On April 14, 2026, People's Daily published an article titled "Disturbing Capital Markets, the Irregularities of Financial Self-Media Accounts Need Attention," once again bringing the issues of irregularities in financial self-media into the spotlight. The timing and subjects named in the article are highly representative: against the backdrop of tightening global regulation on cryptocurrency and fintech, official authoritative media concentrated on sorting out the problems of self-media in the capital market's "leading the rhythm" and "creating hype," and clearly included directing traffic for cryptocurrency-related transactions into the regulatory purview. The article reiterates the notice from eight departments — that activities related to virtual currency constitute illegal financial activities, particularly emphasizing that accounts providing traffic and technical services for related transactions are also suspected of illegal activities. This statement directly touches on the current large amount of content ecology that directs traffic to cryptocurrency trading in the name of "investment popularization" and "asset allocation." This article will discuss, at this juncture, the boundaries of self-media directing traffic for cryptocurrency trading under high-pressure regulation, how risks evolve, and how participants should reassess their positions and paths.

People's Daily Takes Action: Accounts Directing Traffic to the Cryptocurrency Circle Highlighted

In the April 14 article "Disturbing Capital Markets, the Irregularities of Financial Self-Media Accounts Need Attention," People's Daily used highly alerting terms like "disturbing," "irregularities," and "need attention," pointing to a type of self-media account that is packaged as financial but primarily aimed at attracting traffic and monetization. The article not only criticizes their exaggeration of profits and emotional rendering on traditional assets like stocks and funds but also extends the view to cryptocurrency-related content, emphasizing that accounts "directing traffic" for related transactions are becoming new sources of risk.

Within the official discourse, accounts that "direct traffic" for virtual currency trading and "provide technical services" are seen as suspected of illegal activities because their behavior extends beyond the mere expression of information. If an account accurately directs traffic to foreign cryptocurrency trading platforms, OTC matchmaking channels, or relevant technical service providers through content, communities, or tools, it essentially participates in a business ecology deemed "illegal financial activities." This time, People's Daily reaffirms the characterization of activities related to virtual currencies by the eight departments and includes the traffic direction and technical service links in the warning range, sending a clear signal: in the eyes of regulators, these accounts are no longer just "talking," but are an important part of the entire illegal business chain.

From a political and regulatory perspective, People's Daily's statement goes beyond just guiding public opinion. As a central-level authoritative media, its concentrated voice in mid-April is often viewed as a warm-up and public education ahead of strengthened law enforcement by regulatory agencies. By focusing on the "irregularities" of financial self-media, regulators create a public opinion foundation for subsequent actions against typical accounts, while also sending a clear signal to platforms and content creators: concerning the traffic directing activities related to cryptocurrency trading, future actions will not merely stay within the realm of "content governance," but could directly escalate to the level of financial regulation and public safety or criminal enforcement.

From Ten Departments to Eight Departments: The Illegal Nature of Virtual Currency Activities Reaffirmed

When placing this article from People's Daily on a longer timeline, an almost uninterrupted line of high-pressure context can be seen. As early as 2021, the People's Bank of China and ten departments jointly issued documents clearly identifying activities related to virtual currencies as illegal financial activities, which was a fundamental characterization of cryptocurrency trading at a critical node in supervision. The previous expressions had already covered various business forms such as trading matchmaking, token issuance, and technical support, and explicitly required financial and payment institutions not to provide services for this purpose.

In this People's Daily article, emphasis is placed on quoting and reiterating the notice from the eight departments that "activities related to virtual currencies are illegal financial activities," effectively reinforcing this regulatory tone again. The act of "reiterating" itself is information, meaning in a regulatory context that the attitude has not relaxed and the boundaries have not blurred, but rather is intended to remind all parties in the market: the previous ban is not a temporary measure, but will be effective long-term and will continuously extend to new scenarios and roles with the evolution of business forms.

In recent years, domestic policy paths towards related activities have generally progressed along "mining - trading - OTC matchmaking and technical support." From earlier concentrated rectification of power-intensive mining to blocking traffic entrances for domestic and foreign cryptocurrency trading platforms, to banks and payment institutions being required to strictly control capital flows associated with related activities, each link compresses the living space of the entire ecology. Now, through the People's Daily article, incorporating "traffic directing self-media" and "technical service accounts" into the irregularities that need attention is adding another link to this high-pressure chain: not only is it the red line to "engage in business," but "providing traffic" and "building bridges" are also seen as part of the same gray-black industrial chain.

The Gray Area of Financial Self-Media: Content Language Entangled with Traffic Business

Under this high-pressure policy line, some financial self-media practices are becoming increasingly concealed and complex. A common path is to use titles like "investment popularization," "asset allocation," and "overseas market observation," first accumulating followers through short videos, text, and live broadcasts, and then guiding users in the comment section, private messages, and communities to join private community groups or download specific apps. On the surface, these accounts seem to be merely sharing "opinions" and "tools," but at the end of the chain, they often point to foreign cryptocurrency trading platforms, OTC matchmaking channels, or organizations providing wallets, quantitative strategies, and other "technical services," with traffic directing becoming their primary monetization method.

The problem is that the boundary between "information sharing" and "disguised intermediary services" is extremely blurred in practice. If an account merely interprets the macro narrative of a certain asset category, it can still be argued that it falls within general information dissemination; however, once there are registration guidance links with invitation codes or referral links, or if users are concentrated into a closed loop providing trading matchmaking or capitalization services under the guise of "joining the group for learning," the nature of the behavior begins to edge toward becoming an intermediary. In the cryptocurrency field, since domestic trading cannot be conducted legally, any further action to direct traffic is more easily perceived as participating in a recognized illegal business process, thus its "gray space" is much smaller than traditional securities commentary.

