Although stablecoins in Hong Kong are hot, the regulatory authorities are very cautious about this topic, which is a huge gap.
Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow
Guests:
Xiao Feng, Chairman and CEO of HashKey Group
Hosts:
Liu Feng, @Web3101cast host, Partner at BODL Ventures, former editor-in-chief of ChainNews
Hongjun Jane, Founder of Silicon Valley 101, Podcast host
Podcast Source: Silicon Valley 101 Podcast
Original Title: E202｜Dialogue with Xiao Feng: In the Booming Moment of Hong Kong Stablecoins, Some Cool Reflections Returning to Common Sense
Broadcast Date: July 31, 2025
Key Points Summary
At the time of the issuance of stablecoin licenses in Hong Kong, stablecoins and RWA have become extremely popular terms in the Chinese-speaking world. Dr. Xiao Feng, Chairman and CEO of HashKey Group, known as the "Godfather of Blockchain in China," shared some cool reflections returning to common sense regarding this trend.
Highlights of Insights
Hong Kong's regulation of stablecoins is surprisingly strict.
Stablecoins were not created for payment purposes.
The mainland will start by accepting stablecoins and then embrace the entire crypto space. The mainland's discussions on stablecoins focus on the perspective of major currency competition; Hong Kong is more concerned about anti-money laundering loopholes.
Crypto performs better than traditional finance in anti-money laundering.
Consortium chains are not viable; stablecoins on consortium chains will not succeed.
Most successful applications arise in an unpermissioned state.
Hong Kong has the potential to become the world's center for digital asset trading again.
Singapore positions itself as the Switzerland of Asia, while Hong Kong positions itself as the Wall Street of Asia.
Next year will be a period of rapid growth in traditional financial markets embracing cryptocurrencies.
The underlying protocol of blockchain is decentralized, but the application layer must be centralized.
Although stablecoins are hot in Hong Kong, the regulatory authorities are very cautious about this topic, which is a huge gap.
In Beijing, a consensus is gradually forming on two points. The first consensus is that, in the face of the global legislative compliance wave regarding crypto, stablecoins, and blockchain led by the U.S., China cannot continue to turn a blind eye; the second consensus is how to respond. If China forever turns a blind eye and does not accept these new things, it may be at a disadvantage in the competition of national currencies.
By this time next year, we may be discussing RWA, and the mainland may start accepting asset tokenization. After RWA, the next step may be to accept Bitcoin.
Once you start accepting stablecoins, you must also accept public chains; otherwise, your stablecoins will lack global competitiveness, and issuing them would be pointless.
RWA has three stages: the easiest is the tokenization of fiat currency; the second stage is financial assets; the final stage is the tokenization of physical assets.
Today, the market interprets stablecoins from a monetary perspective, lacking reflection on the underlying logical changes.
All tokens will not exist without technology, accounting methods, and financial infrastructure.
The legislation for stablecoins in Hong Kong, particularly for licensed issuers, is fundamentally related to anti-money laundering.
In the future, stablecoins will become a measure of value in the virtual and digital worlds and will serve as the medium of exchange for all virtual and crypto assets.
Exchanges are striving to build very good liquidity for any trading pair; the construction of any liquidity pool incurs costs that need to be amortized.
Hong Kong has become the darling of capital markets for two reasons. The first factor is the emergence of DeepSeek, and the second is that due to Trump's policies, traditional ally relationships have weakened, and everything has turned into business.
Calm Reflections Amidst the Craze for Stablecoins and RWA
Liu Feng:
I can see that in all Chinese-speaking areas, whether in Hong Kong or the mainland, stablecoins have become a hot topic. Could you please briefly explain to our listeners why everyone is so concerned about Hong Kong's stablecoin regulations? Additionally, if possible, could you highlight the key points that are particularly noteworthy in Hong Kong's regulation of cryptocurrency and digital assets?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
I personally feel that the hype is a bit excessive. A few days ago, I was having coffee with friends in a hotel café and noticed that several tables around me were discussing stablecoins. Recently, we also had a discussion with officials from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority about stablecoins, and the officials repeatedly reminded us that the stablecoin field is too hot, and Hong Kong will not issue many licenses.
The issuance of stablecoins in Hong Kong will be very strict in the initial stage; not only will the licensing be strict, but the regulation will also be very stringent, especially regarding the use of stablecoins for anti-money laundering. August 1 is merely the date when the Hong Kong stablecoin bill takes effect, but it does not mean that everyone can start applying for stablecoin licenses in Hong Kong from that date. Although there are rumors in the market that dozens or even hundreds of companies are applying, I believe that very few applications will actually be accepted by the Monetary Authority. The main concern is the background of each applicant, especially their financial risk management background and experience and capability in anti-money laundering.
Hong Kong is an international financial center with decades of experience, so the regulatory authorities, whether the SFC or HKMA, are very sensitive to trends in the international financial market, which is a significant contrast to the mainland. The mainland interprets stablecoins, especially offshore RMB stablecoins, more from a monetary perspective, focusing on major currency competition and the hegemony of the U.S. dollar. However, Hong Kong is different. I originally thought that if so many institutions, people, and money from the mainland were willing to come to Hong Kong, whether to build, issue, or use stablecoins, it would be a huge benefit for Hong Kong as an international financial center. The impression I have of Hong Kong's regulatory authorities is that their primary concern is whether the issuance of stablecoins will lead to regulatory gaps due to leaving the banking account system. In fact, the current financial regulatory authorities lack regulatory means for the circulation of stablecoins after minting.
Thus, Hong Kong is more concerned about whether there will be loopholes in anti-money laundering. As an international financial center, if Hong Kong is criticized by other major international financial centers for its anti-money laundering efforts, it will have a significant impact on Hong Kong's reputation as an international financial center. Conversely, this may be completely different from everyone's perception; although stablecoins are hot, the regulatory authorities are very cautious about this topic, which is a huge gap.
Reflecting on the Journey: Cold Reception from Hong Kong Regulatory Authorities
Liu Feng:
You have been advocating for transparent and standardized legislation for digital assets in Hong Kong for many years. Could you share your thoughts on why there is still a lot of concern and a very cautious attitude towards embracing digital assets and cryptocurrencies in Hong Kong as a global financial center? How do you view this contrast, and the differences over the years, from past criticism and rejection to what seems like an open embrace now?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
I can share a story from my own experience that illustrates the issue you just mentioned. HashKey was established in Hong Kong at the end of 2018 because, in 2017, the mainland implemented stricter regulatory measures, so we moved this business to Hong Kong, where it is legal and compliant. In early 2019, I visited the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission to apply for a license for a crypto exchange. The official who received me said, "Mr. Xiao, you do not need a license to open a virtual currency exchange in Hong Kong; it is not illegal. You can just turn left when you go out and open one."
