On February 6, 2026, East 8 Time, Binance founder CZ publicly announced that they would collaborate with multiple countries to develop on-chain tokens denominated in local currencies, proposing the principle that "every fiat currency should be represented on-chain." For the global cryptocurrency market, this is not only a business expansion statement but also a systemic variable thrown into the current situation where dollar-denominated tokens are highly concentrated. On one end, there is ongoing vigilance from various countries' regulators regarding the "global dollar tokenization," while on the other end, there is a growing demand for localized compliant payments and cross-border settlements. The localization of currencies on-chain is tearing open new gaps between these two forces. The real suspense lies in whether local currency-denominated products can gradually erode the global clearing hegemony established by USDT and USDC in payment and settlement scenarios over the next few years.
From BUSD to Multiple National Currencies: The Extension of Binance's Stablecoin Narrative
● Historical Path Review: Before this multi-national currency plan, Binance had already experimented multiple times with regional tokenized fiat products. From the early BUSD launched with partners to the Euro-denominated token aimed at European users, the basic model has been to have compliant licensed institutions as the issuing or custodial entities, with Binance providing trading and liquidity scenarios. This path laid the operational and compliance foundation for subsequent local currency projects and gradually allowed the market to accept the combination of "exchange-led + local institution cooperation."
● Dubai Case Paving the Way: According to publicly available information from 2023, the Dubai Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority has approved the launch of locally denominated token products to provide compliant tools for payments and asset transfers in the region. Binance was seen as one of the active participants in this route at the time, indicating that it had bet early on the localized product idea of "sovereignty-oriented, compliance-first." This multi-national currency plan is highly isomorphic to the Dubai case in terms of regulatory cooperation, regional focus, and use case positioning, resembling a replication and amplification of the existing model.
● Narrative Continuation: Whether it is the early BUSD or projects targeting specific fiat currency regions, CZ has consistently emphasized in public statements the importance of "serving local payments and compliance"—not merely expanding trading pairs but designing products around real needs such as wage payments, merchant collections, and legal cross-border fund flows. Therefore, the proposal on February 6, 2026, that "every fiat currency should be represented on-chain" seems more like a condensed expression of years of narrative rather than a sudden strategic shift.
● Strategic Priority Positioning: In Binance's overall overseas expansion process, the multi-national currency plan is positioned alongside license acquisition and compliant operations: on one hand, it seeks to gain "local infrastructure" discourse power in different jurisdictions; on the other hand, it reserves space for future embedding of services in off-chain scenarios such as fiat deposits, corporate payments, and trade settlements. Compared to a single business line, this is closer to a key pivot project on Binance's global compliance map.
The Dual Oligopoly Era of USDT: A Flanking Breakthrough for Local Currency On-Chain
● Dominance of Dollar Standard: The current landscape of tokenized fiat currencies is still firmly controlled by dollar-denominated products represented by USDT and USDC. They bear the vast majority of pricing and settlement functions in centralized trading platforms, on-chain liquidity pools, and cross-chain bridges, serving as the de facto "dollar clearing layer" in the cryptocurrency field. This high concentration means that global cryptocurrency capital flows largely follow the logic of dollar movement, deepening concerns in some countries about capital outflow and currency substitution.
● Natural Differentiation of Use Cases: Unlike dollar-denominated products that are more suitable for global trading and cross-border value transfer, local currency-denominated tokens are designed to meet needs closer to daily payments, wage disbursements, tax payments, and regional trade settlements. For a local worker or merchant, completing transfers and collections on-chain in familiar local currency, and then connecting with offline bank accounts or payment tools, presents significantly lower psychological barriers and compliance costs than directly holding dollar-denominated assets.
● Redistribution of Liquidity and Pricing Power: If local currency-denominated products are widely implemented in multiple countries, the first areas where USDT and USDC will be diverted are not high-frequency trading scenarios but rather parts of settlement needs in cross-border trade that are "forced to dollarize," as well as channels for fund inflows and outflows that have higher compliance requirements. Some enterprises and financial institutions may turn to convert between local currency-denominated tokens and offshore dollar systems, thereby weakening the pricing power and essential channel role of dollar-denominated products in these areas.
