Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao has endorsed the concept of “license passporting” across ASEAN, arguing that crypto and stablecoin providers that are already regulated in one country should not have to restart the licensing process when expanding into neighboring markets.

Speaking Tuesday at the “One ASEAN, One Digital Economy” fireside chat during the ASEAN Tech Summit Manila 2026, Zhao backed an approach originally raised by FinTech Alliance PH founding chair Lito Villanueva: a simplified approval pathway—or license portability—so regulators can still conduct due diligence, but without forcing applicants to complete a wholly new application from scratch in each jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

• Zhao supports regulatory passporting across ASEAN to reduce the “apply from zero” burden for already-licensed crypto and stablecoin firms.
• He framed cross-border coordination as largely a political issue, while suggesting the underlying technology and compliance architecture are manageable.
• A streamlined regional licensing model could lower compliance costs and encourage competition across fragmented ASEAN rules.
• ASEAN has precedent for simplified cross-border authorization in other parts of finance, though crypto-specific passporting does not yet exist.
• The EU’s MiCA framework provides a clearer passporting example, highlighting the contrast between region-wide rules and ASEAN’s country-by-country regulatory environment.

Why “passporting” matters for crypto in ASEAN

ASEAN countries currently regulate digital assets through separate national frameworks, which can translate into multiple licensing processes for firms trying to operate regionally. Zhao’s argument is that this patchwork discourages cross-border expansion and increases overhead—both of which can slow access to new services and leave costs higher for users.

At the same time, Zhao did not suggest regulators would be sidelined. His core position was that regulators should retain the ability to review and assess applicants, but that the administrative burden should be lighter when a firm already holds a license in another participating market.

In practical terms, that distinction could matter most for compliance-heavy business models—such as custody, exchange operations, and certain stablecoin-related activities—where duplication of documentation, legal reviews, and internal controls can become expensive and time-consuming with each new country entry.

ASEAN already uses simplified approvals in other sectors

While ASEAN does not currently have a bloc-wide “passport” specifically for crypto companies, regulators have used streamlined cross-border mechanisms in capital markets to deepen integration. One example is the ASEAN Capital Markets Forum (ACMF) framework for Collective Investment Schemes (CIS).

According to the ACMF, its Collective Investment Schemes Framework “allows” a fund authorized in its home jurisdiction to be offered in participating host jurisdictions through a streamlined authorization process. The initiative began operating in Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand in 2014, and later expanded when the Philippines joined in 2021. The ACMF describes the Philippines’ entry as an enhancement to ASEAN capital markets connectivity. (See: ACMF CIS cross-border framework and ACMF news release on Philippines entry.)

Separately, the ACMF has also introduced the “ACMF Pass” under its Professional Mobility Framework. This arrangement enables eligible investment advisers licensed in one participating jurisdiction to receive fast-track registration to provide advisory services in another jurisdiction without obtaining another full license. The ACMF details the Professional Mobility initiative and related arrangements on its website. (See: ACMF Professional Mobility and ACMF announcement.)

Zhao’s crypto “passporting” idea is broader than these finance-specific programs, but the examples underscore a key point for investors and operators: ASEAN regulators have, in practice, found ways to use mutual recognition and simplified approvals in areas where rules differ across member states.

Europe’s MiCA shows how passporting can work in practice

A closer analogue outside ASEAN is the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) regime, which includes passporting rights for authorized crypto-asset service providers. Under the approach described in earlier reporting, an authorized provider can offer services across EU member states after notifying its home regulator about the countries and services involved. (See: Cointelegraph’s coverage of MiCA passporting.)

Zhao’s comments suggest he sees alignment across ASEAN as more difficult than building common technical rails, partly because policy and regulatory approaches vary between countries. Still, his central claim remains: the pathway for a firm already licensed in one ASEAN market should be meaningfully easier when it enters another—provided regulators can still evaluate the application on its substance.

What changes—and what remains uncertain

If ASEAN regulators adopted a passporting or license portability model for crypto, the biggest immediate change would likely be operational: firms could focus compliance resources on meeting baseline requirements, rather than rebuilding licensing dossiers for each country. That could also affect market dynamics by making it easier for licensed operators to expand service offerings, potentially improving competition and reducing consumer-facing costs over time—an outcome Zhao explicitly tied to broader regional participation.

