💸 The U.S. uses stablecoins to fill national debt, and global regulation follows suit with different approaches: responses vary widely across regions!
Recently, there has been a noticeable chain reaction in the crypto sphere: after the U.S. found a 'buyer' for its national debt through the stablecoin legislation, regulatory strategies around the globe have suddenly become lively, with some tightening controls and others leaving room, the methods varying so greatly that it feels like they are playing different card games. Today, let’s discuss in plain terms how countries are responding to this 'stablecoin card.'
Let's first briefly review the U.S. 'playing strategy'. This year, the U.S. passed the (Stablecoin Unified Standards Guarantee Act), which primarily aims to tie stablecoins to 'anchor U.S. Treasury bonds' — the money received by issuing companies must be used to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds or keep in U.S. dollars, effectively helping the government digest national debt using digital tools. What’s even more clever is the regulatory strategy: the SEC insists on 'not tailoring the shoe to fit the foot,' implementing 'innovation exemptions'; as long as projects do not violate anti-money laundering and reserve requirements, they can start testing. This tactic of 'openly allowing while secretly collecting' has rapidly expanded the scale of stablecoins, earning a reputation for innovation while also filling fiscal gaps.
However, other regions have not followed suit and have their own calculations.
Hong Kong has implemented a 'strict regulatory card'. The (Stablecoin Regulations) effective from August 1 is considered 'the strictest in the world': want to issue stablecoins? First, you need to have 25 million HKD in paid-up capital (approximately 22 million RMB, enough to open a medium-sized chain restaurant); users must register with their real names, and identity information must be stored for over five years, while anonymous wallets and DeFi scenarios are directly blacklisted; even using a VPN can get your account identified and banned. Hong Kong's logic is straightforward: financial security comes first; even if it sacrifices some innovation freedom, stablecoins must be managed as 'controlled electronic money'. As a result, small and medium-sized projects are shut out, and the Web3 community complains, 'This is not regulation; it's building walls.'
The European Union has played a 'balancing card'. After the MiCA Act was implemented this year, it follows a 'big catches small' approach: large transactions must be real-name registered, but small transactions (for example, those under 1,000 euros) are allowed to be anonymous; stablecoin reserves must be transparent, but there is no mandatory requirement to purchase a specific country's bonds; cross-border circulation is relatively lenient, as long as it meets anti-money laundering requirements, stablecoins within the EU can flow freely. It's like drawing a 'safety line' in the market, with flexibility allowed within the line while strict regulations apply outside of it. This flexibility can attract more innovative projects while allowing the stablecoins in the eurozone to maintain a certain level of on-chain freedom.
Singapore adopts a 'testing card,' placing stablecoins in a 'regulatory sandbox' for trials. The local DTSP system allows projects to first apply for a 'temporary license' to test within a controlled range: for instance, if a stablecoin project wants to connect with DeFi, as long as it can prove the risks are controllable, it can operate on a small scale first, adjusting if issues arise. Singapore's approach is 'test while managing,' not wanting to miss out on digital financial gains while also fearing overreach could lead to pitfalls. This 'layered regulation' has made it a popular hub for stablecoin startups in Southeast Asia, with many teams first honing their skills in the sandbox before going global.
Some countries are playing the 'follower card'. For example, Japan, which recently revised its (Funds Settlement Act), requires stablecoin issuers to be licensed financial institutions, and reserves must be in yen or government bonds, but it has left a loophole for small anonymous transactions, resembling a 'simplified version of EU rules'. Countries like Turkey and Argentina, which experience high inflation, are more practical: regardless of regulatory details, they first allow stablecoins to circulate — many locals use USDT as a 'hedge tool'; the government hasn’t explicitly expressed support but also hasn’t cracked down, effectively defaulting its status as a 'digital dollar' in the informal economy.
Comparing these approaches is quite interesting: the U.S. uses stablecoins as a 'national debt digester,' trading off loose regulation for scale; Hong Kong treats it as a 'financial firewall,' relying on strict regulation for safety; while the EU and Singapore seek a balance in between, aiming for both stability and vitality. But the core contradiction remains the same: how to let stablecoins harness the convenience of digital tools without turning into a 'ticking time bomb' of financial risk?
Some say this resembles a 'global regulatory contest': the U.S. competes by 'using innovation to gain benefits,' Hong Kong by 'building defenses with strictness,' and the EU by 'leaving space flexibly.' But regardless of the competition, stablecoins have already transformed from a 'niche tool' in the crypto sphere to a 'must-answer question' in global finance.
Future trends may become clearer: major powers want to use stablecoins to solidify currency status (for instance, the U.S. uses it to expand the dollar's influence), financial centers aim to attract projects through regulation (like Singapore's sandbox), while ordinary users are more concerned about whether this 'digital change' can be used safely, whether transfers will suddenly be blocked, and whether the money in their wallets will shrink due to regulatory changes.
This global 'stablecoin regulatory card game' has just begun; who can win in the end will depend on who can truly align security, innovation, and user demand. After all, good regulation is never 'one-size-fits-all,' but rather ensures that digital tools serve people effectively.#香港稳定币新规 #比特币流动性危机
