2026-01-08 23:40:19

#密码资产动态追踪 The Hong Kong Monetary Authority officially launched a new chapter in cryptocurrency asset regulation in January this year. According to the Basel international standards, they divided crypto assets into two main categories — the first being tokenized traditional assets and compliant stablecoins, with relatively moderate risk weights; the second category includes mainstream coins like $BTC and $ETH, which are directly assigned a risk weight of 1250%. In other words, banks need to hold nearly 1:1 capital to cover these exposures, based on an 8% capital adequacy ratio standard. This move not only closes the risk gap but also leaves room for innovation. For holders of cryptocurrencies, this means higher entry barriers for banks, but it also indicates that regulators are taking this market seriously.

BTC0,07%

ETH0,24%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

15 Likes

Reward
15
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

RektButStillHere

· 01-09 12:52

1250% risk weight? Banks definitely need to put real money on the table. This round of Hong Kong regulation is quite restrained, right? --- Stablecoins and mainstream coins are treated differently. It seems the Hong Kong Monetary Authority is also trying to balance risk and innovation. Interesting. --- With such a high weight, many institutional banks should recalculate their books. Holders still need to prepare psychologically. --- Hong Kong's move is quite good. It's neither a blanket ban nor laissez-faire. It feels like they are exploring the most suitable pace. --- No wonder lately banks' attitude towards crypto has changed. Turns out they were held back by this set of standards. --- Wait, does the 1:1 capital requirement mean keeping crypto out of the door? This regulatory intensity is a bit hardcore. --- Treating compliant stablecoins well is probably an effort to guide the entire market towards正规军 (mainstream/regulated sector). --- Once the 1250% weight for mainstream coins is out, small institutions simply can't play. The market landscape is about to reshuffle.

View OriginalReply0

rekt_but_not_broke

· 01-09 00:09

1250% is really fierce, the banks were directly discouraged. --- Hong Kong's move still shows some brains; it's not just a one-size-fits-all approach, which is good. --- Wait, is the risk weight for stablecoins really that low? Doesn't that indirectly encourage banks to hoard USDT? --- To put it nicely, it's actually opening a backdoor for big institutions. --- Higher thresholds make it more bullish? The minority can make big money, I love this logic. --- A 1:1 capital requirement, then banks really can't play with BTC. --- Regulators are taking it seriously? How come I hear a subtle push-out instead? --- The treatment of stablecoins versus BTC is so different, it feels like a replay of the 2018 pattern. --- It's contradictory—blocking risks while leaving some room; I don't know if it's genuine reassurance or real fear.

View OriginalReply0

DataChief

· 01-09 00:07

1250%？What kind of outrageous risk weight is needed to force banks to hold 1:1 capital... Hong Kong, this move is interesting --- High entry barriers for banks are just high, anyway, those holding coins don't expect much from them --- Stablecoin treatment is just good, BTC is being pressed down and rubbed into the ground --- Serious regulation? More like plugging loopholes, leaving room for innovation is just a nice talk --- 1:1 leverage? This is basically a disguised way to discourage --- Basel standards are coming into play, Hong Kong's stance is really serious --- That's why stablecoins are the right path, mainstream coins have been slapped in the face by the authorities

View OriginalReply0

LayerZeroHero

· 01-09 00:01

1250% risk weight, isn't this a disguised way to discourage banks from entering? Haha Banks are really cornered, covering with 1:1 capital? This cost is a bit outrageous. Hong Kong's approach is okay, not completely shutting the door, but setting such high thresholds, it's like balancing on a tightrope. Mainstream coins are given special treatment, while stablecoins are more relaxed? I kind of understand this logic, but also find it confusing. It's already 2025, and we're still arguing about the standards for crypto regulation. Looks like this game is going to be played long-term.

View OriginalReply0

UnluckyLemur

· 01-08 23:58

1250% risk weight is really impressive, it's basically saying banks should just avoid touching BTC and ETH, haha. The higher entry barrier for banks is actually a good thing, at least there's no need to worry about being cut like a leek. This round of operations looks very restrained, balancing risk prevention with not completely stifling innovation. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority's strategy is well played. But in the end, it still depends on whether the major banks dare to truly enter the market. Having policies without the courage to act is pointless. Stablecoins being classified into the first tier is a small win, at least no longer need 1:1 backing.

View OriginalReply0

TestnetScholar

· 01-08 23:56

1250% risk weight, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority's move is quite harsh, meaning banks basically can't get involved. --- Stablecoins are being treated differently; it seems compliance is still necessary to get on the table. --- This is like putting a tight leash on BTC and ETH, banks need 1:1 reserve backing—who dares to enter the market? --- Regulation has become stricter, but with such high entry barriers for banks, is it really good for us token holders? --- It sounds fair, but in reality, it's still blocking mainstream coins, while stablecoins are secretly happy. --- Who can afford the 1:1 cost? This policy effectively imposes a de facto restriction on banks' crypto allocations.

View OriginalReply0