China’s 24 September 2021 blanket ban on cryptocurrency trading and mining — issued jointly by the People’s Bank of China and nine other agencies — has produced an unexpected strategic asset: large Bitcoin reserves seized from illegal operations now sit under Beijing’s control, even as the United States races to establish dollar-centric crypto dominance through spot Bitcoin ETFs that attracted approximately $12.6 billion in net inflows from their 11 January 2024 launch through the first quarter of 2025.
The divergence is not simply ban versus embrace. China is running a parallel track through Hong Kong’s regulated crypto hub and its own state-issued digital yuan, positioning itself for a different kind of leverage entirely.
The headline reads as a simple binary: Washington embraces crypto, Beijing bans it. The reality is considerably more interesting. China’s enforcement seizures of illegally mined and traded digital tokens have left the government holding substantial Bitcoin reserves — an accidental sovereign wealth position in the very asset class it officially prohibits. Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s pro-crypto pivot, including the family’s own digital tokens reportedly worth over $2 billion on paper, is as much about dollar hegemony as it is about blockchain innovation.
The strategic logic on both sides has been laid out in detail by Angela Ang, head of policy and strategic partnerships at blockchain intelligence company TRM Labs, and Sam Reynolds, senior reporter at cryptocurrency platform CoinDesk, speaking on the BBC World Service’s Asia Specific podcast. Their analysis cuts through the ideological framing to expose what is actually a competition over who controls the architecture of digital finance — not whether digital finance exists.
China’s mainland ban, grounded in a 2021 joint notice from ten government agencies, is real and comprehensive. But it coexists with a state-backed digital yuan pilot that had reached approximately 1.8 trillion yuan in cumulative transactions by mid-2023, and with Hong Kong operating as a fully licensed crypto hub under explicit regulatory approval from Beijing.
RELATED
For Western investors, fund managers, and governments watching this contest, the stakes extend well beyond which country hosts the most trading volume.
How the regulatory split actually works
Mainland China’s prohibition rests on three successive legal instruments: the People’s Bank of China‘s 2013 notice on Bitcoin, the 2017 ban on initial coin offerings, and the definitive 24 September 2021 notice that classified all virtual-currency business as illegal financial activity. That final notice authorised bank account freezes, platform takedowns, and seizure of crypto assets by financial regulators, cyberspace authorities, and public security organs simultaneously. Mainland China’s share of global Bitcoin mining fell from roughly 75% in September 2019 to effectively zero by July 2021 — a collapse in hashrate concentration with no precedent in the technology’s history.
Hong Kong operates under an entirely different framework. The city’s Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance amendments, which took effect on 1 June 2023, require retail-facing crypto exchanges to obtain a licence from the Securities and Futures Commission and comply with investor-protection, suitability, and custody standards aligned with Financial Action Task Force guidance. On 15 April 2024, the SFC approved the first spot Bitcoin and Ether ETFs in Asia; they began trading on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange on 30 April 2024.
Reynolds draws the parallel explicitly: Hong Kong is China’s sandbox, the same role it played when mainland regulators needed to learn how equity markets function before opening their own. The experiment is deliberate, not accidental.
| Jurisdiction | Current rule | Legal basis | Effective date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mainland China | All virtual-currency trading and mining illegal; enforcement by financial, cyberspace, and public-security organs | PBOC joint notice with nine agencies | 24 September 2021 |
| Hong Kong SAR | Retail crypto exchanges require SFC licence; suitability checks, custody standards, AML compliance mandatory | Amended Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615) | 1 June 2023 |
| Hong Kong SAR | Spot Bitcoin and Ether ETFs approved for retail trading on HKEX | SFC regulatory approval under securities law | 15 April 2024 (approved); 30 April 2024 (trading began) |
| United States | Spot Bitcoin ETFs approved by SEC; most tokens treated as securities subject to existing law | SEC approval; no bespoke federal crypto statute enacted | 11 January 2024 |
The dollar bet underneath the crypto debate
Reynolds makes a point that tends to get lost in the ban-versus-embrace framing: the Trump administration’s crypto enthusiasm is fundamentally a dollar-preservation strategy. Every major Bitcoin trading pair is denominated in US dollars. The largest stablecoins — USDT and USDC — are dollar-backed. In Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina, consumers buying Chinese exports like BYD vehicles are increasingly settling transactions not in yuan or local currency, but in dollar-denominated stablecoins. Washington is not simply cheerleading for crypto; it is ensuring that the expansion of digital-asset markets reinforces, rather than erodes, dollar primacy.
