In October 2026, a crypto overseas channel and a traditional payment entry were quietly rewritten at the same time: on one side, the name of Matrixport HK disappeared from the list of applicants for the virtual asset trading platform of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, with its status changed to "withdrawn"; on the other side, Visa received approval from the People's Bank of China to prepare for a domestic card clearing institution. The former submitted its license application on February 26, 2024, and had tried to connect with Chinese-speaking funds through a compliance channel under Hong Kong's mandatory licensing system; now, in the process of gradually implementing requirements, it chose to withdraw, with the specific reasons remaining undisclosed; the latter entered a clearing market, long led by China UnionPay, with strict entry criteria for foreign institutions, which the authorities viewed as a step towards further opening up. Visa's CEO publicly stated that this was an important milestone in serving the Chinese market and promised to comply with the central bank's regulatory rules. One approach involves a continued tightening of regulations on cryptocurrency trading platforms, bringing businesses back within the realm of licenses and physical regulation; the other represents a selective release of traditional financial infrastructure, introducing tightly scrutinized large multinational clearing institutions. Hong Kong and the mainland delineate boundaries within their respective systems differently, yet they both point to the same outcome: the space for cross-border institutions to find regulatory gaps between crypto products, payment clearing, and capital flows is being compressed, forcing more players to choose between completely integrating into a licensed framework of compliance and remaining in high-risk models that stay in the gray area.
Withdrawal of Matrixport's License
The timeline is simple yet glaring. On February 26, 2024, Matrixport HK submitted its application for a virtual asset trading platform license to the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, entering the publicly announced list of applicants. Under the mandatory licensing system, it was once seen as one of the platforms willing to "enter the list." Subsequently, against the backdrop of the ongoing advancement of the licensing system and gradual implementation of regulatory requirements, the name of Matrixport HK remained in the "under review" category for a long time, indicating it was still attempting to complete local compliance arrangements through the Hong Kong licensing path. Until October 12, 2026, this path abruptly reached a conclusion: the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission's website showed that Matrixport HK had been removed from the list of applicants, with its status indicated as "application withdrawn," meaning this platform actively left the only officially recognized local crypto asset trading channel.
From the perspective of institutional supply, this is not a simple "deletion record from a list." Under the mandatory licensing framework of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, only licensed or still under review platforms will be included on the publicly available application list, which itself is the "whitelist boundary" of the local compliance channel in Hong Kong. The withdrawal of Matrixport HK's application directly results in one less potential licensed trading platform on the list, further shrinking the number of local compliance entry points for crypto assets in Hong Kong, passively narrowing the capacity for regulatory recognition of business undertakings. More critically, as of now, Matrixport HK has not disclosed the specific considerations for its withdrawal, and the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission has not made detailed comments on the case. The outside world cannot confirm whether it was due to business judgment, resource allocation, or an assessment of future regulatory paths; it can only return to the known institutional design and market environment for structural interpretation: after mandatory licensing and high-density reviews became the norm, every institution that once tried to queue for entry had to repeatedly weigh whether to continue absorbing compliance costs while waiting for uncertain review results, or simply exit this highly regulated local licensing channel.
The Red Line of Hong Kong Licensing: Who Can Afford to Play
After the mandatory licensing system was established, Hong Kong's virtual asset trading platforms are no longer a "self-regulatory experimental field," but have been pulled into a regulatory trajectory similar to traditional financial institutions: businesses must fall under the Securities and Futures Commission's licensing framework, and build a complete compliance system around core requirements such as investor protection, anti-money laundering and combating terrorism financing, separation of customer assets, and custodianship. In other words, platforms not only have to prove they won't "run away with the funds," but also must demonstrate that the sources of funds, transaction counterparts, technology systems, and operational processes are all within the auditable and accountable regulatory view.
This system directly changes who can stay at the table. Meeting the anti-money laundering, asset custody, and risk control specifications under the licensing framework means continuously investing in compliance teams, legal advisors, auditing resources, and matching technological reconstructions. For platforms that previously relied on high leverage, high-risk assets, or lenient compliance operating models, this is not just a matter of “tweaking processes,” but involves starting from scratch. For smaller entities whose business heavily relies on cross-border regulatory gaps, the compliance thresholds alone can form a "silent clearance"; only institutions with sufficient capital strength, willing to operate long-term in the local market and accept strong regulation, realistically have the possibility of obtaining licenses. In this context, Matrixport HK’s submission of a license application on February 26, 2024, followed by its choice to withdraw after the institutional framework took effect, serves as a mirror: the local compliance exit in Hong Kong is only open to platforms that fall under the licensing system, while the space for unlicensed platforms serving Hong Kong investors is rapidly compressed. The industry has shifted from "who dares to innovate can enter" to "only those who can bear compliance costs deserve to stay."
