On January 22, 2026, Beijing time, Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) publicly discussed the prospects of global cryptocurrency regulation during a panel at the Davos Forum titled "The New Era of Finance." He pointedly addressed the issues of fragmented regulation and the lack of licensing systems in various countries. While emphasizing that most countries have yet to establish a comprehensive cryptocurrency licensing framework, he called for the creation of a "global regulatory framework conducive to innovation," bringing the long-suppressed compliance anxieties of the industry to the global elite stage. On the same day, Binance launched the SKRUSDT perpetual contract, supporting up to 20x leverage. This simultaneous action tied "accelerating innovation" with "breaking through compliance" into the same narrative, outlining the current landscape of the cryptocurrency industry as it continues to gamble on growth amid regulatory uncertainty.
CZ and the Crypto Agenda Under the Davos Spotlight
● Within the "New Era of Finance" panel, the Davos Forum placed cryptocurrency assets alongside traditional finance at the same discussion table, which itself carries strong symbolic significance: executives from major banks, asset management firms, and crypto platforms engaged in a clash over market structure, risk control, and rule-making. This stage is no longer just an exhibition area for fringe tech topics but has become the forefront where global capital and policymakers attempt to reconstruct the financial order, with the cryptocurrency industry systematically included in these macro narratives for the first time.
● In this context, CZ serves as both a representative of the industry leader and a typical example of someone who has repeatedly faced regulatory controversies in recent years. His remarks focused on two main lines: first, according to reports from Planet Daily and Rhythm, he clearly stated that most countries globally have not established a complete cryptocurrency licensing system; second, as reported by Golden Finance, he admitted that "establishing a unified global cryptocurrency regulatory body is quite difficult," suggesting that a more realistic path is to promote a global regulatory framework that is favorable to innovation. This statement not only expresses dissatisfaction with the current licensing vacuum but also attempts to shift the topic from "single-point enforcement" to "system design."
● For the industry, CZ's speech at Davos carries symbolic significance far beyond a routine roadshow: at a time when regulation is tightening in the U.S. and Europe, and compliance costs are soaring, one of the highest market share trading platforms chose to reclaim the "interpretation of rules" at the most authoritative global forum. CZ is no longer just defending a single exchange but positioning himself as an "industry spokesperson," attempting to repackage the fragmented regulatory practices and pilot licensing initiatives of various countries as a transitional state of "the global framework has yet to take shape," leaving room for subsequent negotiations.
Fragmented Regulatory Puzzle: Difficulty in Unifying Frameworks
● CZ's emphasis on "most countries globally do not have a complete licensing system" points to a very real structural gap: only a few proactive jurisdictions have provided clearer paths for cryptocurrency licensing, while most regions remain at the level of anti-money laundering guidelines, tax requirements, or vague warnings. The result is that exchanges and project parties often engage in "patchwork compliance" across multiple jurisdictions, leading to soaring corporate costs while user protection standards remain difficult to unify, leaving the industry in a long-term awkward state of regulatory gray areas and regulatory arbitrage.
● CZ candidly stated at Davos that "establishing a unified global cryptocurrency regulatory body is quite difficult" (according to Planet Daily and Golden Finance), which is backed by three layers of real-world resistance: first, sovereign regulation naturally rejects completely outsourcing financial rules to multinational institutions, with central banks and securities commissions in various countries preferring to retain final discretion; second, cryptocurrency assets involve sensitive issues such as capital flows, tax bases, and sanctions, with geopolitical games amplifying rule discrepancies; third, the speed of technological and product iteration far exceeds the legislative cycle, and even if unified standards are formed, there is a high likelihood of standards lagging behind innovation, creating a "regulatory time lag."
● Research briefs mention that the UAE, Bahrain, and Kazakhstan are viewed by many media outlets as forward-looking regulatory examples. However, these directional dynamics are currently unverified background clues rather than mature consensus. They attempt to attract industry clusters by establishing dedicated cryptocurrency regulatory bodies or experimental zones under the premise of controllable risks; however, in the absence of public, unified standards, these explorations remain largely at the level of "regional experiments," making it difficult to directly spill over into a global unified licensing template, only occupying a few relatively clear segments in the fragmented puzzle.
The Paradox of Dual-Track Expansion: Promoting Compliance While Launching New Contracts
● Notably, according to reports from Golden Finance and Planet Daily, on the same day that CZ discussed regulation at Davos, Binance announced the launch of the SKRUSDT perpetual contract, offering up to 20x leverage. The temporal overlap amplifies the symbolic meaning of this new launch: on one hand, the platform emphasizes the lack of compliance frameworks and licenses on the international stage; on the other hand, it continues to expand its high-leverage derivatives line at the business level, sending a signal to existing and new users that "risk tolerance remains sufficient."
● Continuously launching high-leverage derivatives in an environment of regulatory ambiguity has a strong demonstrative effect on Binance itself and the entire industry's risk appetite. If regulatory areas suddenly tighten or market liquidity plummets, such products often become amplifiers of volatility and systemic risk, and the continued supply from leading platforms may be interpreted as "maintaining an optimistic or even aggressive expectation regarding the pace of regulatory implementation." This is driven by practical motives to consolidate market share and maintain revenue elasticity, while also raising the industry's collective bet on the ultimate "tolerance" of regulation.
