CoinRank

Crypto market inflows reached nearly USD 130 billion in 2025, driven mainly by Bitcoin and Ether ETFs and large-scale purchases by Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) companies.

 

While DAT buying became the single largest source of demand, momentum slowed later in the year, and venture capital activity remained subdued with a clear shift away from early-stage investment.

 

JPMorgan expects overall inflows to expand further in 2026, with institutional investors increasingly replacing retail participants as the primary drivers of crypto market growth.

Analysts at JPMorgan Chase said that after crypto market inflows hit a record high of nearly USD 130 billion in 2025—about one-third higher than in 2024—capital inflows are expected to expand further in 2026, with momentum increasingly driven by institutional investors.

 

MAIN DRIVERS OF 2025 GROWTH: ETFS AND DAT BUYING

 

In a report released on Wednesday, an analysis team led by JPMorgan managing director Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou estimated total crypto market inflows by aggregating ETF fund flows, implied positioning from CME futures, crypto venture capital fundraising, and purchases by Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) entities.

 

The report noted that the primary contributors to inflow growth in 2025 were Bitcoin and Ether ETFs, with flows skewed toward retail investors. In addition, continued Bitcoin purchases by DAT companies other than Strategy also played an important role in boosting inflows. By contrast, implied buying from Bitcoin and Ether CME futures slowed markedly in 2025, falling below 2024 levels, indicating reduced participation from institutional investors and hedge funds.

 

 

DAT BECOMES THE LARGEST SOURCE OF DEMAND, BUT MOMENTUM SLOWS

 

More than half of total digital asset inflows in 2025—around USD 68 billion—came from DAT companies. Strategy alone invested roughly USD 23 billion in Bitcoin, broadly in line with its approximately USD 22 billion in purchases in 2024.

 

Other DAT firms collectively acquired about USD 45 billion in digital assets in 2025, far exceeding the USD 8 billion recorded in 2024. However, analysts cautioned that most DAT buying was concentrated earlier in the year and has slowed noticeably since October. Large holders, including Strategy and BitMine, have adopted a more cautious stance in recent months.

 

VENTURE CAPITAL RECOVERY REMAINS LIMITED, EARLY-STAGE INVESTMENT COOLS

 

Crypto venture capital also contributed to overall inflows, but activity remained well below the peaks of 2021–2022. While total fundraising volumes in 2025 rose slightly compared with 2024, the number of deals fell sharply, with investment increasingly concentrated in later-stage rounds and a clear slowdown in early-stage funding.

 

Analysts said the weak recovery in venture capital stands in contrast to a more supportive U.S. regulatory environment, suggesting a shift in the composition of capital. Some funds that previously targeted early-stage startups have instead moved toward DAT treasury strategies, which offer immediate liquidity and lower long-term lock-up risk than venture investments.

 

JPMorgan also noted that some large crypto venture firms have begun selectively leading DAT financing rounds using their liquid capital.

 

2026 OUTLOOK: INSTITUTIONAL CAPITAL TO TAKE THE LEAD

 

Looking ahead to 2026, JPMorgan expects total crypto market inflows to grow again, but with the driving force shifting from the retail- and DAT-led dynamics of 2025 toward clearer institutional participation.

 

Analysts said last week that the market’s de-risking process appears to be nearing completion, with ETF flows and other indicators showing signs of stabilization. They added:

 

“The phase in which both retail and institutional investors were simultaneously reducing crypto exposure during the fourth quarter of 2025 has most likely come to an end.”

 

Overall, as regulatory clarity improves and market structure continues to mature, JPMorgan believes 2026 could mark a year in which institutional capital once again becomes the dominant force in crypto markets.

 

Read More：

JPMorgan MONY: institutional cash goes on-chain

〈$130B Crypto Inflows in 2025, JPMorgan Sees Further Growth in 2026〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

NYC Token collapsed more than 80% shortly after launch, triggering allegations that liquidity linked to wallets associated with Eric Adams’s circle had been withdrawn, causing multi-million-dollar investor losses.

 

Adams’s spokesperson denied any rug pull or personal gain, but this claim conflicts with on-chain data and prior team statements acknowledging “liquidity rebalancing” during the token’s initial trading surge.

 

Despite the controversy, the project maintains that NYC Token was designed as a charitable mechanism rather than an investment product, with proceeds intended to support nonprofit education initiatives and scholarships in New York City.

In response to recent allegations that the issuance of NYC Token involved a rug pull, a spokesperson for former New York City mayor Eric Adams has come forward to deny the claims, emphasizing that Adams neither transferred funds nor profited from the token.

 

NYC TOKEN “RUG PULL” INCIDENT

 

According to earlier reporting by Zombit, NYC Token plunged by more than 80% within its first hour of trading after launching on Monday, drawing intense scrutiny and skepticism from the crypto community. Some analysts accused wallets allegedly linked to Adams’s team of withdrawing liquidity, resulting in investor losses totaling more than USD 3.4 million. In response, Adams’s spokesperson Todd Shapiro issued a statement on X on Wednesday to clarify:

 

“It must be stated very clearly: Eric Adams did not transfer investor funds, nor did he profit from the issuance of NYC Token, and no funds from NYC Token were removed.”

 

Shapiro said the allegations were “unsupported by evidence and untrue,” attributing the token’s sharp price swings to market volatility and stressing that Adams’s involvement “was never intended for any personal or financial gain.”

 

 

DISCREPANCIES IN OFFICIAL ACCOUNTS: TEAM ACKNOWLEDGES ‘LIQUIDITY REBALANCING’

 

However, Shapiro’s assertion that “no funds were removed” appears to conflict with earlier statements from the official NYC Token account as well as on-chain data. The NYC Token team previously stated on X that, due to exceptionally strong early demand after launch, its partners had “rebalanced the liquidity,” while also claiming that additional funds were added to the liquidity pool.

 

At the same time, multiple on-chain analysts raised warnings about fund flows following the token’s launch. Analyst Rune Crypto noted that approximately USD 3.4 million in liquidity was removed shortly after issuance and described the behavior as resembling a rug pull.

 

On-chain visualization platform Bubblemaps also flagged anomalous activity, reporting that a wallet linked to the token deployer (address: 9Ty4M) withdrew roughly USD 2.5 million in USDC near the price peak, and after the price fell by more than 60%, replenished only about USD 1.5 million.

 

Bubblemaps further estimated that around 4,300 traders participated in NYC Token’s early trading, with approximately 60% incurring losses. Most investors lost less than USD 1,000, but about 200 individuals suffered losses between USD 1,000 and USD 10,000, while a small number lost tens of thousands of dollars. At least 15 investors reportedly lost more than USD 100,000.

 

EMPHASIS ON CHARITABLE PURPOSE, NOT AN INVESTMENT VEHICLE

 

The statement added that NYC Token was not intended as an investment product, but rather as a means to support nonprofit organizations, funding educational programs to raise awareness of antisemitism and anti-American sentiment, with proceeds earmarked for scholarships for underprivileged students in New York City. Shapiro concluded that the controversy has not shaken Adams’s stance on “responsible innovation”:

 

“Adams remains committed to using emerging technologies to strengthen trust, education, and shared civic values.”

 

Read More：

Messari’s 2026 Crypto Theses: Power Struggles, Stablecoins, and Skepticism (Part 2)

〈Political Figure Meme Coin Implodes: NYC Token Liquidity Withdrawal Controversy Spreads, Former New York City Mayor Denies Allegations〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

USD1 gained rapid traction after MysticDAO anchored its airdrop and trading rewards to the stablecoin, creating immediate transactional demand.

 

Coordinated participation from multiple BSC projects helped extend USD1’s role from a campaign asset to a functional settlement medium.

 

USD1’s long-term relevance will depend on whether usage persists once incentive intensity declines and trading competitions conclude.

MysticDAO’s public testnet launch has pushed USD1 into the spotlight, showing how incentive design can rapidly elevate a new stablecoin within the BSC ecosystem.

 

CONTEXT

 

The Binance Smart Chain ecosystem has periodically demonstrated that liquidity and attention tend to concentrate not around technology upgrades alone, but around moments when incentives, coordination, and distribution align, and the public testnet launch of MysticDAO represents one of those inflection points, as the protocol’s decision to anchor its airdrop and trading rewards around USD1 has rapidly elevated the stablecoin from a peripheral asset into an actively circulated medium within BSC’s current incentive cycle.

