The global cryptocurrency asset market is rapidly developing and has become an important component of international finance, with regulatory differentiation accelerating in various countries: the European Union is implementing differentiated regulation through the (Cryptocurrency Market Regulatory Bill); the United States has incorporated cryptocurrency assets into its new economic strategy, establishing a Bitcoin reserve and legislating to regulate stablecoins; Hong Kong, China, is implementing exchange licensing and ETF practices, improving stablecoin regulation. These regions adhere to the principle of 'same business, same regulation', emphasizing anti-money laundering and classification control.
Our country has long adopted a comprehensive ban on cryptocurrency assets, going through three stages of risk warning, key rectification, and a complete ban. Although this has temporarily controlled risks, its limitations are increasingly evident: the legitimacy of the policy is questionable, and the normative documents restricting citizens' rights lack support from higher laws; consumer rights protection is insufficient, with widespread inconsistent judgments in the judiciary, making it difficult for legitimate holders to seek redress for losses; it suppresses blockchain financial innovation, missing opportunities for wealth effects and technological development; and there is low participation in international rules, weakening our voice.
Currently, the integration of cryptocurrency assets with traditional finance is a significant trend, and our country needs to reassess its strategic value: as a vehicle for financial technology, it can promote the internationalization of the renminbi (for example, offshore renminbi stablecoins for cross-border payments); mainstream cryptocurrency assets are gradually becoming tools for global asset allocation, and prohibition policies lead to gray capital outflows. From a regulatory theory perspective, a complete ban does not conform to the principle of proportionality, and it is necessary to balance financial security, efficiency, and consumer protection.
It is recommended that our country's regulation evolve from 'comprehensive prohibition' to 'moderate openness': first, implement differentiated regulation to distinguish the risks of different cryptocurrency assets and clearly define the property attributes of mainstream assets; second, center regulation around service providers, establishing access licensing and anti-money laundering mechanisms; third, explore strategic reserves, regulate the disposal of judicially confiscated assets, and rely on Hong Kong's pilot of offshore renminbi stablecoins to gradually guide compliant channels.
In summary, cryptocurrency assets represent a new arena for international financial competition. Our country should base its efforts on building a strong financial nation, learn from Hong Kong's experience, moderately open up and improve regulation, enhance our voice in rule-making, and take the initiative in digital financial competition.