On January 26, 2026, the traditional and cryptocurrency financial systems accelerated their integration globally: on one side, Japan's Sumitomo Mitsui Trust indirectly bet on Bitcoin exposure through the US stock MSTR, providing a new model for institutional capital entry; on the other side, DeFi smart contracts were hacked for tens of millions of dollars in a very short time, exposing a significant gap in security infrastructure. Concurrently, South Korean exchanges jointly reviewed questionable assets, and the EU initiated an investigation into the AI tools of the X platform under the DSA, marking a multidimensional test of the new order boundaries in the cryptocurrency industry regarding regulation and self-discipline mechanisms.

Japanese Banks Take an Indirect Bet on Bitcoin Custody Companies

● Indirect Exposure Path: Recent disclosures show that Sumitomo Mitsui Trust holds approximately 606,600 shares of MSTR, valued at about $96.6 million at current prices, choosing to gain indirect exposure to Bitcoin through a US-listed company. This approach allows it to capture capital gains from Bitcoin price fluctuations without breaching domestic compliance lines on direct holdings, providing a relatively controllable new path for traditional banking institutions.

● Role of Custody Companies: MSTR has long been viewed by the market as a "Bitcoin Custody Company," continuously increasing its BTC holdings, which closely ties its stock price to Bitcoin's movements. For institutions like Sumitomo Mitsui, holding MSTR is equivalent to using a publicly listed company regulated by US securities, partially outsourcing the challenges of direct holdings in custody, technical security, and accounting within a familiar regulatory stock framework for crypto asset allocation.

● Asian Model Effect: This configuration choice is likely to become a replicable model for Japanese and even broader Asian institutions. On one hand, it reflects a change in traditional finance's perception of Bitcoin's risk-return profile—from complete observation to "controllable exposure"; on the other hand, it provides a real case for other large institutions in the region facing domestic regulatory uncertainties to indirectly participate in the cryptocurrency asset cycle through overseas securities markets.

South Korean Exchanges Unite to Review Problematic Tokens

● Joint Review Initiated: In the actions taken on January 26, members of the South Korean self-regulatory organization DAXA initiated a joint review of SXP for the first time, drawing significant attention from the local market. Compared to a single platform delisting or warning, this "united" review sends a stronger signal of collaborative risk control, indicating that leading South Korean exchanges are beginning to take unified action on the disposal of questionable assets to reduce regulatory arbitrage opportunities caused by user migration between platforms.

● Transparency and Boundaries: Some media interpret the DAXA mechanism as a reflection of "enhanced risk disposal efficiency," believing that multiple platforms intervening simultaneously helps to identify and isolate risky assets more quickly. However, the specific reasons for SXP's review have not been disclosed, and relevant details are missing from public information, which also exposes the current limitations of joint reviews in terms of information transparency and procedural openness; project parties and investors can only infer standards through outcomes.

● Behavioral Constraint Effect: Even with limited details, this self-regulatory model still provides a quickly triggered response template for high-volatility assets. For project parties, being included in the joint review list itself is a strong negative signal, forcing them to be more proactive in information disclosure, governance, and compliance communication; for holders, they must start incorporating the probability of "being collectively risk-controlled" into their decision-making, reshaping industry participation behavior.

$17 Million Stolen from Smart Contracts, Security Gaps Widen

● Scale of Vulnerability Losses: The security shortcomings in the DeFi sector were once again magnified in January, as vulnerabilities in the Aperture Finance smart contract were exploited, leading to approximately $17 million in assets being stolen. Of this, about $10 million in losses came from a single source, which still needs to be treated with caution; however, even by conservative estimates, this is still a medium-sized capital loss event, highlighting the systemic weaknesses in contract auditing and permission design.

● High-Value Asset Incentives: The addresses related to the attack were also found to have extracted about 392 XAUT, valued at approximately $2 million at the time, indicating a clear fact: on-chain anchoring of high-value assets has become a "value stronghold" that hackers are keenly targeting. Whether it is large dollar assets or precious metal-linked tokens, as long as there are weaknesses in contract and permission control, they will quickly be capitalized into attack opportunities.