 

WHAT HAPPENED

 

MysticDAO officially opened its public test phase while announcing an airdrop and transaction-based reward program denominated in USD1, a relatively new stablecoin native to the BSC ecosystem, and this choice immediately created reflexive demand, as multiple ecosystem partners—including WLFI, BN, and Aster—coordinated a USD1 trading competition that allocates a combined $250,000 in liquidity incentives to the top three participants, a structure designed not only to reward volume but to bootstrap persistent liquidity and onchain velocity rather than short-lived speculation.

 

 

WHY USD1 BENEFITS DISPROPORTIONATELY

 

Stablecoins usually gain adoption through slow integration into payments, lending, or settlement layers, but USD1’s recent traction follows a different path, one driven by incentive centrality, because when a stablecoin becomes the unit of account for rewards, contests, and protocol participation, it inherits transactional relevance even before it achieves widespread merchant or DeFi usage, a dynamic that explains why USD1 activity on BSC surged in tandem with MysticDAO’s launch rather than after a prolonged adoption curve.

 

ECOSYSTEM COORDINATION

 

The coordinated participation of multiple projects matters more than the headline reward size, since the involvement of platforms such as Myriad Markets—which announced USD1 support as a settlement asset—extends USD1’s role beyond a campaign token into a functional medium for pricing and clearing, reinforcing a feedback loop in which incentives create volume, volume justifies integration, and integration in turn legitimizes the asset within the broader onchain economy.

 

MARKET IMPLICATIONS

 

From a market-structure perspective, USD1’s rise highlights how BSC continues to favor campaign-driven liquidity formation over purely organic DeFi composability, a model that prioritizes speed and coordination and often results in sharp but fragile bursts of activity, meaning that while current engagement levels reflect genuine user participation, the longer-term signal will be whether USD1 retains transactional relevance once incentive intensity normalizes and trading competitions conclude.

 

BROADER SIGNAL

 

At a higher level, the MysticDAO and USD1 episode underscores a recurring pattern in crypto markets: new monetary primitives rarely compete with incumbents on credibility or scale at inception, but instead carve out relevance by embedding themselves directly into incentive flows, and in doing so, USD1 is less positioning itself as a universal stablecoin and more as a native coordination asset within BSC’s evolving application layer, a distinction that will ultimately determine whether today’s surge translates into durable adoption or remains a cycle-specific phenomenon.

 

BOTTOM LINE

 

MysticDAO’s public testnet has not merely generated short-term attention; it has demonstrated how incentive design can temporarily reshape stablecoin hierarchies within a single ecosystem, and USD1’s current prominence reflects effective coordination rather than monetary dominance, leaving its long-term trajectory dependent on whether usage persists once rewards fade and whether additional protocols adopt USD1 as a default settlement and incentive asset rather than a campaign-specific instrument.

 

Read More：

USD1 STABLECOIN: A NEW POWER PLAYER IN THE GLOBAL CRYPTOCURRENCY MARKET

WLFI Partners Solana as USD1 Hits $3B Amid Insider Fears

〈MysticDAO Launch Puts USD1 at the Center of BSC’s Incentive Economy〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Precautionary U.S. military and personnel moves in the Middle East increased geopolitical risk premiums, driving gold and silver to record levels while supporting Bitcoin’s rebound.

 

Bitcoin’s rally was amplified by liquidation of bearish derivatives positions, reinforcing its role as a liquidity-sensitive macro hedge rather than a pure risk asset.

 

The durability of BTC’s upside will depend on whether escalation pressures energy markets and the dollar, or instead sustains global demand for non-sovereign hedges.

Rising U.S.–Iran tensions have pushed traditional hedges to record highs and lifted Bitcoin toward $97,000, highlighting how geopolitical risk is being priced across macro assets.

 

STATE OF PLAY

 

In mid-January 2026, markets are reacting not to a declared war plan but to a fast-moving escalation cycle in which Washington has taken visible precautionary steps while keeping its public messaging deliberately ambiguous: the U.S. has begun withdrawing or advising the evacuation of some personnel from key Middle East locations, including Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which the Financial Times notes hosts around 10,000 troops, and Reuters also reported precautionary personnel withdrawals as regional tensions rose and Iranian officials warned that neighboring states hosting U.S. forces could face retaliation if Washington strikes.

 

The most important signal for investors is that these are not “headline-only” developments; moving people and assets is operationally expensive and rarely done for optics alone, yet it also falls short of confirming an imminent strike, meaning the market is pricing an elevated probability distribution rather than a single outcome.

 

 

WHY THIS SHOWS UP IN PRICES

 

When geopolitics shifts from background noise to an actionable tail risk, the first and cleanest reaction usually appears in assets that price uncertainty directly, and that is exactly what played out this week: Reuters reported that on January 14, 2026, spot gold hit a record $4,639.42/oz and spot silver broke $90/oz for the first time, moves Reuters tied to a combination of rate-cut expectations and geopolitical uncertainty, while a day later Reuters noted gold eased on profit-taking and a “softer tone” as Trump indicated a wait-and-see posture on Iran.

 

That sequence matters because it illustrates the current regime: traders are willing to pay up for hedges while the situation looks open-ended, but they will also fade panic quickly when language shifts toward de-escalation.

 

 

WHERE BITCOIN FITS IN THIS REGIME

 

Bitcoin’s response is often mischaracterized as either “pure risk asset” or “pure safe haven,” when the more accurate description is that it behaves like a liquidity-sensitive macro asset whose short-term path depends on whether the dominant transmission channel is fear (which can strengthen the dollar and tighten financial conditions) or hedging demand (which can push investors toward non-sovereign stores of value); in this episode, Bitcoin moved higher alongside the broader “macro hedge” bid, with Bloomberg reporting BTC rose as much as 3.9% to $97,694 on January 14, 2026, its highest intraday level since mid-November, and that the rally erased more than half a billion dollars in bearish crypto options positioning.

 

THE KEY QUESTION: “WILL HE STRIKE?” IS LESS TRADEABLE THAN “WHAT KIND OF ESCALATION?”

 

The market-relevant question is not whether a strike happens in the abstract, but what type of escalation would occur and what it would imply for oil, the dollar, and global liquidity, because those variables dominate Bitcoin’s near-term direction even when the narrative is “digital gold”; a limited, time-bounded operation that avoids energy disruption can paradoxically be absorbed quickly—especially if it is paired with expectations of easier monetary policy—while a scenario that threatens regional energy flows or triggers broader retaliation can tighten risk conditions in a way that pressures leveraged positioning across all markets, including crypto, regardless of long-term store-of-value narratives.

 

WHAT TO WATCH IN THE NEXT HEADLINE CYCLE

 

The most reliable way to read whether the market is shifting from “risk premium” to “break-glass crisis” is to watch whether precautionary moves expand into sustained force-posture changes and whether official messaging converges across agencies, because isolated steps can reflect prudence while coordinated posture changes typically signal higher intent; in the current reporting, Reuters emphasized precautionary withdrawals in response to Iranian warnings, while the Financial Times and AP focused on personnel being advised to leave Al Udeid and on Washington’s efforts to reduce exposure to potential retaliation, which together describe a posture of preparing for volatility without committing publicly to action.

 

BOTTOM LINE

 

Whether Trump “will” strike Iran cannot be answered with certainty from public information, but markets are already treating the probability as non-trivial, which is why traditional hedges like gold repriced to records and why Bitcoin was able to participate in the macro bid up toward the $97k area; the next move in BTC is likely to depend less on a single headline and more on whether escalation increases the odds of oil disruption and dollar strength (typically negative for liquidity-sensitive assets) or instead reinforces the case for hedges in a world of political and monetary uncertainty (which has, at times, supported BTC alongside gold).

 

Read More：

Israeli Airstrikes on Iran Shake the Cryptocurrency Market

Binance Co-CEO Yi He’s Account Hack Exposes Critical Security Risks Behind Meme-Coin Manipulation

 

〈Will Trump Strike Iran, and What Would It Mean for Bitcoin?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

YZi Labs invests tens of millions in privacy-focused DEX Genius, with Binance founder CZ joining as advisor, aiming to boost on-chain alternatives and sector attention.

Genius has processed over $60M in test volume, supports 10+ chains, and clarifies it doesn’t directly compete with Aster, emphasizing distinct positioning.

The article provides step-by-step guidance and a low-cost trading strategy to earn GP points, including referral bonuses and daily interaction tips.

Genius raises tens of millions from YZi Labs with CZ as advisor; a privacy-focused DEX growing test volume and offering strategies to earn GP points.

Last night, a bombshell announcement rocked the community—YZi Labs has invested “tens of millions of dollars” into DEX Genius, and CZ will personally join as an advisor.

