In February 2026, the global cryptocurrency market formed a rare multi-line game scene between tightening regulations and a frenzy of capital: on one side, the regulatory authorities represented by the People's Bank of China began to outline a compliance framework for RWA (Real World Assets), while on the other side, approximately $64 million in tokens were concentrated for unlocking, impacting liquidity according to DefiLlama statistics. At the same time, the story of trader "kch123" making about $1.8 million in a single day on Polymarket went viral in the community. These events juxtaposed China's RWA regulation, the compliance process outside of China, the unlocking wave, and individual trading miracles, creating a strong contrast. The question was brought to the forefront: between gradually clarifying regulations and the continuous influx of massive capital, will the next phase of the cryptocurrency market move towards a fully tightened order, or will it continue to play out high-risk, high-volatility capital games in the gaps?
China's RWA Moves: Compliance Red Lines and New Capital Channels
● Regulatory Framework Outline: The RWA-related regulatory framework explored by the People's Bank of China focuses on unifying the rights confirmation, custody, information disclosure, and on-chain mapping of real-world assets, corresponding to a dual-layer structure of "on-chain accounting, off-chain regulation." Although the details have not been fully disclosed, the direction is clear—allowing certain assets to circulate in tokenized form while drawing red lines on access standards, sources of funds, and circulation paths, providing a systemic basis for RWA to move from experimentation to scaling.
● Global Trend Comparison: China's involvement, combined with the exploration of RWA and compliant payment tools in Europe and the United States, means that RWA is no longer just a frontier experiment for a few institutions but is being incorporated into the mainstream regulatory agenda. For cross-border capital, if China forms a systematic approach to RWA compliance, it will have a demonstration effect on regional financial centers and local institutions, leading more banks, brokerages, and asset management firms to participate in the RWA track through "compliance + on-chain accounting," changing the previous participation model dominated by offshore structures and gray channels.
● Reshaping Behavioral Boundaries: With a clear regulatory outline, project parties and capital face a new game structure: on one hand, the compliance framework opens up a larger growth space for participants with real asset backing who are willing to accept audits and information disclosure; on the other hand, the gray arbitrage paths that previously relied on regulatory gaps for leverage amplification, structural nesting, and cross-border hedging are significantly compressed, shifting from "can it be done" to "within what boundaries can it be done," forcing a transition from a rough profit model to refined risk management.
● Linking with Compliance Payment Narrative: The regulatory attempts surrounding RWA resonate with the actions of compliant-oriented entities like Circle. Circle emphasizes compliance, reserve transparency, and audits while promoting its products in payment and settlement scenarios, making the combination of "RWA + compliant payment network" gradually become the mainstream narrative: the former provides on-chain verifiable asset anchors, while the latter offers payment and settlement channels for global users, building new financial infrastructure within the visible regulatory framework.
Circle's Ambition Upgrade: From Marginal Tool to Settlement Hub
● Role Reshaping: Circle's management publicly stated that "stablecoins are moving from the crypto periphery to the core of the global economy," essentially reshaping its position in the financial system—not viewing USDC as an auxiliary tool for exchanges and DeFi, but packaging it as a universal settlement medium for cross-border payments, merchant collections, and payroll disbursements. This statement indicates Circle's attempt to upgrade from a "crypto tool provider" to "a key infrastructure of the global settlement network."
● $30 Trillion Sunk Cost: Research reports estimate that traditional finance has about $30 trillion in sunk costs in cross-border settlement, covering multi-layer intermediary fees, compliance reviews, human risk control, and time costs (this is from a single-source perspective, and specific measurement standards are disputed). Circle is targeting this massive cake, using on-chain accounting, 24/7 clearing, and programmable payments to carve out some cross-border funds from SWIFT, traditional wire transfers, and agency banking systems, reconstructing value chain distribution.
● From Single Product to Infrastructure: Against the backdrop of rising RWA and compliance regulation, Circle's trajectory is extending from a single payment token to a "compliant financial operating system": one end connects with banks, payment institutions, and corporate financial systems, while the other end interfaces through APIs with on-chain applications, RWA issuers, and various wallets, building itself as a standardized, auditable, and embedded regulatory framework for settlement and custody, allowing regulators to conduct pre-access, in-process monitoring, and post-audit based on on-chain data.
