2026-01-20 11:22:04

Starting in 2026, the full implementation of the European MiCA regulation has changed the entire playbook of the crypto ecosystem. Interestingly, after this wave of regulation, many privacy projects lacking compliance foundations were delisted by exchanges, causing market-wide protests. However, one phenomenon worth noting is that some projects that adopted compliance early on are actually thriving more comfortably.

Take the Netherlands' flagship project as an example. What sets it apart from ordinary projects? Many rush to make last-minute adjustments to meet regulations by modifying their code. This project is different; its technical architecture was designed for regulation from the very beginning. Even more impressive is that it achieves compatibility with zero-knowledge proofs and regulatory audits, a technical challenge that itself creates a competitive barrier.

Coupled with the natural EU advantages brought by its Dutch background and recognition within traditional financial circles, this is no longer just a technical story. The investment logic is quite simple: when the market is still worried about regulation, projects that can better adapt to strict environments tend to be long-term winners. The stricter the rules, the more they test the project's true strength.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

7 Likes

Reward
7
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

RugDocDetective

· 8h ago

It's been obvious for a long time that those projects rushing to patch things at the last minute will eventually fail. Compliance needs to be integrated into the code from the start; retroactive fixes are simply not feasible. Zero-knowledge proofs combined with audits... this technical barrier is something other projects will never catch up to in a lifetime. The stricter the EU regulations, the more profitable it is—ironic, isn't it? Regulation is actually a sieve; only those who pass through are truly valuable.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-a180694b

· 8h ago

Regulation has come, but life is actually more enjoyable—that's what true competitiveness is all about. Projects that cram to fix code at the last minute are doomed to fail sooner or later; designing with compliance in mind from the start is the real way to go. Zero-knowledge proof combined with audit compatibility—this technological barrier is indeed absolute. The stricter the rules, the better they are at filtering out genuine projects; the market hasn't even reacted to this wave yet. The Netherlands project saw this coming long ago; they're playing a big game.

View OriginalReply0

fren_with_benefits

· 8h ago

Those who have long believed in a compliant approach have made a fortune, while those still playing wild are now probably regretting it. With the arrival of MiCA, it will directly filter out who truly has the capability. Rushing to change code at the last minute simply won't fool anyone. The Netherlands' approach is indeed tough; combining ZK proofs with audit compatibility is a difficult feat that others can't even imitate. Stricter regulation is actually a good thing. The era of bad money driving out good money is over. After this round, traditional finance will start to take us seriously, which isn't a bad thing. Wait, how exactly is the Dutch project configured? Is the source code open to the public? Honestly, those who adopted compliance early on have become the big winners of this wave. The ones rushing to catch up now, haha, it's probably too late for regrets. Stricter rules actually help reveal a project's true strength; this logic is sound. With the Netherlands' background and the EU's advantages, they've indeed had a winning start from the beginning. Regulation only makes it clear who truly has the strength; everyone else should have already been pushed out.

View OriginalReply0

PessimisticOracle

· 8h ago

That's why I never touch those fly-by-night projects; garbage code can't produce a golden egg. Compliance should be built in from the start, not remedied later by afterthoughts. The Dutch project indeed has some substance. Regulatory crackdowns can actually help eliminate a bunch of vaporware projects; it may seem bad but it's actually a cleanup. Truly solid projects want stricter rules. It's been obvious for a long time that only those who can survive in Europe are truly resilient. Projects that only modify code temporarily probably won't last until next year; this reshuffle is too decisive. By the way, is it really that difficult for zero-knowledge proofs to be compatible with audits? It seems most projects haven't really figured it out. That's why I never follow the trend of hype around privacy coins; regulation is unavoidable. But on the other hand, the mainstream acceptance of traditional finance might have been exaggerated. I agree with the logic that stricter rules make projects stronger, but it also means fewer opportunities for retail investors. Early investment in compliant projects has indeed paid off this time, unlike those that forcibly changed just to meet regulations.

View OriginalReply0

TommyTeacher1

· 8h ago

I've seen it for a long time, regulation is actually a sieve that instantly separates genuine projects from air coins. Compliance projects definitely have a better life, and those rushing to catch up should have been phased out long ago. Zero-knowledge proofs combined with audits? This technical barrier is indeed tough; ordinary projects simply can't handle it. European projects have truly won this round; the recognition from traditional finance is not just hype. I think this is the big wave淘沙, only those with real substance will survive in the end. Strict regulation is actually a good thing for legitimate projects, no need to compete with those fly-by-night projects. I've looked into the Dutch project; they considered compliance from the architecture level. That's the long-term approach. More and more people will realize that resisting regulation is a dead end; it's better to go with the flow. By 2026, when everything is fully rolled out, those projects still gambling will probably be completely phased out. Compliance is naturally an advantage. Why are some still following the trend of investing in non-compliant stuff?

View OriginalReply0