李晶
上海政法学院法律学院讲师，华东政法大学法学博士后流动站在站博士后
Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Shanghai School of Political Science and Law, and post-doctoral post-doctoral post-doctoral post-doctoral post, East China University of Political Law
要目
It's important. 一、引言
Introduction 二、Web3.0通证经济法律治理的逻辑前提：数字权利
II. The logical premise of Wib3.0 consensual economic legal governance: digital rights 三、Web3.0通证经济法律治理的内在动因：平台权力
III. Web 3.0 Pertinent drivers of economic legal governance: Platform powers 四、Web3.0通证经济法律治理的外部力量：政府权力
IV. Web 3.0 The external forces of economic and legal governance: Government authority 结语
Concluding remarks 用户在通证平台制定和执行通证经济规则下形成基于其数字分身与通证财产的复合性数字权利，数字分身权利为实现通证权利服务。用户的数字权利构成通证经济发展的权利基础，是Web3.0通证经济法律治理的逻辑前提。通证平台权力是一种指向通证经济规则制定和执行的类“立法权”“行政权”“司法权”的复合权力，其行使具有控制性、羁束性和迎合性特征。通证平台在权力内容构成、适用对象和行使特征上不同于平台经济时代对平台的规范与管理，给用户及其数字权利带来错综复杂影响。以政府权力纠偏通证平台权力实现对通证经济的法律治理，要从保障用户通证权利原则出发，对通证经济参与主体征收所得税实现对通证经济收入分配调控，构建对通证经济规则进行伦理、公众参与、平等对待的审查机制。
Users develop and implement a composite digital right based on their digital siding and pseudonyms under the Translator's economic rules, and digital sibling rights serve to achieve pseudonym rights. User's digital rights form the basis of the rights of translator economic development, which is a logical premise for the governance of the Wieb 3.0 pseudonyms. Physics is a composite power that refers to the type of “legislative” “administrative power” “jurisdictional power” that is developed and implemented by the Translator's economic rules and that exercises control, restraint and compatibility features. The pseudatory platform has an ethical, public participation and equal treatment review mechanism for economic rules of translatorship, based on the principle of safeguarding user generality. 一、引言
I, Introduction 自2021年12月国务院印发《“十四五”数字经济发展规划》明确强调“推动我国数字经济健康发展”以来，作为“新一代互联网”的Web3.0正在成为数字经济的关键基础设施，数字经济的典型表现样态通证经济依托智能化技术迅速发展。快速的网络传输速度、用户参与程序编写等被认为是早期Web3.0的特点，但今天语境下的Web3.0主要指的是以人工智能（AI）、区块链、云计算、大数据等“ABCD”智能化技术作为支撑的价值互联网。“在Web3.0时代，我们不但可以在互联网上读取、交换信息，还可以传递资产，也可通过通证（Token）拥有互联网本身，并以此衍生出了‘通证经济’”。通证经济是智能化工具的有机结合和综合使用，通过对资源的有效配置来改变既有的生产关系，形成新的经济模式。Web3.0为生产、交换、分配、消费价值的通证经济提供安全、高效、智能的网络连接。
Since December 2021, when the State Department issued the “14th Five-Year Digital Economic Development Plan” with a clear emphasis on “promoting the healthy development of our digital economy”, Web3.0, which is the “new generation of Internet”, has become a key infrastructure for the digital economy. “In the age of Web3.0, we can not only read and exchange information, but also transmit assets, but also have the Internet itself through the Certificate (Token), which has been derived from the `Intelligent Economy'.” The Translator Economy is an organic integration and integrated use of smart tools, with a view to changing existing production relationships through the effective allocation of resources, creating a new economic model. 与Web1.0时代以“点击流量”为特点的信息经济、Web2.0时代以“垄断数据”为特点的平台经济不同的是，Web3.0时代是以“用户价值”为特点的通证经济。不同阶段的互联网时代经济发展变化契合了利用用户到用户主导的法律关系主体地位的转移。“它（区块链）使得我们有可能不交换数据，但能交换数据的价值，因此互联网将被区块链彻底重构”。基于对通证经济特点的描述，分布式对应平台经济的集中式，旨在构建平等的经济关系，消除企业与用户平等民事主体外观下权利义务的巨大差距；数字分身与数字资产对应平台经济的平台与数据，以智能合约等智能化技术确保用户之间法律关系的设立、变更及终止基于意思自治，避免企业以单方解释的格式合同维护企业与用户之间的不平等关系；生产者对应平台经济的使用者，通证经济的产权确定、收益分配、规则制定等机制确保价值生产者和贡献者都能获得收益，避免由平台作为数据使用者独享收益而导致财富分配不均。
Unlike the information economy of the Web1.0 era, which is characterized by “click traffic”, and the Web 2.0 era, which is characterized by “monopolistic data”, the Web3.0 era is characterized by a hyphenic economy characterized by “user values”; the different stages of Internet economic development coincide with the transfer of the status of the user-dominated subject of legal relations. “It (block chain) makes it possible for us not to exchange data, but to exchange the value of data, so that the Internet will be completely reconstructed.” Based on the description of the hyphenic economy, the centralized form of distributed counterpart economics is aimed at building equitable economic relations, eliminating the huge gap in rights obligations between enterprises and users on an equal footing with civil subjects; the platform of digital diversity and digital asset counterpart economies and data, smart technology such as smart contracts to ensure the creation, transformation and termination of legal relations between users, and to avoid the unequal relationship between business and users by means of monopolistic contracts; users of producer counterpart economics, property rights determination, distribution of benefits, rule-making, etc. 通证经济对用户数字权利保护的另一面是智能化技术成为通证平台维护通证经济秩序的手段。看似是用户分布式参与通证经济，实则是在通证平台统一规则的前提下对用户产生的价值进行再分配。与赤裸裸地处理用户数据获得数据价值的平台经济相比，通证平台获得价值的方式更为隐蔽，所具有的平台权力可能不减反增。囿于通证平台规则以智能合约等智能化技术强制执行的封闭环境，用户并不具备足以与通证平台权力相匹配的数字权利，甚至是与之抗衡的权利救济途径。在实践中，通证平台“割韭菜”、以隐私保护名义从事洗钱等违法犯罪行为都说明研究通证经济法律治理问题的必要性。
Another facet of the protection of user digital rights in the televised economy is the use of smart technology as a means of maintaining a mesmerized economic order on a mesmerized platform. It appears that users participate in the mesmerized economy on a distributed basis, and that the value generated by users is redistributed in the context of uniform rules on mesmerical platforms. 当前研究多聚焦如何解决元宇宙中经济运行的规则治理问题，而如何从数字权利、平台权力以及政府权力关系视角来研究通证经济的治理问题还存在相当空白。尤其是在Web3.0时代以分布式为表现特征下，用户权利呈现分散化而平台权力逐渐趋向集中化，用户的数字分身和数字资产成为平台管理或控制用户的工具，基于分布式自治组织（DAO）汇集的数字权利在具有规则制定权的通证平台面前难以有效发挥治理效果。如果政府权力不介入通证经济治理，平台将会持续利用智能化技术加大砝码，将原本倾斜于保护用户的天平拖向有利于自己的方向。
In particular, in the Web3.0 era, where users’ rights were fragmented and the platform’s powers were increasingly centralized, users’ digital diversities and digital assets became tools for the platform’s management or control of users, and digital rights compiled by distributed autonomous organizations (DAOs) were unlikely to be effective in governance in the face of a rule-making membrane platform. If government power was not involved in translator economic governance, the platform would continue to use smart technology to magnify, and would be tilted towards protecting users’ scales for its own direction. 与市场经济概念相比，通证经济所具有的自主性、平等性、竞争性、开放性和有序性等本质属性并未变化，但通证经济价值的基础在于信任，而非简单的连接。这决定了通证经济用户的数字权利与平台的权力之间存在张力关系，与平台经济中平台权力一方独大存在明显差异。故本文将围绕通证经济法律治理这一核心命题，从通证经济以“还”数字权利于用户的特点作为Web3.0通证经济法律治理的逻辑前提，分析以分布式为特征的Web3.0为何反而会让平台权力膨胀，打破通证经济自我治理的平衡，进而探索寻求政府权力介入通证经济治理中以恢复用户数字权利与平台权力平衡的外部力量。
Compared to the concept of a market economy, the essential attributes of a mesmerized economy, such as autonomy, equality, competitiveness, openness, and orderlyness, remain unchanged, but the foundations of the mesmerizing economic value lie in trust rather than in simple connections. This determines the tension between the digital rights of users of the mesmerized economy and the power of the platform, which is distinctly different from the platform’s power side of the platform’s economy. 二、Web3.0通证经济法律治理的逻辑前提：数字权利
II. The logical premise of Wib3.0 across-the-board economic law governance: digital rights 当Web3.0与用户所具有的人身关系和财产关系相结合时，会产生与民法上人身权利和财产权利不完全相同的形式，即作为用户的一方主体参与通证经济活动，在遵循通证经济规则下产生的基于数字分身和数字资产的权益，本文将其称为用户的数字权利。不过，数字权利并非实在法意义上的规范概念，只具有描述性价值。可以说，决定通证经济发展的并非网络服务提供者，而是在Web3.0中进行通证生产和通证交换的用户。有赖于此，用户数字权利的实现和保障是对Web3.0通证经济进行法律治理的逻辑前提。
When web3.0 is combined with the personal and property relationship of the user, it produces forms that are not identical to civil law rights to personal and property rights, i.e., the participation of the user as a subject in a general economic activity based on digital siding and digital assets, which is referred to here as the user’s digital rights. However, digital rights are not a normative concept in the positive sense but have only descriptive value. It can be said that it is not the network service provider that decides on the development of a translator’s economy, but rather the user of translator production and translator exchange in Web3.0. On this basis, the realization and guarantee of the user’s digital rights is a logical prerequisite for legal governance of the Web3.0 translator’s economy. 数字权利产生基础：智能化技术的“不可能三角”与“可能三角”
