團（MFGs）因資產混同與治理失靈所導致之結構性崩潰（如 FTX 案例），並可能透過跨市場連結擴散至傳統金融體系。

在政策意涵上，監理機關應採取審慎監管取向，依據 BCBS 標準對高風險虛擬資產曝險適用懲罰性資本權重，並要求穩定幣儲備資產符合高品質流動性資產（HQLA）與信託隔離機制；同時，金融機構應落實 FATF 旅行規則並運用監理科技強化風險控管。結合亞洲各國在資產代幣化與數位貨幣制度之實踐經驗，本研究建議臺灣加速推動《虛擬資產服務法》立法，以平衡金融創新與體系穩定。

This study systematically examines the impacts of global virtual assets (VAs) and asset tokenization on the traditional financial system. By integrating regulatory guidelines issued by the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), the research develops a bank-level risk governance framework to assess the systemic characteristics of virtual asset–related risks.

The findings indicate that risks associated with virtual assets have exhibited a high degree of systemic transmission, primarily driven by liquidity crises arising from structural deficiencies in stablecoin design, as illustrated by the TerraUSD de-pegging event, as well as governance failures of multifunctional crypto-asset groups (MFGs) resulting from asset commingling, as exemplified by the collapse of FTX. These risks have the potential to propagate across markets and spill over into the traditional financial system.

From a policy perspective, regulators should adopt a prudential supervisory approach by applying punitive capital risk weights to high-risk virtual asset exposures in accordance with BCBS standards, and by requiring stablecoin reserves to meet high-quality liquid asset (HQLA) requirements and trust segregation mechanisms. Meanwhile, financial institutions should strictly implement the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Travel Rule and leverage regulatory technology (RegTech) to enhance on-chain risk attribution and compliance screening. Drawing on regional developments in asset tokenization and digital currency systems across Asia, this study recommends that Taiwan accelerate the enactment of the Virtual Asset Service Act to balance financial innovation with systemic stability.

Bank of Japan（BOJ）（2025年10月）。Private law frameworks for tokenized assets: Implications from legal developments in Switzerland, Germany, France, and the United States。BOJ Working Paper Series。
European Banking Authority（EBA）（2025年10月）。Report on tackling ML/TF risks in crypto-asset services through supervision: Lessons learned from recent cases。
European Systemic Risk Board（ESRB）（2025年10月）。Crypto-assets and decentralised finance: Report on stablecoins, crypto-investment products and multi-function groups。
Financial Stability Board（FSB）（2025年10月）。Thematic review on FSB global regulatory framework for crypto-asset activities: Peer review report。
Financial Stability Institute（FSI）、Bank for International Settlements（2025年10月）。Stablecoin-related yields: Some regulatory approaches（FSI Briefs No. 27）。
International Organization of Securities Commissions（IOSCO）（2025年10月）。Thematic review assessing the implementation of IOSCO recommendations for crypto and digital asset markets: Final report。
Monetary Authority of Singapore（MAS）（2025年10月）。Response to feedback received on prudential treatment of cryptoasset exposures and requirements for additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital instruments for banks。
Quinlan & Associates（2025年10月）。From experimentation to adoption: Developing the right value proposition for CBDCs in the digital money race。
吳尚燉（2025年6月20日）。解析資誠PwC《2025全球加密法規報告》：穩定幣監管、洗錢防制與臺灣進展之比較分析。
浪鏈研究團隊（2025）。《2025最新整理：台灣加密貨幣監管法案全解析》。
復旦發展研究院金融研究中心（2025年10月10日）。《金融學術前沿：穩定幣之機制解析、政策梳理與全球實踐》。
中國信託銀行研究團隊（2025年7月21日）。《穩定幣系列一：金融市場之投資意涵》。中國信託銀行。.
加密城市研究團隊（2025）。《加密支付深度研究報告：2025穩定幣發展趨勢與替代性分析》。
陳俠語（2025）。《洗錢防制新興議題研究—以網路洗錢（Cyber-Laundering）視角探析虛擬資產服務業者之法遵義務及監管政策》。國立政治大學法律學系碩士論文。
孫艷萍（2023）。《演算法穩定幣的泡沫：以Terra Ecosystem之UST為個案研究》。銘傳大學碩士論文。