On January 22, 2026, at the World Economic Forum held in Davos, Switzerland, Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) appeared as the leader of a top global trading platform in the panel discussion titled "The New Era of Finance," once again placing the spotlight on the dialogue between the crypto industry and mainstream finance. On one hand, he clearly denied the feasibility of establishing a global unified crypto regulatory body at this stage; on the other hand, he proposed the idea of a "regulatory passport system" based on compliance licenses from various countries, attempting to find a new compromise between regulatory fragmentation and the borderless nature of crypto. On that day, BTC briefly surpassed $90,000, with whales opening approximately $9 million in ETH long positions, while the three major U.S. stock index futures all rose, and the sentiment for risk assets warmed up significantly, with the meme coin RALPH plummeting by about 80%. Against the backdrop of soaring prices and heightened emotions, the question of "who will set the multinational game rules" was brought to the forefront of regulatory discussions in Davos.
Under the Spotlight in Davos: Why CZ Abandoned Unified Regulation
● Core Statement and Context: In the "New Era of Finance" panel, CZ directly stated his judgment—"Establishing a global unified regulatory body is currently unfeasible." This statement is not a simple slogan but a calm assessment of the current structural reality: facing an audience of regulators, traditional finance, and institutional investors from various countries, he chose to clearly draw a red line of "impossibility," and then proposed an alternative solution, bringing the discussion back from the abstract notion of "global regulatory integration" to a more operational level that could be accepted by all parties.
● Multiple Barriers of Real-World Constraints: CZ's denial of a unified regulatory body is not due to an inherent industry aversion to regulation, but points to structural challenges in execution and accountability. There are significant differences among countries in legal systems, political interests, regulatory cultures, and accountability mechanisms. Even if a supranational crypto regulatory body were established, it would be difficult to form a universally recognized unified framework for enforcement standards, penalties, and cross-border accountability. This reality gap makes the idea of a "single global regulator" more of a political declaration than a feasible system.
● Structural Tension in a Borderless Industry: Since the birth of crypto assets, the idea of "global unified regulation" has been repeatedly proposed. However, under the premise of highly cross-border flow of funds and projects, and technology deployment without geographical boundaries, this concept has remained at the visionary level. Countries are reluctant to completely give up their regulatory sovereignty while wanting to enjoy the benefits of the industry, leading to a long-term awkward state of "some advocate, but no one pays." CZ's statement essentially acknowledges this long-standing deadlock.
● The Main Stage of Discourse Competition: In a global agenda setting like Davos, the traditional regulatory camp hopes to strengthen its power boundaries through discussions on crypto, incorporating new assets into existing frameworks; crypto practitioners, on the other hand, seek to gain greater experimental space and regulatory flexibility. CZ's public denial of unified regulation and his proposal of an alternative solution is a strategic move to confront traditional regulatory discourse head-on, deliberately placing the premise of "no one can have the final say" on the table.
The Regulatory Passport Emerges: From One-Size-Fits-All to Standard Mutual Recognition
● Basic Framework of Institutional Prototype: Compared to the abstract unified body, CZ's proposed "regulatory passport system" resembles a pragmatic compromise—no longer pursuing the creation of a single supranational regulator, but rather based on existing compliance licenses from various countries, through mutual recognition and access mechanisms, allowing institutions that obtain licenses in several qualified jurisdictions to enjoy a certain degree of simplified access and regulatory mutual trust in other participating countries, thereby reducing the repetitive costs of cross-border compliance.
● Fundamental Differences in Power Structures: A global unified regulatory body implies a high degree of centralization in regulatory power, concentrating authority in a supranational entity; whereas the "regulatory passport" is closer to a multilateral agreement and standard mutual recognition network, where countries retain ultimate sovereignty, only reaching consensus on licensing standards, information sharing, and some enforcement cooperation. The former is about building a "regulatory United Nations" from the top down, while the latter is about horizontally constructing a "regulatory Schengen Zone."
● Potential Impact of Various Participants: Once such a passport framework takes shape, the compliance costs for exchanges and project parties are likely to concentrate in a few key hub jurisdictions, where licenses will become critical assets and market passports, allowing users to obtain a more predictable cross-border service experience on the surface. However, the cost is a significant increase in industry barriers, making it more difficult for small and medium platforms and projects to enter core traffic and capital markets due to high licensing costs and compliance requirements.
