Trump's new cryptocurrency policy aims to provide a new channel for billions of people worldwide to "subscribe to America," buying on-chain U.S. assets with dollar-pegged stablecoins, thereby buying time against the threats posed to the dollar's international status by the hollowing out of U.S. industry and high debt levels.

Written by: Meng Yan

After Trump's return to the White House, a series of statements and actions in the cryptocurrency field have attracted widespread attention. As relevant policies gradually take shape, a policy outline including cryptocurrency asset reserves, stablecoins, RWA (real-world assets), and new ICOs is becoming apparent. Logically, it not only serves Trump's geopolitical goal of "revitalizing America," but also quietly builds a future financial infrastructure deeply integrated with AI technology. However, due to Trump's various unconventional behaviors, his new cryptocurrency policy has also sparked considerable controversy and even ridicule. To gain a clearer understanding of this topic, I invited Dr. Shao Qing, who has long resided in the U.S. and has been researching the cryptocurrency industry, to discuss the policy logic behind Trump's new cryptocurrency policy and explore its potential variables in the context of the AI revolution and reactions from other countries.

TL;DR: The essence of Trump's new cryptocurrency policy is to provide a new channel for billions of people worldwide to "subscribe to America," using dollar-pegged stablecoins to purchase on-chain U.S. assets, thus hedging against the threats to the dollar's international status posed by the hollowing out of U.S. industry and high debt levels, buying time for dollar hegemony and the revival of U.S. industry. However, the truly unpredictable variable of this policy is the fusion that may arise from the integration of cryptocurrency technology and AI, where hundreds of billions or even trillions of intelligent agents coordinate and collaborate through blockchain, fundamentally changing all aspects of human economy, military, and life, accelerating the world towards a technological singularity.

1. Buying Time for the Dollar

Meng: We are starting to see some concrete signs that Trump's team is systematically advancing a new cryptocurrency policy framework. What is the current response from the relevant industries in the U.S.?

Shao: Indeed, since mid-2024, Trump and his team have presented a transformative image in the cryptocurrency field, from public speeches to accepting donations, supporting specific projects, and even personally launching meme coins, which has surprised many. After being elected, they quickly established a digital asset policy working group that includes almost all key decision-makers from important departments, pledging to introduce a new regulatory framework for the cryptocurrency industry within 180 days, aiming to make the U.S. the "world's cryptocurrency capital." Over the past two months, they have been steadily advancing relevant policies. Recently, they announced Bitcoin reserves and cryptocurrency asset storage, and held the first White House cryptocurrency summit. In the past, most technological innovations were driven by companies pulling the government along, but in the cryptocurrency industry, we now see a clear situation where the President himself is leading the way, with companies following behind. From my perspective, the U.S. high-tech industry is generally unprepared for this situation and has only recently begun to seriously consider and respond. Recently, financing related to stablecoin payments and real-world assets (RWA) has rapidly heated up, but overall it is still in its early stages.

Meng: Trump's governing style is unpredictable, and he and his family have done many unconventional things regarding cryptocurrency assets. Coupled with some seemingly disruptive actions in other areas, many people believe that Trump is just "fooling around" in the cryptocurrency industry, merely to make money for his family. However, your analysis clearly debunks this superficial view. At least in the cryptocurrency field, Trump's actions are coherent. How do you view the underlying logic behind these initiatives?

Shao: My view is that not only in the cryptocurrency industry, but Trump's current administration is very different from the last one, with very clear goals and strategies. His unpredictability and disruptiveness are actually aimed at dismantling the existing establishment to reduce resistance to his reform measures. You might want to download the Project 2025 white paper from the Heritage Foundation's website; it's clear upon reading. His new cryptocurrency policy aligns with his overall strategy, so while these actions may seem unconventional, observing them within a larger strategic framework reveals that they are not isolated actions but rather form a complete and internally logical policy deployment. The core goal is to reshape the global accessibility and investability of the dollar through cryptocurrency infrastructure, thereby supporting the international status of the dollar and buying time for the return of U.S. manufacturing and capital repricing.

Meng: Can you break down the so-called "complete policy deployment" into its structural path?

