Regulatory Policy

Focuses on global regulatory developments, policy changes, and compliance requirements. It provides in-depth analysis of government regulations and their impact on the cryptocurrency and blockchain industries, helping businesses and investors proactively manage policy-related risks.

What Are Some Promising Paths for Web3 Entrepreneurship in China? (Part 3)

China's Web3 Entrepreneurship: Promising Paths in Digital Collectibles (Part 3) Despite a boom-and-bust cycle from 2021-2022, digital collectibles (the Chinese equivalent of NFTs) remain a viable Web3 startup path in China, provided they operate within strict regulatory boundaries. Key insights include: Policy & Market Context: Regulators prohibit financialization, secondary trading, and speculation but allow digital collectibles focused on cultural content, brand engagement, and copyright authentication. The market has cleared out speculative platforms, leaving operators emphasizing content and long-term user engagement over quick profits. Sustainable Use Cases: 1. Cultural & Tourism Digitization: Digital collectibles serve as digital souvenirs and cultural dissemination tools for museums, heritage sites, and IP owners. 2. Brand Membership Tools: They function as digital credentials for loyalty programs, integrating with rewards, events, and membership tiers. 3. Enterprise Solutions: Permissioned blockchain infrastructure offers brands controlled, auditable, and privacy-compliant digital asset systems. 4. Operational Services: Startups can provide end-to-end services—IP licensing, content curation, and ongoing community engagement—for cultural and commercial projects. Challenges: User perception remains skewed toward speculation, not utility. Brands struggle to integrate digital collectibles into sustainable membership systems, and public blockchain transparency conflicts with commercial data privacy needs. Conclusion: Success requires stable IP partnerships, B2B revenue models (cultural institutions or brands), clear post-issuance value (rights/utility), strict compliance, and long-term operational commitment. This path demands deep industry expertise—not speculative intent.

marsbit12 ч. назад

What Are Some Promising Paths for Web3 Entrepreneurship in China? (Part 3)

marsbit12 ч. назад

From Davos Confrontation to Capitol Hill: How Coinbase Became the Banking Industry's 'Legislative Enemy'

The article details the escalating conflict between Coinbase, the largest U.S. cryptocurrency exchange, and major Wall Street banks, as exemplified by a confrontation between Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The core dispute centers on whether crypto exchanges should be allowed to pay yields, around 3.5%, to stablecoin holders—a practice banks argue is equivalent to paying interest on deposits and threatens to draw trillions of dollars away from traditional banking. Armstrong and the crypto industry advocate for free market principles, arguing banks could compete by raising their own deposit rates or entering the stablecoin market. This clash is playing out in Washington over the proposed Clarity Act, which could reshape financial regulations. Armstrong has become a powerful advocate, leveraging Coinbase's significant lobbying efforts and political donations to influence legislation. After he withdrew support for a Senate version of the bill that would have effectively banned such yields, a key vote was abruptly postponed, demonstrating his considerable influence. The article explores Armstrong's journey from a soft-spoken tech founder to a central figure in the policy debate, outlining Coinbase's ambition to become a "super app" that replaces traditional banks. With a new administration open to crypto, Armstrong is pushing for a compromise, such as creating a new category of regulated stablecoin issuers permitted to pay yields, as both sides vie to shape the future of American finance.

比推13 ч. назад

From Davos Confrontation to Capitol Hill: How Coinbase Became the Banking Industry's 'Legislative Enemy'

比推13 ч. назад

Preferred Entry-Level License for Encrypted Payments: Australia's DCE

An Introduction to Crypto Payment Licenses: Australia's DCE Option In the evolving regulatory landscape for crypto payments and stablecoin projects, Australia Digital Currency Exchange (DCE) has often been viewed as a relatively accessible entry path. Under the current framework, it does not require a financial license but involves registration with AUSTRAC and establishing an anti-money laundering (AML) system to conduct exchanges between cryptocurrencies and fiat currencies. However, by 2026, this understanding requires significant revision. Australian regulators are restructuring the overall regulatory logic for virtual asset services, not just adjusting a single "license." The key question is no longer whether DCE is feasible, but rather its position in the new regulatory structure—what it can and cannot accomplish. Currently, DCE is not a financial services license under the Corporations Act but an AML regulatory status under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act (AML/CTF Act). It focuses on obligations like KYC, transaction monitoring, and suspicious activity reporting, operating on an ex-post supervision model. By March 2026, major changes will take effect under the AML/CTF Amendment Act 2024. The reforms expand regulatory scope beyond currency exchanges to include virtual asset transfers and payments, introduce a mandatory registration confirmation from AUSTRAC before operations begin, and emphasize sustainable compliance capabilities over mere formal registration. Concurrently, ASIC is introducing a digital asset platform and custody framework, targeting services that hold private keys or manage client assets. This requires an Australian Financial Services License (AFSL), shifting oversight from AUSTRAC to financial services regulation. The core of Australian virtual asset regulation hinges on a functional divide: pure value transfer services fall under AUSTRAC’s AML oversight, while asset custody and management trigger ASIC’s financial services regime. For businesses considering DCE registration now, it remains a strategic step for establishing compliance history and preparing for future requirements. However, it is only a transitional foundation, not a long-term solution. Post-2026, all entities must adapt to the new registration confirmation process and stricter oversight. Ultimately, Australia’s approach integrates virtual asset services into existing legal frameworks through functional layering. Understanding the regulatory logic—especially concerning exchange, transfer, custody, and control—is more critical than focusing solely on the DCE registration.

marsbit13 ч. назад

Preferred Entry-Level License for Encrypted Payments: Australia's DCE

marsbit13 ч. назад

活动图片