However, a major uncertainty remains how “lighter” the process could realistically be under current political and regulatory structures. Even within systems that use simplified approvals, host jurisdictions often still apply their own rules or requirements. In other words, passporting can reduce duplication without eliminating local oversight.

For readers watching ASEAN’s crypto landscape, the next signal to track would be whether regional bodies or individual regulators begin converging on shared standards for licensing and ongoing supervision—especially for businesses tied to stablecoins and custody/exchange services, where risk controls are central.

Zhao’s endorsement highlights that the technology for cross-border licensing mechanics is not the main barrier; coordination among regulators is. The practical question now is whether ASEAN moves from principles like mutual recognition and streamlined approvals in capital markets toward comparable frameworks for crypto—without compromising local regulatory objectives.

Psalion announced its third and largest venture fund on July 27, introducing a $50 million Singapore vehicle for pre-seed and seed-stage blockchain companies. 

The firm said Fund III will target infrastructure, middleware, trade finance, real-world assets, stablecoins, decentralised finance and selected consumer applications.

The announcement was followed one hour later by Fund III’s first publicly disclosed deal. Psalion said it led a $4 million funding round for Beezie, a commerce platform that links physical collectibles with on-chain digital twins.

Psalion Fund III targets six blockchain sectors

Psalion said the fund will back founders connecting established businesses with blockchain rails. Managing Partner Tim Enneking described the strategy as investing where web2 businesses operate on web3 infrastructure. The firm did not publish target cheque sizes, its planned number of investments or a deployment deadline.

The release called the vehicle a $50 million fund, but it did not identify limited partners, committed capital or a first-close amount. Its headline said Psalion had “closed” the fund, while the body described the event as a launch. The available documents therefore support describing $50 million as the announced fund size, rather than independently confirmed capital already deployed.

Psalion’s website says its existing venture portfolio includes projects such as Solana, Aave, Sushi, Polkadot, Arkis, Hinkal and stablecoin protocol Usual. The firm also operates digital-asset yield and lending strategies for professional investors.

Singapore records limit the fund to eligible investors

Fund III uses Singapore’s Variable Capital Company structure and is managed by Conduit Asset Management. The Monetary Authority of Singapore’s directory confirms that Conduit holds a Capital Markets Services licence for fund management.

MAS’s CISNet database lists Psalion VC Fund III VCC as a restricted scheme. That listing means MAS has been informed of an intended offer to accredited and other eligible investors. It does not authorise the fund for non-accredited retail investors and does not represent an MAS endorsement.

Singapore’s Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority describes a VCC as a corporate structure created for investment funds. A VCC can issue and redeem shares without shareholder approval and can operate as one fund or as an umbrella containing separate sub-funds.

Psalion said Fund III led Beezie’s $4 million round. Beezie allows users to obtain physical collectibles through a gamified system, then keep an item or sell it back under the platform’s terms. Each physical asset receives an on-chain digital twin, according to the company.

Moreover, Beezie reported more than $170 million in gross merchandise value, over $85 million in year-to-date revenue and more than 30,000 active users since January 2026. The press release presented those figures as company data and did not include audited financial statements.

The capital is intended to support inventory purchases, geographic growth and expansion across collectibles, luxury and entertainment. Psalion did not disclose its individual contribution, valuation terms or ownership stake in Beezie.

The investment fits Psalion’s stated focus on consumer products where blockchain infrastructure operates behind the interface. It also gives Fund III a disclosed portfolio company immediately after its launch.

Crypto venture capital remains selective

The fund arrives during a weaker venture environment. As previously reported, Coinbase Ventures completed 30 investments during the first half of 2026, while broader fundraising slowed and capital became concentrated among fewer investors and projects.

Psalion’s target sectors continue to attract large rounds. Pharos Network raised $44 million for institutional RWA infrastructure. Citi Ventures also invested in stablecoin payments company BVNK, although the investment amount was not disclosed.

The next updates will be further portfolio announcements, details about investor subscriptions and any revised disclosures concerning the $50 million size. Fund III must also remain within Singapore’s restricted-scheme framework while being offered there.

No public token or listed security was announced in connection with the fund. There was therefore no verified market-price reaction directly tied to the launch.

Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao backed crypto license passporting across ASEAN on July 28 during a fireside discussion at the ASEAN Tech Summit Manila 2026.

