In January 2026, around the System Work Conference convened by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC), global risk asset traders re-evaluated the policy tone coming from China. Public information from the conference indicated that "seeking progress while maintaining stability" was reaffirmed as the overall tone for capital market work, and "deepening capital market reform" was placed in a more prominent position. This combination of signals points to constraints on volatility while also expressing the intention to continue pushing for institutional upgrades. As the traditional Bitcoin "four-year halving cycle" narrative continues to influence the global trading framework, the strengthening of China's macro and regulatory rhythm begins to misalign and collide with the internal cycles of cryptocurrency centered around halving. What truly deserves inquiry is how China's capital market reform and growth-stabilizing orientation will transmit along the financial chain through the redistribution of global capital flows, cross-border asset allocation, and risk budgeting, ultimately impacting cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.
CSRC Sets the Tone of Seeking Progress While Maintaining Stability: China's Rhythm and the Boundaries of Risk Assets
At the System Work Conference in January 2026, the CSRC continued and reiterated the overall tone of "seeking progress while maintaining stability." In public statements, "stability" corresponds to maintaining the smooth operation of the capital market and preventing systemic risks, while "progress" points to the deepening advancement of the registration system reform and enhancing the capital market's ability to serve the real economy. It can be confirmed that the regulatory authorities have not shifted towards short-term stimulus but are attempting to reshape medium- to long-term expectations for financing and investment through more comprehensive institutional construction. With the continuous advancement of the registration system, more enterprises are connecting with the capital market through equity financing, which means that the function of risk assets in serving the real economy is further strengthened. The institutional dividends and improvements in resource allocation efficiency often elevate the entire market's tolerance and interest in equity assets over a longer time dimension, thereby forming spillover effects on the global risk asset pricing system.
Within this framework, the tension between "stability" and "progress" shapes a visible range of risk preferences for Chinese-related assets. On one hand, under the tone of prioritizing stability, the volatility of A-shares and Hong Kong stocks is required to operate within controllable limits, and cross-border capital will pay more attention to the bottom-line thinking and support logic of policies when pricing these assets. On the other hand, regarding the "progress" aspect, the deepening of the registration system, the improvement of delisting and dividend mechanisms, and the increase in the proportion of direct financing provide space for growth and valuation elasticity. This rhythm of supporting stability with one hand and reforming with the other will be secondarily interpreted through offshore assets like Chinese concept stocks: enjoying a premium from China's reform dividends while needing to factor in policy uncertainties at a discount. For institutions allocating global risk assets, the Chinese regulatory attitude has not only influenced the domestic stock market but has also become a variable that must be separately assessed in their overall risk budgeting, thereby indirectly altering their position limits and trading rhythms for high-volatility assets, including Bitcoin.
Political Signals Are Harder Than Indicators: Sentiment and Positioning React First
In the pricing system of Chinese assets, the weight of political announcements and policy language often surpasses that of most traditional economic indicators. The view that "the influence of political announcements on the market exceeds that of internal indicators" was once again confirmed in the analysis of the 2026 System Work Conference. The reason lies in the fact that the regulatory authorities convey future governance directions, regulatory tolerance, and the boundaries of potential toolkits through the wording, order of statements, and the addition or subtraction of keywords in the conference. This prior signal will first change investors' psychological expectations and risk perceptions. Historical experience repeatedly shows that the first reaction after major meetings is not a rapid change in economic data but a reallocation of position structures: some funds preemptively reduce positions in high-elasticity sectors, while others, after judging the "policy bottom," begin to shift from defensive assets to growth assets. The lagging improvement in economic and profit data merely validates the rationality of this round of position adjustments in hindsight.
This "headline-driven" behavioral logic has also been rapidly replicated in the cryptocurrency market. As international capital switches between multiple assets more frequently, an increasing number of crypto traders have begun to prioritize macro announcements and regulatory news as their primary observation targets, rather than relying solely on on-chain activity, hash rates, and other internal indicators for decision-making. The tone set by the CSRC at the January 2026 meeting has been incorporated into the global risk appetite, viewed as a key variable determining the width of the volatility field in the next phase, alongside the Federal Reserve's interest rate path and European regulatory documents. Within this framework, political and regulatory signals first rewrite sentiment and positioning, which will then be indirectly reflected in transaction structures, capital flows, and even on-chain behaviors.
The Four-Year Halving Myth is Loosening: Bitcoin Seeks Its Position in a Larger Cycle
In terms of Bitcoin narrative, the assertion that "the four-year halving cycle has weakened but not disappeared" still holds influence in the market, a view stemming from a single market observer, Pickle Cat. For many traders, halving remains an important reference for constructing medium- to long-term trading frameworks, as they look for similar price paths before and after halving in historical patterns. However, from the perspective of information reliability, specific judgments regarding the relationship between Bitcoin's price movements around 2025 and halving are still in a state of verification, lacking sufficient quantitative evidence to support them, and thus can only be regarded as subjective views from market observations and single sources, rather than precise price scripts that can be replicated.
What is more noteworthy is the relative "retreat" of the halving story in the face of global regulation and macro liquidity. As regulatory rules gradually take effect in major economies, central bank balance sheet cycles and interest rate cycles dominate funding costs and risk premiums, while the increased participation of institutions imposes new constraints on Bitcoin at the allocation level. The internal "on-chain cycle," previously dominated by on-chain difficulty and output changes, is now being overshadowed by higher-level "macro cycles + regulatory cycles." Halving remains a hard constraint on Bitcoin's internal supply, but whether it can translate into a price driver increasingly depends on the phase of global liquidity at the time of halving, the tightening or loosening of regulatory attitudes, and how much risk budget institutional investors are willing to allocate to this narrative. The tone set by the CSRC in 2026 is a part of this external macro cycle, which, together with the regulatory rhythms of other economies, determines the narrative effectiveness that Bitcoin faces in an era of continuous testing.
