This week, the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the General Office of the State Council issued the "Regulations on Integrity and Professional Conduct for Leaders of State-Owned Enterprises," systematically regulating the boundaries of power, conflict of interest, and profit-making methods for leaders of state-owned enterprises. Many media outlets found that the new regulations not only continue the existing anti-corruption pressure but also provide more targeted expressions to address the previously opaque channels of implicit benefits. Notably, Article 7 was specially marked by the encryption community—it for the first time explicitly includes “virtual currencies and other properties” in the list of prohibited items, seen as a clear stance from regulators regarding new asset forms. One side continues to increase constraints on power, and the other side sees a gray use of encrypted assets in cross-border and anonymous scenarios; these two forces are colliding in the text and quickly attracting market attention. The encrypted media and community have focused on relevant clauses, laying the groundwork for subsequent discussions regarding the transformation of the role of encrypted assets and risk boundaries.
The Key Insertion of Virtual Currency into the Anti-Corruption List
According to reports from Golden Finance, Planet Daily, Foresight News and others, Article 7 of the new regulations specifies that “virtual currencies and other properties” are prohibited from being accepted. This expression has previously been common in the contexts of financial supervision and anti-money laundering, but its direct mention in the norms for the integrity and professional conduct of leaders in state-owned enterprises marks the first time encrypted assets have been explicitly included within the scope of anti-corruption clauses for state-owned enterprises. Reports generally interpret this as regulatory efforts to preemptively lock in new property forms within a relatively complete "cannot be corrupt, dare not corrupt, do not want to corrupt" institutional framework to avoid leaving technical gaps in the state-owned enterprise system.
Overall, “virtual currencies and other properties” do not appear in isolation but alongside various other illicit profit-making methods. Briefings mentioned that the new regulations continue to list typical pathways such as unfair price trading and using relatives or specific contacts for anonymous shareholding, outlining common methods of benefit transfer in state-owned enterprises. From transferring through manipulated trading conditions to holding shares anonymously via shell arrangements, and accepting new types of properties that are difficult to trace, regulators are attempting to cover a full spectrum from “traditional cash and physical assets” to “complex financial and encrypted assets.” The explicit mention of virtual currency, in this context, appears as a crucial patch in a rigid structure, with information sources pointing to concentrated reports from the aforementioned mainstream encrypted media rather than isolated rumors.
New Bribery Vehicles: How Encrypted Assets are Embedded in Power Gray Areas
From the perspective of anti-corruption narratives, the controversy surrounding virtual currencies does not focus on their speculative nature but rather on their “invisible payment” capabilities formed by the combination of anonymity, cross-border convenience, and technological complexity. Public chain addresses, decentralized wallets, cross-chain bridges, and mixing services allow capital to swiftly traverse judicial jurisdictions and traditional financial systems' monitoring scopes, presenting a relatively concealed pathway for value transmission for a small group of technologically savvy individuals. For traditional bribery logic, which relies on cash, gifts, and offshore accounts, encrypted assets offer tools that are harder to trace in records and transaction receipts.
By focusing on high-risk business scenarios within state-owned enterprises, it becomes easier to understand the specificity of “virtual currencies and other properties” in the clauses. Whether in real estate project approvals, engineering tendering, or large-scale procurement and resource disposition, the decision-making and resource allocation powers held by state-owned enterprises inherently possess rent-seeking space. In a traditional model, benefits could be transferred through rebates, shareholding by affiliated companies, or transfers to offshore accounts. With the involvement of encrypted assets, this could easily be rewritten: bribing parties regularly transferring tokens to designated wallet addresses, liquidating them through over-the-counter trades or overseas platforms, and then having the bribed parties hold them in offshore or anonymous accounts, with funding routes almost entirely separated from the local banking system. This pathway may not yet have been widely practiced, but it clearly creates new imaginative pressures for regulators regarding feasibility.