Visa Approved for Clearing Preparation: PBOC Enters
If the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission filtered out crypto platforms through licenses, then this time the People's Bank of China personally allowed a foreign giant at the level of traditional payment infrastructure. As of October 13, 2026, Visa has been approved by the People's Bank of China to prepare for a domestic card clearing institution. This is not just "another institution," but being allowed to build a clearing pipeline on Chinese soil: who will handle the funds clearing for domestic card transactions, how to connect banks and merchants, and how to settle at the end of the day all need to be accomplished through this layer of infrastructure.
Prior to this, China's card clearing market had long been dominated by China UnionPay, and the entry barriers for foreign clearing institutions were extremely high. Multinational card organizations could only "stick" to servicing Chinese users through cooperation and co-branding, finding it difficult to directly enter this critical segment. The People's Bank of China's issuance of a formal signal to Visa indicating "preparation can be made" means a directional opening in the clearing market under regulatory guidance: the infrastructure remains firmly within the regulatory framework, but qualified foreign capital is allowed to build its own clearing network within the rules. Visa's CEO McKay referred to this move as an “important milestone” for serving the Chinese market, promising compliance with the People's Bank of China's regulatory provisions, while a specific timeline and cooperation structure have yet to be disclosed. Once this compliance entry path is established, multinational card organizations and local financial institutions will have more standardized access, while the regulatory boundaries of payment clearing will also be drawn more clearly: who can provide the infrastructure, and who can only serve as the business shell, leaving little room for gray areas.
Tightening Crypto while Introducing Visa
On the same timeline, one story concluded in Hong Kong, while another opened on the mainland. On February 26, 2024, Matrixport HK entered the public application list for the virtual asset trading platform of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission, locking itself into the framework of a mandatory licensing system; by October 12, 2026, this company had disappeared from the list, marked with the status "withdrawn," with the reasons undisclosed. Meanwhile, on the mainland, a contrasting choice was made: the People's Bank of China approved Visa to prepare for a domestic card clearing institution, while the card clearing market had long been primarily dominated by China UnionPay, with great caution towards foreign entry. One side represents a crypto platform turning away at the license threshold, while the other side sees a multinational card organization invited into the critical clearing layer; the differences in regulatory stance are amplified in this comparison.
Viewing these two events through the framework of "one China, two systems," a clearer division of labor emerges: Hong Kong incorporates crypto trading into licensing management through its virtual asset trading platform licensing system, but the number of licenses and the application threshold itself serve as a sieve, and the withdrawal of Matrixport HK implies a reduction of participants in this ecosystem; the mainland, on the other hand, repeatedly emphasizes in various documents prohibiting domestic institutions from conducting public token issuance financing and centralized trading activities, yet maintains selective openness towards controllable, licensed traditional financial institutions like Visa at the infrastructure level of card clearing. In other words, concerning token speculation and financing, the door is closed; concerning foundational payment channels, as long as compliance can be fully integrated into the central bank's regulatory system, a crack can be opened. This combination preserves Hong Kong's status as a buffer zone for crypto innovation while ensuring that the mainland's dominance over key financial infrastructure is not disrupted, gradually narrowing the regulatory arbitrage gaps between license withdrawals and clearing license admissions.
The Chinese Path for Crypto Platforms and Licensed Institutions
From Matrixport HK entering the public application list of the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission on February 26, 2024, to the change of application status to withdrawal on October 12, 2026, with reasons undisclosed, the movement in and out contrasts with Visa's approval to prepare for a domestic card clearing institution: on one end, virtual asset platforms turn back at the licensing threshold, and the market begins to reassess the hard thresholds of capital strength, compliance team, and risk management investment; on the other end, the long-guarded clearing market, strictly regulating foreign access, opens up a "preparation license" for internationally recognized card organizations fully integrated into the central bank system. The regulatory actions from the two regions signal clearly: who can directly touch resident capital, and who can operate key payment and clearing infrastructures will be precisely delineated by licensing and market access systems, with platforms that do not meet standards being excluded from the licensing system and forced to seek survival at the fringes. For virtual asset platforms trying to cover Chinese-speaking users through Hong Kong, this path is no longer a vague area of "business set in Hong Kong, users elsewhere," but a narrow path starting from licensing and costing continuous compliance investment; for foreign licensed institutions like Visa, preparing for a clearing institution is just the starting point; the true speed of their landing and the boundaries of their business in China will depend on the approval pace for subsequent business licenses and whether the People's Bank of China opens the same gate for more international financial infrastructure operators in the future.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
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。
