2026-01-07 06:20:42

#2026年比特币价格展望 Korea's regulatory crackdown suddenly tightened, targeting the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Major shareholders' holdings are proposed to be limited to 15%, causing an industry uproar. Industry insiders openly say: the self-regulatory framework is sufficient; adding more restrictions is unnecessary and will only hinder mergers, acquisitions, and innovation. Legal circles are also complaining, as forced share reductions might infringe on property rights, making this move truly perplexing.

In contrast, Ripple's approach is completely different. President Monica Long recently issued a strong statement—no rush to go public, the company's cash flow is very stable. Where does this confidence come from? The data makes it clear. In November last year, they raised $500 million, pushing their valuation to $40 billion, backed by heavyweight Wall Street firms like Fortress and Citadel. This year, they’ve been even more aggressive, burning nearly $4 billion, acquiring four companies in one go, with no sign of slowing down their expansion.

Their business side is also very competitive. Their payment transactions have exceeded $95 billion, and their own USD stablecoin RLUSD has become the main engine for payments and institutional collaborations. This move is obvious—relying on products and acquisitions to grow, with little interest in the stock market.

The contrast is evident. One side is being constrained within a policy framework, while the other is racing ahead in business. Should regulation tighten or loosen? Will Ripple’s "not going public but growing rapidly" approach become a new industry strategy? This is worth deep reflection.

BTC0,28%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

15 Likes

Reward
15
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ChainDetective

· 01-10 04:12

South Korea's move is indeed brilliant, limiting the 15% shareholding ratio to directly cut off the big players' hopes. Ripple is quietly making a fortune; comparing it to the Korean stock exchange's predicament, the gap is significant. This is outrageous; regulators insist on ruining good cards. Wall Street's big boss is behind the scenes, no wonder Ripple is so confident. Compared to queuing for an IPO, burning money to expand is more appealing...

View OriginalReply0

ConfusedWhale

· 01-09 05:39

South Korea's approach is indeed a bit foolish, trapping their own exchange. How can they compete with Ripple?

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainNewbie

· 01-07 06:49

South Korea's move is really nagging; how can they still want innovation with such strict restrictions? Ripple's reverse operation is just showing off; not going public might actually allow them to thrive more freely. --- Spending 4 billion dollars is just playing around; we're still restricted by shareholding limits, which is truly a different level. --- Monica said she's not in a rush to go public, I believe it. With Wall Street bosses counting money behind the scenes, who still bothers with IPOs? It's just ridiculous. --- Why can Ripple be so reckless in burning money? Their products are genuinely used, with a trading volume of 95 billion dollars just sitting there. --- Is Korea's recent move really about blocking innovation, or is there another agenda? I just can't figure it out. --- RLUSD becoming a payment engine is indeed impressive; stablecoins are probably the way to go. --- Not going public and instead growing—this logic is a bit counterintuitive, but the data speaks for itself. --- Looking at both sides, the regulatory approaches are so different, huh? --- Will Ripple's strategy be copied by other projects? It feels a bit like an internal competition.

View OriginalReply0

ParallelChainMaxi

· 01-07 06:46

South Korea's move is really brilliant... directly cutting the shareholding ratio, isn't this trying to stifle innovation at its root? Ripple is getting stronger and stronger; pouring in 4 billion shows it's a player at different stages. Is a policy framework meant to protect or to hinder? It seems that in the future, whoever can thrive best in the regulatory gaps will be the winners.

View OriginalReply0

0xSherlock

· 01-07 06:31

South Korea's recent moves are truly outrageous. Hard measures like limiting share ratios are just for naive startups. Ripple goes against the trend; being self-sufficient in cash flow allows for rapid expansion. That's the right way. Not going public actually leads to a more comfortable life. The comparison is quite ironic. Acquiring four companies for 4 billion yuan—this pace is definitely different, all about product strength. Regulatory bottlenecks are really pointless. Just look at how Ripple operates to understand. Why go for an IPO? Self-sustaining growth can still take off. South Korea's move of throwing stones to hit its own foot. With a business transaction volume exceeding 95 billion yuan, stablecoin RLUSD is the core engine. This comparison clearly shows the issue: policy strangulation vs. business rapid growth. Funding recognized by Wall Street proves the company's strength. Not going public but still valued at 40 billion yuan—this is real confidence. Monica Long speaks confidently; cash flow speaks louder than funding rounds. Will Ripple's approach become the standard? It feels like the trend is changing. Regulatory bottlenecks are really out of date. Just see how others are doing it.

View OriginalReply0

SoliditySurvivor

· 01-07 06:29

This move by Korea is really brilliant—clamping down hard on their own exchanges, while Ripple is racing ahead under the protection of Wall Street's daddy. The disparity in their strategies is truly significant.

View OriginalReply0