近年虛擬資產逐漸由投資交易標的，發展出支付、跨境移轉、商家收款及鏈上結算等功能；其中穩定幣因連結法定貨幣價值，成為傳統金融與虛擬資產市場間之重要媒介。惟當虛擬資產實際被用於支付時，其法律問題已不僅止於平台管理、投資人保護或洗錢防制，更涉及支付完成時點、清算結算、錯誤交易處理、商家端責任、贖回權及破產時權利歸屬等問題。 本文以功能性監理為核心觀點，檢視我國 2026 年 6 月 30 日三讀通過之《虛擬資產服務法》對穩定幣與以支付為目的之虛擬資產服務之規範設計。本文認為，本法雖已將「支付目的」納入虛擬資產定義，並以虛擬資產移轉服務及穩定幣之相關規範承接部分支付風險，惟其規範重心仍偏向 VASP 許可、客戶資產保管、穩定幣發行及市場秩序維護，尚未充分建立以支付活動本身為核心之制度架構。 透過比較歐盟 MiCA、美國 GENIUS Act、日本《支付服務法》及香港《穩定幣條例》，各司法管轄區雖採不同立法模式，但均重視發行人資格、儲備資產、面額贖回、資訊揭露、破產隔離、跨境流通及中介責任。本文主張，我國未來應以《虛擬資產服務法》為主要規範基礎，並銜接既有支付法制之功能性標準，建立虛擬資產支付服務之特別類型，強化支付完成、交易確認、錯誤處理、商家責任、境外服務及穩定幣流通端規範，以建構兼具創新、效率與法律信賴之虛擬資產支付法制。;In recent years， virtual assets have evolved from investment and trading objects into instruments with payment， cross-border transfer， merchant acceptance， and on-chain settlement functions. Stablecoins， by linking their value to fiat currencies， have become an important bridge between traditional finance and the virtual asset market. Once virtual assets are used for payment， the relevant legal issues are no longer limited to platform regulation， investor protection， or anti-money laundering， but also involve payment completion， clearing and settlement， error handling， merchant responsibility， redemption rights， and insolvency protection. From the perspective of functional regulation， this thesis examines Taiwan’s Virtual Asset Service Act， passed by the Legislative Yuan on June 30， 2026， and its regulatory design for stablecoins and virtual asset payment services. This thesis argues that although the Act includes “payment purposes” in the definition of virtual assets and addresses certain payment-related risks through transfer services and stablecoin-related provisions， its focus remains mainly on VASP licensing， custody of customer assets， stablecoin issuance， and market order. It has not yet established a framework centered on payment activities themselves. Through a comparative analysis of the European Union’s MiCA， the United States’ GENIUS Act， Japan’s Payment Services Act， and Hong Kong’s Stablecoins Ordinance， this thesis finds that these jurisdictions commonly emphasize issuer qualification， reserve assets， par redemption， disclosure， bankruptcy remoteness， cross-border circulation， and intermediary responsibility. Accordingly， Taiwan should use the Virtual Asset Service Act as the primary basis while connecting it with existing payment law. Specific rules should be developed for payment completion， transaction confirmation， error handling， merchant responsibility， overseas services， and stablecoin circulation， so as to construct a legal framework that balances innovation， efficiency， and legal trust.
