Hong Kong Airdrops Stablecoins, US Defines Boundaries: The Institutionalization Phase of Stablecoins

marsbitPublished on 2026-03-04Last updated on 2026-03-04

Abstract

Stablecoin regulation is entering a new institutionalized phase, as evidenced by recent developments in Hong Kong and the United States. Hong Kong is set to issue its first stablecoin issuer licenses by March, marking the start of a licensed era. Lawmaker Johnny Ng has proposed distributing stablecoin-based consumption vouchers to citizens to encourage adoption among local SMEs—a strategy reminiscent of the e-voucher campaigns that boosted digital payment uptake. Hong Kong’s regulatory framework requires licensed issuers to hold full reserve backing, independent custody, and face-value redemption, effectively treating stablecoin operators as quasi-financial institutions. Meanwhile, the U.S. is clarifying the regulatory status of payment stablecoins. Following a key meeting between banking and crypto industry representatives, the SEC is revising Rule 15c3-1 to include payment stablecoins under broker-dealer capital rules, applying a 2% capital deduction. Eligible stablecoins must be dollar-denominated, fully reserved, audited monthly, and redeemable. This move formally integrates payment stablecoins into the U.S. financial regulatory system. Together, these developments signal that stablecoins are transitioning from market experiments to regulated financial instruments—no longer just crypto products but recognized gateways into the global monetary system.

Over the past two years, stablecoins have been a focal point of global regulatory discussions.

Now, they are simultaneously entering the core systems of two global financial centers: Hong Kong is promoting their implementation, while the United States is clarifying regulatory rules. This means that the development of stablecoins is transitioning from the market trial phase to a formal institutionalization phase—no longer just a product of the crypto industry, but a compliant asset recognized by the regulatory system.

Hong Kong: Entering the "Licensed Era"

The development of stablecoins in Hong Kong is reaching a critical juncture.

Hong Kong Legislative Council member Wu Jiezhuang recently revealed that Hong Kong is expected to issue its first batch of stablecoin issuer licenses in March this year. This means that the issuance of stablecoins in Hong Kong will officially enter the "licensed era."

But what is more noteworthy is the next step being considered by Hong Kong regulators.

Wu Jiezhuang explicitly proposed that the government could distribute consumption vouchers in the form of stablecoins to eligible citizens for use in local small and medium-sized enterprises to promote the practical use of stablecoins.

The logic behind this proposal is straightforward: instead of waiting for the slow market adoption of stablecoins, the government would directly create usage scenarios.

This is not without precedent.

From 2021 to 2023, the Hong Kong government distributed electronic consumption vouchers multiple times, significantly accelerating the penetration of electronic payments in Hong Kong and making them a mainstream payment method.

Now, Hong Kong is attempting to replicate this model—upgrading electronic consumption vouchers to stablecoin consumption vouchers. The signal behind this is clear: the role of stablecoins in Hong Kong is no longer just "permitted digital assets" but "actively promoted payment infrastructure."

More importantly, Hong Kong's stablecoin regulatory system is already in place.

Over the past year, Hong Kong has completed the institutional design of its stablecoin regulatory framework, including:

  • Issuers must operate with a license
  • Stablecoins must be fully backed by reserve assets
  • Reserve assets must be held in independent custody
  • Redemption at face value must be supported

These rules essentially replicate the trust structure of the traditional banking system. Stablecoin issuers will no longer be crypto companies but "quasi-financial institutions." This means that stablecoins in Hong Kong are no longer an experiment but part of the system.

United States: New Developments Amid Negotiations

Compared to Hong Kong's push for issuance, the United States is completing another equally critical task: clarifying the position of payment stablecoins within the financial regulatory system.

Previously, there was a clear divergence between the U.S. banking industry and the crypto industry over whether payment stablecoins should be allowed to offer yields to holders, which once affected related legislative progress. On February 20, the White House convened representatives from both sides for the third special meeting on stablecoin yield issues, attempting to foster regulatory consensus.

The following day, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce stated that the SEC is pushing to amend Rule 15c3-1 to more clearly incorporate payment stablecoins into the net capital regulatory system for broker-dealers.

Specifically, payment stablecoins held by broker-dealers would be subject to a 2% capital haircut, and regulatory agencies would no longer raise objections to this.

This is not just a simple rule adjustment but the first time U.S. regulators have explicitly stated: payment stablecoins are compliant assets within the financial system.

At the same time, the SEC clarified that only stablecoins that meet the criteria of being denominated in U.S. dollars, issued by regulated entities, fully backed by reserves, providing monthly audit reports, and supporting redemption can be recognized as compliant payment stablecoins.

In essence, this is the first time the United States has formally confirmed the financial asset attributes of payment stablecoins at the capital regulatory level and incorporated them into the risk management and capital constraint systems of traditional financial institutions. This change marks the transition of payment stablecoins from a regulatory gray area into the standardized, regulated, and measurable financial system.

A New Gateway

Hong Kong's stablecoin licenses are about to be issued, and the U.S. regulatory framework is being clarified.

As these two paths intersect, stablecoins are quietly moving from the regulatory gray area into a standardized, regulated, and measurable financial system.

In the institutionalization phase, the future of stablecoins no longer depends solely on technological innovation or market acceptance but is formally integrated into the financial regulatory system, becoming a sustainable, traceable, and compliant asset in the global digital currency ecosystem.

Stablecoins are no longer just crypto products but a new gateway to currency in the global financial system.

*This content is for reference only and does not constitute any investment advice. The market carries risks, and investment requires caution.

Related Questions

QWhat is the significance of Hong Kong issuing the first batch of stablecoin issuer licenses in March?

AIt marks the official entry of Hong Kong's stablecoin issuance into a 'licensed era', transitioning stablecoins from market experiments to a regulated and compliant asset within the financial system.

QHow does Hong Kong plan to promote the practical use of stablecoins among its citizens?

AHong Kong is considering distributing stablecoin-based consumption vouchers to eligible citizens for use in local small and medium-sized enterprises, directly creating usage scenarios to drive adoption.

QWhat key regulatory requirements has Hong Kong established for stablecoin issuers?

AStablecoin issuers must be licensed, have stablecoins backed by full reserve assets, hold reserves in independent custody, and support redemption at face value.

QWhat recent development in the US indicates that payment stablecoins are being recognized as compliant financial assets?

AThe SEC is revising Rule 15c3-1 to allow broker-dealers to apply a 2% capital haircut to payment stablecoins, formally acknowledging them as compliant assets within the financial regulatory system.

QWhat criteria must a stablecoin meet to be classified as a compliant payment stablecoin under US regulatory proposals?

AIt must be denominated in US dollars, issued by a regulated entity, fully backed by reserves, provide monthly audit reports, and support redemption.

Related Reads

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit51m ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit51m ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit1h ago

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit1h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3h ago

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片