I heard the same thing again in 2022 when I visited the Deputy Director of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. I said we wanted to apply for a stablecoin license in Hong Kong. The Deputy Director replied, "Mr. Xiao, it is not illegal to issue stablecoins in Hong Kong, and we have no authority to regulate you." I told him that we had already invested in a stablecoin company in Hong Kong, but it could not continue because no bank in Hong Kong dared to provide us with services related to stablecoins, and customers could not have normal fiat currency inflows and outflows.
Why did these two officials say the same thing? Because Hong Kong follows the Anglo-American legal system, and under the common law framework, the first principle is "what is not prohibited by law is allowed." Therefore, in 2019, there were no laws regarding crypto in Hong Kong, and you could do anything; there were no legal prohibitions against setting up an exchange. At the same time, both institutions (the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority) stated that they had no authority to issue licenses or regulate you because the second principle in common law is "what is not authorized by law is not allowed." If you open an exchange on the street, they have no authority to investigate you.
I jokingly said, "So, does that mean no one is regulating me in Hong Kong?" He replied, "Not that no one is regulating you; the Commercial Crime Unit of the police will regulate you." Although what you are operating is not a security, it is at least considered a commodity, and consumer protection is regulated.
Indeed, people in the industry talk about the high compliance costs in Hong Kong, and that it is not profitable to do this here. Compliance has its costs, but there is a certain rationale behind those costs. After all, we are engaged in an emerging financial industry, and the new finance brought by financial technology has strong externalities. Over the past few hundred years, a set of rules has gradually accumulated to protect investors and consumers, and these rules will inevitably bring operational costs.
If our industry is unwilling to bear these costs, it may never grow. If you envision this as a market worth $10 trillion, $50 trillion, or even $100 trillion, then there will inevitably be constraints from external effects that you must bear.
New Hope: "The Mainland Will Start by Accepting Stablecoins and Then Embrace the Entire Crypto"
Dr. Xiao Feng:
So, up to now, my view is that since 2017, when the mainland began to restrict, regulate, and even prohibit certain crypto-related businesses, I have been pondering when and where the mainland will start to re-accept these. For the past few years, there has been no answer. Recently, over the past month and a half, I feel I have found the answer because I attended many internal seminars in Beijing, which were influenced by the stablecoin legislation in Hong Kong and the U.S.
Most discussions in the mainland occurred after the Hong Kong stablecoin regulations were passed on May 21, followed by the U.S. rapidly advancing related legislation, which sparked many discussions in Beijing. In these discussions, I suddenly had an epiphany: the mainland will start by accepting stablecoins and then embrace the entire crypto space.
During this period, I participated in many discussions that lasted for a month and a half. Although there are still differing opinions in Beijing as of Sunday, a consensus is gradually forming on two points. The first consensus is that, in the face of the global legislative compliance wave regarding crypto, stablecoins, and blockchain led by the U.S., China cannot continue to turn a blind eye, nor can it avoid taking countermeasures. The second consensus is how to respond. As my friends in Beijing put it, "Should we launch the Huaihai Campaign?" This question has been settled; it must be done. How to do it? Is it a small-scale or large-scale operation? Which troop should be eliminated first? This is the current topic of discussion. I felt that the mainland will start accepting from here because if China forever turns a blind eye and does not accept these new things, it may be at a disadvantage in the competition of national currencies. I believe that the higher-ups in China have recognized this issue, which is why there was a recent speech by former central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan at the Lujiazui Forum, where his main point was to be wary of the impact of U.S. dollar stablecoins on the dollarization of the international monetary system.
This clearly looks at U.S. dollar stablecoins from the perspective of national currency competition, and China cannot ignore it. At the same time, I predict that this is akin to the saying, "Where there is the first day of the month, there will be the fifteenth." Once you start accepting stablecoins, you must also accept public chains; otherwise, your stablecoins will lack global competitiveness, and issuing them would be pointless.
So what might be accepted after RWA? I believe that by this time next year, we may be discussing RWA, and the mainland may start accepting asset tokenization. After all, RWA has the same attribute as stablecoins, which is that it can support the real economy. Things that can support the real economy are relatively easier for mainland officials, regulatory bodies, and the government to accept. Once you accept RWA next year, you will inevitably have to consider the possibility of accepting Bitcoin in the future.
Challenges Influencing China's Embrace of Digital Assets: Increase in Fraud
Liu Feng:
You have painted a picture of how we might truly embrace blockchain and digital assets in China in the future. It sounds like the understanding of this technology starts with stablecoins, as a necessary response to the great power currency competition, leading everyone to first embrace stablecoins, which do not seem particularly crypto, and then gradually embrace trends like RWA that utilize blockchain technology for tokenization but can support the real economy. Further down the line, we may find ourselves compelled to embrace broader technologies centered around blockchain, or some product forms, business models, and financial innovations.
I would like to ask, what challenges do you think might arise in this process that could affect your beautiful prospects?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
I believe the challenges come from two aspects.
On one hand, indeed, whether it is the EU, the U.S., or some economically developed countries, or international anti-money laundering organizations, and the Financial Stability Board of the Bank for International Settlements, they have all expressed concerns to Hong Kong about the vigorous promotion of stablecoins, especially RMB stablecoins. Stablecoins could facilitate China's oil trade with Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, as these countries are under UN sanctions.
Previously, if it was a fiat currency channel, it was relatively more complicated, and it could be monitored, but if stablecoins are used outside of banks and SWIFT, then it completely disconnects from the entire financial regulatory system established by the West. This pressure is something they have already begun to pay attention to, and I believe they will continue to exert pressure. However, there is certainly a demand for issuing offshore RMB and stablecoins.
The second aspect is that we have already seen some signs. Recently, stablecoins have become popular in Beijing due to their popularity in Hong Kong, and sometimes Beijing is even hotter than Hong Kong, leading to an increase in fraud and scams. In fact, the trend of pyramid schemes and scams under the guise of stablecoins is no longer confined to one province but has occurred in many economically developed regions. Therefore, we see news reports of financial regulatory bodies in different provinces of the mainland continuously issuing warnings; this trend is indeed something to be wary of. I often remind myself not to add fuel to the fire. We all clearly remember the ongoing rectification of internet finance; we must not fall into a state of continuous rectification of internet finance, as this would severely delay the mainland's acceptance of these stablecoins or RWA. The current trend is indeed quite severe, which brings pressure to the mainland, because for regulatory bodies, if they do not see positive developments and only see various scams rampant in the mainland, it will obviously slow their pace.
