<p>不仅是加密货币圈的人士，甚至大陆的金融机构也开始重新关注稳定币热潮，频繁关注并解读中国人民银行及其他八个部门于 2 月 6 日发布的关于防范和处置虚拟货币风险的通知，以及中国证券监督管理委员会（CSRC）关于境外发行资产支持证券代币的监管指引。</p>
<p>在过去的两天里，无论是在香港的线下活动，还是在我受邀参加的几家金融机构组织的内部政策解读会议上，我发现我们的许多担忧是一致的。因此，我决定写这篇文章，总结文件第 42 号和 CSRC 文件第 1 号的框架，以及我们在法律实践和行业运营中观察到的业务细节，供您参考。</p>
<p><strong>从整体定性角度来看，我个人认为最新的监管政策是 “积极的，但收益有限。”</strong></p>
<p><strong>要理解这一判断，我们必须首先澄清文件 42 与中国证监会文件 1 之间的关系：这是一种 “原则” 加 “例外” 的逻辑。文件 42 关于防范和处理虚拟货币相关风险的内容是原则，是基本原则；而中国证监会关于证券化代币发行的指导方针是在这一严格监管框架内给予的试点 “例外”。回顾 2013 年、2021 年到 2025 年 11 月中国发布的一系列监管文件，您会发现文件 42 在 “监管广度” 方面并没有实际增加许多新的限制类别。然而，从我们的行业角度来看，监管的 “深度” 相比之前显著增加。该文件准确地解决了商业注册信息的验证、中国境内加密货币矿场的销售细节以及与人民币挂钩的稳定币发行的相关规定。之前某些领域可能显得模糊，但现在监管者对中文地区加密世界的实际细节，包括具体的商业流程，有了非常透彻的了解。基于此，环境并没有恶化；相反，它通过中国证监会的文件打开了一个漏洞，允许国内资产在国内监管机构批准下作为证券代币在海外发行。关于 “真实世界资产代币化（RWA）” 和 “证券代币化” 这两个术语，许多行业专业人士觉得有些奇怪。文件 42 讨论了 RWA，而在中国证监会的框架内，它变成了证券代币化。实际上，RWA 是一个更高层次的概念。到 2026 年，全球 RWA 实践已经演变为三条主要路径：第一条是证券或金融产品的代币化，这是中国证监会主要监管的领域，包括美国股票、基金等资产在链上解决二级市场流动性的尝试；第二条路径更倾向于产品销售、会员权益或用户积分激活，遵循电子商务逻辑。这部分，除了金融筹资外，尚未获得明确的监管评估。第三种方式是具有明显中国特色的路径。这涉及到像蚂蚁金服、朗新和 GCL 等公司，它们在 2024 年开始尝试这种方式，将国内新能源资产的收益权打包成固定收益或投资收益分配产品，在香港销售。中国证监会的文件 1 正式将涉及 “证券” 和 “债务” 属性的产品纳入大陆政府部门的监管框架。我的理解是，中国证监会只关注证券的代币化，这是 RWA 的一个较低层次的场景；其他产品的代币化不在其管辖范围内。在文件 42 中，有一个细节引起了许多支付公司和金融机构的高度关注：稳定币。2025 年 11 月的一份文件将稳定币定义为一种虚拟货币，导致许多机构认为国内公司发行离岸人民币稳定币的路径被封堵。然而，文件 42 第一条第一款明确指出，未经同意不得发行人民币挂钩的稳定币。这意味着在相关部门根据法律法规批准的情况下，实际上是可以的。这对已经在香港稳定币市场建立存在的巨头如蚂蚁集团和京东来说，实质上是个利好。目前，已有 36 家机构在香港申请稳定币许可证，报告显示，第一批许可证可能在 2026 年 3 月底前发放给渣打银行或汇丰银行。为什么稳定币如此重要？因为真正的 RWA（真实世界资产管理）在未来必然需要稳定币，因为区块链的核心优势在于其可编程性。理想的场景是：通过物联网芯片，商业数据以真实且不可篡改的方式记录在区块链上，投资者的收益根据这些数据通过智能合约自动分配到他们的账户。这种 “信息流” 和 “资本流” 的闭环可以实现类似于黑石的美国国债产品的定期利息分配。如果没有合规的稳定币参与价值结算，RWA 的金融创新意义将减半。尽管政策释放了信号，但我们必须清醒地意识到当前的实际差距。目前，香港涌现出的许多 RWA 项目，除了与新能源相关的目标外，仍然集中在农产品、不良资产或房地产上。这些基础资产的所有权尽职调查过程往往相当粗糙，甚至近乎草率。在许多连接香港和大陆的 RWA 项目中，逻辑仍然主要是传统基金产品销售模式与区块链记录能力的结合。融资仍然遵循传统的合同签署和合格海外投资者渠道，最终借贷给国内项目公司。这种做法与 Web3 世界中 RWA 代币自由流动的理想相去甚远，更像是利用区块链概念进行的公关活动。目前香港模式最受批评的方面是二级市场缺乏流动性。在资产出售给合格投资者后，几乎没有零售投资者与合格投资者之间的转让场所。为了解决这一痛点，行业内出现了一些基于质押逻辑的微创新。例如，投资者质押其不可转让的 RWA 代币持有量，然后在区块链上发行一个挂钩的持有人代币进行二级交易。虽然这种方法可以规避一些限制，但目前显然处于监管真空中。关于文件 42 中提到的 “具体金融基础设施”，业界目前有三种主要猜测。首先是基于数字人民币 2.0 的跨境支付和结算系统，因为我们希望数字人民币在海外有更多的应用场景。其次是政府主导的联盟区块链项目，如上海的 “浦江数字链”。最后是具有合规背景的特定公链，如在上海有强大存在的 Conflux，或优先考虑合规的 Layer 2 链如 HashKey Chain。总之，尽管中国证监会的文件 1 的发布是进步，但步伐可能并不特别大。对于中国证监会主导的项目，稳定性将始终是首要任务。对于希望尝试 RWA 的上市公司客户，我的建议是 “观望”。我们可以等待第一批真正合规的案例出现，观察它们在二级市场的流通、合规成本和实际融资效率，然后再进行商业评估。毕竟，通往 Web3 的道路漫长，因此不必急于求成。</strong></p>

<p>中国最近的加密货币监管，特别是《42 号文件》和《证监会 1 号文件》，被视为一把双刃剑。虽然它们增强了监管的清晰度，并解决了加密行业中的一些具体问题，但整体利益有限。这些法规允许在海外发行证券代币，为像蚂蚁集团和京东这样的公司在稳定币市场提供了机会。然而，人民币挂钩稳定币的发行仍然依赖于监管批准。不断变化的环境表明，现实资产代币化（RWA）及其对区块链技术未来的影响正受到显著关注</p>

