#加密货币监管框架建设 Wu Qing's words sound concise, but they actually convey the bottom line that has been explored over many years. "If it can't be clearly seen or controlled, then don't engage in the business"—this statement is backed by a long history of lessons.

Do you remember the period from 2013 to 2017? Crypto assets moved from the margins to the public eye, while regulatory bodies were actually moving forward in the dark. What insights did the P2P explosion provide us? When risk recognition is insufficient and the tools are not well-developed, blindly opening up is like laying mines. How many investors lost everything under the guise of innovation during those years.

So the current "prudent approach" is not about conservatism, but rather pragmatism. From the 94 ban in 2017 to this year's statements, the logic of regulation has remained consistent — it is not against innovation, but against evading the responsibility of risk identification under the guise of innovation. The underlying technology of crypto assets is not problematic; the issues lie in the various trading models and risk transmission mechanisms that have emerged. The question is whether regulatory authorities can truly grasp these.

We will resolutely not engage in illegal and irregular activities, which is even more straightforward. The operational space for certain institutions has been tightening over the years; those who need to catch up should catch up, and those who need to be eliminated should be eliminated. If it cannot be understood, then do not touch it; this is a way to uphold the bottom line of financial order. For investors, it is rather a safeguard—better than the collective risk explosion that follows wild growth.

In this cycle, compliance will become a scarce resource. The projects and institutions that survive until the end may not be the most aggressive, but rather those that understand how to innovate within the framework.