● Impact and Cooperation with Traditional Systems: This trajectory poses a dual effect on banks, wire transfer networks, and clearing systems: in the short term, some low-value-added cross-border remittances and small settlement businesses will be eroded by tools like USDC, compressing intermediary service fee income; but at the same time, large banks can benefit from the incremental on-chain settlement by custodizing USDC reserves, providing compliant bridging and KYC services. The ultimate landscape is more likely to be a coexistence of deep cooperation and partial replacement in certain areas, rather than a simple "on-chain disruption of off-chain."
$64 Million Unlocking Wave: CONX Pressure and Chip Restructuring
● Unlocking Scale and Emotional Impact: According to DefiLlama statistics, approximately $64 million in tokens entered the unlocking phase in February, with the timing highly concentrated in several windows. Although this unlocking seems limited in total market value, it has a significant marginal impact on small and medium market cap projects, often acting as a short-term emotional amplifier in the secondary market: when sentiment is bearish, it is interpreted as a "selling pressure bomb," while when sentiment is bullish, it is seen as an opportunity for "chip transfer."
● Core Position of CONX: In this round of unlocking, the CONX project had approximately $15.71 million in tokens unlocked, accounting for a significant proportion of the total scale for this period. For projects whose market cap and liquidity have not fully matured, such a volume of newly circulating chips will directly compress order book thickness, increase slippage, and the market will naturally reprice the project's future cash flow and narrative premium with a discount, forcing a rapid reconstruction of the valuation system in the short term.
● Has the Selling Pressure Been Priced In?: From the unlocking rhythm, investor cost lines, and project fundamentals, the market will hedge and game in advance in futures, lending markets, and OTC agreements. Some high-cost holders will choose to sell or pledge in batches before and after the unlocking, while others with long-term faith in the project will take advantage of short-term pullbacks to acquire spot, forming a structural opportunity of "unlocking = chip redistribution." Therefore, whether the selling pressure has been fully priced in or is the starting point for capital flight depends on whether the project can sustain a new round of pricing in terms of narrative and fundamentals.
● Rebalancing Under Regulation and Macroeconomic Conditions: In an environment of tightening regulations and fluctuating macro risk appetite, the allocation of funds between established leaders and new projects with high unlocks is also quietly changing. Some funds choose to flow back to larger market cap assets with deeper liquidity and stronger compliance expectations to reduce dual risks of policy and liquidity; others continue to seek excess returns in high unlock and early projects, viewing regulatory uncertainty as part of a "high odds" scenario. This rebalancing will directly affect whether new projects can survive or even turn around after the unlocking impact.
Polymarket Surprise: Personal Myths and Probability Slaying Dragons
● The $1.8 Million Story of "kch123": Based on on-chain tracking data from Lookonchain, the address "kch123" on the prediction market platform Polymarket made approximately $1.8 million in a single trading day, instantly becoming the focus of social media and community discussions. In February, dominated by the unlocking wave and regulatory news, this extreme profit case from a personal account provided the market with a "grassroots myth" that is distinctly different from institutional capital and compliance frameworks, deepening the public's imagination of high-risk gaming fields.
● Amplifier of Information Advantage: The core of the prediction market is to aggregate dispersed expectations through price, thus providing probability quotes for real events. On such platforms, high-cognition players can amplify their information advantage through sharper information capture, more rigorous probability assessments, and stricter risk control systems, concentrating chips from liquidity providers and emotional traders. The result is often that a few accounts have significant surpluses, while most participants bear systemic losses.
● High-Risk Capital and the "Replicable" Illusion: In the stage where regulations have not fully covered prediction markets, such platforms have a natural attraction for high-risk preference capital: they allow for quick entry and exit, have clear targets, and clear outcomes, while some users have a vague understanding of their "financial attributes," easily viewing extreme profit cases as replicable "strategy templates." However, the $1.8 million profit in a single day largely comes from tail events in the sample, which are statistically difficult to replicate, yet are packaged into narratives of personal heroism, enticing more capital to act as "probability opponents" in high-dimensional games.
● Future Fate Under Compliance Trends: As global regulations tighten on cross-border capital flows, gambling-like products, and high-leverage tools, prediction markets will almost certainly face multiple tightening measures such as increased KYC requirements, reduced ranges of tradable assets, and regional compliance restrictions. The future migration path is likely to see compliant versions of prediction markets obtaining licenses and collaborating with institutions in developed markets, while decentralized, hard-to-KYC versions migrate to regulatory gray areas and emerging markets, forming a dual-track structure of compliance and "offshore."
