Written by: Wu Says Blockchain

At the 2026 Davos Forum roundtable "New Era for Finance," representatives from various regions discussed how technological innovation is reshaping global finance, particularly the application of cryptocurrency, blockchain, and artificial intelligence in payments and financial transactions. This article covers part of the speech by Binance founder CZ.

CZ believes that although the payment sector still faces challenges, the integration of traditional payment methods with cryptocurrencies will lead to greater growth in the future. He also expressed concerns about the risks associated with Bitcoin payments, Memecoins, and traditional banks, stating that these areas are highly speculative and uncertain. When discussing whether a unified global regulatory body is needed for global regulatory frameworks, CZ argued that due to regulatory differences among countries, it is difficult to implement a global regulatory framework. He suggested adopting a "regulatory passport" scheme, where licenses obtained in one country are recognized by others, which is more feasible than creating a global regulatory body.

Guest opinions do not represent Wu Says' views. The audio transcription was completed by GPT and may contain errors. Please listen to the complete podcast on Xiaoyuzhou, YT, etc.

Cryptocurrency, Blockchain, and Artificial Intelligence: Reshaping Financial Payments and Future Innovations

Kristin: People often talk about how AI has accelerated many scientific breakthroughs, such as creating water from air and helping plants adapt to global warming. These advancements are exciting, but macroeconomic and geopolitical issues are more concerning. Today's discussion will focus on how technology is reshaping global finance, especially in payments, currency, and financial transaction infrastructure, and which innovations will have the most impact on the future.

CZ: I focus on cryptocurrency, blockchain, and Web3 technologies. These technologies are undoubtedly disruptive, and the past 15 years have proven that they are not going away. Binance is the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world, with over 300 million users and trading volumes surpassing those of the Shanghai and New York Stock Exchanges.

Currently, the two proven effective industries in the crypto space are exchanges and stablecoins. I am very excited about tokenization, as it can help governments achieve fiscal revenue and develop related industries. I am currently discussing the possibility of asset tokenization with several countries.

Payments are an area we have tried but have not fully resolved. Although we have made attempts, cryptocurrency payments are not widely adopted yet. Now we see traditional payment methods beginning to merge with cryptocurrencies, where consumers pay with cards, and the funds are deducted from cryptocurrency accounts, while merchants receive dollars or euros. Once this bridge is built, the payment sector will experience tremendous growth. The native currency of artificial intelligence will be cryptocurrency, and in the future, AI will use cryptocurrency as a means of payment, rather than relying solely on debit or credit cards.

Bitcoin Payments, Memecoins, and Traditional Banks: Risks and Challenges of Future Innovations

Kristin: AI has generated a lot of excitement, but research from MIT shows that while AI creations are fast, their performance is often mediocre. The experiment with Bitcoin in El Salvador has garnered much publicity, but adoption rates remain low. The technologies we are excited about today may be abandoned in ten years. CZ, what areas do you think we should be concerned about, or which areas should we avoid investing in?

CZ: I will give some direct answers that may offend more people, including those in my own industry.

I agree with Steven's view on Bitcoin payments. If you had asked me this question ten years ago, I might have said Bitcoin payments would succeed, but ten years later, we still haven't fully reached that goal. Therefore, I remain skeptical about the prospects for payments. While we are making efforts and investing heavily in payment projects, I believe, like all innovative fields, the chances of failure are high, but a few successes can lead to exponential growth.

I also agree with Steven's views on "Memecoins" and the "metaverse." NFTs were once very popular but have now become relatively quiet. I strongly feel that Memecoins may undergo a similar process. I could be wrong, and many in the crypto community may criticize me, but these are high-risk areas, with highly speculative value, and building application scenarios is very challenging. Some Memecoins may persist, like Dogecoin, which has been around for 15 years and still has a market cap of several billion dollars. So, some culturally valuable Memecoins will have long-term viability, but most Memecoins may not last that long.

Additionally, I want to offend some other industries. I believe that traditional brick-and-mortar banks will significantly decrease in the next ten years. With the development of cryptocurrencies and blockchain, the need to visit physical banks has greatly diminished. While banks will not disappear and still play a very important role, people no longer rely on physical banks as they did in the past. I think online banking pioneers like ING began pushing this change over 20 years ago. Now, with technologies like electronic KYC (electronic identity verification), the demand for physical banks may continue to decline. Nevertheless, these industries, whether emerging or traditional, face risks. Therefore, we need to regularly review and cautiously observe changes in these areas.

What I mean is that Memecoins are high-risk, and traditional banks are also high-risk. I could go on, but that would offend even more people.