From a legal and compliance perspective, the risks faced by operators of such accounts are compounded. First, in the promotional stage, if there are exaggerations of profits, concealment of risks, or use of expressions like "guaranteed profit" or "high interest with principal protected," it may involve advertising-related laws and regulations. Secondly, when their traffic directions clearly point to activities defined as illegal financial activities, regulatory agencies can rely on financial regulatory rules, public safety management, or even criminal law regarding illegal operations or aiding information network crimes, to determine that they are providing disguised intermediary or technical support services. Additionally, the internal governance rules of platforms regarding "financial content" are increasingly strict, and once self-media are viewed as "traffic businesses," they not only face account suspension and removal but may also become key targets in future joint law enforcement actions.

Tightening of Fintech: Cryptocurrency is Just a Part of the Scrutinized Narrative

A horizontal comparison shows that People's Daily's statements regarding financial self-media and cryptocurrency traffic direction are not isolated incidents but are placed against the broader context of "deleveraging and lowering narratives" in the combination of technology and finance. Globally, there is a decreasing risk appetite for high-growth narratives, highly valued assets, and complex technological financial structures, with regulatory agencies more inclined to first ask, "Can we penetrate the risks?" before discussing "Whether to support innovation."

A research brief mentioned that the questioning of investors around OpenAI's $852 billion valuation is a typical reference case (information from a single source, for background only). Whether scrutinizing sky-high valuations of artificial intelligence companies or sensitivity to the dramatic fluctuations seen in cryptocurrency assets, regulators detect a highly consistent underlying problem: complex and hard-to-understand technological narratives, compounded with capital operations and highly volatile pricing mechanisms, can easily evolve into systemic risks that ordinary investors cannot bear in environments with extreme information asymmetry.

Therefore, behind this article from People's Daily, we can see several keywords continuously concerning regulators: information asymmetry, financial leverage, Ponzi-like narratives, and retail investor misguidance. On one hand, self-media amplify "wealthy samples" through editing, clickbait titles, and out-of-context quotes, severely inflating FOMO emotions; on the other hand, cryptocurrency trading itself is often entangled with high leverage, non-standard derivatives, and highly opaque capital structures. Once traffic entry points become connected with these structures, risks transition from the "content layer" to the "capital layer," and regulators' tolerance for self-media is naturally compressed to a minimum.

Emotions and Traffic Structures in the Cryptocurrency Circle: Information Migration Under High-Pressure Policies

On the emotional level, the tightening of cryptocurrency traffic directing self-media in China echoes the global industry's sluggish phase. X platform's product manager Nikita Bier has pointed out that "the cryptocurrency industry has undergone a tough year" (according to a single source). Price volatility, liquidity contraction, and narrative declines have caused the traffic ecology originally reliant on "bull market dividends" to begin to experience fractures, while further tightening of domestic regulatory signals has made participants remaining in the market more cautious.

Under the constraints of not being able to advertise trading compliance, the path for relevant content creators is undergoing shifts: from openly stating "free bonuses" and "one-click transactions" on public platforms to more covert community links, encrypted communication tools, and cross-border channels. On a content level, seemingly more neutrally framed words like "blockchain technology" and "overseas asset allocation" are used, while the actual business is hidden in secondary or tertiary jump links. The platforms and regulations tighten on the "visible entries," but are objectively accelerating the shift of some traffic directing activities into corners that are harder to penetrate and regulate.

For domestic cryptocurrency participants, the actual impact is mainly reflected in three aspects. Firstly, information sources are increasingly forced to shift towards overseas platforms and communities, with language and time zone barriers raising the threshold for accessing effective information; secondly, lacking public, systematic compliance education and risk warnings domestically, many newcomers can only navigate on their own in private community groups and fragmented content, making them easily led into high-leverage, high-risk products; thirdly, as traffic entry points continuously compress, genuinely qualified content providers willing to conduct long-term education are further scarce, and the market's overall risk recognition ability has not correspondingly improved, but rather there exists a possibility of continuing to harvest "underground" traffic structures.

The Game Between Traffic and Red Lines: The Next Step for Self-Media and Cryptocurrency Participants

In conclusion, the core signal released by this article from People's Daily is very clear: traffic directions and technical services related to virtual currency trading will remain under a state of continued tightening for a long time. From the characterization of activities as illegal by the ten departments in 2021, to this reaffirmation by the eight departments, and now to the inclusion of self-media traffic directing behaviors into "irregularities that need attention," the logic of regulation has been consistent — not just targeting "visible trading platforms," but also cutting off every channel from content to capital.

For financial self-media, a real choice is approaching: continuing to treat "traffic business" as the main profit axis means potentially facing account suspensions, traffic restrictions, or even legal accountability under dual high pressures of platform governance and financial regulation at any time. The other path is to proactively shift focus from "promoting products and attracting clients" towards "creating compliant content and risk education," seeking sustainable business models within clearly defined red lines. In the short term, this may compress monetization scenarios; but in the medium and long term, against the backdrop of high-pressure regulation becoming the new normal, only content supply that does not conflict with normative financial order will have the opportunity to survive and accumulate genuine trust assets.

For cryptocurrency practitioners and investors, there is also a need to adjust path expectations. On one hand, it is essential to lessen reliance on domestic traffic entry points and "word of mouth," remaining vigilant against any narrative that binds high returns with "easy entry"; on the other hand, while more engaged with overseas information sources, it's imperative to pay greater attention to understanding local regulatory environments, compliance requirements, and product structures, and actively supplement risk education. The process of compliance and institutionalization of the cryptocurrency industry globally will not happen overnight, and while rules are not yet fully clarified, how to survive within the red lines, and how to find a balance between highly volatile assets and real regulations, will be a long-term issue that all participants must face together.

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。