Traditional anti-corruption tools like account audits, bank flow tracking, and physical asset registration face significantly increased challenges when dealing with cold wallets, mnemonic phrases, and decentralized trading agreements: assets do not carry names or appear on accounts and can continuously slice traces through multi-level addresses and privacy tools. Establishing a legally credible association between a string of addresses and specific individuals or power behaviors tests both technical and cross-departmental collaborative capabilities. Therefore, pre-emptively including “virtual currencies and other properties” in the prohibited list is fundamentally a preemptive response to such potential gray operations—first blocking the legitimacy of accepting such items in terms of discipline and rules, and then gradually enhancing tracking and evidence capabilities through technology and judicial practice, rather than remaining at a merely symbolic level.
Tightening the Iron Cage of State-Owned Enterprises: Repricing the Halo of Position and Implicit Benefits
From a broader institutional context, the new regulations not only increase the reference to “virtual currencies and other properties,” but also further specify prohibited behaviors regarding unfair trading, profiting through relatives or specific contacts, and anonymous shareholding. The "iron cage" surrounding the power operation of state-owned enterprises is further reinforced: on one end, there is more granular regulation of the scenarios in which public power and corporate resources are utilized, and on the other end, there’s a continuous expansion of the listed property forms that could become tools. The anti-corruption toolbox has shifted from solely “checking cash and property” to covering complex financial structures, implicit equities, and even on-chain assets, continuously compressing the gray revenue space within state-owned enterprises in institutional narratives.
Research briefings cite market opinions indicating that some analysts believe that strict enforcement of such new regulations could reduce the attractiveness of leadership positions in state-owned enterprises—this assessment currently comes from a singular source and awaits further data and case validation. However, it is certain that as previously difficult-to-surface implicit benefits are gradually blocked, the incentive structure for state-owned enterprise executives will inevitably rebalance from "power-associated benefits" to "overt compensation and long-term governance space." For individuals who previously relied on implicit returns in their career decisions, the marginal attractiveness of positions may undergo psychological adjustments, while for those seeking normative advancement and job security, the clarity of rules and predictable boundaries may instead constitute new attractions.
This rebalancing will not only remain internal to the system but will also spill over to suppliers and local resource-based enterprises closely tied to state-owned enterprises. Previously established "interest community" models surrounding project approvals, procurement contracts, and resource allocation were often based on vague return promises or off-market arrangements. As new regulations draw more profit-making methods into the red line area, the interest redistribution mechanism between state-owned enterprises and external partners is also forced to be rewritten: from rent-seeking transactions to institutionalized bidding processes, and from relationship-based directions to compliance, cost, and efficiency-driven strategies. For local enterprises relying on state-owned enterprise orders, this is a passive structural adjustment—not only must they adapt to stricter procedural reviews, but they must also face the increasingly cautious cooperation attitudes of state-owned enterprises due to heightened anti-corruption pressures.
Magnifying Glass on Encryption Narratives: Why Media Focuses on the Term "Virtual Currency"
Internally within the encryption community, the dissemination path of this new regulation is also quite representative. Golden Finance, Planet Daily, Foresight News and several other encrypted media outlets almost simultaneously captured the expressions related to “virtual currencies and other properties” in Article 7, reporting it as central information points in headlines or leads. Compared to the numerous technical clauses regarding professional conduct, internal management, and conflict of interest in the regulations, mere mentions of encrypted assets quickly become focal points for community discussions and are more easily captured and disseminated in information flows.
This focus reflects the encrypted community's heightened sensitivity towards any mentions of “virtual currency” in state-level documents and their narrative needs. On one hand, practitioners operating in regulatory gray areas hope to find “recognition” and “boundaries” through official language—even negative or restrictive expressions are viewed as a signal of being “seen”; on the other hand, regulatory movements are naturally interpreted as directly influencing the survival space and compliance prospects of the industry, thus easily amplified into emotional anchor points. In social media and community discussions, the same clause is quickly deconstructed into multiple narratives: some view it as another negative policy, while others interpret it as a symbol of “negative news fully priced in,” and some emphasize that since it is defined as a type of “property” that can be received and is then prohibited, it admits its property attributes in a legal context.
For the readers, the key lies in clarifying the boundaries between different narrative practices. This "regulation" targets the integrity and professional conduct of leaders of state-owned enterprises, attempting to standardize the behavioral bottom line at the interfaces of power and resource allocation, rather than serving as a comprehensive guide to encrypted regulation for society as a whole. The prohibited subject is the act of “leaders of state-owned enterprises accepting virtual currencies and other properties,” not the holding, trading, or technological development of ordinary individuals. Directly extrapolating such disciplinary documents to represent a broad crackdown or shift against the entire encrypted industry exaggerates the policy's effectiveness and obscures the functional division between anti-corruption systems and financial regulatory systems.