 

Odaily is here to give you the lowdown on Genius, a step-by-step guide on how to interact with it, and the current interaction strategy based on personal testing.

 

Project Introduction

 

 

Genius is a privacy-centric decentralized exchange platform offering spot, perpetual contracts, and copy trading. It supports over 10 public chains including BNB Chain and Solana, with the goal of becoming an on-chain alternative to Binance—bringing CEX-like speed, liquidity, and privacy experience on-chain while maintaining full self-custody and non-custodial features (users hold their private keys). The platform has already processed over $60 million in trading volume during its test phase and plans to launch a public test of its privacy protocol in Q2 2026. As early as October 2024, Genius announced the completion of a $6 million seed funding round led by CMCC Global, with participation from Cadenza Ventures, AVA Labs, Arca, Flow Traders, and other institutions.

 

Addressing community concerns that “YZi Labs’ investment in Genius is bearish for Aster,” CZ responded on X, stating, “Genius is a trading terminal that connects to exchanges, not a competitor to Aster.”

 

Furthermore, Genius’s CMO Ryan also addressed a similar question in the community—”What’s the difference between Aster and Genius? Why would YZi Labs invest in another Perp DEX project?” Ryan stated, “I think both are important. Aster is a very important perpetual contract exchange. I believe YZi Labs’ motivation for investing in Genius is to enable everyone to access any token on any chain (soon to be done privately).”

 

 

Genius CMO Ryan discusses the relationship between Aster and Genius

 

It’s clear that both CZ and the Genius team believe Genius and Aster have different positioning and are not in direct competition.

 

Step-by-Step Guide

 

STEP 1. Go to the official website (link: https://www.tradegenius.com/ref/NY8SYH). Using this referral link grants you 500 GP points. Click “Start Trading,” then click “Sign In” at the top to log in via your wallet.

 

 

STEP 2. Click “Airdrop” at the top to view your current GP points balance and personal referral link.

 

 

STEP 3. Under the “Airdrop” section, first is “Points.” Accumulate $10,000 in trading volume to earn 1200 GP points. After exceeding $10,000, every additional $1,000 in volume earns 200 GP points. Additionally, trading once daily on the platform grants one free spin on the wheel. For every $10,000 increase in trading volume, you earn an extra wheel spin, with no upper limit.

 

 

Other rules for earning points through trading are as follows:

 

Users earn 1 GP point for every $100 in spot trading volume / $1000 in perpetual contract trading volume completed;

After trading for 7 consecutive days, you earn a trading streak multiplier (which resets if you miss a day of trading);

The base multiplier and streak multiplier apply to your spot and perpetual contract trades (referral points are not included).

 

 

STEP 4. Under the “Airdrop” section, next is “Referrals.” Invite friends to earn more GP points.

 

 

STEP 5. Under the “Airdrop” section, finally is “Social” (the “Token Rewards” section is not yet open, skip for now). This contains the official social media information.

 

 

STEP 6. Click “Deposit” at the top. Supports deposits of EVM, Solana, and SUI assets. The official recommendation is to send ETH or USDC.

 

 

Current “Low-Cost Points Farming” Strategy Sharing

 

After actual interaction, I’ve summarized a “low-cost points farming” strategy. The specific operational approach is as follows:

 

1. To minimize slippage from token price movements, choose spot trading for USDC-USDT.

 

 

2. Aim for larger single transaction amounts. The test below shows that the Gas fee paid for a $400 trade is almost the same as for a $100 trade.

 

 

3. Once you unlock the wheel by reaching $10,000 in trading volume, just make one trade daily to qualify for the wheel spin. There’s no need to “aggressively farm volume.”

 

〈How to Earn Genius Points with Tens of Millions in Investment from YZi Labs and CZ as Advisor?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Europe’s leading blockchain festival expands in 2026 with a larger Warsaw venue, hundreds of speakers, dozens of projects, and deeper coverage across Web3, DeFi, RWA.

NBX 2026 delivers insights on Trading, Investing, AI, TradFi, Cybersecurity, Gaming, Legal, and Compliance, while enabling efficient networking through a new app with matchmaking features.

As flagship of Polish Blockchain Week, Next Block Expo hosts awards, workshops, and panels, spotlighting CEE founders, developers, investors, and innovators shaping global blockchain adoption trends worldwide.

Next Block Expo 2026 returns to Warsaw with a bigger venue, global Web3 leaders, expanded AI, RWA and TradFi tracks, massive networking, and NBX Awards.

Get ready for the biggest edition yet of Europe’s premier Blockchain Festival! Next Block Expo (NBX) returns in 2026, moving to a larger venue in Warsaw and bringing together a record-breaking crowd of Web3 enthusiasts, founders, investors, and innovators. With hundreds of speakers and dozens of leading projects, NBX is the ultimate place to learn, grow network, and explore the future of blockchain and Web3.

The Main Sponsor of the event is zondacrypto.

 

Why You Should Attend

NBX is more than a conference- it’s a hub for the people shaping Web3.

Whether you’re an investor scouting the next big project, a developer seeking insights, or a founder looking for partners, NBX is designed to help you:

Discover trends and opportunities through keynote presentations, panels, and workshops.
Learn from global experts on DeFi, Trading & Investing, AI, Legal & Compliance, Industry Trends, TradFi, Cybersecurity, RWA, Web3 Gaming, and more.
Build meaningful connections using the all-new NBX app for chat, matchmaking, and 1:1 meetings

Global Leaders Shaping the Future of Web3

 

As the industry continues to evolve, NBX positions itself as a central hub in CEE for founders, builders, investors, creators, and innovators. This year’s program spans more stages, featuring keynote presentations, panel discussions, and workshops, covering the full spectrum of blockchain and beyond.

Attendees can expect deep dives into a wide range of topics, including DeFi & RWA, Gaming, Metaverse & NFTs, AI, Infrastructure, Web3, Trading & Investing, Startups, Legal & Compliance, Industry Trends. 

This year, NBX is expanding its program with new thematic areas, including AI, TradFi, and Cybersecurity, highlighting not only the latest trends and innovations but also potential risks and challenges in the Web3 ecosystem.

Networking at Scale

 

Connecting people has always been at the core of Next Block Expo. This year, attendees will enjoy even more opportunities to connect through the brand new NBX app, designed for chatting, matchmaking, scheduling 1:1 meetings, and much more.

Polish Blockchain Week

 

NBX 2026 will once again serve as a flagship event of Polish Blockchain Week, bringing together thousands of enthusiasts across multiple venues and events. Highlighting Poland’s growing reputation as a Web3 talent hub, the event showcases the country’s contributions to global blockchain innovation and promotes its skilled developers, startups, and emerging projects to the international community.

Recognition of Excellence: NBX Awards

The NBX Awards will honor outstanding initiatives, projects, communities, and leaders across 12 categories, showcasing the innovators shaping the future of Web3. Winners are determined by community voting, ensuring the industry itself recognizes excellence and talent.

About Next Block Expo

 

Next Block Expo (NBX) – The Blockchain Festival of Europe is one of the largest European Web3 events, hosted annually in Warsaw and Berlin. NBX gathers builders, experts, investors, regulators, and innovators to exchange ideas, forge partnerships, and showcase the future of blockchain technology.

More about partnership opportunities: https://bit.ly/NBX

 

Media Contact: media@nextblockexpo.com

〈Next Block Expo 2026: The Biggest Edition Yet〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

According to The Block, the Zcash Foundation announced that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (#SEC ) has concluded its years-long investigation and informed the foundation that it does not intend to pursue any enforcement action or other measures.
The foundation stated that in August 2023, it received a subpoena from the SEC related to an investigation titled “In the Matter of Certain Crypto Asset Securities (SF-04569).”
Over the past year, the SEC has dropped dozens of cases against major crypto companies, including Coinbase, and has also ended investigations into #DeFi protocols and other industry participants.
#Crypto #Zcash

#Trump urges Supreme Court: Look at our unprecedented economic success before making any major rulings
#FutureSwap suffers another attack; Arbitrum contract exploited, resulting in a loss of approximately $74,000
CZ @CZ : US crypto policy shifts towards a more friendly stance after Trump's election; Bitcoin may break through the "four-year cycle" framework
#MANTRA announces layoffs and restructuring to address market challenges
Spanish bank Bankinter discloses acquisition of minority stake in #Bit2Me
#CoinRank

This article focuses on the licensing compliance trends in the crypto industry in 2025, analyzes the core differences between STR and SAR, sorts out the regulatory key points in regions such as North America, the EU, Dubai, and Turkey, identifies the pain point of “defensive reporting”, and provides practical suggestions for building an efficient compliant reporting system from four aspects including “on-chain + off-chain” monitoring and dynamic threshold adjustment, helping institutions address anti-money laundering (AML) regulatory challenges.