● The Gap Between Vision and Proposal: Currently, the only information available to the public is CZ's conceptual statements made in public forums, with no publicly verifiable materials available regarding technical details, processes, certification standards, and review steps. Therefore, the so-called "regulatory passport system" at this stage should be viewed more as a directional initiative rather than a mature institutional design. The market needs to clearly distinguish between visionary narratives and executable proposals, avoiding filling institutional gaps with imagination.
UAE's Head Start: The U.S. and EU's Passive Response
● UAE's Early Release: When discussing regulatory-friendly practices, CZ specifically mentioned that "the UAE has become one of the important hubs in the crypto industry." This judgment corresponds to the UAE's accelerated actions in licensing and creating an industrial environment in recent years: without touching on undisclosed terms and technical details, it can be confirmed that it has taken a leading position in the global migration of funds and projects through relatively clear licensing paths and an open attitude towards industry landing, providing a real-world example for the "regulatory passport" concept.
● A Multipolar Regulatory Landscape: Research briefs indicate that the U.S., UAE, and three other countries/regions are viewed as regulatory pioneers by the outside world, meaning that the current global regulatory landscape does not have a single center, but rather consists of several competing yet mutually observing high grounds. Different jurisdictions exhibit significant differences in licensing logic, regulatory intensity, and industrial policies, yet all attempt to position themselves in the first tier of "trusted regulatory hubs" in anticipation of future possible access mechanisms.
● Competition Among Regulatory Pioneers: A rough comparison shows that the U.S. and EU exhibit different regulatory rhythms and focuses: one emphasizes financial security, compliance red lines, and systemic risk prevention, frequently sending "bottom line signals" to the market with a tough attitude; the other highlights industry landing, corporate retention, and innovation space, providing a certain time window for enterprises through gradual rules. This difference is not only about path selection but also a long-term game surrounding regulatory discourse power and industrial distribution rights.
● License Premium Under the Passport Concept: If a form of regulatory access mechanism is established in the future, relatively friendly jurisdictions like the UAE will have the opportunity to amplify the external value of local licenses: companies will concentrate on obtaining "key hub licenses," thereby granting local regulators greater bargaining power and rule-exporting capabilities. Meanwhile, traditional major countries, which are at a disadvantage in terms of industrial attractiveness, may be forced to adjust their regulatory attitudes and technical details to avoid being marginalized outside the access system.
When the Crypto Bull Market Meets New Regulatory Narratives
● Price Frenzy and Rule Restructuring in Parallel: On the day CZ spoke, BTC price broke through the $90,000 mark, with on-chain whales opening approximately $9 million in ETH long positions, and market sentiment regarding future trends surged. Meanwhile, discussions in the Davos venue were focused on how to reshape the global crypto regulatory framework—this stark contrast between "upward uncontrollability" on the price side and "re-commitment" on the regulatory side serves as a reminder that a bull market does not mean the retreat of regulation.
● Amplified Emotions Amid Extreme Volatility: In contrast to the soaring mainstream assets, the meme coin RALPH experienced a cliff-like drop of about 80% during the same period, providing a harsh footnote to this emotional feast. In such a high-volatility environment, regulatory uncertainty and speculative impulses often resonate: on one hand, the lack of clear rules makes risk assets more prone to extreme emotional swings; on the other hand, such dramatic rises and falls reinforce the public pressure on regulators to "strengthen intervention."
● The Overall Recovery of Risk Assets: On the same day, the three major U.S. stock index futures all rose, indicating that global risk assets are undergoing a broad recovery in risk appetite. In this macro emotional context, discussions around crypto regulation seem more like an attempt to reshape order at a high point rather than "saving the market" at a low point. This suggests that regulatory topics are less about rescue tools and more about finding clearer reservoirs and flood defenses for a new wave of capital influx.
● Super Cycle Narratives and Regulatory Expectations: There are already discussions in the market about a potential "crypto super cycle," but such views currently remain within the realm of unverified narratives. Concepts surrounding new systems like the regulatory passport can also easily be interpreted as early preparations for this long cycle: for optimists, this is a long-term benefit paving the way for institutional capital to enter; for the cautious, the new framework means stricter thresholds and higher costs, potentially limiting speculative space in the short term. The coexistence of these two interpretations itself constitutes a narrative divergence in this market cycle.