<p>Not only those in the cryptocurrency circle, but also mainland financial institutions are starting to see a resurgence of the stablecoin craze, frequently paying close attention to and interpreting the notice issued by the People's Bank of China and eight other departments on February 6th regarding the prevention and handling of virtual currency risks, as well as the regulatory guidelines issued by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) regarding the issuance of asset-backed securities tokens overseas.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>不仅是加密货币圈的人士，甚至大陆的金融机构也开始重新关注稳定币热潮，频繁关注并解读中国人民银行及其他八个部门于 2 月 6 日发布的关于防范和处置虚拟货币风险的通知，以及中国证券监督管理委员会（CSRC）关于境外发行资产支持证券代币的监管指引。</p>
</div><p>In the past two days, whether at offline events in Hong Kong or at internal policy interpretation meetings organized by several financial institutions that I was invited to participate in, I found that many of our concerns were aligned. Therefore, I decided to write this article to summarize the framework of Document No. 42 and CSRC Document No. 1, as well as the business details we have observed in legal practice and industry operations, for your reference.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在过去的两天里，无论是在香港的线下活动，还是在我受邀参加的几家金融机构组织的内部政策解读会议上，我发现我们的许多担忧是一致的。因此，我决定写这篇文章，总结文件第 42 号和 CSRC 文件第 1 号的框架，以及我们在法律实践和行业运营中观察到的业务细节，供您参考。</p>
</div><p><strong>From an overall qualitative perspective, my personal opinion is that the latest regulatory policies are &#34;positive, but the benefits are limited.&#34;</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>从整体定性角度来看，我个人认为最新的监管政策是 “积极的，但收益有限。”</strong></p>
</div><p><strong>To understand this judgment, we must first clarify the relationship between Document No. 42 and CSRC Document No. 1: This is a logic of &#34;principle&#34; plus &#34;exception.&#34; Document No. 42's content on preventing and handling risks related to virtual currencies is the principle, the underlying principle; while the CSRC's guidelines on the issuance of securitized tokens are a pilot &#34;exception&#34; given within this strict regulatory framework. Looking back at a series of regulatory documents issued in China from 2013, 2021, to November 2025, you'll find that Document No. 42 didn't actually add many new restrictive categories in terms of the &#34;breadth&#34; of regulation. However, from our industry perspective, the &#34;depth&#34; of regulation has significantly increased compared to before. The document precisely addresses issues such as the verification of business registration information, the sales details of cryptocurrency mining farms within China, and the regulations for issuing stablecoins pegged to the RMB. Previously, some areas might have seemed vague, but now regulators have a very thorough understanding of the practical details of the crypto world in Chinese-speaking regions, including specific business processes. Based on this, it hasn't worsened the environment; instead, it has opened a loophole through