● From a narrative perspective, Binance is deliberately maintaining "compliance building" and "business expansion" on two parallel tracks: on one hand, it cooperates globally on license applications, compliance rectifications, and public relations communications, actively participating in high-level dialogues including Davos; on the other hand, it continues to enrich its derivatives matrix, maintaining user stickiness and revenue volume through high leverage and high liquidity. The implicit premise of this balancing act is to strive for a more lenient boundary for high-risk innovative products within future regulatory frameworks, while buffering external doubts about its expansion pace through the posture of "I am actively engaging in dialogue."
Who is Taking the Lead: Regulatory Experiments and Betting by Various Countries
● The brief points out that the UAE, Bahrain, and Kazakhstan are viewed by many observers as advancing forward-looking cryptocurrency regulations, but these directional judgments are currently all unverified information that needs to reference public reporting sources. These emerging markets are attempting to establish themselves as "compliance-friendly" preferred landing destinations by setting up dedicated regulatory sandboxes, guiding exchanges to establish regional headquarters, and trying to define asset category boundaries before global rules are finalized, thus gaining a time advantage in capital, talent, and infrastructure layout.
● In contrast, the research brief also mentions the background clues of the U.S. promoting market structure legislation, which is similarly marked as unverified trend information. As the core hub of the traditional financial system, the U.S. has a noticeably more cautious and wavering pace in formulating cryptocurrency rules: it seeks to avoid systemic risks caused by regulatory vacuums while also fearing that providing overly lenient frameworks could impact existing financial intermediary structures, leading to repeated weighing of details and timelines. This "slow but heavy" path means that once rules are implemented, their impact on the global industry landscape will far exceed that of most emerging market experiments.
● In this global regulatory landscape reconstruction, the considerations of emerging markets and established financial centers present a stark contrast: the former places greater emphasis on "first-mover attractiveness," willing to relax licensing thresholds and design flexible pilots within controllable ranges to shape themselves into industry clusters; the latter is more focused on "preventing systemic risks," tending to set higher thresholds for capital requirements, custody standards, anti-money laundering, and market manipulation regulations. The result is that an "open experimental zone" primarily led by the Middle East and some emerging economies is taking shape alongside a "strict review battleground" centered on Europe and the U.S., providing the industry with diverse but fragmented regulatory options.
Industry Self-Rescue and Regulatory Window: From CZ to the Platform Collective
● CZ repeatedly mentioned at Davos the "hope to see a global regulatory framework conducive to innovation" (according to Foresight), indicating that his demand is not for a single supranational institution but for a set of relatively predictable and navigable rules in a cross-border context. This means that companies should at least know what baseline requirements need to be met in different jurisdictions, which types of businesses are strictly restricted, and which types of innovations can seek space through sandboxes or pilots, rather than passively responding to a series of vague guidelines and sudden enforcement actions.
● In the prolonged vacuum where formal rules are difficult to unify, leading platforms are building a kind of "de facto standard" through their own practices: they continuously raise thresholds in KYC, AML, listing reviews, custody separation, and risk control parameters, packaging these internal control standards as proactive measures that are "friendly" to users and regulators. As more institutional funds and traditional financial participants only cooperate with platforms that have undergone certain third-party audits or compliance certifications, these self-imposed industry norms are beginning to shape, to some extent, the boundary perceptions of regulators in various countries.
● The research brief also mentions attempts like Gate's launch of TradFi points activities, which are seen as a side case exploring the buffer zone between traditional finance and cryptocurrency. Due to the single source and lack of more public data support, the relevant operational details and quantitative effects are difficult to confirm, but this type of design that "connects with traditional financial language" itself reflects that exchanges are not only competing for users and liquidity but are also actively building interfaces with traditional participants such as banks, brokerages, and payment institutions, reserving cooperation space for potentially stricter regulations in the future.
Uncertain Fragmented Order: The Next Page of Cryptocurrency Rules
Currently, global cryptocurrency regulation remains at the regional puzzle stage: from discussions inside and outside Davos to tentative measures in the Middle East, emerging markets, and Europe and the U.S., various regulatory fragments temporarily do not form a unified clear picture. In the short term, a truly "global unified framework" is still unlikely to emerge, but the call for a "predictable regulatory environment" is becoming a common language across markets—whether platforms, institutions, or regulators are gradually realizing that only by clarifying bottom lines and accurately drawing red lines can innovation and risk management negotiate at the same table.
In this process, leading platforms like Binance and actively legislating regions are likely to shape a de facto global benchmark through continuous interaction and negotiation: whoever first provides an executable, replicable, and market-accepted licensing path will have the opportunity to gain greater discourse power in the new round of order reconstruction. However, this "de facto standardization" also means higher compliance costs and more complex cross-border management, which will long exist in tension and entanglement with the high-elasticity innovation culture that the cryptocurrency industry was built upon.
In the next one to two years, global forums represented by Davos will gradually outline the formal position of cryptocurrency assets in the global financial system through statements from the U.S. and directional actions from the Middle East and some emerging regulatory experiments in Eastern Europe: either being integrated into the mainstream financial order, accepting constraints similar to traditional institutions in terms of capital adequacy, information disclosure, and investor protection; or continuing to grow rapidly in the gray areas of regulation, taxation, and compliance, bearing higher uncertainty and sudden risks. For all parties currently placing bets, today's discussions at Davos are merely the prologue to this fragmented regulatory gamble.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare 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。
