In the world of virtual assets in Hong Kong, terms like "crypto" and "exchange" have long been overused: street-side shops, mobile applications, and websites established by overseas teams boldly label themselves as some kind of "exchange" as long as they are related to on-chain business. Recently, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission broke its silence and publicly released a consultation summary focusing on the issue of name usage, bringing this long-standing problem of "regulatory identity confusion" to the policy level. In the document, the commission proposed to amend Hong Kong's core regulatory legislation, the Securities and Futures Ordinance, and the anti-money laundering hub, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance, targeting those unauthorized entities that deliberately create the illusion of being "regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission"—especially those that frequently use terms in their names or promotions that may make the public associate them with regulated exchanges, clearinghouses, or virtual asset trading platforms. High-confidence information indicates that terms like "crypto" and "exchange" have already been specifically named as terms slated for restriction, but currently, this is still just a consultation summary and proposed amendment, and there are processes to go through before they become effective provisions. For regulators, this is a governance experiment that starts from the nameplate: first tightening the discourse power, then redrawing the boundaries of regulatory identity, and redefining who is qualified to call themselves an "exchange" in Hong Kong.
The Gray Area of Calling Oneself an Exchange
Before this, there was always a gray area in Hong Kong's virtual asset market: many institutions that have not been authorized by the Securities and Futures Commission brazenly incorporated terms like "crypto" and "exchange" into their brands, product descriptions, and advertising rhetoric. For industry insiders, this is just part of marketing packaging; but for ordinary investors, such terminology can trigger a gut feeling—that since they dare to call themselves "exchange," they must have regulation, a platform, and a bottom line similar to traditional regulated exchanges. This long-accumulated "regulatory identity confusion" is precisely the target of the commission's consultation summary: it is not about whether you do business but about clearly stating whether you can label yourself as an "exchange."
The wording of the consultation summary essentially dissects this gray area point by point. The Securities and Futures Commission specifically called out any name usage that "may cause the public to mistakenly believe that its business is regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission," especially phrases that imply a connection to exchanges, clearinghouses, and virtual asset trading platforms. The proposed restrictions are not a one-size-fits-all approach but instead tighten the rules specifically for unauthorized institutions. This effectively singles out "improper use of regulatory identity" as a risk source: misleading the public about a platform's regulatory status, in the commission's view, not only weakens investor protection but also disrupts overall market order. Who can still call themselves an "exchange" in Hong Kong is no longer just an issue of copy style but a direct confrontation over regulatory boundaries.
Twofold Gag Order from Regulatory Framework
To close the loophole of "regulatory identity confusion," the Securities and Futures Commission did not issue just a guideline but instead reached into two core regulatory frameworks: one being the Securities and Futures Ordinance, which is responsible for capital market regulation, and the other being the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance, which is responsible for anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing. The former already regulates who can issue products, act as intermediaries, and operate platforms in Hong Kong, and now adding restrictions on terms like "crypto" and "exchange" essentially brings the self-packaging behavior of virtual asset-related businesses into the scope of capital market rules; the latter, originally used to determine who should be considered a high-risk business entity, is now being brought back to regulate nomenclature in order to lock those platforms that "appear to be regulated entities" into the regulatory discourse system from the perspective of capital flow and compliance identity.
The positioning of the consultation summary means that everything is still at the "proposed amendment" level: the specific wording and how it will be enforced in the future remains unclear to the outside world, but the outline is already clear—drawing a red line on misleading names through the securities regulatory pathway; setting up another gate for the identity expression of virtual asset-related businesses through the anti-money laundering pathway. The two regulations converge on different dimensions, raising the question of "who can call themselves an exchange, and who can operate under the banner of crypto" from being a marketing issue to a matter of institutional boundaries. This dual gag order signifies that Hong Kong will no longer permit a regulatory posture that allows for "gray areas" in the management of virtual asset names.