论及Web3.0通证经济用户数字权利问题，不可避免要从技术层面开始讨论。在区块链技术诞生之初，技术开发者就意识到了区块链技术的弊端，即区块链的公链无法同时实现可拓展性（高性能性）、安全性和去中心化这三个维度的要求，如果实现其中两个性能就要牺牲另一性能，这被称为区块链的“不可能三角”。技术应用的匿名化效果弱化了数字分身与现实身份的连接，让用户能够以数字分身平等地参与通证经济活动。
Turning to the digital rights of users of the Web3.0 membrane economy, it is inevitable to start discussing them at the technical level. At the inception of block-chain technology, technology developers realized the disadvantages of block-chain technology, namely, that the public chain of block-chains could not achieve the three dimensions of expansion (high performance), security and decentralization at the same time, and that the achievement of two of those features would be at the expense of the other, which was called the “no possibility triangle” of the block-chain. The anonymity of technology applications weakened the connection between digital divers and real identities, allowing users to participate equally in translator economic activities as digital divers. 一个被避而不谈的问题就是在通证平台成立之时，已由一个大中心（往往是平台的创始人）通过制定相应规则确定通证经济运行的基本秩序。对于通证经济的发展并非强调去中心化，而是从不同层面看待中心问题。第一个层面是用户以数字分身在通证经济中分别形成的个体中心，即数字分身的独立性和平等性。第二个层面是不同用户基于数字分身以参与通证经济治理而形成的组织中心，即分布式自治组织（DAO）。第三个层面是用户的数字分身与通证平台基于共同认可的价值与规则形成的平台中心。此外，未来还可能存在第四个层面，即Web3.0通证经济中心。这是在不同的通证平台之间实现互通后，能够形成“人类和人工智能生命体共同的伦理和价值体系”。总之，Web3.0时代的通证经济并非去中心化经济，而是在“集权—分权—集权”模式下进行的分布式治理，片面强调去中心化并无实质意义。
The first dimension is the personal centre of digital diversity in the tranco-economy, i.e. the independence and equality of digital diversities. The second level is the organizational centre of digital diversity, the distributed self-governing organization (DAO), which defines the basic order for the functioning of the hymn economy by establishing the corresponding rules. The third level is the platform centre of the user's digital divisibility and translator platform, which is based on commonly recognized values and rules. In addition, there may be a fourth dimension in the future, namely, the Web3.0 Translator Economic Centre. 至于区块链技术的可拓展性，其实解决的是通证生产和交换的成本效率问题。当然，从一个技术的全生命周期来看可扩展性并不是一个真问题。简单来说，在区块链中完成每一笔交易都需要节点争夺记账权，需要巨大的算力。从普通计算机可以进行“挖矿”到需要专业设备“挖矿”，足以说明通证的生产和交换需要巨大的算力支持。这被认为是高能耗却低效率，不符合成本效益原则，但符合技术发展的一般规律，即通过消耗巨大能量来解决交易过程中的信任问题。在解决了这个核心问题后，再考虑降低区块链能耗、提高效率。典型如以太坊，以太坊诞生之初也是通过PoW作为工作量证明机制，为了减少能耗转向PoS权益证明机制。而区块链的安全性，主要解决的是用户数字资产安全性问题。同样地，区块链的安全性可能只是某个时空下的一种状态，在受到外界恶意的破坏下即打破平衡。只要区块链技术发展，安全性问题始终在区块链开发者或维护者与黑客之间反复拉扯。
As for the expansionability of block-chain technology, the solution is the cost-effectiveness of general production and exchange. Of course, expansion is not a real problem from the full life cycle of a technology. Simply put, the completion of every transaction in a block chain requires nodes to compete for bookkeeping. 从发展的眼光看区块链技术，“不可能三角”并不实际存在；或者说，“不可能三角”的“三角”可能无法同时实现。推动Web3.0这新一代互联网持续获得生命力在于通证经济的活力，既强调不同主体能够平等参与到通证经济中，也需要分布式网络能够支持大量、频繁的交易等通证经济活动，并保障用户的财产安全。只有动态发展且可以自我修复、具有分布式、高性能性和安全性“可能三角”的智能化技术，才能满足用户通证经济活动需求，这一技术成为理解数字权利概念的基础。
From a development perspective, the “no way to triangle” technology does not actually exist; or the “no way to triangle” “triangular” may not be realized at the same time. Promoting the new generation of Web3.0’s continued viability lies in the dynamism of the meso-economy, with emphasis on the equal participation of different subjects in the meso-economy and the need for distributed networks that support large and frequent tradable economic activities and safeguard the property security of users. Only a dynamic, self-repairable, distributed, high-performance and security “probable triangle” intelligent technology that meets the needs of user hysteria, which forms the basis for understanding the concept of digital rights. 数字权利表现形式：数字分身权利与数字资产权利
“个人数据权利是一个框架性权利体系，既容纳新兴数据基本权利，也涵盖传统基本权利的数字化法益内容”。结合上文分析，用户的数字权利是数字分身和数字资产的融合。“个人信息的人格属性不妨碍其内含的财产价值可以与主体分离，外化为财产并可为商业利用”。与民法中的人身权利和财产权利相对应，用户的数字权利具体表现为数字分身权利和数字资产权利。
“The right to personal data is a framework system of rights that accommodates both the fundamental rights of emerging data and the benefits of digitalization of traditional fundamental rights.” In conjunction with the above analysis, the digital rights of users are a combination of digital diversities and digital assets. “The personal attributes of personal information do not prevent the intrinsic value of the property from being separated from the subject, externalized into property and commercial use.” Corresponding to the personal and property rights in civil law, the digital rights of users are expressed in digital bilocation and digital asset rights. 1.作为与人身权利相对应的数字分身权利
1. Right to digital segregation as a corresponding right to personal rights 在通证经济中，用户的数字分身权利往往是为了数字资产权利实现而存在的，与人身权利存在差异。数字分身权利是指用户基于其数字分身所享有的权益。用户的数字分身表现为记录了其所拥有资产和活动的个人账户，具有明显的财产属性。
In a hyphenic economy, the digital splitting rights of users often exist for the realization of digital asset rights and differ from the rights of the person. Digital splitting rights refer to the rights and interests of users based on their digital splitting. 首先，是数字分身而不是数字身份。在民法的一般理论中，自然人的民事权利分为人格权和身份权两类。其中，身份权具有专属含义，是指自然人基于婚姻、家庭中的关系所具有的身份或地位的权利。显然，用户在通证经济中并不具有这样的身份权，使用数字身份权利的表述易与身份权混淆。故而，使用数字分身更为妥当，用来指代用户在通证经济中的角色。
In the general theory of civil law, the civil rights of natural persons are divided into the rights of personality and identity. In this context, the right to identity has the exclusive meaning of the right of a natural person to an identity or status based on marriage or family relations. Clearly, users do not have such a right in the general economy, and the expression of the right to digital identity can easily be confused with the right to identity. 其次，数字分身是被创造的。现实世界的人进入Web3.0中拥有各项数字权利的前提是创造一个数字分身。数字分身是用户根据自己喜好设置的包括虚拟头像、虚拟形象等在内的自我描述。不能简单地认为，用户的数字分身是其现实身份在通证经济活动中的延伸，数字分身也可独立存在，利用人工智能技术自我学习，继续在元宇宙中活动，即便现实世界的人不再存在。创造的数字分身具有真实性与数字分身可以和现实身份毫无关联并不矛盾。与自然人的民事权利能力相似，可以认为用户在创造出数字分身时具有数字分身权利能力。由于数字分身被记录在区块链上难以篡改，只要区块链运行，数字分身也会一直存在，并不会随着用户死亡而终止。
Second, digital dichotomy is created. People in the real world enter Web3.0 with digital rights on the premise that there is a digital dichotomy. Digital dichotomy is a self-description of users based on their own preferences, including virtual heads, virtual images, etc. It cannot simply be assumed that the digital dichotomy of users is an extension of their real identity in translator economic activities, that digital divers exist independently, that artificially intelligent technologies are used to learn themselves and continue to operate in the metacosystem, even if people in the real world no longer exist. 最后，创造数字分身的能力有差异。用户有平等创造数字分身的权利。不过，平等创造数字分身不等于有同等能力装扮数字形象。“当代的社会网络理论也已揭示，即使将社会结构刻画成由大量自我中心节点两两联系形成的网络，网络中的不同节点也会因其资源禀赋差异而导致地位不平等”。不同通证经济用户为了展示自己特点并区别于他人，往往会通过购买虚拟服饰、虚拟配饰等对数字分身进行装扮。这些虚拟服饰、虚拟配饰通常表现为非同质化通证（NFT）。“明码标价”让不同通证经济用户数字分身之间存在差别，成为其他参与主体判断个人信息的一种标志。这也就意味着在Web3.0中通过技术所保障的匿名性并不绝对，通证经济参与者可以通过装扮数字分身等方式加强或减弱匿名性。
Finally, there are differences in the ability to create digital diversities. Users have the right to create digital divers equally. However, equal creation of digital divers does not amount to the same ability to dress digitally. “The contemporary theory of social networks has also revealed that, even if social structures are portrayed as a network made up of a large number of self-central nodes, different nodes in the network may result in inequality because of differences in their resource endowments. 2.作为与财产权利相对应的数字资产权利
