Hong Kong stablecoin creation launched, three new policies reshape financial infrastructure

When Consensus was held in Hong Kong for the second time and the first batch of stablecoin licenses were imminent—two signals layered together—the world finally realized: Hong Kong is not only refining its policy framework but also coining new terminology—using new regulatory language and institutional design to define the next generation of financial infrastructure.

John Lee’s speech was no empty words; it provided a clear timetable. Later that same day, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority entered the final sprint for stablecoin license approvals, and the Securities and Futures Commission issued three notices, opening up virtual asset-backed financing, allowing perpetual contracts for professional investors, and formally incorporating market maker systems into the regulatory framework. Traders described this scene as a “fill-in-the-blank”—the framework has long been laid out; now what’s being filled in are real financial functions.

But what’s truly worth paying attention to isn’t just the policies themselves, but Hong Kong’s redefinition of its role in the global financial system.

First Batch of Licenses: Coining Terms Is More Than Policy Recognition—It’s a Fight for Settlement Power

On August 1, 2025, the Stablecoin Ordinance officially took effect. Hong Kong became one of the few jurisdictions worldwide to establish a dedicated licensing regime for fiat-backed stablecoins. Thirty-six applications arrived as scheduled, with progress ahead of expectations by nearly half a year.

Behind this lies a deeper competitive landscape. The EU’s MiCA framework is being fully implemented, Singapore is continuously refining its compliant stablecoin system, and the Middle East is accelerating digital asset innovation. Whoever can first establish a closed loop of “compliance + commercialization” will dominate cross-border payments and on-chain clearing systems.

The HKMA’s criteria for stablecoins are exceptionally clear: 100% high-liquidity reserve assets, independent third-party custody, and real-world payment scenarios. Behind these core standards is a new logic of coining terms—not just “permitting issuance,” but “deciding who can enter the mainstream financial system.”

From another perspective, the first licensees essentially determine whether Hong Kong dollar stablecoins can enter cross-border trade settlement, supply chain finance, or even capital market clearing. This isn’t just a Web3 narrative; it’s a real competition over financial infrastructure. Licenses are more than symbolic approval—they are the passport into the global financial order.

Multiple Initiatives: From Underground Demand to Regulatory Framework

If stablecoins address the issue of value anchoring, then the three new measures by the SFC tackle liquidity and risk pricing.

Opening virtual asset-backed financing. Previously, licensed platforms in Hong Kong only supported full-margin trading, with leverage demand flowing overseas. Now, under strict risk controls, collateralized financing is permitted—an institutional acknowledgment that demand won’t disappear but will migrate. The regulator’s shift from “suppress” to “integrate” itself is a form of coining terms—explicitly defining risk boundaries through rules.

Perpetual contracts for professional investors. These are core liquidity products in global crypto markets. The SFC did not simply set leverage caps but required platforms to demonstrate the effectiveness of their risk control models. This reflects a “principle-based” regulatory philosophy—risk self-verified, responsibility traceable. Market participants must speak with data and system design, not wait for regulators’ absolute restrictions.

Formal inclusion of market maker systems. Liquidity has long been a weakness for licensed platforms in Hong Kong. Lack of depth hampers large trades by institutional clients. Allowing affiliated market makers to operate under conflict-of-interest controls signals Hong Kong’s effort to fill this infrastructural gap.

All three measures together send a clear message: Hong Kong is no longer debating “whether to support Web3,” but rather “how to price risks and set standards.” This is a shift from passive reaction to active coining of terms by regulators.

Hong Kong’s Approach to Coining Terms: Embedded Rather Than Reinvented

On the global regulatory map, different financial centers coin terms in various ways.

The EU emphasizes rule integrity and uniformity through MiCA; Singapore adopts a cautious innovation and pilot control model; Dubai quickly attracts capital through free zones. Hong Kong’s choice is quite unique—embedded coining.

Stablecoins are approved by the HKMA, trading platforms are licensed by the SFC, custody requirements align with traditional finance. This isn’t about creating a brand-new system for crypto assets but integrating them into existing financial frameworks. The cost of this approach is that innovation may not be as rapid as in a regulatory vacuum. But the benefit is that once licensed in Hong Kong, entities automatically gain credibility from mainstream global financial institutions.

This also explains why Consensus has repeatedly chosen Hong Kong as its venue. The city not only connects the Chinese market but also bridges Western regulatory standards and Middle Eastern capital. As global regulation moves from fragmentation toward convergence, the experience accumulated by early movers in compliance becomes a competitive advantage.

Mainland’s Strict Regulation vs. Hong Kong’s Innovation: Risk Isolation and Division of Labor

It may seem like a “strict vs. lenient” policy difference, but from an institutional design perspective, it’s closer to layered experimentation under risk isolation.

Mainland China’s tight regulation of cryptocurrencies cuts off high-risk capital flows to Hong Kong, providing a buffer zone for innovation. Meanwhile, Hong Kong’s exploration of compliant stablecoins accumulates governance experience for future cross-border digital currency applications. The two tracks run in parallel, with intersections at the levels of technical standards and risk control models. This differentiated institutional design may well be a pragmatic choice by major economies facing technological disruption.

From Policy Ideas to Structural Rebuilding: The Race for Standard-Setters Has Begun

Legislation, sandboxes, licenses, derivatives, market maker systems—these policy tools are being deployed in sequence. By 2026, the question has shifted: it’s no longer “Can we do it?” but “Who will become the standard-setter?”

At an external conference, a licensee with preliminary approval demonstrated real-time cross-border settlement testing data. Several Middle Eastern investors asked very specific questions: Which bank holds the reserve assets? What is the peak daily processing volume? Is there a structured plan for cooperation with sovereign funds?

As the discussion shifts from “on-chain narratives” to “custodian banks and clearing capacity,” this transformation is no longer just industry innovation. It involves the redistribution of capital flows, global settlement systems, and monetary credibility.

Hong Kong’s bet isn’t on the next bull cycle but on the discourse power of the next-generation financial infrastructure. This approach—defining policies, building standards, and validating through practice—is becoming a new form of competition.