the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) document, allowing domestic assets to be issued as security tokens overseas with the approval of domestic regulators. Regarding the terms &#34;Real-World Asset Tokenization (RWA)&#34; and &#34;Security Tokenization,&#34; many industry professionals find it somewhat strange. Document No. 42 discusses RWA, while within the CSRC's framework, it becomes security tokenization. In reality, RWA is a higher-level concept. As of 2026, global RWA practices have evolved into three main paths: The first is the tokenization of securities or financial products, which is the area primarily regulated by the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC), including attempts by US stocks, funds, and other assets to address secondary market liquidity on-chain; the second path leans more towards product sales, membership benefits, or user points-based activation, following an e-commerce logic. This part, excluding financial fundraising, has not yet received clear regulatory evaluation. The third approach is a path with distinctly Chinese characteristics. This involves companies like Ant Financial, Langxin, and GCL, which began experimenting with this approach in 2024. They package the revenue rights of domestic new energy assets into fixed-income or investment income distribution products for sale in Hong Kong. The China Securities Regulatory Commission's (CSRC) Document No. 1 formally brought products involving &#34;securities&#34; and &#34;debt&#34; attributes into the regulatory framework of mainland government departments. My understanding is that the CSRC only focuses on the tokenization of securities, a lower-level scenario of RWA; other product tokenization is not within its jurisdiction. In Document No. 42, one detail has attracted significant attention from many payment companies and financial institutions: stablecoins. A document from November 2025 defined stablecoins as a form of virtual currency, leading many institutions to believe that the path for domestic companies to issue offshore RMB stablecoins was blocked. However, Article 1, Paragraph 1 of Document No. 42 explicitly states that RMB-pegged stablecoins cannot be issued without consent. This implies that with the approval of relevant departments in accordance with laws and regulations, it is actually possible. This is essentially a boon for giants like Ant Group and JD.com, which have already established a presence in the Hong Kong stablecoin market. Currently, there are 36 institutions applying for stablecoin licenses in Hong Kong, and reports suggest that the first batch of licenses may be issued to Standard Chartered or HSBC by the end of March 2026. Why are stablecoins so important? Because true RWA (Real-World Asset Management) will inevitably require stablecoins