From Beijing to Brussels: The Role of Banks and Cryptocurrencies is Being Redefined
As China promotes reforms centered on "capital markets serving the real economy," some banks in Europe and the United States are redefining the positioning of cryptocurrency along a different path. Research briefs indicate that Belgium's KBC Bank recently launched trading services for Bitcoin and Ethereum, while the American Newrez Bank plans to incorporate cryptocurrency assets into its loan review process. These are cases provided by a single source but carry significant symbolic meaning. On one side, China guides funds towards manufacturing, technological innovation, and infrastructure through improved equity financing and regulatory order; on the other side, European and American banks attempt to embed Bitcoin and Ethereum into their products and risk control systems, viewing them as components that can be standardized, assessed, and included in balance sheets and customer credit structures. These two paths reflect a clear difference between policy goals and financial practices, yet both drive the rebalancing of the global asset allocation framework.
As more traditional financial institutions incorporate cryptocurrency into their business landscape, Bitcoin's role in asset allocation begins to deviate from its early image as a "purely speculative target." Once included in bank trading services, loan reviews, and wealth management plans, Bitcoin will face not only the rhythm of halving but also auditing standards, compliance pressures, risk weights, and capital occupation requirements. Within this framework, the singular "halving-driven" imagination is continuously diluted, replaced by the necessity for Bitcoin to find its risk-return coordinates among stocks, bonds, real estate, and other alternative assets. For cross-market capital, the CSRC's emphasis on capital markets serving the real economy, along with the actions of European and American banks incorporating cryptocurrency into traditional financial infrastructure, constitutes different quadrants of the same global allocation map, jointly determining when and with what intensity capital will be exposed to high-volatility assets like Bitcoin.
On-Chain Structure is Improving: Yet Incremental Capital is Pressing the Pause Button
According to a report from Matrixport, the view is that Bitcoin's on-chain structure is improving, but incremental capital remains insufficient; this conclusion also represents a single perspective from that institution. In their framework, improvements in on-chain structure mean that the proportion of long-term holders is increasing, and concentrated selling pressure is alleviating, which are favorable internal conditions for price stability. However, price performance and transaction activity have not exploded in sync, indicating a disconnect between the "health status" on-chain and the inflow of off-chain capital. The cause of this contradiction is commonly attributed to uncertainties at the macro and regulatory levels: from interest rate paths and inflation expectations to the oscillation of various countries' regulatory attitudes towards cryptocurrency assets, and the compression of internal risk budgets within institutions, these variables are delaying the timing for capital to shift from observation to substantive entry.
It is along this link that China's capital market reform connects with the global regulatory rhythm. The signals released by the CSRC at the January 2026 meeting will not directly change any technical indicators on Bitcoin's chain but will alter the liquidity distribution of the entire global risk asset pool by influencing domestic and foreign capital preferences and positions towards Chinese assets. When China emphasizes "seeking progress while maintaining stability," the boundaries of market concerns about systemic risks are redefined, and some risk budgets may flow back into Chinese stocks and bonds rather than into cryptocurrency; conversely, if reforms are viewed as beneficial for enhancing efficiency and returns, they may also increase the overall risk tolerance of global investors over the medium to long term, leaving more space for high-volatility assets, including Bitcoin. Policy texts and regulatory rhythms are becoming the key gateways determining when incremental capital will depart from observation and when it will truly embrace on-chain assets.
Regulatory Cycles and Bitcoin Cycles: The Narrative Background for the Next Phase
Returning to the System Work Conference in January 2026, the CSRC, by reaffirming the tone of seeking progress while maintaining stability and deepening capital market reform, is attempting to construct a framework for long-term stable growth and gradual institutional optimization. The significance of this framework for risk assets is twofold: on one hand, it emphasizes the regulatory authorities' bottom line for controlling market volatility and systemic risks; on the other hand, it provides institutional support for long-term capital holding equity assets through the promotion of the registration system and capital markets serving the real economy. For global investors, the Chinese regulatory cycle is no longer just an "internal event" for the domestic stock market but constitutes an important boundary condition for global risk appetite and liquidity distribution.
In such an environment, Bitcoin's market in the coming years is increasingly unlikely to be explained solely by the halving story. A larger narrative is forming: regulatory cycles determine compliance space and institutional participation levels, macro liquidity dictates funding costs and leverage levels, and the allocation decisions of banks and asset management institutions will translate these variables into specific positions. Halving still exists but is just one of many factors; its price impact must be filtered through multiple lenses, including regulatory texts, Federal Reserve agendas, CSRC meeting minutes, and European regulatory regulations, before it ultimately reflects on the candlestick charts.
Looking ahead to around 2026, if traders remain stuck in the imagination of a "four-year cycle" for price rhythms, they will struggle to capture the true driving forces of volatility in the next phase. The new task is to learn to interpret policy texts, track regulatory dynamics, assess the depth of participation from banks and large institutions, and combine this information with on-chain data and technical structures to build a multidimensional narrative framework. When China's regulatory rhythm intertwines with the regulatory processes in Brussels and Washington, Bitcoin will no longer be in an isolated halving cycle but in a complex era shaped by regulation, macro factors, and institutional behaviors.
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。
