The recent changes in encryption assets, to put it bluntly, signify a transition from the wild phase to an institutional era. Looking back, this process cannot be reversed.

The attitude here in the United States has clearly shifted. They have realized that encryption cannot be suppressed, and it is better to guide it than to block it. Recently, the focus has been on promoting legislation related to stablecoins, while also adjusting structural policies in the market. The purpose is very straightforward - to incorporate encryption finance into the mainstream financial system and attract institutional funds. If this strategy continues, the investment ecology for retail investors will be changed, and large institutions will become the main players in the future.

Europe is taking a different approach. They have implemented MiCA (Regulation on Markets in Crypto-Assets), which has a different method but a similar purpose – to establish unified rules that allow encryption assets to operate compliantly within a framework. The logic here is stricter, with detailed requirements for issuers, exchanges, and custodians down to the capillaries.

What are the common points of the two ideas? Both are aimed at "regularizing" encryption assets. Stablecoins are no longer wild projects and need to be subject to bank-level regulation; exchanges are not lawless places and require licenses and capital adequacy; user assets have protection mechanisms. This is indeed a standard for the industry, but it also means that the era of barbaric growth is truly over.

Speaking of which, this is not a bad thing. The inflow of institutional funds will indeed raise the market bottom, but the prerequisite for entering the market is that it must "look like a real thing." The regulatory framework is the passport for this "looking like a real thing." In the long run, encryption assets will become increasingly similar to traditional finance, volatility may decrease somewhat, but liquidity will be more stable.