From a cyclical perspective, a four-year cycle is not only the pattern of Bitcoin's rise and fall but also the timing for the introduction of regulatory policies.

Written by: Liu Yang

Recently, lawyer Liu Yang has observed some unusual signals.

On November 7, 2025, the public account "Feng Lun Feng Ma Niu" reposted an article from "Wumian Finance" titled Pardon Zhao Changpeng, Who is the Big Winner? || In-depth;

On November 9, 2025, the public account "National Computer Virus Emergency Response Center" published an article Technical Traceability Analysis Report on the LuBian Mining Pool Hacked and Stolen Massive Bitcoin Incident;

On November 10, 2025, the public account "Ye Ping" published an article signed by "Nanmen Scout" titled Black Eating Black in the Digital Age -- The National-Level Hacker Suspicion Behind 127,000 Bitcoins;

On November 11, 2025, the public account "Ye Ping" published another article signed by "Nanmen Scout" titled Digital Harvesting Under Technological Hegemony: The U.S. is Indiscriminately Hollowing Out Global Crypto Assets.

These public accounts are not traditional official media like certain newspapers or agencies, but to some extent, they represent the official will. You can understand them as "utilizing the identity of ordinary people to express mainstream views from the perspective of ordinary people." The content they express also has a strong influence and is significant for judging policy directions.

There are other similar public accounts, such as "You Li Er You Mian," "Xia Ke Island," "Yu Yuan Tan Tian," "Niu Tan Qin," etc. Friends interested can search for and learn about the backgrounds of these public accounts.

These public accounts share the following characteristics: First, a large number of people within the system frequently repost their content. Lawyer Liu Yang has worked in the system for over ten years and often sees old colleagues "flooding" his social media feed. If you pay attention, you will definitely notice this phenomenon. Second, these articles generally achieve over 100,000 views. Those who write for public accounts know that achieving 100,000 views is not easy; the important factor is not the number of followers but the volume of reposts. Third, the viewpoints expressed in these articles are all positive and in sync with mainstream values.

Returning to the topic of this article, the recent intensive coverage of virtual currencies by official or semi-official media is unprecedented. From the content of the articles, these public accounts generally have a negative overall evaluation of virtual currencies. I have briefly highlighted some viewpoints from these articles for your reference:

"On the surface, the U.S. views Bitcoin as 'digital gold' reserves to hedge against the risks of dollar depreciation and soaring U.S. debt interest rates. However, several observers believe that the deeper logic lies in converting global investors' funds into dollar reserves through stablecoins like USDT and USDC, which then automatically flow back to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds. This effectively opens a new lifeline for the massive U.S. dollar debt."

"Thus, this reversal from prisoner to pardon is increasingly spectacular, making it clearer: in the game of capital and power, there is never absolute justice, only periodic incorporation and tacit win-win situations."

"The Trump administration's cryptocurrency harvesting actions are by no means a simple 'law enforcement crackdown' or 'fiscal revenue generation,' but rather a 'digital colonial' strategy implemented under the pressure of a debt crisis, using technological advantages as a weapon. Its essence is to transform cryptocurrency from decentralized technological innovation into financial tools and surveillance means that serve U.S. hegemony, posing a systemic threat to the global digital economic order."

"Today, they can 'eat black' through hacking, confiscating massive amounts of Bitcoin from Chen Zhi and his princeling group; tomorrow, they can use the same means against any individual or organization deemed a 'threat.' When law enforcers become hackers and regulators become thieves, the foundation of the entire digital ecosystem we rely on for trust is being shaken."

Coincidentally, recently, Pan Gongsheng, the governor of the People's Bank of China, stated at the "2025 Financial Street Forum" annual meeting: Stablecoins, as a financial activity, currently cannot effectively meet basic requirements for customer identity verification, anti-money laundering, etc., amplifying global financial regulatory loopholes, such as money laundering, illegal cross-border fund transfers, and terrorist financing. The atmosphere of market speculation is strong, increasing the fragility of the global financial system and impacting the monetary sovereignty of some underdeveloped economies.

Please note that Governor Pan Gongsheng's statements regarding stablecoins are entirely negative.

When we evaluate a matter, we often discuss the issue of "duality," such as what advantages and disadvantages it has, what benefits and harms it brings. However, regarding stablecoins, Governor Pan did not provide any positive evaluations.

He also emphasized:

Since 2017, the People's Bank of China, together with relevant departments, has issued multiple policy documents to prevent and address the risks of domestic virtual currency trading speculation, which are still in effect today.

In the next steps, the People's Bank of China will continue to work with law enforcement agencies to crack down on domestic virtual currency operations and speculation, maintain economic and financial order, and closely monitor and dynamically assess the development of overseas stablecoins.

Many media outlets have commented that the central bank holds a cautious attitude towards stablecoins, but I feel this evaluation is somewhat "wishful thinking" and overly optimistic.

In light of all this, lawyer Liu Yang keenly senses that the state may soon introduce relevant policies or legal documents regarding virtual digital currencies.

From a cyclical perspective, a four-year cycle is not only the pattern of Bitcoin's rise and fall but also the timing for the introduction of regulatory policies. From the "Notice on Preventing Bitcoin Risks" in December 2013, to the "Announcement on Preventing Token Issuance Financing Risks" in September 2017, and then to the "Notice on Further Preventing and Addressing Risks of Virtual Currency Trading Speculation" in September 2021, the Bitcoin halving cycle occurs every four years, and our significant regulatory policies are also introduced every four years—what a coincidence.

From the perspective of mainstream legal voices regarding virtual currencies, they are becoming increasingly prominent. Lawyer Liu Yang has been handling virtual currency cases since 2019, a time when there was little discussion on this topic in the mainstream legal community; the disclosure of the Plus Token case in 2020 and the subsequent bull market in 2021 led to an increasing number of virtual currency cases encountered by frontline judicial agencies, with everyone exploring as they went, and policies varying by region. However, since last year, the Supreme People's Court has been intensively researching virtual digital currencies, and this year the Supreme Procuratorate has also gotten involved. With both high courts engaged and having conducted research for such a long time, they are bound to produce concrete results.

From the perspective of frontline judicial needs, resolving legal issues related to virtual currencies is urgent. In criminal cases, there has always been a dispute over whether virtual currencies are data or property, with inconsistent enforcement standards across regions, leading to different judgments for the same case and varying outcomes for similar cases. From the civil case perspective, courts generally do not care whether it is data or property; they either refuse to file a case or dismiss the lawsuit. From the perspective of the intersection of criminal and civil law, on one hand, a large number of assets involved in criminal cases are confiscated, while on the other hand, users who are stolen from, robbed, or defrauded find that law enforcement agencies do not accept or file cases, and the civil domain considers currency-related activities to violate public order and good morals, rendering contracts invalid and thus failing to provide relief, inevitably creating a sense of disconnection.

In summary, lawyer Liu Yang believes that the next steps for regulatory policies and legal documents may have the following directions: First, regarding regulatory policies for virtual currencies, as Governor Pan Gongsheng mentioned, the documents from 2017 are still in effect, so even if new policies are introduced, the overall tone will not change, and the focus may be on stablecoins. Second, if a judicial interpretation specifically for virtual currencies is issued, it seems there has not been such a framework before. Given that the meeting minutes regarding civil cases involving virtual currencies were issued earlier, the legal documents for criminal cases may be released in the form of meeting minutes, with the difficulty lying in the valuation of virtual digital currencies. Third, legal documents regarding the disposal of virtual currencies will definitely be issued; the two high courts have conducted research for so long, and there is no reason not to produce results.

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。