Introduction

 

As the end of 2025 approaches, major players in the industry are still racing to secure “licenses”: from Zodia Custody (a custodial institution under Standard Chartered), to payment giant Stripe, and crypto-native enterprises such as Coinbase, Kraken, and Circle—all have successively obtained key permits, including MiCA licenses or U.S. banking licenses.

 

 

However, “obtaining a license to operate legally” is merely a starting point, by no means the finish line. A license brings not only market access qualification but also long-term compliance obligations. In today’s increasingly stringent regulatory environment, if a licensed institution fails to continuously fulfill its compliance duties, the license in its hand may instead become a “legitimate basis” for regulatory penalties.

 

Looking back at Binance’s $4.3 billion record settlement and the penalty imposed on Binance TR in Turkey, the core regulatory allegations all point to the same deficiency: failure to establish an effective suspicious transaction reporting mechanism. STR and SAR—these two abbreviations that keep compliance officers on edge—are far more than just filling out forms.

 

 

What kind of regulatory logic and practical risks lie behind them? Based on legal practice, this article will provide an in-depth analysis for you.

Concept Clarification: The Difference Between STR and SAR

These two terms are often used interchangeably in the industry, but they have distinct focuses under the legal and regulatory systems of different countries.

 

STR (Suspicious Transaction Report): Commonly adopted in regions influenced by common law, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Dubai. It primarily focuses on whether a completed transaction is suspicious.

Example: When the system detects that an account has frequent fund inflows and outflows within a short period, and the fund path involves high-risk addresses (e.g., mixers, darknets), an STR must be submitted for that specific transaction.

SAR (Suspicious Activity Report): Emphasized by some jurisdictions (e.g., the U.S. FinCEN framework) on the suspicious nature of the activity itself, even if no actual transaction occurs. This concept was involved in the previous Binance case.

Example: If a user repeatedly tests the boundaries of Know Your Customer (KYC) verification, frequently changes IP addresses to bypass regional restrictions, or tentatively asks customer service questions like “Can I remit money to a restricted region?”—such behaviors may trigger the obligation to file a SAR.

 

Mankun Note: Regulatory systems that adopt the STR concept do not mean they only focus on transaction records. In fact, all compliance systems emphasize “substance over form.” If an institution only monitors fund flows while ignoring user identities and behavioral patterns, it may still miss required reports and face compliance risks.

Regulatory Trends: Key Reporting Points Under Different License Frameworks

 

In the process of Web3 overseas expansion, choosing a license from a specific region means complying with that region’s core regulatory rules. The focus of supervision varies significantly across regions:

 

North America: FinCEN’s “Full-Dimension Monitoring”

 

Regulatory Core: Comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and fulfill the obligation to report suspicious activities, following the principle of “report all that should be reported.”

Key Challenge: FinCEN’s system processes massive volumes of reports and enables cross-departmental data sharing, placing extremely high demands on institutions’ monitoring and reporting capabilities. Strict implementation is mandatory as long as the business involves U.S. users.

Mankun Note: As long as a business reaches U.S. users, it must strictly implement suspicious activity monitoring and reporting as required. The Binance case serves as a lesson: if an institution internally knows about risks (e.g., transactions involving sanctioned regions) but fails to report them, it will be deemed intentional non-compliance with severe consequences.

 

EU Region: Deep Integration with the “Travel Rule”

 

Regulatory Core: STR requirements are closely linked to the Travel Rule, especially after the implementation of the MiCA Regulation.

Key Challenge: When a user transfers more than €1,000 to a non-custodial wallet, the platform must verify the wallet’s ownership. If verification fails or risks are identified, the transaction must be blocked and a suspicious report submitted.

Mankun Note: Balancing compliance with business operations requires addressing how to align suspicious transaction reporting requirements while implementing the Travel Rule and maintaining user experience.

 

Dubai Region: 48-Hour Timeliness and “Localization” Responsibilities

 

Regulatory Core: Emphasizes ultra-fast response (e.g., reporting within 48 hours) and the genuine local performance of duties by the Money Laundering Reporting Officer (MLRO).

Key Challenge: If an MLRO is a “nominal” role with actual operations handled by an overseas team, the individual’s qualification may be revoked, and the licensed institution will be affected.

Mankun Note: While compliance work can be outsourced, the local MLRO must ultimately take responsibility, and institutions cannot shirk liability by citing “system issues.”

 

Turkey Region: Focus on Combating Fraud- and Gambling-Related Funds

 

Regulatory Core: Regulates crypto asset service providers strictly as financial institutions.

Key Challenge: Regulatory requirements may be dynamically updated based on the country’s key crackdown priorities (e.g., fraud, gambling). For instance, transactions involving such activities must be reported regardless of their amount.

Mankun Note: Within the established regulatory framework, institutions must proactively monitor regulatory updates, maintain communication with authorities, and strengthen targeted monitoring and reporting of relevant risks.

Industry Pain Point: Beware of “Defensive Reporting”

 

In handling specific cases, lawyers have found that many practitioners, in order to avoid liability, have formed the habit of “reporting more is better than reporting less”—filing reports for all system-triggered alerts without distinction. This practice, known as “defensive reporting,” carries significant risks.

 

Financial intelligence units (FIUs) and regulatory authorities are also staffed with professionals who need to process information efficiently. If an institution submits a large number of low-quality reports without providing valuable investigation clues, it may instead trigger regulatory scrutiny of its internal systems. Regulators will reasonably question: Are your risk control parameters improperly set, or do your compliance personnel lack basic judgment?

 

Therefore, the core of compliance reporting lies in quality rather than quantity. Blind reporting not only fails to prevent risks but may also expose deficiencies in the institution’s capabilities, attracting stricter regulatory attention.

Mankun’s Practical Recommendations: How to Build an Effective Reporting System?

 

To balance compliance costs and regulatory safety, compliance teams in the crypto industry should focus on the following four key points:

 

Integrate “On-Chain + Off-Chain” Monitoring

Avoid segregating the monitoring of a user’s on-chain behaviors and on-platform transactions due to cost considerations. This separation prevents models and personnel from gaining a comprehensive understanding of users, directly affecting the quality of STR/SAR reports. Data silos must be broken down to achieve a panoramic risk view.

Dynamically Adjust Monitoring Thresholds

Rigid rules lead to a large number of invalid alerts, causing “alert fatigue” and ultimately missing genuine high-risk cases. It is recommended to establish an internal sandbox mechanism, regularly review and optimize system parameters and rules based on regulatory updates and case feedback, and ensure alerts are accurate and effective.

Cultivate “Narrative” Reporting Capabilities

A high-quality report is not a mere pile of data but a coherent “story.” It should answer the 5W1H questions: Who (the involved party), What (the event), When (the timing), Where (the location), Why (why it is suspicious), and How (how the activity was conducted). Among these, “why it is suspicious” is the core—it requires logical consistency, alignment with regulatory bottom lines and the institution’s risk appetite, and serves as proof of fulfilling the “reasonable prudence” obligation.

Establish a Documentation Mechanism for “Non-Reporting” Decisions

Sometimes, “not reporting” requires more documentation than “reporting.” When an alert is verified manually and a decision is made not to file a report, the reasons for exclusion must be detailed in the system and supporting evidence preserved. This is critical evidence to respond to future regulatory audits and protect both the enterprise and compliance personnel.

 

By implementing the above four points, institutions can build a solid, effective, and self-verifiable compliance reporting system while controlling costs.

Conclusion

 

There are no shortcuts to anti-money laundering (AML) compliance, nor is there room for the luck of “the law does not punish the majority.”

 

From a global regulatory perspective, inspections in the cryptocurrency sector have become so in-depth that institutions are required to provide full transaction data, which is then subject to in-depth analysis using regulators’ self-developed models. Regulators’ focus on STR/SAR no longer stops at the quantity and timeliness of reports, but extends to the accuracy of judgments on “whether a report should be filed” and “why a report was not filed” for each specific transaction.

 

Understanding the difference between STR and SAR is only the starting point. The real key is to build a monitoring and reporting system that can both meet regulatory intelligence needs and support the smooth operation of the business—this has become a mandatory course for every institution.