Binance's Rising Discourse Power: From Being Regulated to Discussing Regulation
● The Trajectory of Identity Transformation: Looking back over the past few years, Binance has experienced constant friction with regulators in multiple jurisdictions, once seen as a representative of "marginal challengers" and regulatory gray areas. Now, CZ's public discussion of the global crypto regulatory framework on such a symbolically significant stage as the World Economic Forum in Davos, along with his proactive proposal of institutional ideas, marks a shift in his role from "regulated subject" to "order participant," and even to a certain extent, a promoter and beneficiary of the discussion on new order.
● Complementary Voices from the Co-CEO: Echoing CZ's institutional ideas, Binance's co-CEO Richard Teng also emphasized the importance of regulation in the same forum, mentioning views such as "brain drain from India" in a single-source report. Due to the current lack of cross-verification of relevant information, this is only presented as a position to be verified rather than a factual conclusion, avoiding emotional or structural deductions based on a single statement. This caution itself is a response to the sensitivity of regulatory topics.
● Strategic Considerations Behind Hub Layout: In recent years, Binance has continued to increase its presence in relatively regulatory-friendly jurisdictions like the UAE, essentially seizing a "dual hub position of geography and rules" within a multipolar regulatory landscape. If a regulatory passport-like structure is formed in the future, possessing key hub licenses and local resources will directly translate into leverage in negotiations with other jurisdictions and institutions, granting it higher bargaining power and survival flexibility in the rule-making and enforcement processes.
● Dual Motives for Promoting Regulation: The leading platform's proactive discussion of regulation today is not merely to "appease the traditional world." On one hand, by raising entry barriers and complicating compliance processes, it can solidify its first-mover advantage through the moat created by rules, weakening the competitiveness of new entrants; on the other hand, after experiencing trust and compliance controversies in its early years, Binance needs to repair the trust gap with mainstream regulators through compliance narratives and public initiatives, reshaping its image from "marginal risk-taker" to "rule maker."
The Suspense of Transitioning from Fragmented Regulation to the Passport Era
● Mainline Review and Structural Reconstruction: From this discussion in Davos, it can be seen that CZ, on one hand, calmly denies the realistic possibility of establishing a global unified regulatory body at this stage, while on the other hand, proposes the directional idea of a "regulatory passport system," attempting to build a compromise bridge between highly fragmented national regulation and the naturally borderless crypto industry. This marks a shift in discussions around crypto regulation from "whether to have global unification" to "how to achieve limited mutual recognition within sovereignty."
● The Battle of Standards and Licenses: Under this concept, countries and regions such as the UAE and the U.S., viewed as regulatory pioneers, have the opportunity to engage in a new round of competition over standard-setting, license pricing power, and industry attraction. The more a license is regarded as a "trusted anchor" by other countries, the greater its regulatory spillover power; industry giants like Binance participate in this through hub layouts and institutional designs, striving to secure sufficient business space while also delineating clearer safety boundaries for themselves.
● Implementation Challenges and Real-World Friction: Even if the concept is somewhat attractive, for the regulatory passport to truly take effect, it must overcome multiple thresholds such as political mutual trust, mutual recognition of technical standards, and cross-border law enforcement collaboration. How countries can share regulatory intelligence without relinquishing key sovereignty, how to handle cross-border violations, and how to avoid "regulatory arbitrage" and "license devaluation" still lack clear answers. In the short term, this framework resembles a directional sign rather than an operational manual that can be directly implemented.
● Future Rhythm and Observation Focus: In the next year or two, the crypto market may continue to oscillate between bullish sentiment and adjustment cycles, while the competition among countries regarding regulatory standards and license values will also evolve amid these fluctuations. For participants, it is more important to keep a close eye on the timelines and detailed changes in the actual rules being advanced by various countries than to immerse themselves in the high-profile slogans within Davos: which jurisdictions are genuinely starting to discuss mutual recognition mechanisms, which licenses are being assigned access meanings by the market, and who is reconstructing the industry landscape under the guise of regulation are the ones determining the game rules.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare 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。
