On January 22, 2026, during the World Economic Forum's "Financial New Era" panel discussion held in Davos, Switzerland, Binance founder Zhao Changpeng (CZ) once again became the focus both inside and outside the venue. On one hand, he represents the world's largest cryptocurrency trading platform, whose trading volume has been described by a single source as "exceeding that of the Shanghai Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange," which gives his statements a level of "industry discourse power" that transcends that of a single enterprise in the eyes of regulators and industry participants. On the other hand, he outlined the three major growth directions for the future of the cryptocurrency industry but candidly admitted that "establishing a unified global cryptocurrency regulatory body is currently unfeasible or very difficult." Amid the reality of fragmented regulation and the pressure of expansion demands, a clear mainline issue has emerged: how can the cryptocurrency industry continue to advance along the three paths of asset tokenization, compliant cryptocurrency financial services, and global trading infrastructure without being torn apart by regulatory gaps, given the short-term unlikelihood of a global unified framework?
Regulatory Challenges: A Cold Reality Check at Davos
● Regulatory Unification Dilemma: In his speech at Davos, CZ bluntly stated that "establishing a unified global cryptocurrency regulatory body is currently unfeasible or very difficult." This is not an abstract judgment but a calm assessment of the current regulatory landscape. He also added that if there could be a "global regulatory framework conducive to innovation," it would greatly simplify the compliance environment, reflecting that leading institutions desire clear rules and controllable costs while also being aware of the differences in positions among countries regarding sovereignty, security, and capital flows, making it difficult to cede sufficient power to any supranational regulatory entity in the short term.
● Differences in Regulatory Progress: Looking at specific countries, the United States is advancing the widely watched Market Structure Bill, attempting to incorporate cryptocurrency assets into existing financial regulatory logic; the UAE, Bahrain, Kazakhstan, and others have already adopted a comprehensive set of more forward-looking local regulations, providing clear roadmaps for trading platforms and related businesses. In stark contrast, most countries have yet to establish a complete licensing system, with vague regulatory stances and absent approval mechanisms, leading to the same business facing entirely different legal identities in different jurisdictions. This "puzzle-like" pattern makes the so-called global unified regulation seem like a distant vision.
● Costs of Fragmentation: Regulatory fragmentation directly raises the compliance operational threshold, forcing leading platforms to establish compliance and legal teams in multiple locations, repeatedly adapting to their different licensing categories, reporting obligations, and risk control requirements. For institutions like Binance, which have a global presence, this situation both impacts CZ's vision of an "ideal global framework" and compels them to constantly weigh business design: which products can be launched simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions, and which can only be piloted in friendly regulatory environments, thus passively seeking a balance between the ideal integrated layout and the reality of regional fragmentation.
From Single License to Multiple Blossoms: Binance's Real-World Testing Ground
● Scale and Influence: Although the regulatory environment is far from mature, according to a single source, Binance's trading volume has surpassed that of the Shanghai Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange, making it difficult to ignore in any regulatory discussion. In other words, in a global market still lacking unified rules, business expansion did not wait for a complete system to occur but became a de facto "systemically important" role as liquidity migrated from traditional finance to on-chain trading infrastructure, thereby pushing regulators to confront its existence.
● Exploration of Multiple Regulatory Temperature Zones: Research briefs indicate that Binance is discussing asset tokenization cooperation with about 12 governments, which itself is a proactive utilization of regulatory temperature differences. In some countries, asset tokenization remains at the conceptual and sandbox stage; in others, more forward-looking jurisdictions, governments are already willing to experiment with tokenization mechanisms for bonds, real estate, or other financial assets. By engaging with multiple governments, Binance is not simply seeking a "global license" but is looking for breakthroughs in different regulatory environments, using asset tokenization as a testing platform that penetrates local regulatory gaps without crossing red lines.
● Dual-Line Strategy Operation: During Davos, Binance Co-CEO Richard Teng also spoke publicly, continuing the company's posture of face-to-face communication with regulators and policymakers. While the management team communicates externally, Binance is also planning to adjust some trading pair parameters on January 29, 2026. Although these minor adjustments have not been disclosed as major strategic moves, they send a signal: on one hand, actively participating in global regulatory dialogue to seek clearer regulatory expectations; on the other hand, through detailed adjustments of products and risk control parameters, ensuring that business is "explainable and acceptable" within multiple regulatory frameworks, forming a dual-line strategy of external policy communication and internal operational reconstruction.
Three Major Growth Directions: The Narrative Framework Outlined by CZ
● Three Mainline Outlines: In the "Financial New Era" discussion, CZ succinctly outlined the three major future growth directions for the cryptocurrency industry, which can be summarized as: asset tokenization, represented by bonds, equities, real estate, etc., reshaping traditional assets on-chain; compliant cryptocurrency financial services around payment, lending, custody, etc., providing new financial infrastructure within the regulatory view; and global trading infrastructure that offers efficient matching, clearing, and cross-border liquidity for global trading participants. These directions do not delve into specific product details but rather resemble a skeletal outline of the next round of industry narrative.