通证本质上是基于信任而产生的一种权益证明，是通证经济中的数字资产，也是不同权利在Web3.0中的载体，而非权利客体的载体。例如，“NFT仅仅是链接到这些客体，它们的载体是NFT创建者上传和存储NFT的服务器”。不同通证平台可以铸造发行不同类型的通证，享有全部或部分通证的所有权。
Translator is essentially a certificate of interest based on trust, a digital asset in the translator economy and a carrier of different rights in Web3.0 rather than a carrier of rights. For example, “NFT only links to these objects, and their carriers are NFT creators that upload and store NFT servers.” Different translator platforms can create different types of translator and have ownership of all or part of the translator. 首先，通证是平台“还”权利于用户的载体。“还”权是相对于平台经济中平台直接对用户数据享有控制权以及由此产生的财产收益来说的，用户并不能因此获得财产收益。在通证经济中，用户使用私钥保持对产生数据的控制，同时可以利用智能合约授权他人使用数据并可获得收益。无论通证之上承载何种财产权利，用户以私钥的方式对通证进行控制即表明用户为通证的所有权人。至于通证所有权人能够将通证兑换成何种财产权利，则由交易双方约定。这意味着通证交易的后手基于通证所享有的财产权利不多于前手。
In the general economy, users use private keys to maintain control over the generation of data, while smart contracts can be used to authorize others to use the data and gain the proceeds. Regardless of the property rights on the commons, user control of the commons by private keys indicates that the user is the holder of the negotiables. In the case of negotiable owners who are able to convert the certificates into property rights, it is agreed between the parties to the transaction. 其次，通证之上可承载的“无体物”的范围扩大。与现实世界不同的是，“元宇宙作为意识的产物，
Second, there is a wider range of “invisibles” that can be carried on the mediocre. Unlike in the real world, the meta-cosmos is a product of consciousness. 其本身的物品往往来自人类的认知，而非实际的劳动（代码本身并不应该被当成产品，其仅仅是一种
Its own objects often come from human perception rather than from actual labor (the code itself should not be treated as a product, it's just one). 底层实现的逻辑）”。Web3.0中的创作能够打破现实世界的常规，用数字资源创造现实世界的不可能。通证经济扩大了人们购买和可支配“无体物”的范围，即便这个“无体物”本质上是虚拟产品，表现为数字形象，但可以让消费者体会到现实世界不曾有过的感受。
The creation in Web3.0 can break the norms of the real world and create the real world with digital resources. The mediocre economy expands the scope for people to buy and dispose of “invisibles,” even if this “invisible” is essentially a virtual product, expressed as a digital image, but allows consumers to feel what the real world has never felt. 最后，通证的价值在于认同。通证具有价值在于通证经济用户的共识。通证权利更趋向于主观性权利，而非客观性权利。有学者一针见血地道明NFT令人讶异的高价格是因为“稀缺性及故事性创造了天价”，而“人们愿意为具有稀缺性和故事性的事物付费”。通证经济的消费者购买NFT是一种精神满足，而非现实世界的物质需求。
In the end, the value of hyphenism lies in the consensus of the users of the hymen economy. Translator rights tend to be subjective rather than objective. There are scholars who see the amazingly high price of NFTs because they “create a natural price for scarcity and storytelling”, while “people are willing to pay for things that are scarce and storytelling.” Consumers of the hymen economy buy NFTs as a spiritual satisfaction, not as a material demand in the real world. 数字权利行使范围：有限的人格权和扩大的财产权
The extent to which 1.有限人格权的行使范围
1. Scope of the exercise of limited personality rights “无论线上个人信息权还是线下人格权，单纯‘识别’的法律功能仅使信息与个人关联，其意义在于使信息产生了‘权利’归属的可能，只有区分出是谁的信息，才能确定受法律保护的信息主体”。用户的数字分身并不具有身份权，而是否具有人格权以及何种人格权还需进一步分析。
“Regardless of the right to information or the right to a person below the line, the legal function of mere `identification' merely links information to the individual, meaning that it creates the possibility of `right' belonging, and that the subject of information protected by the law can be identified only by distinguishing whose information it is. The user's digital separation does not have the right to identity, and whether or not it has the right to personality and what kind of right to personality requires further analysis. 用户的数字分身在Web3.0中可以自由活动，与在法律范围内独立作出行为而不受干涉，不被非法剥夺、限制人身自由或非法搜查身体的人身自由权并不一致。但如果用户的数字分身在Web3.0中作出“危害”他人权益或通证经济秩序等被通证平台予以明确禁止的行为时，通证平台可以通过技术手段限制数字分身的相关活动或封号，可以起到限制或剥夺数字分身自由的效果，只不过执行主体并非国家，而是平台。该种效果不会延伸至用户的人身，而公民所具有的自尊心和应受到他人、社会最起码尊重的人格尊严权，是一个兼具主观和客观评价的权利，可以从用户人身延伸至其数字分身。如果用户的数字分身在Web3.0活动时，他人的行为或语言让其感受到人格尊严被贬损，且从客观角度来看，也被社会所认为是贬损人格尊严，那么可以认为，用户的人格尊严受到侵犯。如元宇宙的“虚拟强奸”发生在数字分身之间，并不符合刑法对强奸罪的规定，但的确给用户带来不适感受，用户可以人格尊严受到侵犯为由而请求平台进行处理。
It is not compatible with the right to be free to act independently and without interference within the law, to be deprived of personal liberty or to be subjected to unlawful deprivation, restriction of personal liberty or unlawful search of the body. If the user's number is divided into acts expressly prohibited by a membrane platform such as “danger” of the rights of others or a passable economic order in Web3.0, the mediocre platform can limit the activities or seals of the digital split by technical means and may have the effect of restricting or depriving the person of his or her personal freedom, except that the implementing entity is not the State, but the platform. The effect of this is not extended to the person of the user, and the citizen's self-esteem and the right to human dignity, which is subject to the minimum respect of others and society, is a right to subjective and objective evaluation, which can be extended from the user's person to his or her digital compartment. If the user's number is separated from the Web3. 至于具体人格权，用户基于数字分身在通证经济中主要享有的是信息权和隐私权。作为法律关系客体的隐私和信息的主要区别在于，“隐私属于严格意义上的人格利益且不包含任何财产属性，信息主要亦属于法律上的人格利益但其中包含着一定的财产属性”。对于隐私的法律界定标准通常是主观上不愿为他人知晓的私密性内容以及客观上会涉及个人生活安宁。用户在通证经济中所享有的隐私权主要体现在用户使用昵称和数字分身参加数字经济活动，不愿与现实身份联系，影响其现实生活。至于个人信息界定的法律标准则是可识别性。在通证经济中，用户通过私钥保持对个人信息的控制，以及通过智能合约等方式授权他人访问和使用个人信息，即满足个人信息保护法所规定的“取得个人的同意”方可处理个人信息。综上，用户数字分身权利内容如表1所示。
The main difference between privacy and information as a subject of legal relations is that “the privacy is a strictly personal interest and does not contain any property attributes, and the information is primarily a legal personality interest but contains certain property attributes.” The legal definition of privacy is usually based on private content that is subjectively unintelligible to others, and objectively relates to personal peace of life. The privacy rights enjoyed by users in the general economy are mainly expressed in the use of nicknames and digital subdivisions for digital economic activities, which do not want to be associated with real identity and affect their real life. The legal criteria for defining personal information are identifiable. In the general economy, users can deal with personal information only by maintaining control over personal information by private keys, and by authorizing access to and use of personal information, for example, by means of smart contracts, in order to satisfy the requirement of “a person's consent” under the Personal Information Protection Act. 表1 用户数字分身权利内容与人身权利对比简表
2.扩大财产权的使用范围
2. Expanding the use of property rights 从用户享有的财产权的范围来看，并未发生明显变化，扩大的其实是财产权的实现方式。在传统民法理论中，占有即所有仅适用于货币，在通证经济中，这一原则可适用于通证。通证占有人通过私钥控制通证，对该通证享有所有权，可直接进行处分。即便用户是通过偷盗等非法手段获得通证，利用私钥获得对通证的实际控制，已经具有对该通证享有所有权的外观。与现实世界被偷盗的财产有可能被追回相比，由于通证的匿名性、快速流转性等特征，通证一旦被盗则难以被追回，仍然符合占有即所有原则。以具有稀缺性著称的NFT亦是如此。“即便我们不能说所有权在网络空间已经消亡”，NFT至多只能证明数字作品具有唯一的数字标记，无法证明现实世界作品上链后，NFT所有者即为作品所有者以及享有作品著作权的问题。亦即，“区块链的技术架构产生的排他性仅限于NFT，无法‘传导’至NFT所映射的数字资产”，需要通证平台履行初步审核数字作品权属的义务。而“NFT数字作品的后续交易属于债权转让的定性，与将作品‘铸造’为NFT数字作品的行为是否由著作权人实施并无关系”。NFT对作者而言一个重要的法律意义在于，作者可以更好地实现著作权。首先，作者将作品NFT化后在通证平台上进行交易，NFT所具有的唯一性、难以篡改性、可溯源性都让作者署名权得以实现，可以有效避免他人盗用自己作品。其次，通证平台为了鼓励用户创作，丰富通证经济生态，为NFT交易设置了版税功能。在NFT的每一次二级交易中，作者都可以收到一定比例的版权使用费。简单来说，用户所具有的通证权利本身仍在既有的法律框架内，只是智能化技术让作者权利以更为有效的方式实现。