Policy Signals and New Puzzles in the Encrypted Regulatory Landscape
When this new regulation is placed back on a longer policy timeline, one can see a gradually fitting regulatory landscape: previously, macro-level rectifications and regulations have been enacted regarding ICOs, encrypted trading platforms, cryptocurrency mining activities, progressively squeezing the channels for speculative and financial risks to spread domestically. This time, the “Regulations on Integrity and Professional Conduct for Leaders of State-Owned Enterprises” do not directly touch on market activities themselves but rather shift the focus to the internal ecology of power operations, filling in the regulatory puzzle piece of "not to accept" for virtual currencies within the anti-corruption framework. The two are logically independent but complementary in shaping the overall regulatory environment—the former focuses on systemic financial stability and capital outflow risks, while the latter prevents power nodes from becoming infiltration points for new asset forms.
From a legal technical perspective, defining virtual currency as a type of "property" that can be accepted and prohibiting it in a disciplinary document has potential implications for subsequent judicial and disciplinary practices. It provides a normative expression that can be referenced on how to ascertain the nature of these assets during investigations and how to weigh their value and liability in handling cases. For employees and executives holding cryptocurrencies within state-owned enterprises, this signal significantly raises their psychological costs when “discussing, accepting, and exchanging benefits for currency” in work settings; for encrypted practitioners and institutions engaged in business with state-owned enterprises, the sense of compliance boundaries will also be recalibrated—any attempt to engage chain assets in project negotiations, resource connections, or implicit returns will likely be viewed as borderline or even crossing the line behavior.
At the same time, information gaps and uncertainties also need to be acknowledged. This new regulation does not attempt to construct a comprehensive regulatory framework targeting encrypted assets, as key details such as the total number of revised clauses, comparisons with previous regulations, and effective dates remain limited in publicly available materials. It is more like an important new puzzle piece within the anti-corruption system: pulling new forms of property brought about by technological evolution into the regulatory sight with respect to "what can't be taken" and "how it can't be taken." Interpreting it as a direct judgment of the entire encrypted industry's fate exaggerates the role of a single document and overlooks the potential for future specific regulatory arrangements and financial innovation policies.
As Power Walls Rise, What’s Next for Encrypted Assets?
In summary, the explicit prohibition against “virtual currencies and other properties” in the new state-owned enterprise regulations is closer to a natural extension of anti-corruption logic than an isolated crackdown specifically targeting the encrypted industry. Within the boundaries of power, institutional designers attempt to close all potential channels for forming interests, regardless of whether the vehicles are cash, equity, or on-chain assets. This process will likely weaken the space for virtual currencies as “invisible bargaining chips” to penetrate state-owned enterprise power networks in the short term, while also forcing potential gray demand to seek new outlets.
As power interfaces are gradually blocked, the greater direction for encrypted assets might return to their originally suited scenarios: purely market-driven investment and trade activities, cross-border payments and value transfers, as well as usage and collateral in on-chain native applications. For industry participants, areas intersecting with state-owned enterprises and government resources will need to be re-examined as high-risk compliance zones: are there implicit assumptions of using tokens as “lubricants” in business designs? Is there a gray space for “additional arrangements” through chain assets when collaborating with state-owned enterprises? These need to be decisively eliminated in the context of the new regulations.
Future points of observation will primarily focus on three levels: first, enforcement intensity—how disciplinary bodies and audits reference the expressions of “virtual currencies and other properties” in actual cases; second, typical cases—whether there will be public investigations into corruption cases within state-owned enterprises involving encrypted assets, providing live samples for the system; and third, regulatory diffusion—whether other internal norms related to public officials and financial institutions will gradually adopt similar expressions, further tightening the living space for encrypted assets within power networks. Before these uncertainties are gradually filled by reality, cautious reassessment and proactive compliance may represent the most prudent posture for the encrypted industry in the face of new rules.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefit group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefit 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。
