The cryptocurrency industry in 2025 is undergoing a deep restructuring. Over the past few years, the market narrative has been dominated by "speed"—who can launch new products faster, attract more users, and create higher volatility to gain attention and traffic. However, as the industry gradually matures, this "fast cycle" growth model is beginning to show its bottlenecks. The fluctuations in price, trading volume, and speculative sentiment can no longer support long-term ecological expansion. Capital and users are starting to re-examine: what is the long-term value of a platform built upon?

The answer is shifting from "expansion" to "order." The formation of regulatory frameworks is not only a signal of external forces intervening in the market but also signifies that the cryptocurrency industry is being included in sustainable institutional discussions for the first time. The implementation of the EU MiCA is like a systematic calibration: it establishes common access standards for exchanges, stablecoins, and asset issuers, akin to how highways redefine lanes and speed limits—speed is still important, but it must be built on rules and safety. The essence of this change is the industry's shift from "growth-driven" to "trust-driven."

At this turning point, different regions and platforms are seeking new ways to survive. Some US-based platforms are strengthening their EU operations using MiCA as an opportunity, while others are simultaneously advancing local licenses in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific markets. The competition in the industry has also shifted from "who can start first" to "who can run more steadily and further on the compliance track."

Europe's unified standards are spilling over; Japan already has a mature exchange licensing system, while the US is advancing through state/federal parallel systems. The Middle East (VARA), Cyprus (CySEC), and the Bahamas (SCB) have formed regional frameworks. For platforms, this resembles a "global voltage adaptation": the same device must operate stably in different countries, needing to plug into different sockets and pass local safety certifications.

As a result, the market's trust structure is being reshaped—compliance makes risks measurable, and traditional institutions are beginning to evaluate crypto assets as an asset class that can be included in financial statements. Strategies are also diversifying: some radiate from a single center, while others pursue a "multi-location parallel" distributed licensing path; behind both approaches are trade-offs emphasizing scale concentration and institutional diversification, but the common goal is to place cross-market services on a traceable and auditable regulatory track.

In this context, most platforms choose to simultaneously advance multi-country registrations: Coinbase, Kraken, Binance, etc., establish regional nodes through a single center radiating model, while Asian platforms like Gate and OKX adopt a "multi-location parallel" model for distributed licensing, forming a complementary structure among Europe, Japan, Australia, Dubai, and offshore financial centers. The different models reflect the balance between "scale concentration" and "institutional diversification" in compliance evolution. Coinbase uses the US as a regulatory core to extend its EU business through MiCA; Binance adopts a "regional node" path, rapidly laying out in France, Italy, Dubai, etc., achieving high reach but still fragmented in licensing; while Gate and OKX's strategy focuses more on institutional synergy, establishing a robust multi-center regulatory network through a combination of core jurisdictions and regional licenses, ensuring ongoing compliance and business resilience in different legal environments.

When "having a license" is no longer the issue, the focus of competition shifts to "how deep the system behind the license is." Regulators look at underlying capabilities such as fund segregation, asset custody, and layered risk control—these "fire safety and power supply" capabilities—rather than just the copper plaque on the facade.

Taking Europe as an example, the MiCA authorization (CASP) from Malta's MFSA can cover EU member states through a "passport mechanism";

Italy's OAM VASP registration is responsible for local compliance reach;

Japan's FSA license represents high-intensity scrutiny and ongoing obligations;

In the Asia-Pacific and offshore centers, Hong Kong's TCSP license focuses on digital asset custody, Gibraltar's GFSC DLT approval allows for services related to digital currency brokerage/trading, and Australia's AUSTRAC registration ensures local compliance operations.

In horizontal comparisons, advantages do not come from a simple sum of "license quantity," but from how "multiple jurisdictions and different levels of licenses complement each other" to provide redundancy and flexibility for the business chain. Here, Gate, as one of the samples, is characterized by: its licensed reach covers both high-threshold core jurisdictions (such as MiCA/VARA/Japan's FSA) and includes regional and offshore supplementary licenses (such as OAM, SCB, Lithuania registration, etc.), while layering custody and brokerage functions across different jurisdictions (Hong Kong TCSP and Gibraltar GFSC).

This resembles a "multi-engine" airplane: a single engine failure does not cause the entire aircraft to stall, enhancing the availability and resilience of cross-border operations. Compared to relying solely on a single regional authorization or primarily entering the market through distribution, the combination of "distributed licensing + layered custody" is more persuasive in terms of regulatory consistency, client asset segregation, and business continuity.

MiCA and various local licenses are not "constraints," but rather like building a dam around a valley: in the short term, it increases construction costs, but in the long term, it prevents water from rushing down uncontrollably, instead forming a manageable reservoir.

A transparent account system and clear boundaries of responsibility transform trading behavior from a one-time spike into a reusable business process; funds no longer "come in waves and leave in waves," but circulate within the ecosystem through custody, settlement, and compliance products.

For investors, this reduces the uncertainty premium; for platforms, it converts "traffic" into "retention." In this structure, the more complete one's "dam system," the easier it is to convert short-term market surges into mid- to long-term usable water levels. In the context of industry comparison, the advantage narrative does not need to be exaggerated: platforms with EU MiCA authorization that can extend through passports, combined with high-intensity jurisdictional licenses like Middle East VARA and Japan's FSA, along with supplementary licenses from Italy's OAM, Bahamas' SCB, Lithuania registration, and layered arrangements like Hong Kong's TCSP and Gibraltar's GFSC for custody/brokerage, are more likely to meet institutional due diligence checklists for "multi-location compliance, asset segregation, and robust operations."

Just like in the era of "from spikes to systems," the matrix of licenses and institutional depth itself is a new growth engine; those who build their reservoirs better are more likely to generate stable power in the next cycle.

Original text: “The EU MiCA Regulation Takes Effect, Unifying Crypto Standards and Opportunities for Development”

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。