● Capital Growth vs. Security Deficit: In stark contrast to the signs of compliant capital entering through Japanese institutions increasing MSTR holdings and Europe launching new types of crypto-related ETPs, DeFi security infrastructure has repeatedly failed within the same timeframe. One side sees a rapid influx of capital backed by regulatory frameworks and risk control models, while the other side, based on smart contracts, is repeatedly breached, creating a "security deficit" at the industry level that ultimately flows back to institutions' risk pricing of on-chain native yield strategies.

Centralized Platforms Race to Connect Stocks and Crypto Assets

● Integration of Trading Infrastructure: At the trading level, the integration of centralized and decentralized infrastructures is also accelerating. Bitget and Tread.fi are advancing technical integration, seen as another attempt to combine the deep liquidity of centralized matching with the advantages of on-chain settlement and self-custody. Although a specific timeline has not been disclosed, the direction is clear: to use a front end that is closer to traditional user experiences while "hiding" the underlying on-chain trading logic in the background.

● Extension of Asset Tokenization: On the other side, Gate continues to expand its tokenization services for stocks and precious metals, packaging assets that were originally limited to traditional brokerage hours into tokens that can circulate on-chain 24/7. This not only provides a new liquidity pool for traditional assets but also opens a window for crypto users to cross-allocate assets, enabling rapid rotation from crypto assets to stocks and precious metals within the same account system.

● New Entry for Securities Accounts: In Europe, a Swedish platform launched ETP products related to BNB, allowing local investors to gain risk exposure linked to crypto assets within traditional securities accounts. For many institutions and retail investors constrained by compliance or custody conditions, this design lowers the entry threshold and further blurs the lines between "traditional assets" and "crypto assets," promoting deeper overlaps at the product level.

EU Targets X Platform, AI and Crypto Compliance Intertwined

● DSA Investigation Launched: From a regulatory perspective, the European Commission has initiated an investigation into the AI tools of the X platform under the Digital Services Act (DSA), focusing on whether algorithmic recommendations and content distribution mechanisms comply with regulatory requirements. This investigation concerns not only traditional content review but also tests the boundaries of responsibility when social platforms introduce AI regarding user information flow, advertising, and potential financial service promotions.

● Social and Crypto Entry: X has previously been seen as an important entry point for the integration of future social platforms and crypto, with its AI functions believed to potentially play roles in asset discovery, market information aggregation, and even transaction guidance. This DSA investigation casts a shadow over these potential capabilities: any information recommendation involving financial attributes, especially in scenarios related to high-volatility crypto assets, will have to reconsider the design space for compliance disclosure and risk warnings.

● Redrawing Overlapping Scenarios: The EU's probing into the overlapping scenarios of AI and crypto will force platforms to redraw lines in recommendation algorithms, asset displays, and risk control models. On one hand, algorithms need to be more precise in identifying risky content to avoid being seen as "indirectly selling" high-risk financial products; on the other hand, if platforms wish to continue exploring business models based on crypto assets, they must reserve enough flexibility within the compliance framework to seek innovative space while adhering to the DSA.

The Tug-of-War Between Massive Capital Influx and Security Crises

From Japan's Sumitomo Mitsui leveraging MSTR to Sweden expanding BNB-related ETPs, the channels for compliant capital to allocate to crypto assets are being rapidly established in a regionalized and diversified manner. Whether through holdings in US stock custody companies or purchasing linked products within local securities accounts, traditional finance is gradually viewing crypto assets as a type of risk asset that can be managed institutionally, rather than completely marginalized speculative targets.

Parallel to this, incidents like the Aperture Finance DeFi hack and the joint review mechanism of South Korean exchanges are unfolding almost simultaneously, pushing security and risk control to a critical variable position in industry expansion. On one side, the volume of capital seeking higher on-chain yields continues to grow, while on the other side, the vulnerabilities of smart contracts and project governance are repeatedly validated by attackers. Ultimately, whether capital is willing to truly embrace on-chain native risk exposure will still depend on the comprehensive costs of security and compliance.

The EU's regulatory signals regarding the AI tools of the X platform indicate that a new cycle intertwining AI, social, and crypto will be more deeply embedded in regulatory games. In the future, compliance and institutionalization will become the main theme: from trading infrastructure to social entry, from asset tokenization to algorithmic recommendations, the industry is moving along a path continuously redrawn by regulatory and security lines. For participants, the real competitive advantage will no longer just be obtaining higher yields, but rather adapting earlier to this long-term tug-of-war between capital influx and security crises.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

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support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。