2026-01-11 12:20:46

I recently came across an interesting perspective on virtual asset regulation. The basic idea is as follows: virtual assets are recognized as a direction for financial innovation, but in reality, there are some tricky issues—such as the difficulties in rights protection due to anonymous transactions, potential money laundering risks, and the threat to overall financial stability.

Therefore, regulatory authorities adopt a pragmatic stance: first establish a clear regulatory framework rather than letting ordinary investors follow the trend into the market. At the same time, strengthen market education to help everyone understand the characteristics of these assets rationally.

Regarding stablecoins, the approach is to first solidify the basic regulatory system for stablecoins, accumulate experience, and then gradually explore more complex models (such as gold-pegged varieties). "Stability first"—this phrase captures the core logic.

This step-by-step approach is actually more beneficial for the long-term development of the industry. It can promote innovation while preventing systemic risks, providing market participants with more certainty.

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.

18 Likes

Reward
18
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

FOMOmonster

· 01-14 12:10

To be honest, this regulatory approach is indeed much more comfortable than the previous one-size-fits-all method. However, I still have some concerns. Once the rule framework is established, will the enforcement standards vary across different regions, ultimately leading to chaos? I agree on stablecoins. First, lay a solid foundation and avoid any black swan events. The previous collapse projects are still lessons learned.

View OriginalReply0

RealYieldWizard

· 01-13 12:12

To be honest, I can understand this set of logic, but the idea of "building the rule framework first and then letting people enter" always sounds a bit slow. In fact, money laundering and anonymous transactions are not unique to virtual assets; the banking system also has its fair share of black holes every year. Why aren't there more calls to stop? Regarding stablecoins, I agree that we should start from the basics, but "step-by-step" in this circle often means... you know, missing the window of opportunity.

View OriginalReply0

NFTPessimist

· 01-11 12:45

Regulation must be done this way, or the retail investors will keep getting exploited.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoWageSlave

· 01-11 12:29

That's exactly right, this is a rational regulatory attitude. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, it's better to first establish the framework and then expand. Stablecoins indeed require caution, or else it will be another feast of cutting leeks. Regulation coming actually makes people feel more at ease, at least knowing they haven't stepped on a landmine. Having a clear framework actually encourages innovation, which many people haven't understood. The phrase "stability first" really hits the mark; there's no need to rush. Instead of a complete ban, transparency is better; this is the long-term way to survive. Preventing systemic risks > temporary reckless growth, I agree. Money laundering risks do exist; this is not alarmism, but a real pain point. Taking it step by step may seem slow, but it's actually the healthiest for the ecosystem. Investor education is really the neglected part, but it is precisely the most critical.

View OriginalReply0

tx_pending_forever