China’s counter-move is the digital yuan, formally the e-CNY. Former PBOC Governor Yi Gang described the instrument in 2023 as designed for controlled anonymity, coexisting with cash rather than replacing it, and providing a state-backed programmable alternative to private cryptocurrencies. The e-CNY reached approximately 1.8 trillion yuan in cumulative transactions by mid-2023 — a significant pilot volume, though still a fraction of China’s total payments infrastructure. Blockchain technology is not what Beijing has rejected; centralised control over it is precisely what it is building.
The seized Bitcoin holdings add a wrinkle that neither side discusses openly. Any sizeable, coordinated liquidation or off-exchange collateralisation of those reserves could pressure global prices, ETF net-asset values, and dollar-denominated lending backed by crypto collateral — a point that Western asset managers are only beginning to model. Business travellers operating at the intersection of digital assets and Chinese jurisdiction should also be aware that Beijing’s broad enforcement powers extend to digital assets on devices, with authorities able to search and seize without the procedural constraints Western investors might assume.
Beyond the headline
The Bigger Picture
Diverging U.S. and Chinese crypto paths are part of a broader contest over who sets the architecture of digital finance—whether private, market-driven tokens orbiting the dollar, or state-issued, programmable money integrated into domestic payment systems. The decisions each side makes on crypto are effectively test beds for competing models of financial sovereignty in a digitised economy.
The Money Trail
Behind the rhetoric about innovation and risk, both capitals are defending revenue streams: Washington is harnessing tax receipts and Wall Street fees from ETFs and trading platforms, while Beijing is protecting its ability to manage credit and capital flows via state banks and the digital yuan. Control over crypto markets is in practice a struggle over who captures the future rents of cross-border payments and digital asset intermediation.
The Timing
These policy choices are crystallising just as major economies confront slowing growth, high public debt, and experiments with tokenised securities. The U.S. embrace of spot Bitcoin ETFs and China’s rollout of the e-CNY are not isolated moves but timed responses to a window where the rules of digital money are still fluid—whoever locks in standards now will shape the next decade of financial infrastructure.
What Western investors and governments should be tracking now
With the U.S. and China having locked in their core positions, the next twelve months of legislative and regulatory decisions will determine how much room remains for adjustment — and how exposed Western actors are to moves they did not anticipate.
- Monitor U.S. Congressional action on digital-asset market-structure legislation — expected within the next six to twelve months. If passed with clear lines drawn between SEC and CFTC jurisdiction, large exchanges and stablecoin issuers gain regulatory certainty and institutional capital flows accelerate. If it stalls, expect continued rule-making by enforcement and fragmented state-level regimes that increase compliance costs for cross-border operators.
- Watch the Hong Kong SFC’s next licensing decisions for virtual-asset trading platforms and additional spot crypto ETFs over the coming year. The SFC had received more than 20 licence applications by mid-2024. If approvals broaden beyond blue-chip tokens, a deeper retail market emerges; if they slow, the hub pivots toward institutional-only offerings and Hong Kong’s competitive position relative to Singapore weakens.
- Factor China’s seized Bitcoin holdings into portfolio risk models. Western asset managers with exposure to spot Bitcoin ETFs — both U.S.- and Hong Kong-listed — should model scenarios in which Chinese authorities liquidate or collateralise large positions, given the potential to move global prices and ETF net-asset values without warning.
- Track the e-CNY pilot’s expansion via official PBOC communications at BIS-published PBOC statements. If the digital yuan extends into cross-border trade settlement with Belt and Road partners, it represents a structural challenge to dollar-stablecoin dominance in precisely the markets Washington is trying to lock in.
- Reassess Hong Kong operational exposure. Firms running crypto operations through Hong Kong should review their compliance posture under the SFC’s AMLO-based licensing regime, including custody, suitability, and AML requirements, before the next wave of enforcement actions clarifies which business models survive regulatory scrutiny.