In traditional civil law theory, possession applies only to money, and in a mesmerized economy, this principle can be applied to circulars. Passors control the pass by private key, and ownership of the pass can be directly disposed of. Even if the user obtains a pass by illegal means such as theft, using a private key to obtain physical control of the pass, it has an appearance of ownership of the pass. In comparison with property stolen in the real world, possession is likely to be recovered only in monetary terms. By virtue of the anonymity of the pass, the pass is difficult to recover in the tradable economy. 三、Web3.0通证经济法律治理的内在动因：平台权力
在平台经济时代，平台通常具有三种“权力”：制定平台规则的“准立法权”、实施管控措施的“准行政权”、解决纠纷的“准司法权”。“准立法权”是其他两项“权力”的基础，平台规则多为限制用户权利、设置用户义务的条款；“准行政权”是执行平台规则；“准司法权”是依据平台规则解决纠纷。如前所述，Web3.0智能化技术让以“用户价值”为导向的规则自行执行。与平台经济中的平台权力相比，通证平台权力仍包括如上三种权力，但三者之间并非割裂状态，而是利用智能化技术同时行使。
In the platform's economic era, the platform usually has three types of “power”: “quasi-legislative” for the development of platform rules, “quasi-administrative” for the implementation of regulatory measures, and “quasi-judicial” for the resolution of disputes. “quasi-legislative” is the basis for two other “powers”, many of which are provisions that restrict user rights and impose user obligations; “quasi-administrative” is the enforcement of platform rules; and “quasi-judicial” is the resolution of disputes on the basis of platform rules. As noted earlier, Web3.0 smart technology allows self-executing rules based on “user value”. 可以认为，通证平台权力是指通证平台依靠通证经济规则和智能化技术对通证经济参与者权利产生影响的能力。除了通证平台在初创时期是由初始成员制定初步规则外，在通证经济规则运行过程中，用户通过治理型通证、利用智能化工具投票制定、修改、废止通证经济规则，即便发生纠纷也可利用技术固定证据解决纠纷，并进一步采取措施对当前通证经济规则进行完善。如此“制定通证经济规则—规则自行执行—用户投票更新规则—纠纷发现规则漏洞—完善通证经济规则”的民主治理逻辑，无不表明通证平台权力实现的可接受性和高效性。但这其实也折射出通证平台权力行使的隐蔽性，并未改变其通证经济规则制定主体的本质属性。
In addition to the initial rules developed by the initial members in the initial period, the democratic governance logic of the Translator’s rules, which, in the course of operating, users voted to develop, modify, repeal, and, even in the event of a dispute, use fixed evidence of technology to resolve disputes and take further steps to improve the current economic rules of the Translator’s economy. The democratic governance logic of “making the rules of the Translator’s economy—the rules of self-enforcement—the user vote to update the rules of the dispute—the rule of perfecting the economic rules of the Translator” does not fail to demonstrate the acceptability and efficiency of the realization of the Translator’s powers. 平台权力内容构成：通证经济规则
Composition of the power content of the 通证经济是在通证生产和流动基础之上产生的，以创作者经济作为主要内容。但如何激励更多用户创作以构建通证经济生态、如何确定NFT标准以及交易规则、用户如何参与治理通证经济等都需要通证平台精心设计规则。
Transmittal economies are generated on the basis of translator production and movement, with the creator’s economy as the main component. But how to motivate more users to create the ecology of the translator economy, how to define NFT standards and trade rules, and how users can participate in the governance of the translator economy require well-designed rules for the translator’s platform. 首先，通证平台通过制定、修改、废止通证经济规则，行使类“立法权”。有选择地将民主、选举等宪法理念“植入”通证经济运行与治理，直接构建起数字世界与现实世界的桥梁。在相当程度上可以认为，国家垄断行使权力具有正当性和合法性，通证平台垄断行使控制权具有技术优势和规则优势。通证平台在成立之时行使了类“立法权”，为通证经济参与主体提供了行为的基本规则，即便用户可以通过参与治理的方式修改通证经济规则，但与宪法相似，有些原则性内容不可修改。譬如，宪法中关于国体的规定之于通证经济规则关于通证平台权力由谁享有的规定，即属于通证平台的实际控制者。再如，宪法中关于政体的规定之于通证经济关于如何组织权力实现对通证平台的管理，即通证平台实际控制者的管理以及具有其发放的治理型通证的用户可通过投票参与治理。通证经济规则中不可修改的部分成为通证平台权力来源正当化的依据，能够为其追求经济利益提供制度保障。用户享有的参与治理的权利基于通证平台发放的有限的治理型通证，那么用户实际上对通证经济规则修改的影响可能并不大，尤其是当用户与平台发生利益冲突时，用户启动修改通证经济规则的难度会更大。
In the first place, it is possible to assume that the monopoly on the exercise of power is legitimate and legitimate, and that the monopoly on the exercise of control has technical and regulatory advantages. At the time it was established, it exercised a class of “legislation” that provided the basic rules for the conduct of the participants in the economy, even if users could change the economic rule by participating in governance, but some of the principled elements could not be changed in a way similar to the Constitution. For example, the constitutional rule on the state of the state, which provides that the power of the economic system is vested in a mercantilist platform, is the actual control of the mercantilist platform. 其次，通证平台通过智能化技术执行通证经济规则，行使类“行政权”。对通证经济规则的执行是类“立法权”的延续，即通证经济规则要以公正执行为前提，利用区块链、智能合约等智能化技术确保通证经济规则执行的全流程公开透明。这种思路暗含的是通证经济规则的结果主义—通证经济规则制定的过程并不要求公开透明，但制定出来的通证经济规则要公开且需要借助智能化技术确保公正执行。一旦通证经济规则执行未实现公平的结果，通证经济规则体系可能会面临形同虚设的尴尬境地，平台所营造的公信力也不攻自破。对通证平台“治理的重点当然不是要阻止数据的采集或阻止世界的数据化趋势，而是治理数据‘预测算法’的滥用行为”。还有一种情形需要警醒，通证平台以智能合约自动执行规则彰显其公平不偏私为表象，实则掩盖了其对用户权益带来不利影响的意图。
Second, a membrane platform enforces general economic rules through smart technologies, exercising a class of “administrative powers.” The enforcement of memorized economic rules is a continuation of a class of “legislative powers”, i.e., the memorized economic rules are subject to fair enforcement, using smart economics such as block chains and smart contracts to ensure full process transparency. The idea is implicit in the resultism of memorized economic rules – the process of developing memorized economic rules does not require transparency, but the established memorized economic rules need to be public and intelligent technologies to ensure fair enforcement. Once memorized economic rules are not implemented with fair results, the memorized economic rules may face an awkward situation, and the platform’s credibility is unbreakable. 最后，通证平台以可接受的纠纷解决结果完成对用户的权利救济，行使类“司法权”。“元宇宙中纠纷的虚实相容、人技交错和因果即现的特性，使得元宇宙中的纠纷解决呈现出解纷场域虚拟化、解纷规则技术化以及解纷方式线上化的转变。”通证平台解决用户之间纠纷时依据的是通证经济规则，避免对业已形成的相对稳定的通证经济秩序造成破坏。通证平台在作出处理结果时，要考虑通证经济参与者对纠纷解决结果是否接受，以此确立通证经济规则的权威性。但考虑用户的可接受性可能会让纠纷解决处于不确定的状态，相似的纠纷不见得会有相同的解决结果，这降低了用户对权利救济的心理预期。在通证经济规则未予以明确规定的问题出现时，通证平台要以大部分用户共识为基础提出解决纠纷的规则，即以客观共识对抗个人意愿，以公序良俗引导通证经济生态健康发展。如果处理的结果以限制侵犯权利用户的活动或对其进行封号处理结束，似乎对包括该用户在内的所有用户无法起到真正的震慑的效果，毕竟数字分身只是一个账号，不影响其他账号继续活动。
Finally, the modem addresses disputes with acceptable dispute resolution outcomes and exercises a class of “jurisdictional power.” “The virtual compatibility of disputes in the meta-cosmos, human interlocking and causality features that establish the authority of the economic rule by considering whether or not they are acceptable to the outcome of the dispute.” However, considering the acceptability of users may leave dispute resolution in an uncertain state, similar disputes may not be resolved with the same result, which reduces users’ psychological expectations of rights relief. In the event of problems that are not clearly defined in the code, the platform is required to present rules for resolving disputes on the basis of the consensus of most users, i.e. an objective consensus against the will of the individual, leading to the evolution of the eco-health of the economy in the public order. 平台权力适用对象：用户与自身
platform rights apply to: users and themselves 通证经济的特点以及通证经济规则的自动执行，使得用户和平台自身都有可能成为通证平台权力作用的对象。
The characteristics of the mestión economy and the automatic implementation of the rules of the mestión economy make both users and the platform itself potentially subject to the power of the mestión platform. 1.参与通证经济活动即接受平台权力管理
当选择进入通证平台时，就表明用户接受该平台的规则对自己行为的规训。在通证经济中，在交易通证的用户之间、在为实现某一共同目标的用户之间可以通过技术手段或自治组织实现数字权利。通证平台为交易双方提供智能合约服务，双方通过设置智能合约，可以有效保障双方数字权利实
In the general economy, digital rights can be realized by means of technology or by autonomous organizations between users of tradables and users of a common goal. The translator provides smart contract services to both parties to the transaction, and both parties can effectively secure digital rights by setting up smart contracts. 现。而DAO基于用户的共识形成，用户可以对DAO的事项进行自我管理。智能合约和DAO可以视为通
Now. The DAO is based on the consensus of the user, which allows the user to self-manage the DAO matter. 证经济用户自我赋权的实现途径。“数字技术的商业应用本身就是在精准操控人们的意思形成和意思表示。”通证平台控制通证经济活动是以赋予用户数字权利的方式实现的，用户享有的是规则预设下的自治或共治。