Accelerated Risks and Bank Liquidity: Challenges of Technological Innovation and Traditional Financial Systems

Kristin: With the rapid changes in financial flows and technology, especially under the influence of algorithmic trading and AI, the risks faced by banks and financial markets are accelerating. How can we effectively address these accelerated risks through regulatory frameworks and innovative means while maintaining the stability of financial markets?

CZ: I think this question can be discussed in several key points. First, if all other conditions remain constant, faster speed and lower costs are always better, and this alone does not bring more risk. The real risk is that faster speeds may make problems appear to erupt more quickly. If banks adopt a fractional reserve system, it means that if a bank does not have enough funds, the ability for people to withdraw funds more quickly will only accelerate the exposure of problems. Slowing down the withdrawal process does not solve the problem; it merely prevents more consumers from successfully withdrawing when they want to, leading them into trouble. Therefore, simply slowing down the process is not substantively meaningful. Technology can make transactions cheaper and faster, which is good, as seen in the case of Silicon Valley Bank.

When it comes to the cryptocurrency industry, the situation is different. Banks may face difficulties or may not, but our impression of banks is that they are friendly to cryptocurrencies, and they may even be shut down by 2.0 operations in 2023.

For example, in what happened at Binance (December 2023), the Binance platform experienced a maximum withdrawal of $7 billion in one day, and there were no issues that week. The withdrawal amounts over the previous days ranged from tens of billions to billions, then to $7 billion, and finally back to $100 million, totaling $14 billion withdrawn in a week. There were no problems, which makes me question whether any bank can handle such large-scale withdrawals.

The root cause of the problem is that banks are designed to operate under a fractional reserve system. When banks have a fractional reserve system, liquidity issues arise, which is unrelated to artificial intelligence. AI may indeed trigger synchronization issues, but the risks it brings are relatively small, and we should not attribute all problems to it. That is my view.

Global Differences in Cryptocurrency Regulation and Challenges of a Unified Framework

Kristin: Globally, different countries manage financial risks in various ways, especially in banking and cryptocurrency regulation. Given the increasing risk of cross-border spillover, do we need a global regulatory body to unify responses to these issues? How do the regulatory policies of different countries affect the development opportunities of global financial markets?

CZ: I have a different view on this issue because we are in a different industry. The regulation of banking and securities has already developed to a high degree and is very mature, with relatively small regulatory differences between countries. While there are indeed differences, they are generally quite similar. However, for cryptocurrency regulation, the approaches of different countries vary greatly. Binance holds 22 to 23 licenses globally, but most countries currently do not have a licensing system for cryptocurrencies. We see that the U.S. is making rapid progress in this area, but it is still a work in progress. The market structure bill passed last year has laid some groundwork for this. Meanwhile, countries like the UAE have adopted more advanced regulatory policies, and Bahrain, Pakistan, Kenya, and others are actively participating and discussing. We are pleased to be involved in the consultation process in these countries, and although I am not an expert in cryptocurrency or regulation, I will provide some advice from the perspective of a market participant.

In this process, there are key policy differences between countries, especially regarding capital controls. Many countries impose limits on the cross-border flow of funds, and exceeding these limits is viewed as money laundering or illegal activity, while the U.S. does not have such restrictions. Tax policies also vary greatly between countries, which directly affects financial regulation, especially regarding tax issues for cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, such as how to tax unrealized or realized gains. Therefore, we believe that more clarity and consistency would be beneficial for the global market.

As for a global regulatory body, I think it would be very difficult to operate at this time. Different countries have different priorities and policy agendas, making it challenging to implement a unified global regulatory framework. Nevertheless, we hope to see a global regulatory body, especially a regulatory framework that supports innovation, which would help industry participants work more smoothly.

Logically, a global regulatory framework is feasible because cryptocurrencies are essentially the same across different countries, and we do not need to tailor regulatory standards for each country. Therefore, we should develop an optimal framework, and I have been working to explore how to collaborate with various countries to promote the establishment of this framework.

Challenges of a Global Regulatory Framework and the "Regulatory Passport" Scheme

Kristin: While now may not be the best time to launch a global international organization or global regulatory framework, if a crisis or major financial collapse occurs, we may need to prepare some response plans in advance. What feasible solutions can we consider for such situations?

CZ: I think a more feasible solution might be the "regulatory passport." That is, once a license is obtained in one country, other countries also recognize that license. This only requires regulatory agencies in different countries to reach some agreement. We have already seen discussions on this, and this approach is most likely to be realized first. In contrast, creating a new global regulatory body or forum and establishing a global organization is very difficult and would take a long time to push to the execution level.

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。