On January 22, 2026, at 8 AM Beijing time, amidst the lingering effects of statements made at the Davos Forum, former U.S. President Trump boldly declared his intention to "maintain America's lead in the cryptocurrency field and prevent China from getting involved," once again thrusting the already tense U.S.-China tech and finance competition into the spotlight. On the same day, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiaqin responded directly for the first time at a regular press conference, emphasizing that China "has always actively participated in multilateral and bilateral monetary and financial cooperation" and "the formulation of international financial rules," maintaining a restrained and cautious tone overall. Accompanying this round of verbal sparring, a new phase of the U.S.-China game surrounding cryptocurrency and the international financial discourse behind it is emerging in a more open and tangible manner.

The Tension at Davos: Who is Trump Targeting?

● Context of the Statement: During the 2026 Davos Forum, Trump made a series of remarks regarding global economic and technological competition, with his statements about cryptocurrency standing out particularly. He claimed the need to "maintain America's lead in the cryptocurrency field," directly incorporating cryptocurrency into the narrative of U.S. global competition, elevating what should be determined more by technology and regulation to a part of national strength and strategic landscape.

● Exclusive Language: Unlike the common rhetoric of "cooperation" and "innovation," Trump simultaneously introduced exclusive expressions like "preventing China from getting involved," explicitly naming China as a target to be "guarded against." This choice of words not only signals to domestic voters and traditional financial interest groups but also sends a message to allies and the market: the cryptocurrency arena will be defined within a broader framework of "competition with China."

● Underlying Game: This tough rhetoric is difficult to interpret solely as personal sentiment; it appears more as an extension of the domestic regulatory struggle and the narrative of competition with China. On one hand, there is still a tug-of-war within the U.S. regarding cryptocurrency regulation paths, industry migration, and capital flows; on the other hand, overlaying "preventing China" onto the cryptocurrency issue helps to seek political legitimacy for stronger regulation or industry support.

● Interpretation Boundaries: It is important to emphasize that Trump's relevant remarks at Davos currently have limited public information, especially regarding statements like "the world's cryptocurrency capital," which lack complete records. Specific policy designs and implementation paths have not been disclosed, and under the premise of incomplete materials, any direct equivalence to established policy roadmaps carries a significant risk of over-interpretation.

Foreign Ministry's Response: The Boundaries of Cooperation and Rule Discourse

● Original Statement: At the January 22 press conference, when asked about Trump's related remarks, spokesperson Guo Jiaqin stated that China "has always actively engaged in multilateral and bilateral monetary and financial cooperation" and "has always actively participated in the formulation of international financial rules." Both statements come from public records, deliberately focusing on international cooperation and existing multilateral frameworks rather than specific categories of crypto assets or technical details.

● Discourse Nuance: The phrase "actively participating in the formulation of international financial rules" in a diplomatic context indicates a stance that asserts presence without being overly provocative. On one hand, it addresses external concerns about China's role in global financial governance; on the other hand, the deliberate use of the broad concept of "international finance," rather than directly pointing to a specific type of crypto asset, leaves ample room for future policy and position adjustments.

● Diplomatic Considerations: In its response, China avoids entering into specific cryptocurrency regulations, projects, or technical solutions, instead emphasizing cooperation, sovereignty, and rule formulation, largely due to the overall rhythm considerations of diplomatic occasions. Focusing the topic on macro financial cooperation helps to avoid being passively drawn into specific project offensives in public settings and reduces constraints on internal and external policy coordination.

● Symbolic Significance: From a timing perspective, this marks the first relatively direct public confrontation between China and the U.S. on cryptocurrency issues after the 2026 Davos Forum. Although both sides avoid details, the contrast of "the U.S. must prevent China" and "China actively participates in rule formulation" itself has become an important signal source for observing future U.S.-China narratives, institutional arrangements, and rule games in cryptocurrency.

A Blank on "Regulatory Authority": Market Imagination and Information Black Box

● Vague Statement: In the same press conference, when further pressed on specific questions directly related to cryptocurrency, Guo Jiaqin suggested reporters "inquire with the relevant regulatory authority in China." This standard response is both procedural and a striking deliberate blank—failing to specify who the regulatory authority is or provide any directional details.

● Imagination Space: Such vague wording leaves a vast space for imagination within the market and the cryptocurrency community. Since no specific institution is named, the outside world can easily speculate on the abstract reference of "regulatory authority," discussing everything from regulatory responsibilities to potential policy reserves, but currently, these lack verifiable authoritative information.