● Flanking Breakthrough Rather Than Direct Confrontation: Against this backdrop, Binance's push for local currency on-chain seems to be entering from payment and compliant fund flow scenarios that are relatively relaxed in regulation and have real demand, applying side pressure on the dominance of the dollar-denominated dual oligopoly, rather than attempting to replace its core position in global trading in the short term. For USDT and USDC, the real challenge is not a new competitor but the slow yet ongoing diversification of the global clearing structure.
Countries and Exchanges on the Same Stage: Who Controls the Steering Wheel of Local Currency Tokens
● Three Forms of Boundaries: In the field of tokenized fiat currencies, they can be roughly divided into three categories: "national version currency tokens," "central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)," and "privately issued local currency tokens." The former is usually led by local governments or licensed financial institutions, backed by national credibility; CBDCs are directly issued and controlled by central banks, which manage the technology and account systems; private products are often managed and operated by commercial institutions, with regulatory oversight being relatively secondary. There is a clear division of responsibilities among these three in terms of issuing entities, custodial arrangements, and compliance responsibilities.
● Power Struggle Cooperation Framework: When local currency-denominated tokens appear in the combination of "national or local licensed institutions + global platforms like Binance," the power struggle between regulators and platforms shifts from "whether to allow existence" to "who controls operational details and data perspectives." Regulators hope to have the final say on reserve audits, user real-name verification, and cross-border restrictions, while platforms strive to retain flexibility in product design, fee structures, and scenario expansion. The details of the agreements between the two will significantly impact whether the product can move beyond the "demonstration project" stage.
● Localized Compliance Narrative Packaging: From the consensus of current media reports such as Jinse Finance, Planet Daily, Rhythm, and Foresight, this cooperation model is often packaged as "serving localized compliant payments"—emphasizing the resolution of local enterprises' and individuals' fund flow needs within a legal framework, while also reserving space for business expansion for trading platforms in terms of technical implementation and operational maintenance. This approach addresses regulators' concerns about sovereignty and compliance while allowing platforms to maintain a certain commercial drive.
● Potential Risks of Fine-Tuned Regulation: If regulatory attitudes change, the same local currency-denominated products could transform from "compliant channels" to "fine-tuned scrutiny tools." The on-chain traceable and programmable characteristics enable regulators to conduct more granular analysis or even restrictions on fund flows, user behaviors, and cross-border paths. While local currency on-chain enhances transparency and compliance, it also inadvertently strengthens regulators' technical grip on capital flows.
The Race of Regulation and Compliance: The Gray Area of Multi-National Currency Projects
● Global Regulatory Landscape and Dollar Vigilance: In recent years, many regulatory agencies have maintained a high level of vigilance regarding the cross-border expansion of dollar-denominated tokens, fearing they could form a "shadow dollar clearing layer" within their financial systems, undermining the effectiveness of monetary policy. In contrast, products denominated in local currencies, issued and managed within local legal frameworks, are more likely to be viewed as controllable innovative experiments, which is an important background for the relatively open attitude towards local currency on-chain at the policy level.
● Uncertainty Due to Information Gaps: As of now, the specific list of cooperating countries, compliance frameworks, and technical implementation details regarding Binance's multi-national currency plan have not been disclosed through public channels. We can only infer possible paths based on its past cooperation models in places like Dubai, such as continuing to rely on local licensed institutions and managing reserves within local or regional financial systems, but these carry significant uncertainty and cannot be regarded as established plans.
● Key Aspects of Regulatory Focus: It is foreseeable that regulators will likely focus on several core issues when examining such projects: first, the location of reserve custody and audit mechanisms, which determine the credit foundation of local currency tokens; second, the convertibility commitments and redemption processes, which concern whether they will disrupt local financial order in extreme situations; third, KYC/AML and on-chain tracking capabilities, assessing whether they could become tools for evading capital controls or money laundering.