in the future, as the core advantage of blockchain lies in its programmability. The ideal scenario is: business data is recorded on the blockchain in a real and immutable manner through IoT chips, and investors' returns are automatically allocated to their accounts through smart contracts based on this data. This closed loop of &#34;information flow&#34; and &#34;capital flow&#34; can achieve regular interest distributions similar to BlackRock's US Treasury products. Without compliant stablecoins participating in value settlement, the financial innovation significance of RWA is halved. Although policies have released signals, we must be soberly aware of the current practical gap. Currently, many RWA projects emerging in Hong Kong, besides new energy-related targets, still focus on agricultural products, non-performing assets, or real estate. The due diligence process for the ownership of these underlying assets is often rather crude, even bordering on haphazard. In many RWA projects linking Hong Kong and the mainland, the logic remains largely the traditional fund product sales model combined with blockchain recording capabilities. Fundraising still follows traditional contract signing and qualified overseas investor channels, ultimately lending to the domestic project company. This approach deviates significantly from the ideal of free flow of RWA tokens on the blockchain in the Web3 world, and is more of a PR campaign using the blockchain concept. The most criticized aspect of the current Hong Kong model is the lack of liquidity in the secondary market. After assets are sold to qualified investors, there is virtually no place for transfer between retail investors and qualified investors. To address this pain point, some micro-innovations based on staking logic have emerged in the industry. For example, investors stake their non-transferable RWA token holdings and then issue a pegged bearer token on the blockchain for secondary trading. While this method can circumvent some restrictions, it is currently clearly in a regulatory vacuum. Regarding the &#34;specific financial infrastructure&#34; mentioned in Document No. 42, which is of great concern to everyone, there are currently three main speculations within the industry. First, there's the cross-border payment and settlement system based on Digital Yuan 2.0, as we hope for more application scenarios for the digital yuan overseas. Second, there are government-led consortium blockchain projects, such as Shanghai's &#34;Pujiang Digital Chain.&#34; Finally, there are specific public chains with compliance backgrounds, such as Conflux, which has a strong presence in Shanghai, or Layer 2 chains like HashKey Chain that prioritize compliance. In summary, while the issuance of the CSRC's Document No. 1 is progress, the steps may not be particularly large. For projects led by the CSRC, stability will always be the top priority. For listed company clients who want to try RWA, my advice is to &#34;wait and see.