Understanding RWA (Real World Assets) in Three Stages: Tokenization of Fiat Currency; Tokenization of Financial Assets and Physical Assets
Liu Feng:
For innovative concepts like RWA, which utilize new blockchain technology to promote the development of financial innovations, you also mentioned that it might lead to some fraudulent activities. Could you share what you think are the correct, promising, and truly valuable applications of blockchain technology for RWA?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
I refer to RWA as asset tokenization, and I divide it into three stages. The first stage can be traced back to 2014, which is the tokenization of fiat currency represented by USDT. The second stage should start from 2024, when the tokenization of financial assets will occur as companies like BlackRock, Fidelity, and Franklin Templeton turn their U.S. dollar bond funds and money market funds into tokens on the blockchain.
However, most people in the market are interested in discussing the tokenization of physical assets. I believe that the tokenization of physical assets still has a core issue that has not been resolved, which is the oracle problem. How can you ensure that an off-chain physical asset corresponds one-to-one with its digital twin on-chain and remains anchored to ensure the existence of the off-chain asset?
Currently, there is no good solution for this technology; DePin is considered one such solution. DePin has been a premature baby; it has been around for 20 years without finding an independent business model. DePin may be a solution for the tokenization of physical assets in the future, but the technology is not yet mature, so the tokenization of physical assets requires a longer path. For large-scale promotion or acceptance, the oracle problem still needs to be solved.
The three stages flow like water, from easy to difficult. The easiest is certainly fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar, euro, and RMB, which have very simple trust backing that everyone recognizes.
The second step, from the perspective of trust backing, is financial assets, which are easier to resolve. Their issuers and custodians are licensed financial institutions that are subject to strict regulation, making the process of digitization and tokenization easier.
Tokenization of physical assets is a very difficult task. I do not believe that a good solution has been found yet; I think it still needs time.
Therefore, I now suggest that those interested in RWA first turn physical assets into financial products, and then tokenize them based on those financial products. For example, if a gold miner tells me he produces 8 tons of gold each year, I would not dare to believe it. However, if you produce this gold according to financial standards, specifying what kind of gold bars can serve as collateral or anchor assets, that is standardized.
Once this is done, a licensed financial institution can issue a gold fund or gold ETF, with these gold bars stored in a vault by a reputable bank, which acts as the custodian of these gold assets. The custodian issues us instructions indicating that it has received gold that meets the standards, and then helps mint a token that circulates on-chain; this may be the best solution so far.
Liu Feng:
This makes it very easy to understand and deliver when issuing tokens. What you mentioned further emphasizes that although RWA refers to so-called real-world assets, not all real-world assets can simply be mapped onto the blockchain. Instead, there should be a very standardized process in the early stages, first being verifiable and auditable, and secondly, as structured as possible. This will make it easier for transactions to flow in the future, and both parties will find it easier to reach agreements, which is an effective process for doing RWA.
However, I believe that in this process, the so-called RWA is not about creating a new asset; it is merely transitioning from physical assets to the original financial ledger and then to the blockchain. This sounds more like a very simple use case of using blockchain to complete the settlement and transaction processes, which in itself utilizes the real-time settlement and consensus of blockchain or crypto.
Returning to Common Sense: What Problems Does Blockchain Actually Solve
Three Transformations in Human Accounting Methods
Liu Feng:
So the core of RWA is not about issuing tokens or assets, which brings us back to what you have been advocating for ten years: why do you believe that blockchain and the crypto digital assets attached to it represent a true financial innovation for the future?
Could you take a moment to tell everyone some of the fundamental reasons why we need blockchain over the past decade or even longer?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
In fact, including the recent discussions about stablecoins, people tend to view it from a macro perspective, interpreting stablecoins from a monetary angle, lacking an understanding of the underlying logic or technological foundation. Whether it is stablecoins or all tokens, they are based on a new technology. This new technology is primarily based on blockchain's distributed ledger, which itself is an update to human accounting methods.
Human accounting methods have undergone three transformations. The earliest counting method can be traced back to 3500 BC, in the Sumer region, now part of Iraq. A clay tablet dating back 3500 years was unearthed, and later research found that it was a ledger recording income and expenditures. This was the earliest form of simple or single-entry bookkeeping, only recording income and expenditures, with nothing else accounted for.
Later, around 1300 AD, new accounting methods emerged in the northern Italian city-states, particularly Florence and Venice, which recorded not only income and expenditures but also assets and liabilities. So why did such a new calculation method emerge in Italy around 1300 AD? It is related to technological advancements, such as the invention of paper, especially in mathematics. Around 1200 AD, an Italian mathematician wrote a book called "The Principles of Abacus," which was very important. Without certain mathematical inventions, there would be no new calculation methods.
The third significant change was the replacement of Roman numerals with Arabic numerals. The introduction of Arabic numerals is related to the Renaissance, during which much knowledge from ancient Greece and Rome was preserved in the Arab world and later translated. Technological advancements made it possible to reinvent new accounting methods, especially with the introduction of Arabic numerals; on the other hand, the complexity of economic activities also led to new demands. Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" depicts the complex maritime trade in Italy at that time, which required partnerships, borrowing money, and renting ships, while also leading city-states to begin taxing, making accounting more complex.
This demand led to the birth of double-entry bookkeeping, where cash flows began to be separated. Cash flows from operations, cash flows from investments, and cash flows from bank loans all need to be distinguished. The complexity of human economic and business activities necessitated changes in accounting methods. More than 730 years later, in 2009, the Bitcoin mainnet of blockchain distributed ledger technology went live, bringing a new method of accounting, which we call distributed ledger accounting.
From a technical perspective, this is related to asymmetric encryption algorithms from the 1970s, the development of the internet, distributed databases, and so on. The development of computer programming languages and smart contracts as computer programs are all results of technological advancement. On the other hand, demands are also changing; human society is increasingly virtualized and digitized, with more activities occurring in the digital world. A fundamental characteristic of the digital world is that it transcends time, space, organizations, entities, and legal jurisdictions.