 

If you are building an internal AML compliance system or facing practical challenges with STR/SAR in specific jurisdictions, please feel free to contact Mankun Law Firm for further discussions.

〈Still struggling with anti-money laundering (AML) reporting violations? How to build a compliant and efficient risk management system?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

RWA in Web3 faces a critical global regulatory challenge: traditional financial hubs often classify it as a security, restricting liquidity and financing. However, Dubai’s VARA breaks this mold by regulating RWA as a Virtual Asset, creating a dedicated compliance pathway that balances strict standards with the potential for public offering-grade circulation. Drawing from real project experience, this article analyzes why Dubai has become the optimal solution for global RWA compliance, its unique advantages, and potential risks, serving as a key reference for project teams.

Introduction

 

To call RWA (Real World Assets) the “nuclear bomb” of Web3 is hardly an overstatement. It has detonated three battlefronts almost simultaneously: the asset side, the financing side, and most crucially, the regulatory side. Over the past two years, all the lively market discussions about “tokenizing everything” and “all assets can be RWA” have ultimately circled back to the same existential question: Legally speaking, what exactly is this thing?

 

Many have turned their attention to traditional financial hubs like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Europe. While this is not inherently wrong, those who have actually tried to launch projects often hit a very familiar wall midway. It is against this backdrop that Dubai is being taken seriously by a growing number of frontline projects, exchanges, and institutions. Not because it is “lenient,” but because at the institutional level, it has truly cleared a separate runway specifically for assets like RWA.

 

In this article, I don’t want to talk about visions or hype. I just want to clarify a few things I witnessed during the actual advancement of real projects.

Many RWAs Fail Not Due to Technology, But the Moment They Are Labeled “Securities”

 

Let me start with a scenario that almost every RWA project team has experienced.

 

The project team says:

 

“Ours is a functional RWA, not a security.”

 

The regulator retorts:

 

“Then prove it.”

 

The project team begins to explain:

 

“We have underlying assets, cash flow, profit distribution, buyback arrangements, and even price anchoring mechanisms.”

 

After listening, the regulator often replies with just one sentence:

 

“If anything, that makes you sound more like a security.”

 

This is not a joke; it is a real conversation that has played out repeatedly across different jurisdictions in recent years.

 

If you look at the realistic paths in major global legal regions, you will find a commonality: As soon as an RWA starts “promising returns,” the regulator’s first instinct is almost always to drag it into the securities framework.

 

The United States is the most 典型 example. The only reason INX and Securitize are still viable is that they admitted they were securities from the very beginning, following the mature but extremely costly path of Reg D, Reg S, and ATS.

 

Singapore is similar. As long as an RWA exhibits characteristics of asset mapping, profit distribution, or collective investment, the MAS rarely hesitates to bring it directly under the regulatory framework of Capital Markets Products (CMP).

 

Hong Kong is relatively flexible, but the premise is clear: it is basically limited to professional investors. You can do fund-type, STO-type, or security-type RWAs, but opening them up to retail investors is extremely difficult in reality.

 

The EU provides space for functional tokens under MiCA, but once an RWA has obvious yield attributes, securities laws remain an insurmountable barrier.

 

So the conclusion is very clear: Doing RWA in traditional financial jurisdictions essentially means spinning your wheels within the securities regulatory system.

 

This leads to a series of real-world consequences—retail investors are basically excluded, liquidity is restricted, exchanges are cautious, financing targets are highly institutionalized, project cycles are infinitely lengthened, and compliance costs skyrocket. This is why you see so many so-called RWA projects that end up being nothing more than “private fund shares on-chain,” lacking true circulation and impossible to offer publicly. The problem is not on the chain; it lies in the regulatory logic itself.

Dubai’s VARA Did Something Very “Counter-Intuitive to Traditional Finance”

 

The real turning point came with the emergence of Dubai’s VARA. The first key thing VARA did was not lower standards, but change the way of understanding the problem. Within VARA’s system, RWA was not presumptuously stuffed into the securities law framework, but directly brought under the regulatory category of Virtual Assets. The first question from the regulator is no longer “Are you a security?” but rather—”Are you a virtual asset project that can be regulated by VARA and subject to continuous auditing?”

 

This logical difference is crucial. It means that for the first time, RWA might not have to take the securities route first to enter a clear, systematic regulatory framework; it can apply for licenses following VASP logic; it can target retail investors under compliance prerequisites; and it finally has the institutional basis for “public offering-grade RWA.” Globally, this is a very rare institutional choice.

Why Dubai is the “Optimal Solution,” Not the “Most Lenient Solution”

 

It must be made clear: Understanding Dubai as “unregulated” is a very dangerous miscalculation. In terms of document complexity, AML/KYC intensity, technical compliance, custody requirements, and risk control standards, VARA is no less stringent than Hong Kong or Singapore.

 

The real difference lies in only one place—Dubai did not try to force-fit new assets into the logic of old finance, but designed a separate operable regulatory structure specifically for RWA.

 

The traditional path is:

 

Asset → Security → Licensed → Professional Investors → Limited Circulation.

 

The VARA path is more like:

 

Asset → Virtual Asset → VARA Compliance → Retail Accessible → Public Offering-Grade Circulation.

 

This is a difference at the level of regulatory paradigm, not a difference in the degree of strictness.

Why Dubai Will Become the Core Hub for RWA in the Next Few Years

 

If we ignore the slogans and only look at real-world driving forces, the answer is not complicated. What asset owners truly want boils down to a few things: the ability to raise capital, the ability to circulate, listing on compliant exchanges, access to retail investors, and legal validity. Looking at current global jurisdictions, there are very few places where these five conditions are met simultaneously, and Dubai is the clearest one.

 

You will also notice an increasingly obvious trend: In the past, Middle Eastern capital allocated to Western assets; now it is the opposite—more and more RWA projects with European and American backgrounds are actively moving their compliance hubs to Dubai. It is not that money is chasing projects, but that the regulatory structure is attracting projects.

 

In Hong Kong and Singapore, attitudes toward RWA are generally cautious; in the US, the risks of security-type RWA are almost explicit; but in Dubai, as long as you operate within the VARA framework, public offering-grade RWA is at least institutionally allowed to be discussed and implemented.

Dubai is Not a Panacea; You Can Still Fail Miserably

 

Having said that, a reality check is necessary. Dubai is not a tool to evade regulation, nor is it a “get-out-of-jail-free card.” In real projects, problems most often 集中 on several clichéd but easily overlooked points: unclear asset ownership, improper design of profit mechanisms, being deemed a collective investment scheme, conducting public offerings without a license, and triggering the securities laws of other countries through cross-border sales. These landmines do not automatically disappear just because you are in Dubai.

 

So a phrase I repeatedly emphasize in projects is: The value of Dubai is not in escaping regulation, but in providing a more suitable runway for RWA to run on.

If You Still Want to Do “Global Public Offering-Grade RWA” Now, the Realistic Options Are Few

 

I will make a cautious conclusion: Under the premise that the four conditions—”legally accessible to retail, listable on compliant exchanges, capable of true asset mapping, and having global expansion potential”—are met simultaneously, it is currently difficult to find a more realistic RWA compliance solution globally than Dubai’s VARA. It is not perfect, but in terms of risk controllability, cost predictability, regulatory matching, and commercial efficiency, it is indeed in the first tier.

Conclusion

 

Many people still simplify RWA as “Assets + Tokens,” but in the real world, what truly determines the life or death of a project is almost always legal structure and the ability to understand regulation.

 

Dubai’s greatest value is not its tax rates or freedom, but that it has, for the first time, given RWA an institutional answer that allows it to be open, compliant, institutional, and accessible to retail. This is why I say: Dubai RWA is indeed not a gimmick, but a reality that is being repeatedly verified.

〈Is the global optimal solution for RWA compliance actually in Dubai?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

At the end of 2025, China’s digital currency regulation presents a “one cold, one hot” scenario: The November 28 meeting clarified that stablecoins are illegal virtual currencies, blocking foreign exchange loopholes; Digital RMB 2.0 has evolved into an interest-bearing deposit currency, absorbing smart contract technology. This article analyzes the regulatory logic and points out that Web3 practitioners need to achieve strategic breakthroughs through compliant overseas expansion, decoupling technology from finance, and embracing official channels (such as the m-CBDC Bridge).

Introduction

 

Recently, many friends have been asking: What exactly has been upgraded in Digital RMB 2.0? Will it affect the crypto assets we hold?