The session covered digital assets, stablecoins and the future of regional finance.Zhao supported a proposal raised by FinTech Alliance PH founding chair Lito Villanueva. Under the idea, a crypto company licensed in one ASEAN jurisdiction could seek simplified approval elsewhere instead of submitting another complete application.

The proposal would still allow host regulators to assess applicants and impose local conditions. It would not automatically permit a company to operate across every ASEAN market.

ASEAN crypto license passport could reduce repeat filings

Crypto companies operating across Southeast Asia currently face separate licensing processes, compliance checks and supervisory requirements. Zhao argued that recognising some work completed by another regulator could reduce duplicated filings and lower market-entry costs.

A common process could also make regional expansion easier for exchanges, custodians and stablecoin payment providers. However, Zhao’s support does not amount to an ASEAN policy decision. No regulator or ASEAN body has announced a formal crypto passporting proposal, consultation or target date.

Binance has direct experience with fragmented licensing. The exchange is seeking more approvals across Asia while working through separate national requirements. Reuters reported in July that Binance planned to expand its regional licensing footprint but had not identified all the markets involved.

ASEAN regulators have already adopted cross-border recognition arrangements for parts of traditional finance. The ASEAN Collective Investment Schemes Framework allows qualifying funds authorised in one participating jurisdiction to seek streamlined approval in another.

Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand launched the framework in 2014. The Philippines later joined through a supplemental memorandum signed by the four national securities regulators.

The ASEAN Capital Markets Forum also operates the ACMF Pass. It allows eligible investment professionals to obtain fast-track registration for advisory work in participating jurisdictions without securing another full license.

Those programmes provide a procedural model, but they do not cover crypto exchanges or stablecoin issuers. They also preserve the power of host regulators to review applicants and enforce domestic rules.

National crypto rules remain the main obstacle

ASEAN members regulate digital assets through different laws, agencies and product classifications. Requirements can involve local incorporation, capital reserves, cybersecurity, custody, disclosures and anti-money-laundering controls.

The Philippines shows how several approvals can apply to one service. Binance and BlockShoals lacked the central bank license required for certain payment and transaction activities, despite participating in a Securities and Exchange Commission sandbox.

The Philippine SEC later allowed BlockShoals to begin sandbox testing using Binance infrastructure. However, the approval did not replace separate Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas requirements. In related coverage, the testing programme included a 90-day integration period before user onboarding could begin.

A regional passport would therefore require regulators to agree which authority acts as the home supervisor and which responsibilities remain with each host country.

Europe provides a broader crypto comparison

The European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation provides the clearest direct comparison. MiCA allows an authorised crypto-asset service provider to offer services across EU member states after completing the required notification process.

That system relies on a shared legal rulebook, common authorisation standards and cooperation between national regulators. ASEAN does not currently have an equivalent regional crypto law.

Notably, Binance missed the full MiCA licensing deadline and restricted some European services. The case shows that passporting reduces repeated national applications but does not remove scrutiny during the original approval process.

ASEAN’s Digital Economy Framework Agreement may create another venue for regional cooperation. Negotiations have concluded, and the agreement is undergoing legal review before an expected November 2026 signing. Official descriptions cover digital payments, data governance and cybersecurity, but no published document confirms that crypto license passporting forms part of the agreement.

Any crypto passport would still require negotiations among national regulators, common minimum standards and an information-sharing system. For now, Zhao’s proposal remains a recommendation for future regional policy rather than an approved licensing route.

Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao backed crypto license passporting across ASEAN, arguing that firms regulated in one market should be able to enter others through a simplified approval process rather than applying from scratch.

Speaking Tuesday during the “One ASEAN, One Digital Economy” fireside chat at the ASEAN Tech Summit Manila 2026, Zhao backed an idea raised by FinTech Alliance PH founding chair Lito Villanueva for regulatory passporting or license portability. Zhao said regulators could still review applicants but should not require them to complete another full licensing application from scratch.

A regional licensing framework could reduce compliance costs, encourage competition and make it easier for crypto and stablecoin services to operate across ASEAN’s fragmented regulatory markets. Member states regulate digital assets separately, creating multiple approval processes for companies seeking a regional presence.

“I think that’s mostly a political problem,” Zhao said of cross-border coordination, adding that the technology was simple. He said allowing more licensed platforms to compete could improve services and lower costs for consumers.

Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao (left) with FinTech Alliance PH founding chair Lito Villanueva (right) at the ASEAN Summit in Manila. Source: Aubrey Paller

ASEAN has precedents for regional passporting

ASEAN does not currently have a bloc-wide passport for crypto companies, but regional regulators have created streamlined cross-border arrangements elsewhere in finance.

The ASEAN Capital Markets Forum’s (ACMF) operates the Collective Investment Schemes Framework, which allows a fund authorized in its home jurisdiction to be offered in participating host jurisdictions through a streamlined authorization process. The framework was first operationalized in Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand in 2014, while the Philippines joined in 2021, according to the ACMF. 

The forum also introduced the ACMF Pass under its Professional Mobility Framework. The arrangement lets eligible investment advisers licensed in one participating jurisdiction receive fast-track registration to provide advisory services in another without obtaining another license.

Related: Philippine bank BPI plans stablecoin payments pilot

These programs are narrower than the passporting idea Villanueva raised and Zhao supported, and remain subject to host-market requirements, but they show that ASEAN regulators have previously used mutual recognition and simplified approvals to deepen integration.

A direct crypto comparison exists in the European Union. Under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation, an authorized crypto-asset service provider can use passporting rights to provide services across EU member states after notifying its home regulator of the countries and services involved.

Zhao said differences in national policies and regulatory approaches make alignment harder than building common technical rails. Still, he argued that firms already licensed in one market should face a lighter application process when entering another ASEAN jurisdiction.

Magazine: Inside the ‘fake police raid’ that forced a $1M Bitcoin transfer

A US exchange can list a new prediction market by filing a form saying the contract complies with the law, and start trading the next day. No approval required.

Behind that speed sits a trapdoor written into Dodd-Frank, three undefined words, and a rulemaking the CFTC opened this June to finally settle what they mean.

The most useful sentence ever written about prediction markets is that a contract trading at 70 cents implies a 70% probability, and the most useful next sentence is that this is an approximation with known, measurable errors. Both halves matter. The first is why journalists, analysts, and increasingly institutional data buyers treat these prices as forecasts: the mapping is real, and the empirical record supporting it is better than most critics assume. The second is why traders who read the price as literal truth lose money in patterned, predictable ways. Research covering hundreds of thousands of settled contracts across the largest venues now supports a precise account of where the mapping holds and where it bends, and the answer is not that markets are wrong but that a price is a market-clearing number produced by capital under constraints, not a probability produced by an oracle. This guide walks the evidence: the calibration record, then the five distortions, then how to read a price properly.

The mapping, and why it mostly works

Start with the good news, because it is stronger than the skeptical framing usually allows.

Calibration studies plot implied probabilities against realized frequencies: take every contract that traded at roughly 30 cents, check how often those events actually happened, and see whether the answer is close to 30%. Across large samples of settled markets, the resulting curve tracks the ideal diagonal closely. One analysis of thousands of markets on the largest regulated venue found overall accuracy above 90% across probability ranges, with the curve hugging the diagonal and no evidence of gross systematic error. Academic work examining more than 300,000 contracts reached a compatible conclusion: prices are informative, and they improve as markets approach settlement, which is exactly what an efficient information aggregator should do as uncertainty resolves.

Comparisons to alternatives are the second part of the case. Aggregated market prices have generally outperformed individual expert forecasts, single polls, and simple statistical models, because the mechanism rewards being right with money and punishes confident error, which is a stronger incentive structure than reputation. Market efficiency has also been improving as the sector grows: spreads on the leading venue compressed sharply as volume expanded, which mechanically improves price quality. For context, crypto.news has explained where the liquid markets live and why the venue structure matters for market quality.

So the base case is that these prices deserve to be taken seriously as probability estimates. The rest of this guide is about the five ways they deviate, each of which is measurable and each of which points the same direction: the deviations mostly hurt the participant who reads the price naively.

Delphi Digital analysts have renewed a debate over whether crypto tokens and company equity can share value without creating conflicting claims. 

During a July 15 roundtable, analyst Ceteris said token market capitalisations should usually remain below the value assigned to the related company because equity holders normally receive most business profits. 

Delphi released the discussion under the title “Are Crypto Tokens Fundamentally Broken?”. The episode covered Grass, Venice and other projects where a private company operates alongside a publicly traded token. 