When these transcending events occur, accounting methods must also keep pace, as you cannot use Chinese accounting standards or U.S. accounting standards. Human society has created a parallel universe for itself; in this parallel universe, what accounting method do you use? Which currency do you use for accounting? Which country's accounting standards do you adopt, and which country's laws do you implement? If mistakes occur, do you use Chinese law or U.S. law to constrain? All of these become unfeasible, or the costs become very high, so high that the parallel universe cannot operate. Therefore, a new accounting method—distributed ledger and double-entry bookkeeping—emerged. The biggest difference is that previous accounting methods were all private ledgers, where individuals kept accounts for themselves, trying to convince others of the accuracy of their records. To ensure the authenticity of the ledger, society needed to establish a vast system to deter and punish fraudsters.
To enforce these laws, you need lawyers, accountants, public security, prosecutors, courts, and even prisons. Otherwise, how can I trust that your accounts are genuine? In fact, the cost of this entire system is very high. Even under the protection and regulation of this system, almost no company's accounts are 100% accurate.
Distributed Ledger in Restructuring Financial Market Infrastructure
Liu Feng:
This is the core and foundation of our entire credit system and financial system today. This is also why, when Bitcoin emerged, the earliest crypto natives, or cryptocurrency purists, challenged the core of this system.
Dr. Xiao Feng:
Yes, this challenge has an overly idealistic side, such as anarchism. I believe that human society cannot become an anarchic state; a small number of people may live in a utopia, but for 99% of people, it is impossible to survive in a utopia. The emergence of distributed ledgers is due to the combination of this demand and technology, which is why such a thing was born in 2009. This ledger first means a new financial market infrastructure based on distributed ledgers is being reconstructed for the financial system.
The so-called financial market infrastructure can be summarized in one sentence from classic textbooks: it is a complete set of institutional arrangements related to trading, clearing, and settlement. Whether you are trading stocks, funds, bonds, or other transactions, it is basically the same. Traditional financial market infrastructure implements central registration, central custody, central counterparty trading, and central settlement. Any transaction cannot be completed without the help of more than three intermediaries. For example, in stock trading, the settlement of funds and shares at brokerage exchanges requires four intermediaries to complete a transaction.
The new recording method established on the distributed ledger eliminates all these intermediaries, allowing for peer-to-peer transactions. The reason peer-to-peer transactions can be realized is that the accounting method is different. On a public ledger, both Zhang San and Li Si are recording on the same ledger, and the data is consensual. The blockchain distributed ledger is a publicly transparent global public ledger where people around the world record on the same ledger, and everyone can see all the information on this ledger. Therefore, intermediaries are no longer needed, and transactions become peer-to-peer, rather than the previously mentioned central registration, central custody, central trading, and central settlement. This allows for peer-to-peer transactions with near-instantaneous settlement and almost zero fees.
From a business perspective, if a new financial market infrastructure can achieve higher efficiency, lower costs, and fewer steps, it will certainly be viable. Given time, it will inevitably replace the old system. If it cannot be replaced, it contradicts business laws.
Traditional financial market infrastructure operates on a net settlement basis, meaning that all financial institutions, such as the banking system, essentially stop processing transactions around 5 PM. Stopping means everyone calculates their accounts, and once the calculations are done, the day's accounts are closed. The new financial market infrastructure operates on a transaction-by-transaction basis, where cash and goods are settled simultaneously after transaction confirmation. Therefore, you see a huge difference between stock exchanges and crypto exchanges; crypto exchanges are built on a transaction-by-transaction settlement system, allowing them to operate 24/7 without the need to stop and calculate accounts.
Why can't stock trading operate 24/7? Because it is based on a net settlement system, which necessitates a cutoff time by which accounts must be settled for everyone to conclude. This is why the New York Stock Exchange announced it would implement a 5 + 23 hour trading schedule this year. Why 23 hours and not 24 hours?
Because it must stop; otherwise, the accounts cannot be settled. Thus, the change brought by distributed ledgers has led to a transformation in financial market infrastructure. Whether stablecoins or other tokens, they are all based on this set of infrastructure—a new accounting method of blockchain technology and distributed ledgers, along with a new financial market infrastructure built upon this technology and accounting method. We need to view stablecoins from this perspective, rather than just from a monetary angle.
Liu Feng:
This is also something I particularly wanted you to share, as I see everyone discussing stablecoins only in terms of their convenience as a payment method. Many people say that they are not as good as the mobile payment systems we use, like WeChat or Alipay. However, if we truly understand the distributed decentralized ledger behind stablecoins, we can grasp their true significance.
Although we, as Chinese people, find WeChat and Alipay very convenient, when it comes to cross-border transactions across a vast global financial system, even in the securities market, we find that there is a fundamental and essential difference between today's system and the new financial system driven by blockchain, public chains, or crypto. Therefore, understanding the significance of stablecoins is crucial to understanding why they represent a profound new financial innovation.
Dr. Xiao Feng:
Clarifying the three layers of technology, accounting methods, and financial infrastructure is essential; without these three foundations, no tokens can emerge—not just stablecoins, but other tokens and RWA as well.
Core Highlights of Hong Kong's Crypto Asset Regulation
Changes and Core Framework of Hong Kong's Anti-Money Laundering Regulation for Crypto Assets
Hong Jun:
Here are a few questions regarding stablecoins.
The first is how Hong Kong's policies, regulations, and legislative council require everyone to implement stablecoins to form a complete anti-money laundering mechanism?
The second is that creating a compliant stablecoin is already super challenging; I think there is another significant issue, which is how to ensure your stablecoin has liquidity and how to expand the market size?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
Hong Kong's stablecoin legislation primarily focuses on licensed stablecoins, with the core aspect being related to anti-money laundering; other technical issues can be resolved. The anti-money laundering standards for the entire financial market are completely consistent; there is no separate anti-money laundering standard for crypto. Hong Kong pursues the highest or latest global standards in anti-money laundering. Around 2021, the international anti-money laundering organization first revised its anti-money laundering standards, incorporating anti-money laundering for crypto into its rules, prompting the Hong Kong Legislative Council to quickly begin revising its anti-money laundering regulations. Early on, around 2022 and 2023, Hong Kong revised its anti-money laundering regulations, adding two new components.
The first component is to incorporate the international anti-money laundering organization's guidelines regarding crypto into Hong Kong's anti-money laundering regulations. Additionally, anti-money laundering provisions for gold were added. This revision directly led to crypto asset exchanges like HashKey initially applying for a Type 7 license, which is an alternative asset trading license.
