Author: Liu Yang
On February 6, 2026, what was initially thought to be an ordinary day before the New Year turned out to be significant. In the morning, Bitcoin plummeted sharply, nearing the $60,000 mark, and in the evening, eight departments including the People's Bank of China, the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security, the State Administration for Market Regulation, the Financial Regulatory Bureau, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange jointly issued the "Notice on Further Preventing and Handling Risks Related to Virtual Currencies" (Yin Fa [2026] No. 42, hereinafter referred to as the "2.6 Notice"). The "2.6" is destined to be recorded in the history of virtual currencies and seems to provide an explanation for this sharp decline.
- Unlike previous regulatory documents such as the 94 Announcement and the 924 Notice, the 2.6 Notice added a new provision at the end: "This notice shall take effect from the date of issuance." The previous notice from ten departments, "Notice on Further Preventing and Handling Risks of Virtual Currency Trading Speculation" (Yin Fa [2021] No. 237), is simultaneously repealed. This is the first time in the history of virtual currency regulation that previous regulatory documents have been repealed.
At the Financial Street Forum at the end of last year, the Governor of the People's Bank of China, Pan Gongsheng, specifically mentioned stablecoins and RWA, while also emphasizing that the regulatory policies since 2017 remain effective. Now, with eight departments jointly issuing a document that repeals the 924 Notice, it is natural that even earlier regulatory documents like the 94 Announcement should also be repealed.
From the title, the 924 Notice is "Notice on Further Preventing and Handling Risks of Virtual Currency Trading Speculation," which highlights the risks of trading speculation, while the 2.6 Notice is simply summarized as "risks related to virtual currencies," covering a significantly broader scope.
- Looking at the issuing units, compared to the 924 Notice from ten departments, the 2.6 Notice lacks the Supreme People's Procuratorate and the Supreme People's Court, which was beyond my expectations. Since 2024, the two high courts have been involved in extensive work related to the disposal of virtual currencies involved in cases. In my view, the legal policies regarding the disposal of virtual currencies involved in cases are also expected to be among the first laws and regulations related to virtual currencies to be issued. The Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission's work meeting clearly stated the need for forward-looking research and legislation on virtual currencies, making the absence of the two high courts even more surprising.
However, the 2.6 Notice also clearly states, "In agreement with the Central Cyberspace Administration, the Supreme People's Court, and the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and with the consent of the State Council," a phrasing that has not appeared in previous virtual currency regulatory documents. The specific reasons and intentions behind this remain to be analyzed. My understanding is that the relevant content is generally agreed upon, but the specific wording may not have been finalized.
- Compared to previous statements, the biggest breakthrough of the 2.6 Notice is the first clear statement that "stablecoins pegged to fiat currencies perform part of the functions of fiat currencies in circulation. Without the legal approval of relevant departments, no domestic or foreign entities or individuals may issue stablecoins pegged to the Renminbi abroad."
The latter part of this sentence is not difficult to understand; it is clear in its literal meaning. The key point is the first part, "perform part of the functions of fiat currencies." As a criminal defense lawyer, my greatest concern is whether this will be used in judicial practice to argue that the exchange between fiat currencies and stablecoins constitutes "disguised foreign exchange trading." It is important to note that disguised foreign exchange trading constitutes the crime of illegal business operations, which can result in fines of one to five times the illegal gains, with the illegal gains being turned over to the national treasury. This clause targets OTC, and the key will be whether the specific implementation process will deviate, run off course, or be intensified. If excessive force is applied, the entire OTC industry could face a surge in risks. It is well known that OTC is an indispensable industry in the field of virtual currencies.
- Regarding RWA, in short, no activities are allowed within the territory. Domestic entities are not allowed to engage in such activities, and foreign companies and individuals cannot provide services to domestic entities.
However, there is a loophole regarding whether they can engage abroad. The China Securities Regulatory Commission issued "Regulatory Guidelines for Issuing Asset-Backed Securities Tokens for Domestic Assets Abroad," which will be interpreted later.
- Compared to previous regulatory documents, the 2.6 Notice devotes more space to standardizing and improving work mechanisms, strengthening risk monitoring, and preventing and handling risks.
First, 8+3, central management of local affairs. Eight departments, along with the Central Cyberspace Administration, the Supreme Procuratorate, and the Supreme Court, coordinate and guide various regions in preventing and handling risks related to illegal financial activities involving virtual currencies.
Second, it strengthens local implementation, forming a collaborative work pattern between central and local authorities, actively preventing and properly handling issues to maintain economic and financial order and social stability.
Third, it enhances risk monitoring, continuously improving monitoring technologies and system support, strengthening cross-departmental data analysis and sharing, establishing and improving information sharing and cross-verification mechanisms. Provincial-level people's governments should fully utilize local monitoring and early warning mechanisms, and local financial management departments should work with branches and dispatched agencies of the State Council's financial management departments, as well as departments like cyberspace and public security, to ensure effective coordination of online monitoring, offline investigations, and fund monitoring, efficiently and accurately identifying issues, and establishing a rapid response mechanism for investigation and handling. Technology companies may welcome a boom in business.
Fourth, it strengthens the management of financial, intermediary, and technical service institutions, prohibiting the inclusion of virtual currencies and related financial products as collateral. It enhances the management of internet information content and access, providing technical support and assistance for related investigations and inquiries. It strengthens the registration of operating entities and advertising management. It continues to rectify virtual currency "mining" activities, closing existing operations and strictly prohibiting new ones. It severely cracks down on related illegal financial activities, transferring cases suspected of crimes to judicial authorities for handling. It rigorously combats fraud, money laundering, illegal business operations, pyramid schemes, illegal fundraising, and other criminal activities related to virtual currencies and the tokenization of real-world assets, as well as related illegal activities conducted under the guise of virtual currencies and tokenization of real-world assets.
Domestic entities engaging in related businesses abroad carry inherent risks. First, they cannot issue virtual currencies, nor can they do so abroad. Second, domestic entities engaging in RWA must be regulated according to the principle of "same business, same risk, same rules." Third, the overseas subsidiaries and branches of domestic financial institutions providing RWA services abroad must comply with certain requirements, which leaves a loophole, but it must be clear that this loophole is reserved for financial institutions.
Compared to previous regulatory policies, the 2.6 Notice has added a section on "legal responsibilities," which is not complex in its literal meaning and will not be further interpreted.
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。