A means of self-empowerment for users of the certified economy. “Commercial applications of digital technology are themselves an expression of precision in the manipulation of people's meanings and expressions.” The control of translator economic activities is achieved in a manner that confers digital rights on users, who enjoy autonomy or co-governance as foreseen by the rules. 2.通证平台的逐利性决定其要受到自身权力约束
2. The profit-driven nature of the Translator Platform determines that it is bound by its own powers 不同主体参与通证经济活动的动因就是能够从中获益，包括精神利益和经济利益，其中经济利益是核心动因。通证平台是通证经济规则的“立法主体”，但其更是通证经济的受益者，“数字平台进行自我管理时又难以避免自治权滥用的主观倾向”。通证平台制定的通证经济规则以及能否良好运行直接关系到通证平台自身的生存。创作者经济是从源头上为通证经济提供源源不断的数字资产，设计尊重作者创作并保护其产权的通证经济规则是通证平台“宪法”中重要的财产制度。通证经济制度的基本理念是“劳有所得”，用户付出劳动且能获得共识的数字资产将会获得经济收益，而平台为用户提供网络服务并收取手续费。通证平台约束自身行为本身是为了维护通证经济规则，是对平台权力的维持。
The motivation for the involvement of different subjects in the economic activities of the mestión is to be able to benefit from it, including spiritual and economic interests, in which economic interests are at the heart of it. The mestión platform is a “legislation body” of the rules of the mestión economy, but it is also the beneficiary of the mestión economy, where “digital platforms manage themselves in such a way that it is difficult to avoid the subjective tendency to abuse the right to autonomy.” The mestión economic rules and their proper operation are directly related to the very existence of the mediocre platform. 平台权力行使特征：控制性、羁束性与迎合性
Features of the exercise of power in the 1.通证平台行使类“立法权”的控制性
Control of the exercise of the class of “legislative power” by the < strong> 1. 为了激发用户参与通证经济的积极性，通证平台会设计并适时调整平台经济激励制度。经济激励制度的变化意味着参与通证经济的方式、权利等都可能发生了变化。不过，无论是哪种经济激励机制，都有可能发展成为普通人无法参与的游戏：PoW（工作量证明）机制可能需要企业这样的主体才能负担得起算力成本；PoS（权益证明）机制可能是通证数量多的主体获得奖励。看似从平等参与发展到有一定资本的主体才能参与到通证经济中，反映的是从参与平等权到资本控制权的变化。资本通过新的平台、新的经济方式继续实施控制，依然是“大数据掌控者”。只不过，与常见的层级式的水平管理结构不同的是，Web3.0的通证经济更是一种扁平式的立体管理结构，作为普通的通证经济参与者能够利用通证平台提供的数字资源以及通证交换更好满足通证经济活动所需。能够更好进行自治的DAO是扁平式管理结构分权下的产物。
In order to motivate users to participate in the membrane economy, the mesmerized platform may design and adjust the platform’s system of economic incentives in due course. Changes in the system of economic incentives may mean changes in the way, rights, etc., of participating in the membrane economy. However, either type of economic incentive mechanism may develop into a game in which ordinary people cannot participate: the PoW (Credit of Work) mechanism may require subjects such as enterprises to be able to afford the cost of calculating; the PoS (Certificate of Interests) mechanism may be rewarded by a large number of subjects. 此外，通证平台通过通证经济规则“裹挟”用户意志。通证平台不同于平台经济时期平台的一大原因是，在通证经济中充当平台角色的可以是一段具有特定功能的、能够自动运行的程序代码，即能够对该代码负责的主体可以涵盖到代码的编写者、开发者，以及对代码维护更新进行投票的DAO。通证平台可以指如上较为松散的平台结构，只要其在事实上行使了制定通证经济规则的权力，而不仅仅是由特定组织或个人运行平台。“结合的行为包含着一项公众与个人之间的相互规约；每个个人在可以说是与自己缔约时，都被两重关系所制约着：即对于个人，他就是主权者的一个成员；而对于主权者，他就是国家的一个成员。”对于有违法犯罪等危害公共利益行为的通证平台来说，如果其是运行在区块链公链上的代码，只要区块链公链持续运行，那么该代码也可以永久运行，无法被真正关闭，会持续对社会带来危害。
In addition, the Translator platform “collaborates” the user's will by means of a mesmerizing economic rule. One of the main reasons why the translator's role in the economic period of the platform differs from that of the platform is that, in a translator's economy, the platform's role can be defined as a program code with a specific function, capable of operating automatically, i.e. that the subject responsible for the code can be covered by the code's author, developer, and the DAO that voted on the code maintenance update. The translator can be referred to as a looser platform's structure, if in fact it exercises the power to establish the economic rule of the translator, and not just to operate by a particular organization or individual. “The act of integration consists of a mutual regulation between the public and the individual; every individual, when it can be said to be concluded with himself, is bound by a two-fold relationship: for the individual, he is a member of the sovereign; and for the sovereign, he is a member of the State.” For a translator platform, if it is a code that operates on the public chain of the district chain, as long as long as it operates, the chain of the sector, the chain, the chain, the code can also operate permanently and cannot be shut down to society. 2.通证平台行使类“行政权”的羁束性
The binding nature of the use of the class of “administrative authority” by the < strong>. 在行政法的一般理论中，行政主体在作出行政行为时，如果严格依照法定的范围、条件、标准、程序等作出，该行政行为通常被称为羁束行政行为。反之，如果行政主体在作出行政行为时，可以自行选择行为条件、标准等，该行政行为就是裁量行政行为。无论通证经济规则是原则性规定还是具体规定，通证平台都将利用智能化技术自动、严格执行通证经济规则，并无可自由裁量的空间，这可认为通证平台在行使类“行政权”时具有羁束性。从行政效率角度来看，通证平台这一权力的行使在能够提高通证生产、交换、分配、消费效率的同时，还能够彰显规则面前用户的平等性。但这种自动、严格的“行政执法”也会带来一定弊端，在不考虑用户差异性的情况下也未妥善处理其个性化需求，用户的财产可能被自动、不当“执行”后，难以得到及时救济等，在一定程度上有违通证经济中的自由竞争和契约自由精神。
In the general doctrine of administrative law, the administrative act is usually referred to as an administrative act if it is carried out in strict compliance with the statutory scope, conditions, standards, procedures, etc.. Conversely, if it is performed in an administrative act, the administrative act is discretionary. Whether the economic rule of generalization is a rule of principle or a specific one, a translator's platform will use intelligent technology to automate, strictly enforce economic rules of generality and have no room for discretion. This may be regarded as binding in the exercise of a class of “administrative powers”. From an administrative efficiency point of view, the exercise of the power of a translator platform, while increasing the efficiency of translator production, exchange, distribution, consumption, etc., can also reinforce the equality of users before the rules. However, such automatic and strict “administrative enforcement” will also have certain disadvantages and will not adequately address their personalized needs, without taking into account user differences, and the user's property may be automatically and improperly “executed” and without prompt relief, to some extent contrary to the spirit of free competition and contractual freedom in the economy. 3.通证平台行使类“司法权”的迎合性
Compatibility of the use of the class of “jurisdictional powers” by the < strong>. 通证平台在解决用户之间的纠纷时，除了要让双方对纠纷解决结果认可外，还要尽可能让其他用户接受该结果，以使得通证平台在发生类似或相同纠纷时能有同样的解决结果，这相当于是通证平台上的“指导性案例”。但是，通证平台为了让更多用户认可其纠纷处理结果，可能会采取以尊重用户意愿的名义来迎合用户。尤其是不排除用户参与通证经济活动就是为了获得与现实世界完全不同的体验，甚至是为现实世界法律规则禁止之事。数字分身在Web3.0中可以作出的行为要比传统互联网用户使用的文字、语言、图片、视频等更为丰富和真实，虚拟现实等技术可以让用户感受到数字分身在Web3.0中的“感受”，如其他数字分身对自己数字分身的“接触”。通证平台在处理诸如“虚拟性侵”等涉及公序良俗、尚无法在现实世界定罪量刑的纠纷时，采取的是为用户提供避免其他数字分身靠近自己数字分身的安全工具，而不是制定或解释规则明确禁止诸如此类行为的发生。感觉权益受到侵害的用户缺乏有效的维权途径，对作出有违公序良俗行为的用户也缺乏有效的惩处措施。
In resolving disputes between users, the Translator Platform, in addition to allowing the parties to accept the outcome, as far as possible, so that it can have the same resolution results when similar or similar disputes arise, is tantamount to a “guide case” on the Translator Platform. However, in order for more users to accept the outcome of their disputes, the Translator Platform may take the form of “contacts” that respect the will of the user. In particular, it does not exclude users from engaging in translator economic activities in order to obtain experiences that are entirely different from those of the real world, or even those that are prohibited by the legal rules of the real world. When digital splits in Web3.0, they are able to do more than traditional Internet users use text, language, pictures, videos, etc. 综上，Web3.0分布式网络为通证平台提供智能化技术支撑，使得通证平台能够贯彻行使类似于国家的“立法权”“行政权”“司法权”，具有的控制性、羁束性和迎合性等特征决定了其相比平台经济中的平台权力发生了质的变化，给用户以及数字权利带来错综复杂的影响，主要体现在以下几个方面：一是通证经济对算力的高要求决定了用户只能使用通证平台提供的工具进行通证生产，无法再回到通证经济诞生之初的利用个人电脑算力的“自给自足”，即通证平台垄断了通证经济的生产资料，用户创造价值受制于通证平台。二是通证平台以向用户发行治理型通证的方式将DAO成员牢牢“绑”在通证平台的“战车”上，让DAO成员从通证经济参与者转变为有限的决策者，以享受对通证经济事务有限的特权为代价，成为通证平台责任的承担者，亦即通证平台直接的利益相关者。三是智能合约技术保障通证经济规则有效执行的同时压缩了用户之间交易的自由意志，如用户能选择与之交易的对象，而无法避免通证平台设置的费用。四是通证平台在纠纷处理中无法做到完全中立，因为其本身就是通证经济中的利益相关者，可能具有不同于用户的利益需求。基于此，用户的数字权利实则处于不确定的状态中，难以得到有效保护，需要政府权力这样的外部力量介入到通证经济法律治理之中。