After the Hong Kong anti-money laundering regulations took effect on June 1 last year, we had to apply for a license called the Virtual Asset Service Provider (VATP) license based on Hong Kong's anti-money laundering regulations. Therefore, exchanges operating in Hong Kong essentially hold two sets of licenses: one is the Type 7 alternative asset trading license under Hong Kong's securities regulations, and the other is the VATP license under Hong Kong's anti-money laundering regulations. When Hong Kong revised its anti-money laundering regulations, it added anti-money laundering provisions for crypto, and the specific responsible units for these anti-money laundering measures were assigned to the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC). The SFC became the responsible unit for crypto anti-money laundering in Hong Kong and must have regulatory means. Thus, a Virtual Asset Service Provider (VATP) license was established in the anti-money laundering regulations, which officially took effect on July 1 last year. This led to many exchanges announcing the closure of their operations in Hong Kong on June 1 last year.
The Type 7 license has always existed under the securities regulations. Before the Hong Kong SFC revised the anti-money laundering regulations and was assigned the responsibility for crypto anti-money laundering, it only issued Type 7 licenses based on the securities regulations. This is a very unique situation in Hong Kong.
In addition to adding another license, this regulation has also led to significant changes in the regulation of money exchange point licenses in Hong Kong over the past year and a half. In Hong Kong, money exchange points are licensed by Hong Kong Customs, and money exchange points naturally include the exchange of crypto for fiat currency in their business scope. Therefore, they began to engage in this business, but the growth was so rapid that Hong Kong Customs believed there might be money laundering issues. Consequently, Hong Kong Customs drafted its own anti-money laundering requirements for these money exchange points and revised the requirements for money exchange point licenses.
After the revisions were completed, the new legislation in Hong Kong clarified that the primary responsible unit for crypto anti-money laundering is the Hong Kong SFC. Therefore, Customs' statements are no longer valid, as the law did not grant them the authority to manage crypto anti-money laundering. Thus, the proposal made last year was for the money exchange licenses to be jointly reviewed and issued by Hong Kong Customs and the Hong Kong SFC, but this was merely an idea from both sides.
In May of this year, the law regarding money exchange point licenses was enacted, namely the VA OTC license. The new law followed public opinion, and Customs is no longer involved in regulation; the VA OTC license is entirely the responsibility of the Hong Kong SFC for review and issuance. The international anti-money laundering organization's regulations regarding crypto have led to revisions in Hong Kong's anti-money laundering regulations, impacting the entire crypto industry in Hong Kong.
Why Are Anti-Money Laundering Measures for Crypto Assets More Effective Than Traditional Finance?
Hong Jun:
So what does anti-money laundering specifically refer to in business or practical operations? For example, does it refer to the issues of bank inflows and outflows when exchanging stablecoins or crypto for fiat currency, or does it assume that in the future, all stablecoins will be on-chain and require real-name verification? Does it have a specific reference?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
The anti-money laundering (AML) measures in traditional finance and those in crypto have formed two distinct models due to different technical logics. This is a very worthwhile topic for discussion. Traditional finance believes that the entire crypto space is incapable of AML because it is anonymous. Traditional finance's AML relies on identity, and since there is no identity or identities are anonymous on the blockchain, they see this as a significant problem that makes AML impossible.
However, after I explained it to them, many people in traditional finance believe that crypto's AML is better than that of traditional finance. This is because crypto's AML tracks wallet addresses, allowing for the tracing of fund flows, such as where the money has been and where it hasn't. If it is within a single country, AML is relatively easy, as judicial authorities can access all bank records. But in Hong Kong, the process of retrieving information from other banks can be much more complicated, and identity discovery is far more difficult than in mainland China.
However, if it involves cross-border transactions across two or more countries, tracking a person's money as it flows through several countries makes AML nearly impossible, as other countries will not cooperate unless lengthy and complex judicial requests are fulfilled. Moreover, laws in various countries restrict the disclosure of customer information. Traditional finance's AML is, in fact, a very inefficient, high-cost, and difficult-to-enforce mechanism, but crypto does not require these restrictions. For example, at HashKey Exchange, whether it is stablecoins or tokens, we can technically trace the creation date of tokens and their flow paths. The global crypto AML agencies work daily to label wallet addresses as black or white; if a certain address is on a blacklist, we consider it suspicious for money laundering and will refuse to accept it.
This is a more effective AML mechanism. Traditional finance is gradually understanding and recognizing this approach, believing it to be the best solution currently available.
Real Use Cases of Stablecoins
Liu Feng:
Why are financial institutions in Hong Kong interested in stablecoins? Why must they choose stablecoins? While one can understand this from the perspective of currency wars and the power struggles of sovereign nations, why should participants, consumers, and users get involved?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
I once held the view that stablecoins solve the last mile of financial inclusion. Stablecoins are easier to obtain than U.S. dollars, requiring no bank account and no reliance on banks. Suppose there is a country where U.S. dollars are in very short supply; even if you have a bank account, the bank may not be able to provide services to exchange for dollars because it lacks them. Currently, the largest group of people holding U.S. dollar stablecoins is in Nigeria, where 30% to 40% of over 200 million people own U.S. dollar stablecoins, most of whom likely do not have bank accounts. They cannot open bank accounts, and banks cannot provide services for them.
Now, as long as they have a mobile phone, they can exchange their local currency for USDT at currency exchange points in Nigeria. Once converted to USDT, any individual gains the ability to make global payments and send remittances worldwide.
For example, Filipino domestic workers in Hong Kong send HKD 1,000 to 2,000 to their parents in rural Philippines every month. The existing system takes 15 days, with fees ranging from 7% to 10%, before their parents receive the money in rural Philippines. If they use stablecoins, whether HKD stablecoins, U.S. dollar stablecoins, or offshore RMB stablecoins, their parents also have mobile phones. Currently, about 80% to 90% of people have mobile phones. Payments made with stablecoins are settled in seconds, and there is no need to pay that 7% to 10% fee; the key is that the funds arrive in just a few seconds. This is true financial inclusion. Therefore, new technology and financial market infrastructure actually help achieve financial inclusion.
Liu Feng:
So why are these institutions so eager to apply for licenses? What do they see?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
If you are an institution that started preparing three or four years ago, I believe you saw a huge prospect. If you are only now hastily announcing your intention to create stablecoins, I think most of them are speculators who do not truly understand how to operate a stablecoin system.
Liu Feng:
Even if they have long-term plans, if we look back, who would want to use a Hong Kong stablecoin if it were launched today? Including the much-anticipated RMB stablecoin, what are its use cases in our current capital account, which is not yet open?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
Stablecoins are often framed within a narrow scope, which I believe is incorrect. Stablecoins are not just payment tools. Although U.S. legislation views U.S. dollar stablecoins as payment tools, it also leaves a loophole, authorizing the regulatory body for stablecoins to submit a research report on non-payment U.S. dollar stablecoins within a year of the law taking effect.
