If you still see the SEC's recent policy adjustments as simply a change in attitude, then you are missing the core logic behind it — which is actually a reallocation of global crypto financial discourse. The depth of this transformation far exceeds any single market cycle you might imagine.

A review of the regulatory developments over the past few years reveals the clues. The United States once adopted a high-pressure strategy towards the crypto sector, frequently initiating lawsuits and investigations. This strict approach caused significant shocks within the industry. But what was the result? Europe took the lead with the introduction of the MiCA regulation, establishing a relatively comprehensive compliance framework that attracted a large number of quality projects and institutional capital migration. Meanwhile, countries in Asia also kept busy — places like Singapore and the UAE successfully attracted crypto talent and capital through flexible policy environments.

From this perspective, the SEC's policy adjustments are essentially a strategic response. Digital finance has become an irreversible development trend; whoever can establish a globally recognized regulatory standard system will hold the dominant position in the future financial ecosystem. The previous high-pressure regulatory strategy in the US was initially aimed at gaining control over rule-making, but it ended up allowing competitors to preemptively act. The current adjustments are a passive response after realizing that market mechanisms have already changed.

From the perspective of global competition, the right to formulate a compliance framework has become crucial. Europe's MiCA advantage lies in its system's integrity and unity, while Asia's strength is in policy flexibility and high efficiency in enforcement. The US, on the other hand, possesses the world's strongest capital and technological accumulation. This regulatory adjustment may mark the US's attempt to introduce a more favorable compliance framework version to attract high-quality projects and institutional capital back from around the world.

For market participants, it is essential to pay attention to several key pieces of information: first, the evolution direction of the regulatory framework and whether standards across regions can gradually converge; second, whether their own holdings are adapted to the new policy environment; third, whether the geographic location and legal jurisdiction of projects pose any risk changes. This is not only a policy-level game but also the beginning of capital flow and market mechanism reshaping.