Shao: I summarize it into five interconnected steps. The first step is the loosening of public opinion and concepts. Trump does not directly amend laws but breaks the psychological constraints established during the Biden administration regarding cryptocurrency assets through words, gestures, policy signals, and even unconventional actions by himself and his family, establishing a new narrative framework of "cryptocurrency = innovation," which gradually leads the Republican Party and traditional conservatives to accept the cryptocurrency industry as part of a strategic resource.

The second step is the establishment of a national digital asset reserve in the U.S., including federally established Bitcoin reserves and cryptocurrency storage, as well as some state governments controlled by the Republican Party publicly holding Bitcoin and discussing the reserve role of mainstream assets like Ethereum. The implicit meaning of this action is that the U.S. government, or at least part of it, is incorporating cryptocurrency assets into the pre-set range of "strategic financial assets," thereby enhancing the consensus level of cryptocurrency assets.

The third step is the establishment of a regulatory framework for stablecoins. This is the policy hub of the entire plan because only within a compliant dollar stablecoin system can digital dollars leverage the decentralized and globally accessible characteristics of blockchain to become a medium for the settlement and issuance of global asset investments. This is also why Coinbase and Circle frequently interact with Republicans at the policy level.

The fourth step is the on-chain integration of real-world assets (RWA), including U.S. Treasury bonds, stocks of major U.S. companies, corporate bonds, and highly liquid or securitizable assets like real estate mortgages. This move can shift the act of "investing in America" from bank accounts to the blockchain, from capital markets to the on-chain DeFi system.

The final step is to launch a "regulatable new ICO" mechanism. This is not simply a replication of the 2017 frenzy but aims to restore the legitimacy of "on-chain fundraising" in some way, releasing the capacity for on-chain risk capital supply to serve domestic industrial financing in the U.S., especially the reconstruction of the manufacturing chain.

Meng: It sounds like a layered policy package, but does it really have a strategic logical closure? The long-standing relationship between cryptocurrency assets and dollar hegemony has been tense; how is this relationship being reconstructed in Trump's version of the new cryptocurrency policy?

Shao: Your question hits the nail on the head. The mainstream cryptocurrency narrative emphasizes decentralization, de-dollarization, and cross-border circulation, while the dollar strategy has long been based on control over the clearing system, bank regulation, and the degree of capital account openness. There is indeed structural tension between them.

However, Trump's attempt to reconcile this tension is through "absorption rather than confrontation": he does not suppress financial innovation on-chain but tries to transform it into a new infrastructure that serves the dollar.

The core of this idea is that the dollar does not necessarily have to spread through bank accounts; it can also spread through the blockchain, as long as its unit is still pegged to the dollar. In other words, as long as global investors use dollar-pegged stablecoins on-chain and invest in U.S. RWAs, the U.S. continues to collect "seigniorage" and maintain pricing power.

Furthermore, through on-chain stablecoins and on-chain assets, the U.S. can even circumvent the increasing compliance and geopolitical friction in the traditional financial system, achieving financial "friction reduction." This is a method of extending geopolitical financial power.

Meng: Is this model really attractive? How do you view its potential impact on economies outside the U.S.?

Shao: We must recognize that the ultimate goal of this policy path is not the internal reconstruction of industries but to attract overseas capital to "subscribe to America" in an on-chain manner. Simply put, it aims to allow global investors to use digital wallets to buy dollar-denominated on-chain Treasury bonds, corporate stocks, startup equity, and other asset tokens, thereby completing the "re-pegging" of the dollar in the Web3 era.

The attractiveness of this model lies in its ability to lower the threshold for global capital to enter the U.S. market in a digitally native way. Its disruptive potential lies in its challenge to the control capabilities of other sovereign currency zones over capital inflows and outflows. If capital from emerging markets begins to bypass the banking system and directly enters the U.S. on-chain asset market through wallets, this "financial ant migration" of capital transfer will weaken the effectiveness of local financial policies.

In the longer term, the U.S. may leverage this to rebuild a position as a "financial network hub," becoming the endpoint for the issuance, settlement, and clearing of global assets on-chain. Any economy that poses a potential challenge to the dollar's status must seriously consider the competitive pressure and governance spillover brought about by this path.

2. The ICO Mechanism and the Restructuring of America's Innovative Financing Structure

Shao: Among the five steps mentioned above, the one I am least certain about is the so-called "new ICO." It seems to be the most controversial and groundbreaking part of this new cryptocurrency policy. Is there really a possibility for it to be implemented in reality? How will it support technological and industrial innovation? I know you have invested a lot of time researching this issue; do you have any conclusions?

Meng: This issue is quite sensitive in the Chinese context, but to address it directly, the situation is very clear. Including the U.S., the core dilemma in global innovative financing mechanisms is becoming increasingly prominent. Over the past twenty years, U.S. high-tech startup financing has mainly relied on three channels: first, the Silicon Valley venture capital system; second, NASDAQ IPOs; and third, various government research grants and innovation incentive programs. However, each of these has its limitations: VCs are gradually concentrating on later-stage projects, leading to a growing bottleneck in early-stage financing; IPO thresholds are too high, causing many technical projects to be eliminated before they mature; and government incentives are often inefficient and have long cycles.

ICOs (Initial Coin Offerings) once provided a brief experiment in financing equality. They allowed projects to raise funds directly from global investors and end users by issuing tokens, without relying on traditional financial intermediaries. However, due to regulatory gaps and frequent abuses, this mechanism was almost sentenced to death after 2018.

An important member of Trump's cryptocurrency team is SEC Commissioner Hester Pierce, who proposed the "Crypto Safe Harbor" plan. She has been dedicated to restoring some legitimacy to ICOs by creating a new regulatory framework. This is not about returning to the original state of wild growth but establishing a "new ICO" system based on "transparency + approval + disclosure." Its core principles are:

• Token issuance must be anchored to actual products, assets, or cash flows to avoid the proliferation of empty tokens;
• Issuers must register with the SEC or CFTC but enjoy relaxed compliance treatment;
• Projects can raise funds on-chain from qualified investors or overseas users, bypassing traditional secondary market issuance processes;
• Issuance proceeds must be used for domestic technology, manufacturing, and infrastructure projects in the U.S., aligning with Trump's "re-industrialization" agenda.

Such a system design is actually closer to a combination of "regulated Kickstarter + digital bonds + disintermediated issuance," representing an attempt to reconstruct the U.S. risk financing tech stack.

Shao: It sounds like once this mechanism is established, it could benefit not just the cryptocurrency industry but potentially reshape the entire U.S. industrial financing system?

Meng: You could say that. If on-chain financing and on-chain asset issuance can be institutionally incorporated into a compliant path, then the cycle of "innovation - financing - circulation" will be significantly shortened.

Moreover, this mechanism is inherently more compatible with cutting-edge industries such as Web3, AI, and energy technology, which are characterized by high early capital demands, high barriers to understanding for traditional investors, and mismatched financing rhythms and cycles. The combination of on-chain fundraising, stablecoin settlement, and global liquidity will greatly enhance the financing capabilities of mid- to long-tail projects.

Ultimately, this will make "registering in the U.S. + issuing with dollar-pegged stablecoins + fundraising from global investors" a new paradigm, further consolidating America's dominance in technology, capital, and narrative. Conversely, regarding the logic of "consolidating the dollar's status" that you mentioned earlier, it can also be seen that, through this approach, the U.S. high-tech industry and its innovative system will evolve into a supporting foundation for the dollar, and by atomizing and decentralizing the circulation of the dollar, it will weaken the ability of other geopolitical rivals to intervene in this process.

Shao: What you mentioned may not be the endgame; the endgame could be the disappearance of all securities markets, including today's digital asset exchanges.

Meng: Technically, this indeed points to the situation you described.

3. Challenges: Institutional Inefficiency and Compliance Rigidity

Meng: Overall, I believe this new policy is logically coherent in theory and has a high degree of political calculation strategically. But back in reality, is it really possible for it to succeed? Where are the obstacles? Given your long stay in the U.S., what are your thoughts on this?

Shao: This is a key question. The execution of any policy depends on whether the conditions of institutions, politics, and technology are mature. For Trump's new cryptocurrency policy, its biggest challenges lie in the multiple constraints of "institutional inertia," "regulatory infighting," and "compliance rigidity."

We can break down the risks as follows:

First, the current regulatory system in the U.S. is fragmented. The SEC and CFTC have long disputed the regulatory boundaries for digital assets, each holding firm to their definitions of "what is a security and what is a commodity." Without strong intervention at the presidential level, this institutional inefficiency is difficult to break.

Second, there remains a cognitive divide regarding cryptocurrency assets between the two parties in the U.S. While the Republican Party is more friendly towards cryptocurrency, the Democratic camp still maintains a high level of vigilance, especially with many voices in the Senate Finance Committee and the White House Economic Council arguing that "cryptocurrency equals financial instability." This means that even if Trump is re-elected, advancing relevant legislation in Congress will not be easy.

Third, there is still a gap in the maturity of technology and financial infrastructure. On-chain RWA, global settlement networks for stablecoins, and compliant wallet systems are all in progress, but have not yet formed a sovereign-level platform capable of supporting large-scale financial activities. The existing on-chain financial ecosystem (DeFi) does not possess institutional stability.

However, I believe the most difficult hurdle to overcome is the U.S.'s traditionally strict anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CFT) regulatory principles. This principle is one of the foundational beliefs that has allowed the dollar to become a global sovereign currency, and its rigidity surpasses short-term political goals. Any mechanism for fund flows that bypasses the banking system and moves to on-chain, if it relaxes KYC, identity verification, and source of funds tracking, will trigger strong backlash from the Treasury, FinCEN, and even national security agencies.

In other words, if Trump's team wants to promote the legalization of stablecoins, RWA, and new ICOs, they must simultaneously build a compliant infrastructure that is "auditable and accountable" on-chain. This is not only a technical challenge but also a governance challenge. If it goes out of control upon implementation, any case of "on-chain dollars participating in terrorist financing" could lead to fierce opposition to the entire new policy, even causing it to fail.

Additionally, resistance from the traditional financial industry cannot be overlooked. Large banks and financial service institutions are extremely sensitive to "disintermediated dollar reissuance." They will worry about the weakening of their settlement, custody, KYC, and other businesses. This resistance from vested interests at the industry level will create significant obstacles in the policy advancement process.

Finally, and most fundamentally, global trust in the dollar is not infinitely sustainable. Even if the U.S. constructs a perfect on-chain financial narrative, if it continues to polarize in political stability, debt governance, and foreign policy, external investors may still choose to wait and see.

Meng: It seems that the success or failure of this policy highly depends on whether Trump can achieve "maximum political coordination capability"? He has now returned to the White House and formed a highly integrated policy execution team, which indeed may push this framework to take shape within two years. However, this requires key institutions such as the President, the Treasury, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Reserve (Fed), and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to form an unconventional collaborative state, which has been extremely rare in the past.

Shao: From a more realistic perspective, I believe the likelihood of this new policy being fully implemented is no more than 50%, but the possibility of partial implementation, gradually forming market expectations and strategic inertia, exceeds 70%. In other words, even if a complete legal system is not ultimately formed, as long as enough capital, institutions, and developers begin to bet on this direction, the U.S. will have completed the reabsorption of global resources in cryptocurrency finance.

4. Passive Responses and Strategic Choices of Other Economies

Meng: It seems we both agree that the mid-term goal of this new policy is to reconstruct the global asset investment path with on-chain dollars, which is essentially a re-challenge to financial sovereignty for major economies outside the U.S. How do you think they will respond?

Shao: This response is likely to be "passively starting, actively defending." Currently, whether it is China, the European Union, or regional powers like Japan and South Korea, their understanding of Trump's new policy is still in the early stages. There are three main reasons: first, with Trump back in the White House, there is still uncertainty about whether this strategy will continue; second, many countries still view on-chain finance as a "technological anomaly" or "risk asset"; third, stablecoins, RWA, and on-chain financing remain gray areas in most fiat currency regulatory systems.

However, if the U.S. forms an open financial platform through on-chain dollars, on-chain assets, and new ICOs, attracting global investors "to come on-chain to buy U.S. Treasury bonds, invest in U.S. stocks, and finance in dollars," then the capital control capabilities, monetary control capabilities, and even industrial financial dominance of other countries will be challenged.

We can look at this by country.

First, let's talk about China.

For China, Trump's new cryptocurrency policy may bring pressure on three levels.

First, the process of renminbi internationalization will face further pressure. Currently, the cross-border use of the renminbi mainly relies on a state-led trade settlement framework and offshore clearing network. If the U.S. on-chain dollar mechanism takes shape, it will erode the marginal space of the renminbi with "technologically induced convenience," especially in regions along the "Belt and Road," the Middle East, and Latin America.

Second, there will be more technical circumvention channels for capital controls. Once stablecoins and on-chain U.S. Treasury bonds gain clear compliant identities, individuals and enterprises accessing dollar assets through unofficial wallets and protocols will become a reality. This will pose a structural challenge to China's existing cross-border financial regulatory system.

Third, the sovereignty of industrial chain financing may be passively transferred. If high-tech enterprises begin to "fundraise on-chain," whether by registering shell companies in the U.S. or issuing RWA, the Chinese government will find it difficult to grasp the rhythm and direction of these financing activities.

Of course, China's response will not be absent. I expect that in the future, China will respond along two lines:

First, strengthen the connection between the central bank's digital currency (e-CNY) and cross-border payments, building a "compliant renminbi on-chain financial system" to create a regulatory-controlled alternative;

Second, institutionally block the pathways for on-chain dollars to spread domestically, including restricting wallets and on-chain asset access to the domestic market, and strengthening anti-money laundering and source of funds requirements.

Meng: How will the European Union respond? Their policies in the cryptocurrency field seem to be more open?

Shao: The EU's approach is indeed more technologically neutral, but it also faces structural passivity. The MICA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) is attempting to establish a unified regulatory framework, providing a compliant path for on-chain assets and stablecoins. However, the problem is that the euro does not possess the attractiveness of a global financial dominant currency; it lacks anchor assets, a global clearing network, and risk tolerance. Therefore, even if Europe encourages on-chain finance, it is likely to become a circulation channel for dollar stablecoins rather than the ecological center for euro stablecoins.

If Trump's new policy progresses smoothly, the strategic choices facing the EU will be limited to two: one is to participate in and attach itself to the U.S.-led on-chain dollar system to preserve the role of local technology and institutions in on-chain finance; the other is to strengthen the European Central Bank's regulatory dominance over cryptocurrency assets, creating a policy combination of "controlled compliance + local currency priority," attempting to gain independent sovereignty for the euro on-chain.

Regardless of which path is chosen, the EU's passivity is already predetermined. The real variable is left with "how to lose less," rather than "whether to dominate."

Meng: I think what countries around the world need to overcome first is a kind of policy numbness. Over the past decade, many countries have pushed for multiple rounds of attempts around cryptocurrency technology, and the results have generally been less than ideal. Therefore, with Trump's new policy, most countries seem to be waiting and seeing, perhaps still harboring a fluke mentality, wondering if Trump is just bluffing or will only scratch the surface. However, based on the policy logic you described, Trump's new cryptocurrency policy is an important part of his overall strategic goals, so doubts about his determination should be abandoned, and instead, countries should begin to consider the policy consequences and response strategies.

5. AI + Crypto May Produce Unexpected Outcomes

Shao: We have discussed the logic and impact of Trump's new cryptocurrency policy from multiple dimensions, including finance, regulation, and international dynamics. However, I still feel that there is a larger technological background that has not been sufficiently mentioned, which is AI.

Meng: You are absolutely right. Trump's new cryptocurrency policy is not occurring during a period of smooth technological evolution, but rather against the backdrop of accelerated breakthroughs in AI, structural reconstruction of technology stacks, and the global technological economic surge.

We must recognize that the interaction between AI and cryptocurrency is releasing a new systemic possibility: on-chain identity, on-chain assets, on-chain payments, combined with large-scale self-driven AI agents, are rewriting "the boundaries of organizations" and "the structure of transactions."

I remember a few years ago, Mr. Zhu Jiaming, after studying the characteristics of blockchain technology, proposed a hypothesis that historically, blockchain and cryptocurrency technology might not be for human use, but for AI use. However, at that time, we could not visualize this hypothesis. Now, with the rapid advancement of AI, this picture has become increasingly clear.

The most intuitive example is that numerous AI agents can have cryptocurrency wallets, execute contract logic, and complete cross-platform, cross-language, and cross-business system task coordination through on-chain protocols without human intervention. They may represent individuals, enterprises, or even autonomous organizations, conducting asset allocation, resource coordination, and information governance on a global scale.

From this perspective, Trump's new cryptocurrency policy, in essence, may just be a strategic attempt at the global re-pegging of the dollar, but in practice, it is likely to produce unexpected chemical reactions, paving the way for the "on-chain infrastructure map" of the AI era. Stablecoins, RWA, and new ICOs essentially transform the dollar, U.S. assets, and American innovation capabilities into digital resource units that can be called upon by AI. The on-chain clearing and settlement mechanism then constructs a permissionless value collaboration layer for these AI systems.

Shao: I want to take it a step further. From the perspective of practical applications, the combination of AI and cryptocurrency technology is not as easy to find closed testing scenarios as autonomous driving. Autonomous driving can be tested on closed roads and in limited cities, but the essence of cryptocurrency systems as value transfer and collaboration protocols requires a real open network environment to validate their effectiveness, which is why large-scale "rehearsals" have been difficult to achieve. This is one of the main reasons for the failure of the vast majority of token economy experiments over the past decade.

But perhaps we can approach this from another angle: the "simulated market mechanism" within enterprises. In other words, the "internal settlement mechanism" in large organizations or factory management systems, especially in ERP systems, may very well become the "testing ground" for cryptocurrency systems.

Imagine a highly intelligent, unmanned manufacturing factory where production processes, equipment scheduling, raw material procurement, and energy distribution are increasingly decided and executed by AI. At this point, if we introduce programmable payment and settlement logic, allowing machines to price and pay for resources using stablecoins, we can simulate a "machine-internal economy." This is not only a natural landing point for cryptocurrency but also provides AI with an operational mechanism that does not rely on human account systems.

In other words, a "digital factory" will become an ideal experimental field for the combination of cryptocurrency technology and AI. This is a typical machine world, characterized by structural closure, highly automated participants, and highly auditable behaviors. It is expected to achieve a form of "endogenous financial order" first: machines exchanging value in a machine-like manner, and algorithms constraining resource allocation through contracts. This will not only reconstruct the boundaries of "human-machine collaboration" but may also give rise to a new paradigm of corporate governance based on on-chain identity and circulation.

From this perspective, the "revitalization of American manufacturing" that we discussed earlier in the article is also worth redefining. The traditional notion of "manufacturing return" focuses on factory locations, industrial chain layouts, and job opportunities, but the future of "manufacturing" may be a combination of "computing power-driven automated capacity" and "digital intelligent systems." The manufacturing advantage that the U.S. seeks will not only be the reconstruction of physical industries but also the leadership in governance models based on digital twin systems.

Cryptocurrency technology is precisely the underlying protocol choice for the financial order part of the "digital twin strategy." In the initial stages, it indeed serves the needs of smart manufacturing with data verifiability, process traceability, and transaction settlement; but as AI integrates, it gradually evolves into the core of settlement in a fully autonomous system. This is a grander proposition than smart manufacturing; it is a question of national-level digital order reconstruction.

Meng: Once this trend is initiated, it will significantly reduce collaborative friction across the entire network, making innovation no longer reliant on organizational structures or legal entities, but rather based on the instantaneous combination logic of "Agent + Contract + Data."

What is even more worth imagining is the new economic order constructed after the deep integration of AI and cryptocurrency technology. Today, collaboration, knowledge sharing, and resource allocation among AIs still heavily depend on human preset paths and traditional payment infrastructures, such as credit card settlements, API authorizations, and account systems. These methods inherently have organizational boundaries, liquidity friction, and settlement delays.

However, in the future, when AI agents possess autonomous wallets, can execute smart contracts on-chain, and make real-time payments through digital assets, they will be able to coordinate tasks and allocate resources without human intervention, forming a truly "inter-machine market." This mechanism will enable billions or even trillions of intelligent agents to spontaneously create an orderly economic collaboration network without centralized scheduling. This automated collaboration, which transcends all organizational boundaries and where code is the rule, will not only greatly unleash the productive potential among intelligent agents but also give rise to entirely new forms of industrial division of labor, on-chain governance, and social structures. In a sense, it heralds that we are entering a new economic phase dominated by machines, whose complexity, creativity, and even risks of losing control far exceed any existing systems today.

In other words, we may be on the brink of a systemic-level innovation emergence—a critical structure that could lead to a technological singularity is forming. Trump may not fully understand the deep logic of this technological evolution, but his policies could potentially initiate an experiment in rewriting underlying rules on a global scale. These policies may not be fully implemented, but they have already triggered a reassessment of global financial technology and policy frameworks. In the coming years, we will see more economies forced to respond.

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。