In fact, 99% of current U.S. dollar stablecoins are not used for payments but for trading. They can be seen as transactions resulting from payments, but primarily involve trading between crypto assets and stablecoins. The payment volume for stablecoins is expected to reach $73.2 billion in 2024, which is not a very large number; more is used for trading crypto assets.
**Stablecoins are actually guiding their direction toward being a medium of exchange and a measure of value; they will become a measure of value in the virtual and digital worlds and serve as a medium of exchange for all *virtual assets* and crypto assets.** In the future, a significant portion of the use cases for HKD stablecoins and offshore RMB stablecoins will also be as mediums of exchange for RWA, among other things. I believe this is their primary use; of course, they can also be used for payments, but at least for the next three years, they will not become the primary use.
Revisiting the Development Context of the Crypto Asset World
Liu Feng:
The applications in the payment field that everyone is currently thinking about actually require a longer time.
Dr. Xiao Feng:
Yes, payments certainly have their accompanying functions. Stablecoins were not created for payments; they were created because the volatility of crypto assets is too high, so we need something with a relatively stable value to price and trade these volatile assets. The stability of stablecoins is relative to the volatility of Bitcoin, not relative to the U.S. dollar. Some people explain stablecoins by saying they cannot decouple from the U.S. dollar at a 1:1 ratio, but that is not the purpose for which stablecoins exist.
When stablecoins emerged in 2014, the entire market was calling for something stable because it was too volatile; I couldn't use Bitcoin or other currencies as a medium of exchange. I needed something with a stable value to price these volatile assets, such as how much one Bitcoin is worth. If it is $120,000, you are essentially saying it is 120,000 USDT, and you use it for trading.
Stablecoins on Consortium Chains Will Not Succeed
Liu Feng:
**When USDT or U.S. dollar stablecoins were born, there were actually several years when no one used them. At that time, all crypto assets were priced in **fiat currencies. Whether it was the U.S. dollar or the Chinese yuan, for a long time, the yuan was actually the main pricing currency for the entire crypto asset market.
In fact, the internationalization of the yuan is an important use case for pricing crypto assets, but later, due to our regulatory policies, this phenomenon was halted, which led to the emergence of stablecoins. Today, we are discussing the return of stablecoins. This topic should have been discussed ten years ago; at that time, there was a wave of sentiment that we wanted blockchain but not Bitcoin. Today, it seems we want both blockchain and Bitcoin, and even more so, stablecoins.
Dr. Xiao Feng:
I remember at the beginning of 2015 or the end of 2014, the UK Government Office for Science published a policy report titled "Blockchain and Distributed Ledger." The argument was that blockchain is good, distributed ledgers are also good, but the currency is not, which led to the concept of consortium chains. To this day, where have these consortium chains gone? The market and technology have provided the answer: consortium chains do not work. The essence of a chain lies in its inherent token; without a token, it remains just the internet. In fact, we see that the places most opposed to token-based blockchains are gradually accepting them. If you accept stablecoins, they are tokens on the chain.
Liu Feng:
**Is it possible that the stablecoins we are discussing today, or those discussed in the Chinese context, will be issued on *consortium chains* in the future?**
Dr. Xiao Feng:
Some have always tried to do this, but I believe it will not succeed. Who would use a consortium chain? If usage requires applications, permissions, and approvals, think about how difficult it would be to promote from a market perspective. First, you have to apply; secondly, you have to spend enormous effort to review each one, which is similar to the KYC in traditional financial markets. The reason blockchain can develop is that it is a very important characteristic of a permissionless network, where anyone can freely join and exit; I can just make my own decision. The most typical example is Bitcoin miners; I buy mining machines, find a place with electricity and internet, and I can join if I want, or shut down the entire mining machine if I don't. This is how Bitcoin miners came about from the very beginning.
Most applications, or successful applications, arise in a permissionless state. Because we previously discussed the digital economy, which involves cross-time, cross-space, cross-jurisdiction, and cross-entity organizations, who will grant permission for this? Based on what standards will permission be granted? Therefore, if you really want to promote and achieve success, you must adhere to a fundamental principle of blockchain, just like whether or not there is a token; this is also a fundamental principle. If a bank wants to create a public consortium chain or an open consortium chain, isn't it even harder to find customers than offline? Without customers, what do you need this chain for? Ultimately, these issues arise because of insufficient efficiency and cost, leading everyone to be unable to truly operate.
Competition and Cooperation Between Traditional Brokerages and Crypto Asset Exchanges
Liu Feng:
In addition to stablecoins and what we just discussed, could you please talk about the trading licenses that are currently being issued? This is also a hot topic in the market, as many traditional brokerages are starting to enter the crypto asset trading system. How are these licenses issued? What is your view on the value of these licenses, and how should traditional brokerages handle crypto asset trading now and in the future?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
From the perspective of brokerages, they are applying for an upgrade of their existing securities brokerage licenses. They used to buy and sell stocks on behalf of clients, and now they hope their licenses can also allow them to buy and sell crypto assets; crypto is just an extension of what they are already doing. Very few brokerages apply for separate licenses, such as the Type 7 exchange license or the VATP license.
In Hong Kong, our HashKey Exchange is referred to as an independent third party; almost all brokerages will aggregate their orders here after upgrading their brokerage licenses, as we are a trading system. However, if you are a brokerage trying to establish an exchange, other brokerages will not come to you. This creates a problem: how do you solve your liquidity? You need to establish your own liquidity pool, which is a very costly endeavor, but if you have no orders, how do you build this liquidity pool? In this case, it is almost certain that you will never make a profit unless you are the only player in the market. Other brokerages would be forced to trade with you and send their orders to you.
Exchanges are striving to build very good liquidity for any trading pair, and the construction of any liquidity pool requires costs that need to be amortized. Therefore, if you have 40 brokerages handling those 10 transactions, everyone can benefit.
What is the Value of Compliant Digital Asset Exchanges?
Liu Feng:
With the continuous issuance of licenses, have you seen an improvement in the trading volume and liquidity of local crypto asset exchanges in Hong Kong?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
From the data of our exchange, not only is the trading volume increasing, but customer growth is also very rapid, including the asset accumulation at our exchange, which is quite significant. Because whenever someone registers as our customer, we have very strict KYC (Know Your Customer) procedures. Customers who pass the strict KYC are high-value clients. We also have offshore exchanges, dividing exchanges into two categories: offshore and onshore. The Hong Kong exchange is an onshore exchange, and the customer growth of offshore exchanges is certainly faster because the KYC standards are not as strict. However, it has been found that the value of onshore exchanges is ten times that of offshore exchanges, mainly reflected in trading volume and trading commissions.
