2026-01-20 07:50:59

#比特币2026年行情展望 $BTC, $ETH, $BNB…… The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Professionals Association has recently voiced different opinions on the new regulatory framework for digital asset management in Hong Kong.

The key question is: what does the new regulation want? In simple terms, it aims to eliminate the current "minimum ratio" requirement. What are the current rules? Asset management firms holding a Type 9 license can, with just a report, invest up to 10% of their funds in the crypto asset sector without needing an additional virtual asset management license. But the proposed new regulation insists on changing this— even if you only allocate 1% to Bitcoin, you must have a full virtual asset license.

What does the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Professionals Association think? They believe this "either-or" regulatory logic is problematic. Why? Because it would double the compliance costs for traditional asset management companies and pose a substantial barrier to their entry into the crypto space. In plain terms, it raises the entry threshold too high.

And regarding custody. The association believes that limiting custody to only licensed custodians under the SFC is simply not realistic, as it would stifle local firms' business expansion. They advocate supporting both self-custody solutions and the use of overseas custodians to provide market flexibility.

BTC-1,88%

ETH-3,94%

BNB-1,85%

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.

13 Likes

Reward
13
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

IntrovertMetaverse

· 3h ago

This regulatory approach is really brilliant. The threshold has been lowered from 10% directly to 1%, and a full license is required. Is this an attempt to completely block traditional institutions from entering?

View OriginalReply0

BridgeNomad

· 6h ago

honestly, this regulatory gatekeeping is giving major bridge exploit energy... like they're literally creating liquidity fragmentation on purpose. one percent btc allocation but you need full licensing? that's not risk management, that's counter-party risk masquerading as policy. seen this movie before, never ends well for market efficiency.

Reply0

GhostWalletSleuth

· 6h ago

Coming to block the way again? Raising the threshold directly discourages traditional institutions. Frankly, it's still about keeping retail investors and small institutions out.

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseVagabond

· 6h ago

Hong Kong's recent regulation is truly remarkable. Raising the threshold directly keeps traditional asset management out. This isn't about opening up; it's about closing off.

View OriginalReply0

RiddleMaster

· 6h ago

Hong Kong's new regulation logic is really impressive—requiring a full license for just 1% allocation? Isn't this essentially a way to keep traditional institutions out? The association's complaints this time are justified; raising the threshold leaves no room for anyone to survive.

View OriginalReply0

P2ENotWorking

· 6h ago

Hong Kong's recent regulation is really shooting itself in the foot. Even 1% of licenses? Isn't this effectively locking traditional institutions out? Doubling compliance costs—who can bear that?

View OriginalReply0

FloorPriceNightmare

· 6h ago

This new regulation in Hong Kong is really outrageous, requiring a 1% virtual asset license? Isn't this just a disguised way to block people? Doubling compliance costs—who can bear that?

View OriginalReply0

PessimisticOracle

· 6h ago

Hong Kong's new regulations are really closed-door policymaking, requiring 1% to obtain a full license? Are they directly pushing traditional institutions out?

View OriginalReply0