Overview

As the countdown to the full closure operation of Hainan Island begins and the top-level design of the free trade port gradually becomes clearer, the central government is redefining the financial functions of Hainan and Hong Kong: According to multiple media outlets citing Caixin reports, Hainan is explicitly designated as a frontier experimental zone for trade, tourism, and industrial openness, while new types of crypto-financial experiments such as Bitcoin and stablecoins are intentionally arranged to be "misaligned" in Hong Kong. This means that, in terms of cross-border capital projects and digital asset-related businesses, China is not adopting a nationwide unified opening but is instead using regional differentiated layouts to concentrate high-sensitivity, high-volatility crypto-financial innovation pilot projects in Hong Kong, which will undertake related financial sandbox functions. Reports generally interpret this arrangement as an important signal of China's differentiated crypto-financial opening and pilot division of labor within the region: Hainan will take on more responsibilities for real economy and trade system innovation, while Hong Kong will explore new types of crypto-financial paths with limited scope and regulatory boundaries while maintaining its status as an international financial center, forming a complementary functional pattern between the south and the port.

New Positioning of Hainan

The policy focus of Hainan's free trade port still revolves around "free flow of goods + facilitation of service trade + industrial-oriented openness": measures such as tariff reductions, zero-tariff lists, and increased duty-free shopping quotas all aim to make Hainan a consumption and industrial aggregation hub facing Southeast Asia, rather than an experimental ground for high-volatility financial assets. Under the current prudent financial regulatory approach, crypto-financial assets like Bitcoin and stablecoins, which have highly cross-border and quasi-monetary characteristics, are considered more suitable for allocation in Hong Kong, which has mature financial infrastructure and regulatory experience, rather than in Hainan, which is still in the stage of institutional closure adjustment. Reports indicate that Hainan is taking on a facilitation role in goods trade and real investment under offshore trade and cross-border capital flows, with limited direct engagement in the crypto asset field. Its marginal impact mainly manifests in two ways: on one hand, by indirectly enhancing the use of foreign funds and enterprises in China's southern corridor through a more open trade and business environment; on the other hand, under the premise of maintaining strict control over capital projects, forming a cross-regional division of labor of "real economy in Hainan, finance in Hong Kong," rather than developing an independent crypto-financial center locally.

Hong Kong as an Experimental Field

From the Caixin reports cited by the media, Hong Kong is clearly seen as the main experimental field for new types of crypto-finance such as Bitcoin and stablecoins, undertaking related innovative financial pilot functions, including but not limited to compliance pilots for virtual asset trading platforms, exploration of stablecoin regulatory frameworks, and design of mechanisms for connecting with traditional financial markets. Hong Kong's common law system, mature financial regulatory framework, and long-accumulated status as an international financial center provide a relative advantage for undertaking high-complexity financial innovations; at the level of securities, derivatives, custody, and anti-money laundering rules, Hong Kong's regulatory authorities have already formed a complete set of institutional toolboxes that dialogue with international standards, reserving significant space for incorporating crypto asset-related businesses. Additionally, with free foreign exchange convertibility, highly flexible capital inflows and outflows, and a high proportion of multinational financial institutions established, Hong Kong naturally possesses the role of a "regulatory sandbox + demonstration window" in the region: on one hand, it can test compliant product forms of assets like Bitcoin and stablecoins within a controllable range, and on the other hand, through connectivity with major global crypto-financial centers, provide a reference for China to observe international market practices and calibrate its own policy boundaries.

Misaligned Development Logic

From the perspective of policy design, the misaligned development of financial positioning between Hainan and Hong Kong is fundamentally based on risk isolation and functional division of labor: placing trade and industrial openness more significantly in the closed operation of Hainan is conducive to bold experiments in tariffs, commercial systems, and the flow of people and goods; while concentrating high-volatility crypto-finance, highly related to international speculative capital, in Hong Kong allows for control within a system that already has mature financial regulation and risk disposal mechanisms. The regulatory authorities clearly do not wish to overlay two complex variables—tariff system innovation and high-risk financial innovation—within the same region, thus opting for geographical misalignment to reduce the probability of systemic shocks. For the overall path of cross-border financial opening, this layout means: one main line represented by Hainan focusing on trade and industrial openness, concentrating on the real economy and supply chain restructuring; another financial opening branch pivoted on Hong Kong, tentatively relaxing crypto-related financial services within a highly controllable "fence." The two paths resonate with each other and also provide room for policy adjustment and maneuvering in timing; if any area experiences spillover risks, rapid cutting and correction can be achieved through regional division of labor and regulatory barriers.