 

However, if we only focus on Digital RMB, we may easily overlook another more critical clue—on November 28, the regulatory authorities made a clear statement on stablecoins, which is simultaneously reshaping the legal boundaries of the entire digital currency sector.

 

These two events are not independent of each other. When viewed under the same regulatory logic, we can see: one side is clarifying what can no longer be done, while the other is telling the market which direction is permitted.

 

The purpose of this article is not to simply judge whether it is a “positive or negative development”, but to explain three key points by combining the November 28 meeting and the launch of Digital RMB 2.0:

 

To what extent has stablecoin regulation in Mainland China been “implemented”?

What financial logic has truly been changed by Digital RMB 2.0?

After the red line for illegal financial activities has been redefined, what paths can Web3 practitioners choose?

“Cold and Hot” at the End of 2025

 

At the end of 2025, China’s Web3 industry stands at a crucial juncture. If we say that Hong Kong, to the south, is steadily advancing institutional experiments on stablecoins within a legal framework, what is happening in Mainland China is not exploration, but a reconfirmation of boundaries. Within just one month, practitioners have clearly felt that a more definite and rigid regulatory paradigm is being put in place.

 

On one hand, industry expectations have cooled rapidly: On November 28, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) and other departments held a coordination mechanism meeting on anti-money laundering risks and beneficial owner management, and made a clear regulatory classification of “stablecoins”. Previously, the market had hoped that “Hong Kong’s legislation might force adjustments to Mainland policies”, but after the red line of “illegal financial activities” was re-emphasized, this optimistic judgment was quickly revised—the regulatory stance has not loosened, but has become even clearer.

 

 

On the other hand, policy signals have heated up simultaneously: At the end of December, Digital RMB 2.0 was officially unveiled. According to currently disclosed information, Digital RMB in this new phase has evolved from a simple “digital cash” form to a “digital deposit currency” that supports interest accrual, complex smart contracts, and has the liability attribute of commercial banks. Its institutional positioning and application boundaries have been significantly expanded.

 

 

Amid the coexistence of “cold” and “hot”, the regulatory intent has shifted from implicit to explicit. This is not an accidental combination of policies, but a well-organized “cage replacement”—by continuously clearing out stablecoins owned by non-public entities, it makes room for a clear and controllable market space for the officially led digital currency system.

“Old Wine in New Bottles”: The Logic of Regulation

 

When interpreting the regulations announced on November 28, 2025, many people tried to find new regulatory rules. However, we believe this is just a reaffirmation of the “September 24 Notice” issued in 2021.

 

1. The “Missing Splash”: The Market Has Long Developed Immunity

 

The most intuitive indicator is: When the “September 24 Notice” was released in 2021, Bitcoin (BTC) plummeted sharply, and the industry was in a state of despair; yet after the 2025 meeting, the market did not even stir a ripple. This sense of apathy in the market stems from the repetition of logic.

 

As early as four years ago, the regulatory authorities had clearly classified “Tether (USDT)” as an illegal virtual currency. Even if this meeting highlighted the so-called key point that “stablecoins also belong to virtual currencies”, there is no substantive new content in terms of legal principles.

 

2. The “Comeback” of Judicial Decisions: From Lenience Back to Rigor

 

The real “killer move” of this meeting lies not in “classification”, but in the mandatory adjustment of judicial trends. We need to observe a subtle judicial change:

 

2021-2022: All crypto-related contracts were deemed invalid, with risks borne by the parties involved, and courts basically refused to provide remedies.

Early 2023-2025: Judges began to understand Web3 and no longer simply rejected everything on the grounds of “public order and good customs”. For civil disputes involving the purchase of crypto assets with real money, some courts began to rule on “proportionate return of legal tender”.

After the end of 2025 (post-November 28): A “cold winter” has returned. This meeting released a clear signal, requiring judicial adjudication to align with administrative supervision—for Web3 civil disputes, an invalid contract remains invalid, and risks must be borne by the parties involved.

 

3. The Real Anchor of Regulation: Blocking the “Underground Pipeline” of Foreign Exchange

 

Why did the administrative authorities reaffirm the “old rules” at this time? Because stablecoins have touched the most sensitive nerve—foreign exchange control. Today, USDT and USDC have evolved from Web3 trading tools into a “parallel highway” for large-scale cross-border fund transfers. From children’s overseas tuition fees to complex money laundering chains, stablecoins have essentially undermined the annual $50,000 foreign exchange quota per person.

 

The November 28 meeting was essentially not about discussing technology, but about addressing foreign exchange issues. The reason why the regulatory authorities reaffirmed the rules is that they found that even under strict prevention and control, due to the real-time settlement nature of stablecoins, there are still loopholes in the foreign exchange control “gate”.

 

4. Prudent Risks and Outlook

 

It should be noted that under the current regulatory thinking, security is given absolute priority. This helps to quickly control risks, but it may also bring a practical impact: in the short term, there will be a certain degree of disconnection between the Mainland’s financial system and the globally advancing programmable financial system, thereby reducing the space for institutional exploration in the public chain environment.

Digital RMB: From Exploration in 1.0 to “Logical Reconstruction” in 2.0

 

Why was it necessary to classify stablecoins at this specific time?

 

Because Digital RMB 2.0 undertakes the mission of “incorporating technological logic into the sovereign framework”.

 

Digital RMB 1.0 Era

 

From the user’s perspective: With the attribute of M0 (cash), it did not accrue interest, making it difficult to compete with highly mature third-party payment tools in the existing market.

From the banks’ perspective: In the 1.0 era, commercial banks only served as “distribution windows”, bearing heavy anti-money laundering and system maintenance costs, but unable to generate loans or earn interest spreads through Digital RMB, resulting in a lack of inherent commercial driving force.

 

Digital RMB 2.0 Era

 

According to current promotional information, the following changes have been observed:

 

In terms of attributes: It has shifted from “digital cash” to “digital deposit currency”, with interest accrued on the balance of real-name wallets.

In terms of technology: Version 2.0 emphasizes compatibility with distributed ledgers and smart contracts. In the eyes of the industry, this is a form of absorption of some Web3 technologies, but it has not adopted the core of decentralization.

 

The launch of Digital RMB 2.0 proves that programmability, real-time settlement, and on-chain logic are indeed the inevitable forms of future currency. However, within the Mainland, this form is required to operate within a centralized, traceable, and sovereign-backed closed loop. This centralized attempt is an intermediate product of the game between technological evolution and governance logic.

Legal Red Line: Defining the Boundaries of “Illegal Financial Activities”

 

As a lawyer who has long practiced on the frontlines of Web3, I must remind all practitioners: After 2025, the risk landscape has shifted from “compliance flaws” to “criminal bottom lines”. This judgment includes but is not limited to the following aspects:

 

Accelerated Classification of Behaviors

 

Large-scale trading of virtual currencies such as USDT is rapidly transitioning from administrative violations to criminal charges such as illegal business operations. Especially after the “classification of stablecoins” was clarified, the space for technical defense in judicial practice has been greatly reduced for any business activities involving the two-way exchange of Mainland legal tender and stablecoins, or the use of stablecoins as a payment medium or acceptance service.

 

Regulatory Upgrade

 

The redefinition of this boundary has essentially further restricted the possibility of non-public entities participating in the innovation of financial infrastructure. Within the Mainland, if a non-public entity attempts to build a non-official value transfer network, regardless of the technology adopted, after in-depth penetration and review by relevant departments, it is highly likely to be legally classified as “illegal settlement”. In other words, “technological neutrality” is no longer a universal shield—when a business involves fund aggregation, redemption, or cross-border transfer, regulatory penetration will directly break through the complex protocol layer and trace back to the operating entity behind it.

Survival Strategies and Breakthrough Suggestions for Web3 Practitioners

 

The “wall” is indeed getting higher, but the logic has not been interrupted.

 

The absorption of smart contracts by Digital RMB 2.0 itself shows that technology has not been rejected, but has been re-incorporated into a controllable institutional framework. This also leaves a practical and feasible adjustment space for Web3 practitioners who truly understand technology and business logic.

 

In the current regulatory environment, a more secure choice is to adopt a “strategic diversion” approach.

 

1. Overseas Expansion and Compliance at the Business Level

 

If the goal is to build an unrestricted, decentralized financial application, it should be completely moved overseas both physically and legally. In jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, making full use of licensed frameworks like the Stablecoin Ordinance to carry out global business is an inevitable choice under the premise of respecting rules, rather than a stopgap measure.