● Path Speculation: In a context of highly asymmetric external information, this deliberate blank may deepen external speculation about China's cryptocurrency policy path. Some viewpoints may deduce narratives of "major adjustments in the works" or "intense internal struggles," but based on existing public materials, we can only confirm that the diplomatic level has transferred the issue, without being able to infer substantive policy directions.

● Cautionary Boundaries: It is particularly important to note that discussions around "who the regulatory authority is" and "how internal discussions are conducted" currently involve much unverifiable information, with diverse sources and varying degrees of credibility. In the absence of authoritative confirmation, treating such speculation as fact not only misleads market judgment but also contradicts the principles of responsible information dissemination.

The New Cold War Narrative in Cryptocurrency: A Struggle for Discourse Power Rather than Total Confrontation

● Focus of Competition: A horizontal comparison of Trump's statement to "maintain the lead and prevent China from getting involved" and China's response of "actively participating in the formulation of international financial rules" reveals that the core issue is a competition for discourse power, rather than an immediately visible institutional confrontation. Both sides are vying for who defines the narrative framework and sources of legitimacy in this field.

● U.S. Discourse Framework: Trump’s use of terms like "lead" and "preventing China" binds cryptocurrency to the existing U.S. hegemony in technology and finance, continuing to construct a narrative that "America must dominate critical infrastructure and cutting-edge technology, or national security is threatened." Under this logic, strengthening regulation and supporting domestic institutions can be packaged as necessary measures to "maintain leading status."

● China's Discourse Strategy: In contrast, China responds with expressions like "cooperation" and "rule formulation," deliberately downplaying confrontational tones and placing itself within the narrative of multilateralism and international cooperation. This not only continues to shape the image of a responsible major power externally but also seeks discourse space through participation in rule discussions, avoiding being locked into standards and narratives dominated by a single country.

● Risk of Over-Interpretation: Based on currently available materials, this confrontation is closer to a game of rhetoric and posture, insufficient to support strong conclusions like "U.S.-China total confrontation on cryptocurrency policy." Whether in regulatory intensity, industry support, or cross-border capital and technology flows, the actual implementation of policies still needs to be verified through subsequent documents and practical operations, rather than through a few high-profile statements.

Shadows of Progress in Digital Currency: Sensitive Core Avoided

● Substantive Progress: Research briefs indicate that China is believed to have made certain substantive progress in the research and testing of digital currencies, but verifiable information through public channels remains limited. Key technical routes, testing scopes, and participating institutions are often described in vague terms and partial disclosures. This "seen yet unclear" state is itself a significant reason for external attention.

● Restraint in Diplomatic Occasions: In the current diplomatic response, China has chosen not to directly address specific digital currency projects or technical deployments, instead controlling the topic at the level of "multilateral and bilateral monetary and financial cooperation" and "international financial rules." This restraint helps avoid exposing sensitive progress in international settings and also prevents prematurely "locking in" external expectations on internal paths that have not yet been finalized.

● Mutual Obscurity: From the statements of both the U.S. and China, both sides are using abstract expressions, deliberately obscuring their true technological and regulatory rhythms. The U.S. emphasizes "leading" but does not specify under what regulatory framework this will be achieved or how to balance innovation and risk; China emphasizes "participating in rule formulation" but similarly does not bring domestic testing and regulatory arrangements to the forefront, leaving a considerable gray area.

● Long-Cycle Competition: For observers and the market, this "war of words" is difficult to separate from the longer-cycle competition of technological standards and settlement systems. Whether in cross-border payments, digital settlements, or potential future multi-currency settlement networks, cryptocurrency-related technologies and institutional choices may become key variables. However, in this long-cycle process, the round of mutual statements following Davos appears more like a part of the iceberg above water rather than the whole picture.

After the War of Words: What the Cryptocurrency Market Should Watch

From the existing public information, the confrontation between China and the U.S. over cryptocurrency issues remains largely at the level of rhetoric and posture: Trump emphasizes that the U.S. must "maintain its lead and prevent China from getting involved," while the Chinese Foreign Ministry responds with "actively participating in the formulation of international financial rules," without corresponding to any immediately actionable specific regulatory or industry policy adjustments. For the cryptocurrency market, rather than amplifying the emotional impact of this round of verbal sparring, it is more realistic to continuously track the subsequent pace of U.S. regulatory implementation, the interactions between Congress and regulatory agencies, and whether relevant Chinese departments will provide clearer official statements at the appropriate time. It is foreseeable that the cryptocurrency field may become one of the important footholds in the U.S.-China fintech competition in the coming years, but the route and pace of this process remain highly uncertain. In the absence of complete information and undisclosed key details, making any definitive judgments about U.S.-China cryptocurrency policy routes involves a high risk of inference, and rational participants need to maintain sufficient distance between emotional narratives and institutional realities.

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。