Narrative Split: ENS Guarding the Mainnet and AI Speculation Polarities
● ENS's Conservative Route: Ethereum Name Service (ENS), after weighing expansion and security, chose to abandon migration to L2 solutions and continue to guard the Ethereum mainnet. This means the team is willing to bear the real costs of higher transaction fees and slower user growth to prioritize maintaining the finality and security boundaries of the mainnet. This decision represents the choice of some projects within the Ethereum ecosystem: in an era where regulatory uncertainty and potential technical risks coexist, first lock in "immutability" and "security," then discuss performance and scale.
● Underestimated Risks of Quantum Computing: A report from Barclays points out that the market generally underestimates the impact of quantum computing on existing cryptographic systems, which subtly echoes the mainnet security emphasized by projects like ENS. Most current views on crypto security remain focused on traditional computational attacks, private key management, and contract vulnerabilities, lacking pricing for long-term threats at the quantum level. This time lag and cognitive discounting make projects that actively strengthen security and extend asset protection periods appear conservative in the short term, but may reflect a scarcity premium when long-term risks are exposed.
● OpenClaw and Personal AI Agent Narrative: In contrast to "security conservatives" like ENS, the personal AI Agent concept promoted by OpenClaw represents another extremely radical path: partially outsourcing decision-making to intelligent agents, allowing them to automatically scan the market, execute strategies, and manage positions. This narrative emphasizes speed, iteration, and automation, liberating users from specific trading instructions while also exposing risks to model biases, black-box decisions, and algorithmic games, directly challenging the traditional "human-led, tool-assisted" paradigm.
● Resource Competition Between Security Conservatives and Intelligent Radicals: Within the same regulatory and liquidity constraint framework, "security conservatives" and "intelligent radicals" are competing for limited development resources, institutional attention, and narrative premiums. On one end are old-school projects emphasizing audits, mainnet security, and long-term asset custody value, while on the other end are new teams touting AI, automation, and high-frequency intelligent decision-making. The tightening of regulations and concentration of funds will only exacerbate this differentiation: compliant capital is more inclined to bet on secure underpinnings, while speculative funds seeking excess returns will flock to AI narratives, tearing the crypto ecosystem into two sub-markets with completely different rhythms.
Bull-Bear Debate and the Next Game Under Regulatory Shadows
● Divergence at the Cycle Starting Point: Analyst Benjamin Cowen suggested in February that "Ethereum needs to pull back to $1,500 to potentially start a new bull market," highlighting the divergence between price-oriented and narrative-oriented perspectives. The former insists on finding the cycle starting point through historical valuation ranges and retracement levels, while the latter focuses more on the formation of RWA regulations, the establishment of compliant settlement networks, and the advancement of new narratives such as AI and prediction markets, believing that price is merely a lagging reflection of these structural changes.
● Summary of February Clues: Looking back at the entire month of February, several main lines have clearly emerged—China's leading RWA regulatory framework is beginning to take shape, providing compliance coordinates for on-chain asset mapping; Circle seeks to transition from a single payment tool to a cross-border settlement hub, exerting external pressure on traditional clearing systems; approximately $64 million in token unlocks test market liquidity and risk appetite; the personal trading myths on Polymarket and the OpenClaw-style AI agent narrative unfold in parallel, providing a new speculative stage for high-risk capital.
● A Higher Threshold "Choosing Sides Era": Against the backdrop of gradually clarifying regulations, re-evaluated costs in traditional finance, and waves of new technologies, the crypto market is entering a "choosing sides era" with higher thresholds. Not only do asset classes need to choose between compliance and gray areas, but projects must also make long-term trade-offs between safety and speed, prudence and aggressiveness, and on-chain and off-chain collaboration; capital must continuously reallocate positions between mainstream compliant tracks and high-volatility narratives, with any misstep on either side carrying far greater costs than in the previous cycle.
● The True Game Line: For individual participants, the real game has never been about price fluctuations over a week or two, but about where they ultimately stand on a long-term sustainable main line—whether to bet on infrastructure backed by regulatory endorsement that can accommodate RWA and settlement needs, or to chase short-term odds in prediction markets, AI agents, and new projects with high unlocks. The tightening of regulations and the frenzy of capital will not stop, but whether one can survive and navigate the next cycle depends on whether they are willing to sacrifice some fantasies of explosive profits in exchange for a combination of assets and strategies that can continue to advance amid compliance and technological evolution.
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。