 

2. Conscious “Decoupling” of Technology and Finance

 

Within the Mainland, any modules with fund-bearing, settlement, or redemption attributes should be firmly avoided. Since the authorities are promoting the Digital RMB 2.0 ecosystem based on a licensed system and supporting smart contracts, shifting focus to underlying architecture, security audits, and compliance technology research and development—becoming a technical service provider for official financial infrastructure—is instead the most stable and sustainable transformation path for current technical teams.

 

3. Focus on New Opportunities in Official Channels

 

Cross-border payment systems, including the Multi-Central Bank Digital Currency Bridge (m-CBDC Bridge), are becoming one of the few areas within the compliance framework that still have room for expansion. Finding entry points for technological innovation in existing institutional facilities may be the truly feasible opportunity window in this round of regulatory reshaping.

 

Law has never been a static set of rules, but the result of negotiations and games.

 

The rules may seem strict, but understanding the rules is inherently for the purpose of making better choices. In the context of “cage replacement”, blind resistance will only amplify risks; what truly matters is, after the red line is redefined, helping the most valuable technological forces find an anchor point to survive and expand outward.

〈“Implementation” of Stablecoin Regulation in Mainland China and “Take-off” of Digital RMB 2.0〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

According to CoinDesk, crypto data giant #CoinGecko is exploring a potential sale and has reportedly hired Moelis as advisor. Sources say talks began late last year, so valuation is still fluid—but ~$500M is on the table.
📉 Traffic to crypto data sites is falling as users turn to AI chatbots for information. CoinGecko’s monthly visits dropped from 43.5M (2024) to 18.5M (Dec 2025)—with #CoinMarketCap seeing similar trends.
#CryptoTrading #Cryptodata

Polymarket’s integration into Dow Jones platforms signals institutional recognition of prediction markets as serious information tools, not just speculative entertainment.

 

Strong performance in 2025 and accurate election forecasting helped prediction markets prove their value through capital-backed “crowd wisdom.”

 

Despite growing media adoption, regulatory uncertainty remains, meaning prediction markets have not yet fully transitioned into established financial instruments.

Polymarket’s exclusive partnership with Dow Jones marks a turning point as prediction markets enter mainstream financial media, reshaping how probability, news, and collective intelligence intersect.

 

Recently, the prediction market platform Polymarket reached an exclusive partnership with Dow Jones. Under the agreement, Polymarket’s real-time probability data will become the sole prediction market data source across Dow Jones’ consumer-facing platforms, including dedicated data modules, event pages, and customized economic and earnings calendars.

 

Dow Jones’ media portfolio includes leading financial publications such as The Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, and MarketWatch. With The Wall Street Journal widely regarded as one of the most authoritative voices in global financial journalism, this partnership means that readers will increasingly encounter not only traditional expert commentary or opinion polls, but also probability-based forecasts driven by “crowd wisdom” — spanning elections, economic trends, and even cultural topics.

 

More importantly, the collaboration signals a potential shift in how news is presented. Prediction markets, as a complementary lens on “truth,” offer probability outcomes shaped by real capital at risk, providing the public with a more dynamic, real-time, and multi-dimensional way to assess emerging trends.

DOW JONES: AN UNUSUAL FORM OF MAINSTREAM ENDORSEMENT

 

Unlike typical media partnerships, the significance of the Dow Jones deal goes far beyond traffic or exposure. As one of the world’s most influential financial news institutions, Dow Jones primarily serves institutional investors, professional traders, high-net-worth individuals, and policy or business decision-makers—not the general public. This audience profile has shaped an editorial culture known for caution, conservatism, and verifiability, with exceptionally strict standards for information sources.

 

Viewed from this perspective, the systematic integration of Polymarket’s probability data into The Wall Street Journal represents more than a product-level collaboration. It functions as a form of institutional validation: prediction markets are no longer treated merely as entertainment or speculative tools, but as information sources with genuine reference value. Within the Dow Jones editorial framework, they have effectively been placed in the context of “serious news,” rather than gambling or fringe platforms.

 

In fact, Polymarket is not the first prediction market to attract mainstream media attention. In early December, Kalshi announced partnerships with CNN and CNBC. CNN analysts have cited Kalshi’s real-time probabilities in political and public-affairs coverage, while CNBC has displayed Kalshi’s brand ticker on select programs and integrated related content into its digital platforms. These collaborations helped bring prediction markets into public view, but they remained fragmented, multi-party arrangements.

 

By contrast, Polymarket’s agreement with Dow Jones is a fully integrated, exclusive partnership. Across the entire Dow Jones media group, Polymarket will serve as the sole prediction market data provider, embedded consistently across print and digital products. This exclusivity gives the partnership greater coherence—and significantly amplifies its impact.

WHY NOW? PREDICTION MARKETS PROVED THEMSELVES IN 2025

 

Prediction markets have existed for years, but it was not until 2025 that they experienced truly explosive growth. Data shows that Polymarket and Kalshi both delivered record-breaking performance in 2025, with combined cumulative trading volume approaching $40 billion and valuations reaching multi-billion-dollar levels. This step-change in scale pushed prediction markets beyond entertainment or speculative niches and closer to becoming a form of financial infrastructure.

 

More importantly, Polymarket had already demonstrated its value during the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Its forecasts—particularly in swing states—outperformed traditional polling. Polymarket priced Donald Trump’s winning probability above 95% early on, while many polls continued to show a tight race. Over the past year, prediction markets have further shown how financial incentives filter out noise: participants must stake real capital to back their views, making incorrect judgments costly. This “skin-in-the-game” mechanism is precisely what has allowed prediction markets to earn a place in mainstream information systems. They are no longer viewed simply as “betting,” but as efficient aggregators of collective intelligence.

REMOVING THE ‘GAMBLING’ LABEL IS NOT THE SAME AS INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION

 

That said, acceptance by mainstream media does not mean prediction markets have completed their transition from a gambling-like form to a fully recognized financial instrument.

 

Regulatory uncertainty remains significant. Take Kalshi as an example: despite holding approval from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), some state-level regulators continue to classify prediction contracts as gambling. In Nevada, in particular, disputes over legality are ongoing. Recently, Kalshi lost a preliminary injunction that had temporarily blocked enforcement actions by Nevada regulators and is now seeking to halt state action while its appeal proceeds. The lifting of the injunction means Kalshi could face legal risks if it continues operating in Nevada, including potential prosecution as an illegal gambling platform. Nevada regulators argue that Kalshi has been “continuously engaging in unlawful activity” without a state gaming license, noting that platforms such as Crypto.com and Robinhood agreed to suspend local operations during their own appeals.

 

Polymarket faces a different kind of scrutiny. Its recent accurate prediction of U.S. actions toward Venezuela sparked allegations of insider trading, reigniting debate over regulatory blind spots in prediction markets. While insider trading is illegal in traditional financial markets, behavior of this kind is not clearly regulated on platforms like Polymarket. At present, there is no unified or explicit framework defining whether such conduct constitutes a violation.

CONCLUSION

 

The partnership between Polymarket and Dow Jones does not imply that regulatory challenges facing prediction markets have been resolved. It does, however, send a clear signal: prediction markets are increasingly being treated by mainstream media as a legitimate information tool, gradually shedding their association with gambling and fringe platforms. When probability forecasts begin appearing in The Wall Street Journal, the transformation of prediction markets into part of serious news discourse can no longer be ignored.

 

 

▶ Read the original article

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈Polymarket Enters Dow Jones: Prediction Markets Go Mainstream〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Metaplanet represents a new wave of Bitcoin treasury companies in Asia, using capital markets to accumulate BTC on its balance sheet.

 

Investors evaluate Metaplanet through BTC-centric metrics such as BTC per share, BTC Yield, mNAV, and leverage exposure.

 

Metaplanet’s future performance depends on Bitcoin price cycles, regulatory developments in Japan, and disciplined capital management.

Metaplanet is a Japanese public company adopting a Bitcoin treasury strategy. This guide explains its business shift, core metrics, risks, and how it compares to MicroStrategy.

 

WHAT IS METAPLANET?

 

Over the past 2 years, the crypto market narrative has expanded beyond token prices alone. Traditional equity markets have begun to absorb crypto-related themes, giving rise to a new category of stocks often referred to as “Bitcoin proxy stocks.”

 

In the United States, the most well-known example is MicroStrategy. In Japan, however, Metaplanet has emerged as a comparable case. Due to its active and public accumulation of Bitcoin, Metaplanet is widely labeled as the “Japanese version of MicroStrategy,” and its stock has, at times, become a focal point for retail investors.