In general, the Web3.0 distributed network provides smart technical support to the Translator platform, enabling the Translator platform to exercise its “jurisdictional” “jurisdictional powers” similar to the “legitimate powers” of the State, whose control, restraint and adaptability dictates qualitative changes in its power over platforms in relation to the platform's economy, with complex implications for users as well as digital rights, mainly as a result of the fact that the Translator economy's high demand for arithmetical power dictates that users can only use the tools provided by the Translator platform for their production, that the Translator platform can no longer return to the “self-sufficiency” of personal computing power at the dawn of the Translator economy, that is, the monopoly platform monopolizes the production information of the Translator economy, that creates values that are subject to the translator platform, and that it is directly involved in stakeholders, that it “tied” on the Translator's “brand vehicle”, that allows members of the DAO to move away from the user-to-se-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-be-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-inter-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-inter-to-to-to-to-to-inter-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-inter-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-the-to-to-the-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-the-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-the-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-the-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-the-to-to-to-to-to-the-to-to-to-the-to-to-to-to-the-to-to-to-to-the-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to 四、Web3.0通证经济法律治理的外部力量：政府权力
与传统互联网时代平台直接控制甚至垄断互联网经济相比，Web3.0通证经济本质上是集权下的分布式经济。可以说，通证经济得以运行的分布式网络空间以及智能化技术使其实现自我治理，并能提供分布式的自我赋权以及权利实现与权利保障机制，这实际上导致了数字空间权力的分布式呈现。这种分布式的方式使得国家权力在数字空间的控制减弱，增强了平台对通证经济运行的控制权，权力的这一此消彼长的趋势在Web3.0时代得以进一步延展。经上述分析，通证平台权力带来的不利影响主要体现在依托智能化技术对用户数字权利的干预以及用户角色的“异化”，有必要以政府权力介入打破通证平台与用户之间权利义务关系的不平衡，以价值为主线实现对Web3.0通证经济的法律治理，需要以保护用户通证权利作为基本原则，以税收分配作为调控手段，以通证经济规则审查作为具体要求。
In contrast to traditional Internet-era platforms that directly control or even monopolize the Internet economy, the Wib3.0 membrane economy is essentially a centralized distributed economy. It can be said that the distributed network space in which the membrane economy operates and the intelligent technologies that enable it to govern itself and provide distributed self-empowerment and mechanisms for the realization of rights and the safeguarding of rights have actually led to the distribution of power in digital space. This distribution has reduced the control of State power in digital space, reinforced the platform’s control over the functioning of the membrane economy, and further expanded in the Web3.0 era. 以保障用户通证权利为基本原则
is based on the fundamental principle of safeguarding user pass rights 用户通证权利是其参与通证经济活动的经济动因。“在数字社会中，法律不但关注可识别的个人
User pass rights are an economic motivation for their involvement in the economic activities of translator. “In a digital society, the law focuses not only on identifiable individuals. 信息中的人格性利益，而且也不能忽视个人信息中天然内涵的财产利益，甚至可以说，恰是数字社会中个人信息的财产性价值才催生了个人信息受法律保护的必要。”保障用户通证权利是对通证平台权力的限制与制约，是Web3.0通证经济法律治理的基本原则。对用户通证权利保护源于我国宪法对“公民的合法的私有财产不受侵犯”以及“国家依照法律规定保护公民的私有财产权和继承权”的规定。民法典也对保护网络虚拟财产进行了原则性规定。“无恒产则无恒心”在通证经济领域更为突出，用户的通证权利是其在通证经济中实现其他权利的基础，用户的数字分身需要通证装扮、治理资格和治理能力直接以通证体现，等等。正如尼葛洛庞帝一语道破：“计算不再只和计算机有关，它决定我们的生存。”因此，政府权力介入不只是维护用户既有的通证权利，还要提供法律规则保障用户有持续生产通证价值的数字资源，打破通证平台对数字资源的垄断。
The personal interest in information cannot be ignored, nor can it be said that the property interest inherent in the natural content of personal information be ignored. It is the property value of personal information in a digital society that gives rise to the need for legal protection of personal information.” The guarantee of user passability is a limitation and constraint on the power of the pass platform, which is the basic principle of the legal governance of the Wibb 3.0 pass economy. The protection of the user's universal right stems from our Constitution's stipulation that “the legitimate private property of citizens is inviolable” and “the State shall protect the private property and inheritance rights of citizens in accordance with the law.” The Civil Code also provides for the principle of protecting virtual property on the Internet. “Insistencelessness” is more prominent in the sphere of the mercantiological economy, the user's right to passivation is the basis for the realization of other rights in the translator economy. 具体而言，以保障用户通证权利为基本原则可以从如下两个方面进行。一是，在不违反法律并考虑用户的经济承受能力的前提下进行通证价值的分配，以避免通证平台对用户通证权利带来不利干预。根据著作权法的原理与精神，对作者付出实质劳动创作的作品应予保护，并按照约定通过智能合约自动执行的方式确保作者能够从通证流转中获得收益。为了实现著作权人对通证价值的获取，需要满足著作权法对其财产权和人身权的规定以及对报酬的约定，通证平台在设计通证流转和价值分配时不得违反法律的规定和当事人的约定。同时，避免看似公平的价值分配方案所带来的不公平，导致通证经济可能会产生“富者愈富”的繁荣假象—通证的交易者需要承担更多经济负担，而作者基于一件作品可以享受持续的通证收益。二是，以对他人通证权利是否带来直接影响作为判断通证经济参与者角色的标准。无论是通证平台的开发者、维护者，还是投票决定其发展方向的DAO成员，只要其行为能够对他人通证权利带来影响，都将要为此承担相应的责任。这主要是针对通证经济参与者角色“异化”问题提出来的解决思路。通证平台通过DAO让用户参与治理，本质上是由成员对其行为负责而弱化通证平台责任的体现，不仅会对业已形成的稳定的通证经济秩序带来破坏，也会直接导致通证平台功能的异化，有必要揭开代码面纱后的通证利益直接影响者。
In particular, the basic principle of safeguarding the rights of users is the following two aspects: first, the distribution of the values of the certificates, without prejudice to the law and taking into account the economic affordability of the users, should be carried out in order to avoid adverse interference in the rights of the users of the certificates by a transient platform. In accordance with the principles and spirit of copyright laws, the creation of substantive labour creations by authors should be protected and, as agreed, the benefits of translator flow should be ensured by means of an intellectual contract. In order to achieve the acquisition of the translator's property and personal rights by a writer, there is a need to satisfy the requirements of the copyright law and the agreement on remuneration. First, the translator must not design the translator and the distribution of values in such a way as to violate the provisions of the law and the agreement of the parties. 以税收分配的设置为调控手段
uses tax allocation settings as a regulatory tool 在通证经济中，通证平台对于通证收入分配设置了“版税”制度，可以认为这是通证经济内部对通证权利进行分配的制度，但本质上与具有强制性的国家税收不同。通证经济的发展的确需要鼓励创作，但通证经济发展的目标应是对产生的收益进行公平分配，避免新的贫富分化的产生。“正如早期的互联网一样，区块链技术体现着自由至上主义的政治意识形态，试图通过去中介化的技术手段来削弱（如果不是瓦解）政府和金融机构存在的必要性。但同样像互联网一样，它最终会变成政府控制社会和市场的新工具。”国家税务部门只是Web3.0网络中的一个节点，利用技术便利进行监管与治理的同时也要尊重通证经济规则的实施。在既有的通证经济权益分配架构下，在其上加载征税智能合约，自动执行与不同参与者收益数额相当比例的征税，以及对通证平台收取的服务费等进行征税，“弥合具有硬件优势的‘少数人’和被禀赋限制想象力的‘多数人’之间的发展鸿沟”。