Equity carries clearer rights to company profits

Equity gives shareholders an ownership interest in a company. Investor.gov states that stock represents a proportional claim on a corporation’s assets and profits. Common shareholders may also vote on company matters and receive dividends when directors approve them.

A crypto token may carry different rights. Some provide network access, rewards or governance votes. Others support staking, fee discounts or payments. Holding a token does not automatically give its owner a legal claim on company revenue, assets or sale proceeds. The rights depend on the project’s documents, contracts and legal structure.

Ceteris argued that this difference should restrain token valuations when a project also has equity investors. He said most “actual cash profits” ultimately flow to shareholders. The token’s market capitalisation “should generally be smaller” unless the project has a clear system that sends value to holders.

Ambiguity can support inflated token valuations

Ceteris said problems arise when projects leave the boundary between tokens and equity unclear. A company may market the token as the centre of an ecosystem while keeping revenue, intellectual property, customer contracts and sale rights inside the equity entity. Token buyers may then price the asset as though it captures the full business.

This setup creates groups with different interests. Equity holders may want the company to retain profits, raise capital or pursue a sale. Token holders may prefer fee sharing, buybacks, burns or stronger onchain governance. Management must decide which side receives value from the product.

The Delphi episode used Grass and Venice as examples. It did not claim every dual structure will fail. The speakers focused on whether projects disclose where revenue goes and whether token holders have enforceable or programmatic economic rights.

Governance alone may not solve the issue. As crypto.news explains in its governance-token guide, holders can vote on protocol proposals, but each project defines what those votes control. A token may govern incentives or technical updates without controlling the company that owns key software and commercial agreements.

Strong markets can hide structural weakness

Delphi Digital co-founder Yan Liberman said tokens may still perform when market conditions remain strong. Rising liquidity can lift prices even when a token’s link to revenue remains limited. Traders may focus on user growth, listings or market narratives instead of cash-flow distribution.

However, Liberman said the structure can weaken when business conditions deteriorate or shareholders seek an exit. A sale may transfer the operating company, brand or intellectual property to a buyer while leaving token holders outside the deal. The outcome depends on agreements linking the company and network.

The risk can also emerge when revenue falls. Equity investors hold formal claims within the corporate structure, while token support may depend on company decisions or governance votes. A project can reduce incentives, delay buybacks or change utility unless binding rules prevent those changes.

Equity also carries risks, including dilution, bankruptcy and operating losses. Tokens may offer global liquidity and transparent onchain systems. Delphi’s argument centred on pricing those different rights accurately rather than treating both assets as equal claims.

Projects test clearer token value accrual

Several crypto projects now use revenue-linked systems to narrow the gap. Buybacks use protocol income to purchase tokens. Burns permanently remove tokens from circulation. Fee sharing sends part of network revenue to eligible participants. Each model creates a clearer connection between activity and token economics.

As crypto.news reported, Hyperliquid has routed trading revenue into HYPE purchases through its Assistance Fund. The mechanism had used more than $1.16 billion in fees for token purchases by May 2026.

Meanwhile, Jito proposed using DAO revenue for JTO buybacks and permanent burns. The proposal would direct its share of JTX revenue toward the token mechanism through at least the fourth quarter of 2027.

Similarly, Uniswap’s fee programme converts protocol income into UNI burns across supported networks. The system links protocol fees with token supply reduction instead of sending dividends directly to holders.

These systems do not turn tokens into equity. Holders may still lack claims on company assets, dividends or acquisition proceeds. Still, automated and disclosed mechanisms make token demand easier to measure through revenue, buyback volume, supply changes and governance controls.

The Delphi roundtable called for lower expectations when those links remain weak. Its central test asks which asset receives the cash generated by the business. When equity captures income and the token relies mainly on market demand, assigning both similar valuations may overstate the token’s economic position.

South Korean crypto exchange Upbit announced trading support for Ripple USD on July 28, adding RLUSD pairs against the Korean won, 

Bitcoin and USDT. Trading was scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. Korea Standard Time, subject to the exchange securing sufficient liquidity.

Deposits and withdrawals were due to open within two hours of the announcement. Upbit limited transfers to the XRP Ledger version of RLUSD, excluding the token’s Ethereum and other supported-network versions.