&#34; We can wait for the first batch of truly compliant cases to emerge, observe their circulation in the secondary market, compliance costs, and actual financing efficiency before making a business assessment. After all, the road to Web3 is long, so there's no need to rush.</strong></p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p><strong>要理解这一判断，我们必须首先澄清文件 42 与中国证监会文件 1 之间的关系：这是一种 “原则” 加 “例外” 的逻辑。文件 42 关于防范和处理虚拟货币相关风险的内容是原则，是基本原则；而中国证监会关于证券化代币发行的指导方针是在这一严格监管框架内给予的试点 “例外”。回顾 2013 年、2021 年到 2025 年 11 月中国发布的一系列监管文件，您会发现文件 42 在 “监管广度” 方面并没有实际增加许多新的限制类别。然而，从我们的行业角度来看，监管的 “深度” 相比之前显著增加。该文件准确地解决了商业注册信息的验证、中国境内加密货币矿场的销售细节以及与人民币挂钩的稳定币发行的相关规定。之前某些领域可能显得模糊，但现在监管者对中文地区加密世界的实际细节，包括具体的商业流程，有了非常透彻的了解。基于此，环境并没有恶化；相反，它通过中国证监会的文件打开了一个漏洞，允许国内资产在国内监管机构批准下作为证券代币在海外发行。关于 “真实世界资产代币化（RWA）” 和 “证券代币化” 这两个术语，许多行业专业人士觉得有些奇怪。文件 42 讨论了 RWA，而在中国证监会的框架内，它变成了证券代币化。实际上，RWA 是一个更高层次的概念。到 2026 年，全球 RWA 实践已经演变为三条主要路径：第一条是证券或金融产品的代币化，这是中国证监会主要监管的领域，包括美国股票、基金等资产在链上解决二级市场流动性的尝试；第二条路径更倾向于产品销售、会员权益或用户积分激活，遵循电子商务逻辑。这部分，除了金融筹资外，尚未获得明确的监管评估。第三种方式是具有明显中国特色的路径。这涉及到像蚂蚁金服、朗新和 GCL 等公司，它们在 2024 年开始尝试这种方式，将国内新能源资产的收益权打包成固定收益或投资收益分配产品，在香港销售。中国证监会的文件 1 正式将涉及 “证券” 和 “债务” 属性的产品纳入大陆政府部门的监管框架。我的理解是，中国证监会只关注证券的代币化，这是 RWA 的一个较低层次的场景；其他产品的代币化不在其管辖范围内。在文件 42 中，有一个细节引起了许多支付公司和金融机构的高度关注：稳定币。2025 年 11 月的一份文件将稳定币定义为一种虚拟货币，导致许多机构认为国内公司发行离岸人民币稳定币的路径被封堵。然而，文件 42 第一条第一款明确指出，未经同意不得发行人民币挂钩的稳定币。这意味着在相关部门根据法律法规批准的情况下，实际上是可以的。这对已经在香港稳定币市场建立存在的巨头如蚂蚁集团和京东来说，实质上是个利好。目前，已有 36 家机构在香港申请稳定币许可证，报告显示，第一批许可证可能在 2026 年 3 月底前发放给渣打银行或汇丰银行。为什么稳定币如此重要？因为真正的 RWA（真实世界资产管理）在未来必然需要稳定币，因为区块链的核心优势在于其可编程性。理想的场景是：通过物联网芯片，商业数据以真实且不可篡改的方式记录在区块链上，投资者的收益根据这些数据通过智能合约自动分配到他们的账户。这种 “信息流” 和 “资本流” 的闭环可以实现类似于黑石的美国国债产品的定期利息分配。如果没有合规的稳定币参与价值结算，RWA 的金融创新意义将减半。尽管政策释放了信号，但我们必须清醒地意识到当前的实际差距。目前，香港涌现出的许多 RWA 项目，除了与新能源相关的目标外，仍然集中在农产品、不良资产或房地产上。这些基础资产的所有权尽职调查过程往往相当粗糙，甚至近乎草率。在许多连接香港和大陆的 RWA 项目中，逻辑仍然主要是传统基金产品销售模式与区块链记录能力的结合。融资仍然遵循传统的合同签署和合格海外投资者渠道，最终借贷给国内项目公司。这种做法与 Web3 世界中 RWA 代币自由流动的理想相去甚远，更像是利用区块链概念进行的公关活动。目前香港模式最受批评的方面是二级市场缺乏流动性。在资产出售给合格投资者后，几乎没有零售投资者与合格投资者之间的转让场所。为了解决这一痛点，行业内出现了一些基于质押逻辑的微创新。例如，投资者质押其不可转让的 RWA 代币持有量，然后在区块链上发行一个挂钩的持有人代币进行二级交易。虽然这种方法可以规避一些限制，但目前显然处于监管真空中。关于文件 42 中提到的 “具体金融基础设施”，业界目前有三种主要猜测。首先是基于数字人民币 2.0 的跨境支付和结算系统，因为我们希望数字人民币在海外有更多的应用场景。其次是政府主导的联盟区块链项目，如上海的 “浦江数字链”。最后是具有合规背景的特定公链，如在上海有强大存在的 Conflux，或优先考虑合规的 Layer 2 链如 HashKey Chain。总之，尽管中国证监会的文件 1 的发布是进步，但步伐可能并不特别大。对于中国证监会主导的项目，稳定性将始终是首要任务。对于希望尝试 RWA 的上市公司客户，我的建议是 “观望”。我们可以等待第一批真正合规的案例出现，观察它们在二级市场的流通、合规成本和实际融资效率，然后再进行商业评估。毕竟，通往 Web3 的道路漫长，因此不必急于求成。</strong></p>
</div>

Are China's new cryptocurrency regulations a boon or a bane?

- 稳定币热潮在内地金融机构中复苏，受到高度关注。  
- 文件 42 和 CSRC 文件 1 规定了虚拟货币风险处理的原则与例外。  
- 目前 36 家机构申请稳定币许可证，首批可能于 2026 年 3 月底发放。

中国新的加密货币法规究竟是福还是祸？