China's Stablecoin Window Closes: A Regulatory Drama Long Written

Author: BlockWeeks

Original Title: Abandon Illusions, Bid Farewell to the "Gray Zone": A Review of the Underlying Logic Behind China's Regulatory Crackdown on Stablecoins

Recently, many Web3 friends have been asking BlockWeeks the same question: "Is this the final warning?"

If it were five years ago, we would have said this is a periodic warning; but at this point in December 2025, looking at the joint announcement from the seven associations and the minutes of the central bank coordination mechanism meeting, our answer is: This is not a warning, this is the sound of the door being locked.

Especially after reading the article by Wang Yongli, former Vice President of the Bank of China, "Why is China Firmly Halting Stablecoins?", we discerned some signals that crypto media easily overlook. Today, we won't talk about K-lines; we'll discuss the top-level logic and life-and-death博弈 (game theory/struggle) behind this.

I. The Signal Has Changed: From "Anti-Speculation" to "Anti-Infiltration"

In the past few years, the regulatory focus was on "trading"—shutting down exchanges, the "broken card action" (card suspension action to combat fraud) aiming to prevent ordinary people from being scammed (stability maintenance logic).

But this time, the precise狙击 (sniper attack/targeting) of "stablecoins" and "RWA (Real World Asset tokenization)" signifies a change in logic. This is no longer simply consumer protection but has escalated to national financial security (sovereignty logic).

Why? Because stablecoins are the bridge connecting the fiat world and the crypto world. Before, regulation was about putting more obstacles on the bridge to slow you down; now regulators realize that as long as this bridge (stablecoins) exists, capital can continuously flow overseas through USDT, USDC, and external financial risks can also be transmitted back into the domestic banking system through this bridge.

Wang Yongli's article was very blunt: Cannot let privately issued tokens occupy the status of fiat currency. The subtext of this sentence is: In China, the right to issue currency is absolute national sovereignty and cannot tolerate any "decentralized" challenge, even if you are pegged to the Renminbi.

II. Deconstructing Wang Yongli's Logic: Why is the "RMB Stablecoin" a Dead End?

In the构想 (conception/vision) of many Web3 builders, China would eventually open up to "compliant RMB stablecoins (like CNHC)" to counter dollar hegemony.

But Wang Yongli poured cold water on this directly, with very core reasons, even可以说 (one could say) "soberingly realistic":

1. If you can't beat them, don't feed them kills: The global stablecoin market is already monopolized by USDT and USDC, with极强的 (extremely strong) network effects. Launching an RMB stablecoin now simply won't gain traction; instead, it might open an interface that makes it easier for USD stablecoins to "counter-attack" the domestic market.

2. No need for "middlemen": China has the world's most developed mobile payments, and also has the central bank's own digital yuan (e-CNY). The official logic is: Since I have the safest official digital currency, why should I allow private institutions to issue a token that acts as a "middleman taking a cut"?

3. Criminal Hotbed Theory: In the eyes of regulators, current stablecoins = money laundering + online gambling + telecom fraud. This stereotype cannot be reversed in the short term. Instead, with the rise of the RWA concept, regulators are more worried that someone might package domestic real estate, equity, etc., into tokens and sell them abroad, leading to the failure of capital controls.

III. Deep-Seated Game Theory: What Are We Defending Against?

As industry observers, we need to look beyond the crypto circle. The international environment in 2025 is quite "诡谲" (tricky/volatile).

In the US, the new administration's attitude towards Crypto is ambiguous, even potentially incorporating it into national strategic reserves. The US dollar is accomplishing "digital colonization" through USDC/USDT—a new form of hegemony that can渗透进 (infiltrate into) the economic capillaries of other countries without the Fed needing to open branches.

If China loosens its stance on stablecoins at this time, it would be equivalent to opening a backdoor in its own financial firewall.

Therefore, the essence of this policy is "physical isolation":

• Externally: Prevent "digital dollars" from entering unimpeded in the form of stablecoins, impacting the RMB exchange rate.

• Internally: Cut off various Web3暗道 (clandestine channels) for capital flight (RWA, U cards, etc.).

This is a defensive strategy that sacrifices "connectivity" for "security".

IV. Dialectical Thinking: Potential "Side Effects" and Long-Term Concerns

Although "blocking" might be the optimal solution for now, this "one-size-fits-all" approach is not without cost. We must face the following risks:

1. "Galapagos Phenomenon": Technology Isolation Risk

Web3, DeFi (Decentralized Finance), and public chain technology are the雏形 (embryonic form) of the next generation of internet financial infrastructure. Currently, these innovations are almost entirely built on the USD stablecoin system. By cutting off stablecoins, regulators are also, to some extent, cutting off the connection between Chinese technical personnel and the most cutting-edge global public chain ecosystem. In the long run, if the global financial infrastructure truly shifts towards a blockchain-based clearing system, China might face a technological generation gap due to a lack of practical environment, replaying the "intranet" dilemma.

1. "Black Boxing" of Underground Finance

Economic common sense tells us that demand does not disappear because of prohibition. As long as foreign trade companies have a need for fast settlement, as long as residents have a need for hedging, underground stablecoin trading will exist. Severe bans will lead to more隐蔽化 (clandestine/hidden) transactions (e.g., through Telegram groups, offline cash settlements), which反而 (instead) increases the difficulty of anti-money laundering and monitoring capital flows. Regulators lose their "grip" (leverage/control) and can only rely on public security organs for事后打击 (ex-post facto crackdowns), which is extremely costly.

1. Loss of Discourse Power

Actively abandoning the game on the battlefield of "public chain dollars." Since USDT represents dollar hegemony, we could have countered by issuing "offshore RMB stablecoins" (e.g., CNH Stablecoin). But the current policy direction is to completely deny private stablecoins. This might lead to a lack of flexible private carriers for the RMB in the future digital currency basket, relying entirely on the central bank's CBDC (digital currency), which may be less flexible and penetrating than commercialized products like USDC.

V. Where Should Practitioners Go? Abandon Illusions, Embrace the "Dual-Track System"

The policy cards are on the table. For teams still观望 (waiting and watching/hesitating) domestically, here's what we think:

1. RWA is a dead end in mainland China: Don't even think about tokenizing domestic assets on-chain anymore; this directly touches the two red lines of "illegal fundraising" and "capital controls."

2. e-CNY is the only "on-chain fiat currency": Although the current e-CNY is not yet very smart, the future direction is definitely central bank-led programmable currency. If you want to do G-end (government-end) business, turn your eyes from Ethereum back to联盟链 (consortium chains) and the digital yuan.

3. Hong Kong is the only "pressure relief valve": All opportunities are across the Victoria Harbour. China's current strategy is likely "strict blocking domestically,疏导 (channeling/guiding) through Hong Kong."

• Resolutely clear [stablecoins] to zero in the mainland, ensuring the security of the rear base.

• Support Hong Kong in issuing compliant stablecoins, letting Hong Kong act as a special forces unit to compete with USDT on the international market.VI. Conclusion: Winter is Here, But Also a Touchstone

Wang Yongli's article and the regulatory组合拳 (combination punch) actually宣告 (declare/announce) the end of the era of野蛮生长 (wild growth) in China's Web3 "gray zone."

For speculators, this is a disaster; but for true Builders, this might be another form of certainty. Only when the illusion of "wanting both" is shattered can we see clearly where the red lines are and where the real battlefield left for us is.

Either go completely overseas to brave the waves, or dance in shackles within the narrow gate of compliance. There is no other way.

Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

Bitpush TG Discussion Group:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

Bitpush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush