#加密货币监管框架 After reviewing this timeline recap, there are some things I've been holding back for a long time that I need to say.

Over the past twelve years, every policy storm has followed an astonishingly similar rhythm—hype builds up, then regulation comes. The 2013 virtual goods definition, the 2017 ICO ban, the 2021 mining farm cleanup, and now targeted mentions of stablecoins and RWA—this series of moves reveals a clear pattern: policies always drop at the market's most frantic moments.

But there's an interesting contrast here. The first two rounds of regulation definitely had some heavy hits—Bitcoin dropped from $1130 to $755 in 2013, directly ending that bull run. But by 2017 and 2021, things changed. After strict policies like shutting down exchanges and clearing out mining farms, Bitcoin actually rebounded and even hit new highs. Why? Because capital has become globalized.

What I’m most focused on now isn’t the policies themselves, but the market structure differentiation. Wall Street ETFs, Middle Eastern sovereign funds, European institutions are setting prices, while here we are being explicitly told that this is illegal financial activity. What does USDT negative premium mean? It indicates people are rushing to exchange for dollars and exit. This isn’t the old rhythm of “policy comes, we endure it and move on.”

Honestly, this time’s risk warning is more detailed than before—expanding from trading itself to propaganda and flow derivation. This means the gray areas are being squeezed. For truly capable teams, going overseas is no longer an option; it’s a necessity. But for projects that are raising funds under the guise of compliance, it’s time to clear the field.

History has shown me that storms do change navigation paths, but they can’t alter the direction of the tide. The question is, this time, we need to observe more carefully: will the market’s next move come from Wall Street consensus, or will it be disrupted by an escalation in policy enforcement? That’s the real variable.