In the membrane economy, the membrane platform has introduced a “record” system for the distribution of hyphenic income, which may be regarded as a system for the distribution of hyphenic rights within the memorized economy, but which is inherently different from mandatory national taxes. The development of the membrane economy does need to be encouraged, but the goal of the membrane economic development should be to distribute the revenues generated equitably and avoid the new division of rich and poor. “As in the early Internet, block technology represents a liberal political ideology that seeks to weaken, if not collapse, the need for government and financial institutions by means of de-intermediated technology. 以价值再分配为目标的征税在通证经济中实施并非易事。Web3.0通证经济活动范围并没有国家主权边境线一说，国家权力在网络世界中似乎也变得模糊化。通证可在Web3.0中自由流转，是从一个匿名化的数字分身或数字钱包转移到另一个匿名化的数字分身或数字钱包，传统的“属地”征税或“属人”征税都不能在通证经济中有效适用。有学者提出，可借鉴经济合作与发展组织（OECD）提出的以“显著经济存在”作为新的连结点，即以“可通过收入因素（从一市场管辖区持续地产生收入）、数字化因素（即某一地区域名、数字平台以及支付的选择）、客户群（包括每月线上的活跃用户、线上合同的订立以及数据收集）等作为判定依据”。为了与通证经济数字分身匿名性、通证快速流转性等特征相适应，以及满足国家对虚拟货币监管要求，可以对通证经济中存在的不具有金融属性的通证以数字人民币计价。通证经济参与者使用数字人民币购买通证或通过转让通证获得数字人民币，都可利用数字人民币支持加载智能合约的功能予以自动执行，税务部门也可利用数字人民币加载智能合约功能对个人所得进行征税。
Taxes targeted at redistribution of value are not easy to implement in a tremor economy. Web3.0 is not covered by state-controlled borders, and State power seems to have become blurred in the web world. The pass can flow freely from an anonymous digital split or digital wallet to another anonymous digital split or digital wallet, and the traditional “territorial” or “personal” taxation cannot be applied effectively in a tremor economy. There are scholars who suggest that it can be adapted to the characteristics of the “significant economic presence” proposed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as a new link, i.e., the “revenue of income from a market jurisdiction on a continuous basis”, digitalization (i.e., a geographical name, digital platform and choice of payments), customer groups (including active users on a monthly line, the formation of line contracts, and data collection) as a basis for the use of digital currency-based digitally-to-to-to-people contracts for the transfer of people's currency, or for the use of people's digital-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-people digital-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-the-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-go-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-the-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-the-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-the-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-the-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to-to 以通证经济规则审查为具体要求
对通证经济规则进行审查是实现对通证平台权力治理的具体要求，无论通证平台以何种“行政程序”或“司法程序”执行通证经济规则，其实都是用智能化技术手段保障通证经济规则在通证平台上的贯彻实施。结合通证平台行使权力特征所带来的影响，可从对通证经济规则进行实质审查和形式审查两方面提出政府权力介入的具体要求。其中，对通证经济规则的伦理审查应贯穿通证平台全生命周期，公共参与审查则主要发生在通证经济规则制定阶段，平等对待审查主要发生在通证经济规则执行阶段。
A review of the economic rules of translator is a specific requirement for the governance of the power of the translator platform. Regardless of what kind of “administrative procedure” or “judicial process” is used by the translator platform to enforce the economic rules of translator, the implementation of the economic rules of translator is guaranteed by smart technology. The impact of the exercise of power of the translator platform is such that specific requests for government intervention can be made in terms of both a substantive review and a formal review of the economic rules of translator. In this context, the ethical review of the economic rules of translator should span the entire life cycle of the translator platform, and public participation in the review takes place mainly at the stage of translator economy rule-making, with equal treatment being given to the review of the application of economic rules of transleasing. 1.建立通证经济规则伦理的实质审查制度
1. Establishment of a system of substantive review of the ethics of economic rules in general “伦理是处理人与人之间关系、人与社会之间关系的道理和秩序规范”，是为人工智能安全、可靠、可控发展建立的基本行为准则。从2017年国务院在《新一代人工智能发展规划》中明确提出要“建立保障人工智能健康发展的法律法规和伦理道德框架”，到2022年发布《关于加强科技伦理治理的意见》提出要加强对人工智能的科技伦理治理，对科技进行伦理审查已成为科技向善的基本要求。通证经济是依靠智能化技术发展起来的一种新的经济生态，通证平台在通证经济中建立新的秩序规范同样也要遵循伦理要求。尤其是，通证平台注重经济秩序建设而忽视对伦理道德规范建设，导致通证平台可能沦为违反公序良俗、法律规范的“温床”，不利于通证经济的健康、持续发展。
“Ethics are the basic norms of reason and order that govern human-to-human relations, human-to-social relations” and the basic codes of conduct that have been established for the safe, reliable and controlled development of artificial intelligence. From 2017, the State Council, in its Development Plan for the New Generation of Artificial Intelligence, explicitly proposed to “establish a legal and ethical framework to safeguard the healthy development of artificial intelligence”, to 2022, when the Opinion on Strengthening the Ethics of Science and Technology proposed to strengthen the ethical governance of artificial intelligence, the ethical examination of science and technology has become a fundamental requirement for the good of science and technology. 具体而言，由政府建立科技伦理审查制度，确定具体的科技伦理准则、规范以及问责机制。例如，要求通证平台遵守《人工智能标准化白皮书（2018版）》提出的人类利益原则和责任原则。通证平台设置的“个人边界”安全功能可以认为是建立了初步的伦理规则，但这同样是事后的、补偿性的一种手段，无法预测在Web3.0中尚未发生、但一旦发生将带来恶劣影响的行为。通证平台在遵守伦理原则基础之上，可以对用户与他人交往行为进行规定，并可通过智能化技术自动屏蔽有不良内容关键词以及对实施不良行为的数字分身施加行为限制。此外，还要建立用户维权投诉机制，及时回应用户诉求，对违反伦理道德规范的用户施加活动限制，甚至是删除该数字分身的账号进行惩戒。而如果违反伦理道德规则的是通证平台，其行为已经涉及违法犯罪，依照规定因“依法被吊销营业执照、责令关闭或者被撤销”而解散时，为了起到与关闭网站相同的法律效果，监管部门可以要求基于该平台成立的DAO解散，不再继续支持代码的更新；要求Web3.0其他平台主体切断与该平台的网络链接，阻止用户使用该代码运行提供的服务，从而产生该平台解散的效果。
In particular, the Government has established a system of scientific and technical ethics review to identify specific codes of ethics, norms and accountability mechanisms. For example, the Translator Platform can be required to comply with the principles of human interest and responsibility set out in the White Paper on the Standardization of Artificial Intelligence (2018 editions). The “personal boundaries” security function set up by the Translator Platform can be considered to be a preliminary ethical rule, but it is also a means of ex post facto compensatory discipline to impose restrictions on users who violate ethical norms, or even to remove the digital split account number. If an ethical violation is the Translator Platform, its conduct is already related to the offence of breaking the law, and it can be dissolved by “an automatic suspension of business licences, a restraining order, or the removal of links to the digital subdivisions” of the Smart Technology. In addition, in order to achieve the same legal effect as the closure of the Web site, the Regulatory Department can demand that the service of the Platform be discontinued on the basis of an updated version of the Code 3. 2.建立通证经济规则公众参与的形式审查制度
公众参与原是要求国家机关在作出影响公众权利义务行为时，允许公众参与决策过程、听取公众意见的一种程序，目的在于保障公众知情权、监督权，以确保公共决策顺利作出。在通证经济规则制定过程中，通证平台占据主导地位，拥有通证平台发行的治理型通证的DAO成员享有一定的投票治理权。但DAO成员的投票权往往是一种治理特权，是通证平台对较早参与通证经济活动或对通证经济有一定贡献用户的奖励，对于较晚进入通证平台或经济能力较弱的用户来说并不公平，失去了参与制定通证经济规则的机会，在通证经济规则中无法体现其意志。为了让更多用户参与通证经济规则制定以满足公众参与的形式要求外，也要考虑用户对通证平台的忠诚度—参与通证经济规则
Public participation was a process that required State authorities to engage in public participation in decision-making processes and to listen to the public when they acted with obligations affecting public rights. The aim was to safeguard the public's right to be informed and to monitor the right to ensure that public decision-making was carried out successfully. During the process of establishing pass economic rules, members of DAO, who had a governance pass issued by the pass, had a certain right to vote. However, the voting rights of DAO members were often a governance prerogative, an incentive for earlier users to participate in tremotive economic activities or to contribute to the tremor economy, an unfair opportunity for late users to enter the pedagogic platform or less economically capable, a loss of opportunity to participate in the development of universal economic rules, and a lack of will to be reflected in the pedagogic economic rules. In order to involve more users in the development of general economic rules to meet the formal requirements of public participation, the user's loyalty to the pedagogic economic rules - participation in the pedic economic rules. 制定是为了更好的建设通证经济生态，而非仅实现一己私利。为此，可以用户参与通证经济活动的活