We chose to do compliant business, and I believe since Bitcoin in 2009, or trading around 2011, I have three observations.
First, the first observation is that since 2009, Bitcoin and ETH have been referred to as digital natives. Due to the existence of distributed ledgers, many things have emerged from nothing. With the emergence of USDT, the development of digital twins has led to today’s situation, where the digital native phase has created offshore exchanges that are also very profitable. But now we are entering the digital twin phase, which will create new exchanges, namely onshore exchanges. Because anything that is a digital twin is considered a security issuance, thus requiring licensing, compliance, and regulation. Any issuance of RWA (Real World Assets) without the approval of the Securities and Futures Commission may face significant trouble in the future. This is not the ICO era, when Hong Kong could not regulate you. But now there are legal provisions, and if you do not change the exchange model, you will encounter significant problems. At the same time, digital twins also bring us tremendous opportunities, potentially increasing the market size of tokenized assets from $30 trillion to $300 trillion; otherwise, it would be impossible. Assuming the market size reaches $30 trillion and remains unregulated, would such a market exist? No country would accept such a market. Therefore, this is the first observation, the transition from digital native to digital twin brings about
The second observation is the change in exchanges. From offshore to onshore, the first phase of offshore exchanges was successful. As HashKey, we do not believe we can imitate them, as that would be a dead end. Therefore, we embrace the second wave of the flourishing development of tokenized assets in the form of onshore exchanges, providing services.
The third observation is actually the mutual integration between on-chain and off-chain. Since last year, Bitcoin and ETH will have many more digital native tokens in the future, transitioning from on-chain to off-chain, and upon reaching exchanges, they become ETFs, which have no actual relation to the chain. At the same time, companies like BlackRock are also transforming their off-chain assets into on-chain, tokenizing various funds, and even the current hot topic of stock tokenization can be summarized as three development trends since 2009.
Hong Kong vs. Singapore
Hong Kong is Expected to Become a Digital Asset Trading Center
Liu Feng:
In this trend, do you think Hong Kong has the potential to truly become the world center for digital asset trading again?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
I believe Hong Kong has a great possibility, or rather, it possesses its unique advantages. The core factor of this advantage is actually China. From the internet, AI to crypto, the main global competition comes from the U.S. and China. Half of the top twenty global internet platforms established by the U.S. are in the U.S., and the other half are in China, while Europe or other countries have virtually none. The same goes for the AI field; apart from the U.S. and China, there are hardly any other countries working on large models.
It is said that in any major model team in the U.S., 40% to 50% of the members are Chinese, especially first-generation international students. The development of Python is similar; globally, Europe has made almost no contribution to underlying technology development. When it comes to the application layer, namely the application of digital twins, Europe also has virtually no one working in this area; the real work is either in the U.S. or within the Chinese community.
Thus, this is a core factor that makes Hong Kong likely to become a global center for crypto. Additionally, Hong Kong's common law system under "one country, two systems," and its structure of Anglo-American law, distinguishes it from mainland China, giving it a unique advantage. Mainland China follows a civil law system, where everything requires permission to proceed. In contrast, Hong Kong follows a common law system, making it more likely to represent China in doing more in this area.
Two Reasons Why Hong Kong Has Become the Darling of Capital Markets Again
Liu Feng:
What you just said sounds very reasonable today, but if it were said last year or the year before, many people might have jumped out to say it was nonsense, as the situation in Hong Kong was not very good then. Now it seems that Hong Kong has become the darling of capital markets again. Can you talk about the changes and core factors you have observed behind this?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
I think there are mainly two factors. The first factor is that I sometimes joke that DeepSeek saved China. The emergence of DeepSeek has led to a significant change in the global valuation of Chinese assets. When you dislike it, you give it an 8x price-to-earnings ratio (PE); when you like it, you give it an 80x PE. Because we suddenly became optimistic about the valuation level of Chinese assets, everyone made significant adjustments, as they were indeed overly pessimistic before, so the rebound is substantial. Before DeepSeek, people believed that AI in China could not succeed, which led to a downward adjustment in the overall valuation level of Chinese assets.
The second aspect is that due to Trump's policies, the traditional ally relationships in the U.S. have weakened, and everything has turned into business. This has led to the money that was originally concentrated in the U.S. starting to be reallocated, with many funds no longer entirely placed in the U.S. due to high uncertainty. Therefore, during the reallocation process, some funds naturally flowed to China.
This includes many Chinese who had previously worked hard to move their money to the U.S. Now, seeing the tense U.S.-China relations and fearing that the U.S. might freeze their funds, they have also started to move some funds out, with Hong Kong becoming a place to hold them.
Another place for holding is that the Russia-Ukraine war has led Switzerland to abandon its neutral stance and support Ukraine. After abandoning its neutral position, the funds originally in Switzerland began to rebalance. Since Switzerland is no longer a neutral country, those funds do not necessarily have to remain entirely in Switzerland.
So you can see that there are actually two places that have become targets for capital inflow: one is Hong Kong, and the other is Dubai. Dubai has also attracted a lot of funds because money from the Middle East has started to withdraw from Europe. Originally, Middle Eastern funds were managed through London, but now with Brexit, many Middle Eastern funds have also returned to Hong Kong and Dubai. Now, Dubai is also a place where capital is flooding in.
Singapore's Position as Asia's Switzerland, Hong Kong's Position as Asia's Wall Street
Liu Feng:
For a long time, in the entire Chinese-speaking region, people have favored Singapore, seemingly viewing it as a significant challenger and alternative to Hong Kong's status as a financial center. We see large financial institutions moving their regional centers from Hong Kong to Singapore, and financial media also migrating from Hong Kong to Singapore, including some core cryptocurrency institutions.
Dr. Xiao Feng:
Both places are international financial centers, but they have completely different positions. Singapore is positioned as Asia's Switzerland, while Hong Kong is positioned as Asia's Wall Street. In Singapore, there is not much to trade; the most active trading market for various assets is in Hong Kong. If you position yourself as Asia's Switzerland, you hope for social stability and a calm market, avoiding significant ups and downs to prevent criticism. Therefore, Singapore will expel those without licenses and those not serving Singaporeans, as they only bring reputational damage without paying taxes, providing little benefit to Singapore. If you position yourself as Asia's Wall Street, it is different. You must make the market active and provide many investment and trading opportunities; otherwise, you are not Wall Street. This is the different choice made by the two places.