● Sensitivity to Sovereignty and Advancement Pace: Different countries have vastly different sensitivities to "sovereignty, local currency, and control over cross-border payments." Some economies may be more proactive in embracing cooperation with global platforms to enhance their international settlement discourse power through local currency on-chain; others may be more concerned about external institutions gaining excessive control within their local currency systems, leading to extra caution in terms of terms design and pilot scope. This difference will directly determine the pace of advancement and the final depth of the multi-national currency plan in various regions.
Market Imagination and Real-World Implementation: The Long Slope of Local Currency On-Chain
● Potential Upgrade of User Experience: From the perspective of ordinary users, the appeal of local currency-denominated tokens lies in the ability to participate in the on-chain world directly with local currency thinking—wages paid in local currency tokens, merchants receiving payments in local currency tokens, settling in local currency in cross-border e-commerce or outsourcing, and then achieving offline exchanges through local financial institutions. This combination of "local pricing + on-chain transfers + offline payment integration" lowers the triple barriers of language, exchange rates, and regulation.
● Challenges of Off-Chain Channels and Liquidity Cultivation: However, to truly realize this experience, robust off-chain fiat entry and exit channels are first needed, followed by significant time and cost investments in cultivating liquidity in the market, including market making, merchant onboarding, and user education. Additionally, it must negotiate with existing bank card networks, local payment applications, and traditional banking systems to address practical issues such as fees, transaction timing, and risk perceptions, as well as user acceptance of on-chain tools.
● Binance's Existing Experience and Possible Adjustments: In early local token projects, Binance has accumulated some experience and faced challenges such as ambiguous compliance standards and mismatched partner capabilities. These lessons are likely to prompt it to place greater emphasis on the quality of partners' licenses, the robustness of balance sheets, and the stability of clearing structures in its current multi-national currency layout, to avoid projects being forced to halt due to tightening regulations or market fluctuations.
● Narrative Premium and Real-World Barriers: It is foreseeable that in the short term, the multi-national currency plan will release ample narrative premiums in secondary markets and public discourse, with stories surrounding "local currency on-chain," "compliant channels," and "countering dollar hegemony" continuing to ferment. However, to truly disrupt the global cross-border settlement landscape, there are multiple hurdles to overcome, including regulatory coordination, corporate adoption, user habits, and the macro-financial environment. This path resembles a "long slope of thick snow" rather than a quick-money track.
Initial Landscape of On-Chain Local Currency: Who Occupies the New Settlement Order
Binance's move to promote the on-chain localization of multiple national currencies on February 6, 2026, is not subtle in its strategic intent: in the tightening global regulation of tokenized dollars, and the fact that dollar-denominated products have formed a de facto monopoly, it seeks to find new growth spaces and institutional gaps through localized compliant products. This is both an amplification of past BUSD and regional token experiments and a structural bet on its own compliance transformation.
In this experiment surrounding local currency on-chain, countries, regulatory agencies, local financial institutions, and global platforms like Binance constitute the core players in a multi-faceted game. Who leads the issuance and custody, who controls on-chain data and risk management rules, and who holds the final scheduling power for cross-border settlements will significantly reshape the geographical landscape of future cryptocurrency payments and value transfers. Local currency-denominated products are not just technological innovations but also a gentle attempt to reconstruct existing financial sovereignty and the global clearing system.
From a mid-term perspective, it is difficult for local currency-denominated tokens to directly shake USDT's core position in cryptocurrency trading and global liquidity in the foreseeable future. However, occupying a place in local payments, compliant fund channels, and certain cross-border trade settlements is not out of reach. What will truly determine the boundaries and depth of this experiment are the subsequent announcements of the list of cooperating countries, regulatory terms and details, and technical and clearing structure arrangements. Until everything is settled, the localization of currencies on-chain resembles an ongoing institutional game, with Binance being the first to place its bet.
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。
