2026-01-14 12:40:45

Why are the domestic and Hong Kong crypto policies so drastically different?

The underlying logic is quite clear. Mainland China focuses on financial security and risk prevention, aiming to prevent disorderly capital flows; Hong Kong, leveraging its status as an international financial center, is experimenting within a clear regulatory framework, using standardized management to maintain market order.

This is not a sign of cryptocurrency being rejected; on the contrary, it is quite the opposite. The market is gradually evolving from a previously chaotic state into layered regulation and formalized operations. When does an asset truly become mature? It’s the moment it begins to be taken seriously and incorporated into the institutional framework.

In the short term, there may not be much incentive effect, but over a longer timeline, this normalization process is actually an important turning point for the industry’s maturity. When crypto assets move from wild, unregulated states into managed phases, what does that indicate? It shows that they are no longer niche experiments but are about to participate in a larger financial ecosystem.

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.

11 Likes

Reward
11
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

DYORMaster

· 4h ago

Hong Kong's recent moves are indeed clever, balancing protection and openness. Mainland China is strict, but it also shows that this thing is worth taking seriously. Normalization = death? That's hilarious. It's actually a sign of maturity. But on the other hand, regulation is never given for free. Who bears the costs in the middle? Wait, does this mean that the future will be more open or continue to tighten? I don't quite understand. Maturity ≠ making money. This point needs to be thought through.

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentTherapist

· 4h ago

Hong Kong's approach is indeed clever, making money while appearing compliant. On the mainland side, it's a strict defense line. Fearful, yes, but the logic isn't flawed.

View OriginalReply0

CommunityLurker

· 4h ago

Hmm... Hong Kong's recent moves are indeed clever. We understand the mainland's risk prevention, but can such differentiation truly create a competitive advantage? --- Standardization means maturity? Then why do US stocks still hit daily limits every day, hhhh --- Honestly, it's still about different national conditions. The mainland fears chaos, while Hong Kong wants a share of the pie, each side doing what they need --- Wait, why do I feel this logic is a bit far-fetched... Can risk prevention and testing the waters really be mutually exclusive? --- Wild to managed sounds good, but are the coins in retail investors' wallets really valuable? That's the hard truth --- The advantage of the Hong Kong zone is significant, but I'm just worried that it will still be incorporated into the same framework later, and then it's all just empty happiness --- What a turning point, it's just each singing their own tune. In the end, no one can expect to be immune from it

View OriginalReply0

ForkYouPayMe

· 4h ago

Hong Kong definitely understands how to play better here. The mainland firewall is built so tightly, but Hong Kong has opened a gap... Forget it, in the long run, standardization is a good thing. Anyway, there's no escaping the fate of being rectified.

View OriginalReply0

QuietlyStaking

· 4h ago

Yeah, that makes sense. Standardization is a sign of maturity, and I agree with that. Hong Kong's move was well played. Mainland China seeking stability is understandable, but it all depends on who will ultimately come out on top. It should have been regulated earlier; the era of wild growth can't last forever. Really, the clearer the regulatory framework, the better. Only then can institutions be attracted to enter the market. There may be no short-term gains, but the long-term pattern is bigger. Betting on this logic is not wrong. Wait, does this mean there is still more room for policy adjustments in the future? Mature asset classes should be regulated; in fact, retail investors will be safer.

View OriginalReply0

DegenMcsleepless

· 5h ago

Hong Kong's clear regulatory framework is really impressive. Compared to the defensive attitude in mainland China, this is a serious approach to cryptocurrency. Regulation does not equal death; there's nothing wrong with that statement. Wait, so does that mean the domestic market will eventually catch up? Or will they always stay on guard? From wild to regulated, it sounds like some young person is about to be "educated" haha. Does maturity mean being restrained? Feels a bit like a slap in the face. It's really just a competition to see whose rule framework is more friendly. Gotta say, Hong Kong's move is quite strategic. The normalization process = speeding up the "chives" harvesting? Just thinking about it is exciting. I can accept this logic; it's better than outright banning. If there's no incentive in the short term, what about the long term? Let's wait and see.

View OriginalReply0

TideReceder

· 5h ago

Basically, mainland China is playing risk management, while Hong Kong is experimenting; each has its own plans. This wave of regulation is actually a good thing. The era of wild growth is over, and someone needs to establish order. When are assets most valuable? It's when they are taken seriously; otherwise, they’re still in the basement. Hong Kong's approach is clever—using rules and frameworks to exchange for market opportunities, playing the game of institutional arbitrage. Regulation is always a double-edged sword. It may be dull in the short term, but in the long run, it's the beginning of mechanization. Those who understand, understand. The mainland's caution is indeed justified; poor control of capital flows can easily lead to issues. From disorder to order—that's called upgrading. What does the entry of crypto mean? It indicates that the financial system must take it seriously. Interestingly, Hong Kong can connect, while the mainland's firewall still needs to be maintained. Two sets of logic can coexist stubbornly. This divergence is actually redefining what asset legitimacy means. It used to be gray; now, it’s about getting on the official register. The process of normalization may seem restrictive, but in fact, it grants you an official identity.

View OriginalReply0