Liu Feng:
For example, we are sitting in an office in Central, which was once part of the world's financial center. In your observation, how many bankers and wealth management professionals around here have truly embraced cryptocurrencies and digital assets?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
Currently, the proportion of traditional financial markets embracing cryptocurrencies is not very high. It is like a bottle of water that is half full; some say it is half empty, while others say it is half full. The trend I see is that although the proportion is not high, it is increasing. I believe next year will be a period of very rapid growth. The fundamental reason is that U.S. legislation provides legitimacy and compliance backing for the entire crypto industry.
The proportion in traditional finance was previously low mainly due to compliance issues; they would not risk losing a lot for a little. Although the returns on asset classes are sufficiently high now, the vast majority of financial institutions will not take risks, especially those managing other people's funds, as compliance issues would be their responsibility. However, once there is legal backing, coupled with the push from the Trump administration, traditional financial institutions and investors can enter this field in large numbers. Therefore, it is expected that after the passage of U.S. laws this year, there will be an explosive growth period next year.
Whether the entire crypto industry will see a second growth curve depends on this year's U.S. legislation. U.S. legislation will influence the world, and other countries will follow suit, even compelling China to reform. As an international financial center, Hong Kong is very sensitive to changes in the international financial market. The regulators and builders in Hong Kong have decades of operational experience, and they will closely follow these changes.
Hong Jun:
You just mentioned what bankers are doing, and I wonder if the current round of regulatory policies and licensing policies in Hong Kong is too strict? Blockchain is actually a place where transactions can occur without borders; does this instead benefit many overseas projects, making it more difficult for local projects in terms of compliance and licensing?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
It is inevitable for a jurisdiction to obtain licenses and be regulated. The offshore space will gradually be compressed, mainly from two aspects: one is legal and regulatory, and the other is operational resources. Assets that are ticketed are unlikely to be traded in completely unregulated places because the securities regulatory authority will not agree.
Additionally, digital native assets are also contracting. The ideal state is to shrink to one chain for Bitcoin and one chain for Ethereum; that is sufficient. The underlying protocol of the internet is globally unified; if there are two protocols, the world will become complicated, and cross-chain issues will arise.
The underlying protocol of blockchain should be open-source and decentralized, and there should be something of the same nature globally. The application layer must be centralized, as it involves specific scenarios, needs, and consumer protection. In the future, during the RWA era, the stablecoin era, and the digital twin era, it will not be possible to continue allowing random exploitation.
Liu Feng:
Dr. Xiao Feng, you have been emphasizing decentralization and permissionless systems, but at the same time, you mention embracing regulation and conducting compliant business. This seems to contradict the native spirit of cryptocurrencies. How do you view this contradiction?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
If viewed from a hierarchical perspective, this is not contradictory. The underlying protocol must be decentralized, while some degree of centralization is inevitable at the application layer. Centralization and decentralization can be explained from the economic perspectives of fairness and efficiency. Emphasizing fairness requires decentralization, allowing more people to participate in decision-making; emphasizing efficiency requires centralization, as the highest efficiency often comes from a single decision-maker. Most commercial applications should find a balance between fairness and efficiency.
At the application level, 100% decentralization is unrealistic. This is indeed a question I have been pondering, reflecting the unity of contradictions. Recently, I have been reading a book written by Professor Tian Tao from Renmin University about Huawei, titled "Advancing in Paradox," which discusses the importance of paradoxes.
HashKey's Goals and Choices for Going Public
Liu Feng:
Have you considered going public in the Hong Kong market?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
We have had this goal since we established ourselves in Hong Kong in 2018, so we have very strict requirements for our own compliance. We are one of the few groups globally that can provide audit reports from the Big Four accounting firms for over three consecutive years. Therefore, we certainly hope to realize our IPO dream, and we should become a public company to operate in a more transparent manner.
Memorable Moments in the Crypto World
Liu Feng:
Additionally, I would love to hear about your past experiences. You are a veteran in the financial industry, having transitioned from traditional finance, and for nearly a decade, you have been discussing the importance of blockchain. In a while, it will be the tenth anniversary of Ethereum, on July 30.
Specifically, you and the underlying Wanxiang Blockchain were actually the most important funding source before Ethereum went live. You supported it. Could you briefly reflect on the past decade and share some of the moments in the industry's development that have left a deep impression on you?
Dr. Xiao Feng:
That probably goes back to 2014. I started to engage with and study blockchain in 2013, and in 2014, we took a trip overseas. That year, I went to San Francisco and even visited Ripple. At that time, Sun Yuchen had just been appointed as the chief representative.
After that trip, my understanding shifted from indirect knowledge to firsthand experience. I traveled from New York to Silicon Valley and back, and at that time, I firmly believed that this new technology could indeed reconstruct the financial industry. Therefore, after returning in 2014, we began to take action in 2015. At the end of 2014, I spoke about Ethereum at a forum hosted by a financial magazine, which was live-streamed by Sina Finance. After the live stream, Shen Bo introduced me to Vitalik. We met in 2015, and that led to investment discussions. I felt that the narrative Vitalik shared with me was worth it. First, it was certainly correct, logically sound; second, if there were difficulties, it was worth supporting. So at that time, I did not calculate what returns the investment would bring; I didn't consider it at all.
Supporting the Ethereum Developer Conference in Shanghai in 2016 and the Moment of Seeing the Attendees' Faces
Dr. Xiao Feng:
In 2015, I supported with $500,000, and by 2016, ETH had already launched on the mainnet, with the price rising to several dozen dollars each. I continued to ask the Ethereum Foundation, "Do you need money this year?" At that time, they said, "We don't need money this year." I replied, "But I promised that we would continue to support you in 2016, so I still plan to spend this money."
We discussed a condition: if you hold Devcon in Shanghai, I will cover all the costs, including advertising and other ticket fees, which will all go to the Taiwan Foundation. Under this condition, the 2016 Devcon was held in Shanghai, with all expenses amounting to $500,000. I thought this was quite good; we fulfilled our promise, not only giving $600,000 in 2015 but also continuing our support in 2016. At the same time, I felt that the conference made me realize that when I stepped into the venue and saw over 800 people, 90% of the attendees were foreigners. I estimate that no international conference held in China has such a high proportion of foreign participants.
Liu Feng:
We are quite moved; a few years ago, China was actually one of the centers of the blockchain world. The reason I bring this up is that today everyone is discussing the so-called great power currency sovereignty struggle, and blockchain has become the technology everyone embraces. However, for a long time, our motherland was one of the centers of blockchain technology.
Original link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR78J-hhbM8
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