● Coexistence of Resistance and Opportunity: In the context of fragmented regulation, each direction is accompanied by distinct resistance and opportunities. Asset tokenization is viewed as a key financial innovation in some countries, included in regulatory sandboxes or pilot projects, but in jurisdictions where the legal system has not clarified the "on-chain rights" attributes, it faces dual uncertainties regarding ownership and investor protection; compliant cryptocurrency financial services in mature markets like the U.S. must navigate complex licensing and compliance reviews, but once established, they can form stable interfaces with the existing financial system; global trading infrastructure is welcomed in open regions like the UAE, Bahrain, and Kazakhstan, yet faces market access restrictions and product scope red lines in other areas, leading to an inevitable "multi-version coexistence" of the same business model.
● Resonance with Binance's Advantages: For Binance, these three directions are highly coupled with its existing advantages. First, its massive spot and derivatives trading volume provides immediate secondary market liquidity for any asset tokenization project; second, its years of localized operational experience accumulated in global expansion enable it to create compliant service forms that align with local rules in different countries; third, its experience in engaging with about 12 governments on tokenization issues and participating in policy communication in multiple locations allows Binance to better grasp the subtle boundaries between "regulatory bottom lines" and "innovation space" when designing global trading infrastructure, thereby building strategic footholds for the coming years around the three growth mainlines.
No Global Regulator: How the Industry Navigates a Multi-Center World
● Rise of Regional Standards: Following CZ's judgment that "a unified global framework is difficult," a more realistic prospect is a landscape of coexisting regional standards and multi-center regulation. The U.S., EU, Southeast Asia, and some Middle Eastern countries may each form their own regulatory "layers," achieving internal unity in licensing classification, capital requirements, custody, and information disclosure while maintaining external differences. This pattern is closer to the multipolar reality of traditional financial regulation rather than the early vision of a globally applicable "supranational rule" in the cryptocurrency world.
● Policy Attractiveness of Pioneers: Forward-looking regions like the UAE, Bahrain, and Kazakhstan have released strong policy signals through the clarification of local regulations—operating within local rules can lead to compliant status and long-term business expectations. This first-mover advantage essentially utilizes regulatory clarity as "soft infrastructure" to attract global cryptocurrency businesses to establish physical teams or key functions, thereby securing a place in the global competition for financial and technological talent and capital, which also partly explains why leading platforms continue to increase resource investments in these regions.
● Self-Restraint and Governance Evolution: In a world interwoven with multiple sets of rules, exchanges and project parties must develop a self-restraint mechanism that goes beyond "minimum regulatory requirements," including enhancing transparency, improving risk control frameworks, expanding compliance and legal teams, and setting stricter internal standards for asset listings, leverage usage, and user protection. These evolutions are both a proactive response to potential regulatory tightening and a "threshold for entry" when seeking institutional capital and traditional financial cooperation. For the "innovation-friendly framework" that CZ envisions, the interaction between public regulation and industry self-discipline is becoming a key variable determining the future shape of the industry.
From Davos to the Invisible Track of the Next Bull and Bear Cycle
Returning to the venue in Davos, the key signals thrown out by CZ can be summarized in two points: first, global regulatory unification is unlikely to be achieved in the foreseeable future, as considerations of sovereignty and security among countries dictate this reality; second, the growth directions of the cryptocurrency industry have already been relatively clearly locked in asset tokenization and compliant innovation, as well as the global trading infrastructure developed around these two. Under this premise, the industry no longer views "waiting for unified rules" as a prerequisite but seeks feasible paths within an imperfect institutional environment.
In the next one to three years, the flow of funds, projects, and talent between regulatory forward-looking regions and those with ambiguous regulations is likely to show a significant ebb and flow— the former attracts long-term capital and teams to settle with clear rules and policy certainty, while the latter brings short-term arbitrage and experimental space through loose or even vacuum regulation. Giants like Binance are destined to maintain high-frequency migration between these two types of markets: building compliant brands and institutional partnerships in strict jurisdictions, promoting new products and tokenization pilots in open regions, and cautiously assessing entry thresholds in gray areas to maintain overall risk control.
For ordinary investors and industry practitioners, the insight is: do not just chase short-term narratives, but identify tracks that resonate with the direction of regulatory evolution. Asset tokenization, compliant cryptocurrency financial services that occupy a place in the mainstream financial system, and global trading infrastructure built around a multi-center regulatory environment are directions likely to have long-term policy support; while models based on regulatory vacuums that struggle to connect with local legal systems are more likely to be hit by policy backlash when the hype fades. In a market where narratives frequently switch and regulatory uncertainty always exists, using "whether it can be accepted long-term by major jurisdictions" as one of the project selection criteria may determine who can stand firm in the next bull and bear cycle more than any short-term price signals.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
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。