Potential Market Impact

At the market level, if the pilot functions for Bitcoin and related crypto assets are indeed more concentrated in Hong Kong, the expectation of international funds regarding its role as a regional liquidity center is likely to be further strengthened, and the agglomeration effects of trading, custody, and market-making businesses may accelerate, leading to a gradual migration of some businesses originally dispersed in other Asian cities to Hong Kong. For local licensed institutions in Hong Kong, virtual asset-related licenses and compliance product lines (such as regulated Bitcoin spot/futures products, compliant stablecoin payment solutions, etc.) are expected to gain greater policy space, while international trading platforms and asset management institutions may increase their willingness to establish entities or apply for licenses in Hong Kong, strengthening their collaborative layout with traditional finance. For mainland capital and institutional investors, in the medium to long term, the compliance channel effect of participating in crypto finance through Hong Kong may gradually become apparent: within the existing cross-border mechanism framework, institutions have the opportunity to conduct limited exposure allocations through Hong Kong's products and services under compliance conditions, and individuals and family offices may also rely more on the Hong Kong financial system for asset diversification arrangements. However, under the premise that capital projects remain under control and cross-border quotas and compliance requirements are strict, the actual availability and scale of this channel still face significant upper limits.

Data and Uncertainty

It is important to emphasize that the current information regarding "the main layout of Bitcoin, stablecoins, and other crypto-financial experimental fields being in Hong Kong rather than Hainan" primarily comes from directional statements in multiple media outlets citing Caixin reports, and there have yet to be authoritative ministries releasing detailed official documents, nor are there quantitative indicators clearly defining the degree of openness, business scope, and timetable. Future key tracking should include: specific descriptions of financial business boundaries in the official policy texts related to Hainan's free trade port and closure operations; the latest guidelines and licensing issuance rhythm from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and Securities and Futures Commission regarding virtual assets and stablecoins; and public statistics and market data on cross-border capital flows into Hong Kong's virtual asset-related businesses. Until then, related reports reflect more of the policy direction and regional division of labor intentions rather than finalized operational details and implementation roadmaps. In the short term, market sentiment may react magnified due to expectation games, while the medium to long-term effects will depend on the strength of policy execution, changes in the international environment, and how regulatory agencies respond to risk events, all of which are currently difficult to quantify uncertainties.

Outlook and Observation

Based on the currently available public information, the observable pattern is: Hainan focuses on closure operations and free trade port construction, emphasizing trade, tourism, and industrial openness, without directly undertaking new types of crypto-financial functions such as Bitcoin and stablecoins; Hong Kong, on the other hand, utilizes its mature financial system and international advantages as the main "experimental field" for crypto-related finance, forming a limited open institutional sandbox through regulatory frameworks and licensing systems. Future observation should focus on the iterative rhythm of Hong Kong's crypto-financial regulatory framework, including the refinement of rules and product innovation space in sectors such as virtual asset service providers, stablecoin issuance and payment scenarios, custody, and derivatives; and whether the financial functional boundaries of Hainan will further adjust with the advancement of closure operations. For investors and institutions, under compliance conditions, they can consider asset and business allocation starting from regional misalignment layouts: for example, placing global crypto-financial services, product issuance, and structural design more within the Hong Kong regulatory framework; prioritizing the layout of real businesses related to supply chains, trade financing, and industrial investment in Hainan and its surrounding areas. At the same time, a buffer for policy uncertainty should be reserved to avoid viewing any single city as an "infinitely open" crypto-financial center, but rather to dynamically assess regulatory signals and the actual accessibility of cross-border channels, advancing layouts in phases.

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。