For this purpose, users can participate in economic activities. 跃度以及贡献度等作为考量其能否参与通证经济规则制定的因素，动态调整用户的治理资格。政府权力对通证经济规则是否引入公共参与进行形式审查，具体可以规定通证平台在制定通证经济规则时需要按照包括公众参与在内的程序进行，以使得通证经济规则符合科学性、民主性。
As a factor in determining whether or not they can participate in the regulation of the economy, leapfrogs and contributions are dynamically adjusting the governance qualifications of users. Governmental powers review whether or not the economic rule of the economy introduces public participation, in particular by requiring that the economic rule of the economy be developed in accordance with procedures, including public participation, in order to make the economic rule of the economy scientific and democratic. 3.建立通证经济规则平等对待的实质审查制度
在行政法领域，平等对待是人们相互交往的基本准则，要求非有正当理由不得区别对待。平等对待要求通证平台在制定通证经济规则内容时无明显有利于一方主体而对其他主体产生不利影响，也要求通证平台在执行通证经济规则时能够平等对待不同用户，还要求政府平等对待通证平台和用户。
In the area of administrative law, equal treatment is the basic norm for people to interact with each other, requiring that no distinction be made without justification. Equal treatment requires that a transacting platform develop the contents of a translator’s economic rule without clearly benefiting one and adversely affecting other subjects. It also requires that a translator’s application of a translator’s economic rule provide equal treatment to different users and that the government treat the translator platform and users equally. 其一，通证平台在处理不同用户之间纠纷时，如果链条上的部分或全部交易是用户以违反通证经济规则的其他技术手段额外获得经济利益，违背平台所要维护的公平通证经济秩序初衷，对付出劳动的作者（劳动者）而言尤为不公平，那么通证平台可溯源对通证进行管理的方式起到追究违反规则用户的责任。这为在通证经济中权益受到损害的参与者提供了维权的途径，即该被侵权人无需确定谁为侵权人并要求其进行赔偿，而是可以要求通证平台履行对数字资产审查的义务等，避免侵权数字资产的产生。如果因未尽审查义务导致侵权的数字资产在通证经济中流通，通证平台作为直接管理者要对此承担责任，并应将该侵权数字资产予以删除，并通过溯源的方式确定该侵权数字资产的发布者，对该发布者采取限制交易或者删除账号等方式对其进行惩罚。通证平台在全网公布对诸如此类行为的处理可以起到警示作用，减少通证经济不诚信行为。
First, when dealing with disputes between different users, a translator can be held accountable for violating the rules when some or all of the transaction on the chain is an additional economic benefit to the user by other technical means that violates the economic rules of the translator, contrary to the original intent of the economic order of the translator to be maintained by the platform, especially if it is unfair to the author (worker) who has worked, and the translator can be held responsible retroactively for managing the translator of the translator. This provides a means of defending the rights of participants who have suffered an infringement of their rights in the translator economy, i.e. that the aggrieved person does not need to determine who is the infringer and seeks compensation for it, but can demand that the translator fulfil his or her obligation to review digital assets, etc. If the non-compliance obligation to review leads to the circulation of digital assets in the translator economy, the translator should be held responsible for the violation, and should identify, by retroactive sources, the publisher of the infringe digital assets, punish the publisher, for example, by restricting transactions or removing accounts numbers. 其二，通证平台在处理涉及自身利益的纠纷时，平等对待要求通证平台处理相同事件时采取相同处理方法。如在黑客盗取通证时，除了要求通证平台能够采取安全维护、风险补救等措施外，还要求其能够给予不同通证经济参与者数字资产平等安全保护。即便是通证平台开发团队或维护团队也应享受和普通参与者同等的安全性待遇，避免出现这样不平等的待遇：通证经济普通参与主体因技术漏洞被黑客盗取通证时，开发团队或维护团队以区块链网络的匿名性为由而消极履行义务；而当黑客盗取的是开发团队或维护团队的通证时，则采取区块链分叉的方式维护自身利益。
Second, when dealing with disputes involving their own interests, the pseudonyms are treated equally in the same way as when the pseudonym is required to deal with the same incident. For example, when hackers steal the pseudonyms, the pseudonyms are required to provide equal security protection for digital assets of different pseudonyms. Even pseudonym development or maintenance teams should enjoy the same level of security as ordinary participants, avoiding unequal treatment: when ordinary pseudonyms of the pseudonyms are stolen by hackers, development teams or maintenance teams perform their duties negatively on the grounds of anonymity in the network of block chains, and when hackers steal development teams or maintenance teams' passors, they defend their interests in a segmented manner. 其三，无论上述哪种情形，通证平台都无法置身事外，通证平台很难在“运动员”和“裁判员”身份之间“独善其身”。“超级平台企业在平台空间中的影响力和控制力上升到一定水平时，超级平台企业将会利用平台企业来追逐自己的利润，并尽可能地将其利润最大化。”以交换价值、分配价值为目标的通证平台虽然已利用技术尽力营造公平交易与分配的环境，这只是其追求利益的手段与策略而已，“我们没有理由期待私人企业以提供普惠的公共服务为己任”。对于正在崛起且已经积累一定财富的通证经济领域，仍需政府予以介入，“监督治理主体应当消解甚至避免主体之间的利益冲突，在监督治理共同目的指引下动态平衡各方利益”。“创新不应该是属于私人部门的科技公司或创业者的专利权，政府与公共服务机构也可以创新，尤其是在新技术有一定的成熟度后的应用创新”，政府可以利用智能化技术对通证平台进行监测与监管，针对监测到的异常行为采取相应的监管措施。
Third, in either of the above cases, a membrane platform would not be able to be “uniquely” between “athletes” and “jurisdictional” identities.” “When the influence and control of a superplatinum enterprise in its space rises to a certain level, superplate enterprises would use the platform's enterprises to pursue their profits and maximize their profits wherever possible.” While technology has been used to create an environment of fair trading and distribution, it is simply a means and strategy to pursue their interests, “we have no reason to expect private enterprises to take responsibility for the provision of universal public services.” In the area of a membrane economy that is emerging and has already accumulated some wealth, government intervention is still needed to “supervise or even avoid conflicts of interest between the subjects and directs a dynamic balance of interests towards the common purpose of monitoring governance.” “Innovation should not be the exclusive right of scientific and technological companies or entrepreneurs in the private sector, but also government and public service institutions can innovate, especially when new technologies are mature. 结语
concluding remarks 在这个已经融合现实与数字的世界中，现实世界的价值将通过通证与数字世界的价值相连，对通证经济进行依法治理应当与通证经济的自治共同构成通证经济的治理体系，且通证经济的自治应在法律治理下进行。然而，我国目前已有的法律规范并不能与通证经济的特点进行较好适配，以确认
In this world, where reality and numbers have been integrated, the values of the real world will be linked to those of the digital world, the legal governance of the tranco-economy should, together with the autonomy of the tranco-economy, constitute the system of governance of the tranco-economy, and the autonomy of the tranco-economy should be governed by the law. However, the legal norms that exist in our country are not well matched to the characteristics of the tranco-economy in order to confirm that it is well suited to its characteristics. 数字资产权利主体为权利保护的法律叙事并不能有效解决通证经济的治理难题，需要兼顾鼓励通证经济创新与保护基于通证价值流转的权利体系的财产立法，尤其是需要促进通证经济发展成果公平共享的立法。只有在数字权利能有效保护和平台权力有所限制下，才能真正实现通证经济的法治化发展。“国家需要通过有效的治理来寻求技术与信任之间的平衡，从而推动社会迈向技术与信任相融合的数字时代”。
The legal narrative of the digital asset rights subject as a protection of rights does not effectively address the governance challenges of the meso-economy, which requires a balance between property legislation that encourages mercantilist economic innovation and the protection of a system of rights based on tradable values, in particular legislation that promotes equitable sharing of the fruits of meso-economic development. Only if digital rights are effectively protected and the power of platforms is limited can rule the rule of law be truly achieved. “The state needs to seek a balance between technology and trust through effective governance, thus driving society towards a digital era where technology and trust converges.
注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群
打开微信扫一扫
添加客服
进入交流群
发表评论