【链文】Hong Kong’s virtual asset regulation has new developments. The regulatory authority plans to revoke the exemption threshold for licensed asset management institutions investing in crypto assets under License 9. This sounds simple, but the consequences could be quite impactful.
Imagine: a fund that allocates only 1% to Bitcoin, under this new regulation, also needs to apply for a full virtual asset management license. What does this mean? Compliance costs will rise sharply, creating an disproportionate burden. The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Professional Association openly opposes this, worried that it will directly dampen traditional asset management firms’ willingness to explore crypto assets.
A deeper issue arises — the new regulation also requires assets to be held only through licensed custodians, which severely restricts the operational flexibility of Web3 venture capital funds. The association calls for more flexibility: introducing self-custody options and allowing offshore custody arrangements. This can help mitigate risks while leaving some room for market innovation. The balance between regulation and innovation still needs to be refined.
Halaman ini mungkin berisi konten pihak ketiga, yang disediakan untuk tujuan informasi saja (bukan pernyataan/jaminan) dan tidak boleh dianggap sebagai dukungan terhadap pandangannya oleh Gate, atau sebagai nasihat keuangan atau profesional. Lihat Penafian untuk detailnya.
13 Suka
Hadiah
13
7
Posting ulang
Bagikan
Komentar
0/400
rugpull_survivor
· 10jam yang lalu
Sial, 1% Bitcoin juga harus mendapatkan lisensi penuh? Kebijakan ini benar-benar gila, sama sekali tidak adil dan justru mendorong keluar dana tradisional
Lihat AsliBalas0
MEVictim
· 10jam yang lalu
Huh? 1% Bitcoin juga harus memiliki lisensi penuh? Hong Kong ini benar-benar ingin memaksa keuangan tradisional sampai mati
Lihat AsliBalas0
IfIWereOnChain
· 10jam yang lalu
Ruang operasi terjebak, dana tradisional pun tidak akan menyentuh kripto, pola pengawasan ini agak bertentangan ya
Lihat AsliBalas0
RektButStillHere
· 10jam yang lalu
Hong Kong ini benar-benar luar biasa, 1% dari btc harus mendapatkan seluruh lisensi, ini bukan untuk menakut-nakuti dana tradisional agar masuk, ini langsung menutup pintu begitu saja
Lihat AsliBalas0
MEVSupportGroup
· 10jam yang lalu
Sialan, lagi-lagi menghambat, 1% Bitcoin harus mengajukan perizinan ulang? Hong Kong ini ingin mengusir dana tradisional keluar, ya
Lihat AsliBalas0
CrossChainMessenger
· 10jam yang lalu
Operasi ini di Hong Kong benar-benar di luar batas, 1% Bitcoin pun harus mendapatkan lisensi? Dana tradisional sudah lama mengundurkan diri karena ketakutan, otoritas pengawas bermain di sini.
Lihat AsliBalas0
hodl_therapist
· 10jam yang lalu
Operasi ini di Hong Kong benar-benar gila, pengaturan 1% saja harus dengan lisensi lengkap? Ini sepertinya ingin membuat semua dana tradisional takut dan pergi.
Asosiasi Pengelola Aset Hong Kong Berbicara: Kebijakan Lisensi Aset Virtual Mungkin Menghambat Masuknya Dana Tradisional
【链文】Hong Kong’s virtual asset regulation has new developments. The regulatory authority plans to revoke the exemption threshold for licensed asset management institutions investing in crypto assets under License 9. This sounds simple, but the consequences could be quite impactful.
Imagine: a fund that allocates only 1% to Bitcoin, under this new regulation, also needs to apply for a full virtual asset management license. What does this mean? Compliance costs will rise sharply, creating an disproportionate burden. The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Professional Association openly opposes this, worried that it will directly dampen traditional asset management firms’ willingness to explore crypto assets.
A deeper issue arises — the new regulation also requires assets to be held only through licensed custodians, which severely restricts the operational flexibility of Web3 venture capital funds. The association calls for more flexibility: introducing self-custody options and allowing offshore custody arrangements. This can help mitigate risks while leaving some room for market innovation. The balance between regulation and innovation still needs to be refined.