 

 

Metaplanet (Tokyo Stock Exchange ticker: 3350; U.S. OTCQX ticker: MTPLF) is a publicly listed Japanese company. Historically, its core businesses were centered on hotels, entertainment, and consulting services—firmly within the realm of traditional industries. That changed in 2024, when Metaplanet announced a strategic pivot, formally adopting Bitcoin as a core component of its asset allocation. This move positioned the company among a small group of Asian public firms that have openly embraced crypto assets at the balance-sheet level.

 

Following this transition, Metaplanet is no longer viewed purely as an operating company in legacy sectors. Instead, it has increasingly been framed as a Bitcoin Treasury Company. Its operating logic can be broadly summarized in three steps.

 

First, Metaplanet raises capital through equity issuance or debt financing.
Second, the proceeds are converted into Bitcoin and held on the company’s balance sheet.
Third, performance is communicated using a defined set of metrics, including BTC per share, BTC Yield, mNAV, and indicators related to leverage and financial obligations.

 

This structure—treating Bitcoin as a strategic treasury asset and reporting progress through standardized, Bitcoin-centric metrics—closely mirrors the approach taken by MicroStrategy. As a result, Metaplanet is frequently compared to its U.S. counterpart and has come to be widely recognized as “Japan’s MicroStrategy” within both equity and crypto investment circles.

 

>>> More to read: Who is Michael Saylor? Founder of MicroStrategy

METAPLANET’S 4 CORE METRICS EXPLAINED

 

To understand how Metaplanet positions itself as a Bitcoin treasury company, investors typically focus on 4 key indicators. Together, these metrics help translate balance-sheet Bitcoin exposure into something equity investors can actually track.

 

✅BTC per Share

 

▶ Definition: The amount of Bitcoin backing each outstanding share.

▶Why it matters: A higher figure indicates that Metaplanet has been more effective at converting corporate capital into Bitcoin on behalf of shareholders.

▶ What to watch: Issuing new shares can dilute this metric. That means investors should look not only at how fast Metaplanet is acquiring BTC, but also at changes in total shares outstanding.

✅BTC Yield

 

▶ Definition: How efficiently the company converts raised capital into Bitcoin.

▶ Why it matters:

High BTC Yield = strong capital conversion efficiency

Low BTC Yield = value leakage during the conversion process

 

▶ Example: If Metaplanet issues JPY 100 million in equity but only ends up holding BTC worth JPY 70 million, the BTC Yield would be 70%.

✅mNAV (Market Net Asset Value)

 

▶ Definition: The market valuation of the company divided by the net value of its Bitcoin holdings.

▶ How to read it:

> 1 → the market is assigning a premium

< 1 → the market is applying a discount

 

▶ Recent context: In July 2025, Metaplanet’s mNAV briefly surged to around 12x before compressing to roughly 1.6x, highlighting how dramatically market sentiment toward Bitcoin-linked equities can swing.

✅Leverage and Obligations

 

▶ Definition: Financial commitments beyond common equity, such as debt or outstanding warrants.

▶ Current data: As of August 2025, Metaplanet’s outstanding obligations were approximately USD 30.4 million.

▶ Why it matters: While this level is modest relative to its Bitcoin asset base, leverage still affects cash flow, balance-sheet flexibility, and potential shareholder dilution.

 

Taken together, these 4 metrics form the analytical backbone for evaluating Metaplanet. Rather than focusing solely on its stock price or headline Bitcoin purchases, they provide a clearer framework for assessing how effectively the company translates capital markets activity into long-term Bitcoin exposure.

 

>>> More to read: Banks x Blockchain｜Faster. Safer. Smarter.

METAPLANET VS. MICROSTRATEGY

 

Because of their similar Bitcoin-focused strategies, Metaplanet is often compared with MicroStrategy. While the comparison is directionally valid, a closer look shows both clear overlaps and meaningful differences.

 

📌Key Similarities

 

At a structural level, Metaplanet and MicroStrategy share a common playbook.

 

Both are publicly listed companies that tap equity and debt markets to raise capital, then convert those funds into Bitcoin held on their balance sheets. In both cases, Bitcoin is treated not as a short-term trade, but as a long-term treasury asset. Their corporate narratives emphasize capital preservation and accumulation over time, rather than active trading or frequent rotation.

 

This “Bitcoin-first treasury” positioning is the foundation for why Metaplanet is frequently labeled as “Japan’s MicroStrategy.”

📌 Key Differences

 

Despite these similarities, the two companies operate in very different contexts.

 

1️⃣Geography and regulation
Metaplanet operates within the Japanese market, where local policies and investor behavior matter. Japan’s NISA (tax-advantaged investment accounts) and its distinct tax treatment of crypto-related assets influence how retail and institutional investors engage with Bitcoin-linked equities—a dynamic that differs materially from the U.S. environment MicroStrategy operates in.

 

2️⃣Asset composition
Unlike MicroStrategy, which is almost entirely centered on Bitcoin and software legacy operations, Metaplanet still retains exposure to non-Bitcoin businesses, including hotel and media-related assets. This results in a more diversified—but also more complex—balance-sheet structure.

 

3️⃣Scale and maturity
MicroStrategy is the global incumbent and the largest corporate Bitcoin holder by a wide margin. Metaplanet, by contrast, is still in an early and fast-expanding phase. Its absolute scale is much smaller, but its growth rate and narrative momentum reflect a company actively building its Bitcoin treasury identity.

METAPLANET: RISKS AND CHALLENGES

 

For newer readers and first-time investors, understanding the downside risks is just as important as following the upside narrative. While Metaplanet offers a clear Bitcoin-focused treasury story, it also comes with a set of structural and market-driven challenges.

 

❗Market volatility
Because Bitcoin is a core balance-sheet asset, fluctuations in BTC price directly translate into changes in Metaplanet’s asset value. Sharp drawdowns in Bitcoin can quickly compress net asset value and weigh on investor sentiment, even if the company’s long-term strategy remains unchanged.

 

❗Dilution risk
Metaplanet relies on equity issuance as one of its primary funding tools. Frequent share issuance may dilute existing shareholders, potentially reducing BTC per share. As a result, investors need to track not only total BTC holdings, but also changes in share count over time.

 

❗Leverage pressure
Although Metaplanet’s current obligations are relatively modest, leverage remains a variable risk. If the company increases debt to accelerate Bitcoin accumulation, interest costs and repayment obligations could place additional strain on cash flow and financial flexibility.

 

❗Regulatory uncertainty
Both Japan and the United States are still refining their regulatory approaches to crypto-related assets. Shifts in tax policy, disclosure rules, or capital market regulations could affect how Metaplanet operates, raises funds, or is valued by the market.

 

❗Counterparty risk
Bitcoin custody arrangements and partnerships with financial institutions introduce additional layers of risk. Custodians, exchanges, or banking partners represent potential points of failure, and any disruption could have operational or reputational consequences for Metaplanet.

CONCLUSION

 

By 2026, Metaplanet has become one of the most closely watched Bitcoin-themed stocks in Asia and is widely described as “Japan’s MicroStrategy.” Its rise reflects more than just company-specific speculation—it captures a broader shift in how public companies are beginning to integrate Bitcoin into their balance sheets.

 

For new readers, understanding Metaplanet is not only about analyzing a single stock. It is about recognizing a structural trend: how traditional listed companies incorporate Bitcoin as a treasury asset, and how that decision reshapes corporate valuation, investor perception, and market positioning.

 

Looking ahead, Metaplanet’s trajectory will remain closely tied to Bitcoin’s price cycle and the evolving regulatory environment in Japan. In my view, regardless of how the market ultimately plays out, Metaplanet has already secured a meaningful place in the history of the crypto industry—as an early and visible example of Asia’s public markets converging with Bitcoin-based corporate finance.

 

 

 

 

 

ꚰ CoinRank x Bitget – Sign up & Trade!

Looking for the latest scoop and cool insights from CoinRank? Hit up our Twitter and stay in the loop with all our fresh stories!

〈What is Metaplanet? Why It’s Called Japan’s MicroStrategy〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Pakistan Central Bank will partner with the #Trump family's crypto project #WLFI to explore cross-border payments using $USD1 .
Animoca Brands has completed its acquisition of digital collectibles and gaming company SOMO.
Visa and BVNK have partnered to launch a stablecoin payment service.
#Bitget collaborates with World Cup champion Julian Álvarez to release a promotional video outlining the strategic vision of UEX.
#Google requests the dismissal of its antitrust lawsuit against media AI search summary services.
#CoinRank