Crypto and Exchange Become High-Risk Vocabulary
When the Securities and Futures Ordinance and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance are brought to the same table, the commission highlighted not a particular platform, but rather a few seemingly harmless terms—"crypto" and "exchange." In the consultation summary, these terms have been explicitly included in the category of restricted nomenclature, not due to their semantics but because of their implied effects in the real market: once included in an institution's name, product label, or promotional wording, they can easily be interpreted by the public as being “regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission,” “licensed,” or having some formal relationship with exchanges, clearinghouses, and virtual asset trading platforms. What regulators aim to sever is this "regulatory endorsement illusion" triggered by words.
This also explains why the official document emphasizes terminology such as "may cause the public to mistakenly believe that its business is regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission" or "has links with exchanges, clearinghouses, and virtual asset trading platforms," rather than a simple dictionary-style prohibited list. The commission is concerned about the context and effect—using the same "crypto" and "exchange" in different sentences and on different subjects releases entirely different regulatory signals. Now, these terms have been formally elevated to high-sensitivity nomenclature, meaning that institutions engaged in virtual asset-related businesses will have to redraft around these words in every step from brand naming and product packaging to market promotion, avoiding crossing the red line of "improper use of regulatory identity" while redefining their own business labels in a new context.
Brand Recalculation Costs for Unauthorized Institutions
Once the proposed amendments are actually incorporated into the Securities and Futures Ordinance and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance, the first to feel the pressure will be those institutions that have long had "crypto" and "exchange" in their names but have not been authorized by the Securities and Futures Commission. The regulatory aim stated in the consultation summary is very direct—restricting "unauthorized institutions" from using names that may mislead the public into thinking they are regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission, or have connections with exchanges, clearinghouses, and virtual asset trading platforms, meaning every word in brand names, official website titles, social media descriptions, and even product brochures may be reevaluated once the rules take effect. Places that could previously vaguely state “regulated,” “compliant platform,” or “exchange cooperation” may in the future be directly marked as text evidence for regulatory scrutiny, and the overall "image" created by institutions repeatedly using these terms across different channels will also be included in the context of judging whether they mislead the public.
From the perspective of investors, bringing terminology under legal boundaries adds an extra filter in the sea of information noise. When sensitive words like “exchange” and “crypto” are strictly tethered to authorized identities, ordinary people no longer default to believing that a familiar word implies “regulated by the Securities and Futures Commission” or “related to licensed platforms.” Instead, they will be better able to discern from names and descriptions which institutions truly operate within the current regulatory framework. For unauthorized institutions, this represents a real recalculation cost for branding; for investors, it redraws the line between regulated and unregulated within the same market, making it so the threshold for identifying the true identity of institutions is no longer entirely swayed by advertising slogans and self-packaging.
Post-Battle Narrative of Hong Kong's Crypto
When the Securities and Futures Commission incorporates terms like "crypto" and "exchange" into the proposed amendments to the Securities and Futures Ordinance and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance, it is not just plugging a regulatory gap but clearly announcing: virtual asset governance will no longer only focus on what business you conduct, but also on how you refer to yourself outwardly. Nomenclature has shifted from decorative brand packaging to being included in the regulatory toolbox, transforming into a red line that can trigger compliance responsibilities; for the market, this means that the shortcut narrative that could previously be based on just a name or a page is cut off, forcing a reconstruction of brand language and opening a new battleground for the interplay between regulation and innovation. However, it still resides in the phase of consultation summary and proposed amendments, with no definite timeline for the new regulations to take effect or details on penalties, meaning the consultative text is more of a directional signal rather than an immediate enforceable rule, leaving the true story hanging in suspense: how the upcoming legislative process will specifically outline the boundary of "misleading nomenclature," the arrangements for the transition period, and whether enforcement will be strict or flexible, will ultimately determine whether this battle over terminology leads to a more coherent and predictable regulatory narrative for Hong Kong's crypto or continues to maintain a gray balance between openness and restraint through repeated probing.
Join our community, let's discuss and grow stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
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[email protected]，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
