Hong Kong Virtual Asset Trading Platform New Regulations (Part 2): New Circular Issued, Has the Boundary of Virtual Asset Business Been Redefined?
Original Title: "Web3 Lawyer In-Depth Policy Analysis | Hong Kong Virtual Asset Trading Platform New Regulations (Part 2): New Guideline Released, Has the Boundary of Virtual Asset Business Been Redefined?"
Original Source: Crypto Law Sandbox
Introduction
At the end of the year, riding on the wave of HashKey's listing, the Hong Kong Treasury Department and Securities and Futures Commission jointly announced that, in addition to following the original regulatory framework, they will proceed as planned to regulate "virtual asset trading" and "virtual asset custody" services under the Anti-Money Laundering Ordinance (AMLO). In addition, they are also preparing to introduce new licenses for two types of services: one for "providing advice on virtual assets" and the other for "virtual asset management," and have already begun public consultations. If all goes well, the mainstream core services of virtual assets, including "trading," "custody," "investment advisory," and "asset management," will all be interconnected, all subject to separate licensed regulation.
At this point, do any readers find it strange that these services cannot currently be provided in Hong Kong? It feels like the train has been ready to depart for a long time, but when looking back, the tickets haven't even gone on sale yet?
As of now, in China's Hong Kong, only 11 specialized platforms holding a VATP license can operate virtual asset trading platforms, while separate services related to virtual assets, such as trading, investment advisory, and asset management, have achieved compliance through upgrades under traditional licenses (1, 4, 9), essentially creating a temporary structure on the basis of traditional licensed rules. The significance of the new regulations is to separate out these important individual services and assign them their own licenses. Crypto Law Sandbox believes that the signal being sent is quite clear: the regulation of virtual assets requires a separate path, and this path should also be built separately.
However, obtaining separate official licenses is estimated to have to wait until 2026. Looking back, this year for licensed virtual asset trading platforms, the Securities and Futures Commission issued two key circulars on November 3, 2025. Crypto Law Sandbox had previously analyzed one of them in the previous article: Interpretation of New Regulations for Hong Kong Virtual Asset Trading Platforms (Part 1): "Circular on Shared Liquidity of Virtual Asset Trading Platforms". Today, let's delve into the second part: "Circular on Expanding Products and Services of Virtual Asset Trading Platforms".
What Does the Circular Say?
Those on the industry frontlines can clearly feel that the real-world virtual asset business has already clearly surpassed the original VATP regulatory framework's vision. The initial licensing system was solely designed around "centralized virtual asset trading platforms," with a core focus on trade matching, client asset segregation, and basic market order maintenance. However, as stablecoins, tokenized securities, RWAs, and various investment products linked to digital assets continue to emerge, the roles platforms play in practice are no longer limited to being just a pure trading venue.
In this context, the real contradiction faced by regulation is no longer "whether these businesses should exist" because if they continue to operate outside a clear regulatory framework, it will only allow the market to evolve in a gray area. Instead of letting practitioners find ways to bypass the rules, it is better to directly outline what can be done, while also clearly assigning the respective responsibilities. We believe this is the starting point of this circular.
Specifically, the circular has brought several seemingly "relaxed" measures at the platform level, which actually reallocate various responsibilities.
First, there is the adjustment regarding the token listing rules. In the past, for a virtual asset to be listed on a VATP platform, it usually needed to meet a minimum of 12 months of trading history, which essentially adopted a time-based risk filtering standard. However, in practice, this approach is not always reasonable: a project's longer lifespan does not necessarily mean complete information or manageable risk; conversely, a newly launched project may not necessarily lack sufficient disclosure and careful evaluation.
It is important to note that this circular did not completely eliminate the 12-month track record requirement but explicitly provided exemptions in two specific circumstances:
First, only virtual assets offered to professional investors, and second, specified stablecoins issued by license holders of the regulatory authority. In other words, the securities regulator did not deny the value of track records but acknowledged that the risk assessment approach should not be one-size-fits-all for different investor groups and asset types. Instead of using a formalistic time threshold to "shield the platform from risk," it is better to require the platform to undertake a more substantial judgment responsibility.
Correspondingly, the circular also reinforced disclosure requirements. For virtual assets that do not have a 12-month track record but are only offered to professional investors, licensed platforms must clearly indicate the relevant information on their website or application and provide sufficient risk warnings.
The second significant change is that the regulator has explicitly stated, for the first time at the licensing condition level, that VATP platforms can distribute tokenized securities and investment products related to digital assets while complying with the existing regulatory framework.
Now, VATPs have already taken on a role similar to "product gatekeeping" in practice. Once they assume a new distribution role, the platform faces not only counterparty risk but typical financial product distribution responsibilities, including product understanding, suitability assessment, and disclosure obligations. This is not a regulatory concession but a responsibility shift brought about by a role change.
The third adjustment focuses on custody rules. The circular allows licensed platforms to provide custody services for virtual assets or tokenized securities that are not traded on the platform through their affiliated entities.
What changes will this bring about? In current practice, many projects' assets may not necessarily need to be traded on the platform, but clients still want the assets to be held or managed by a regulated institution. Therefore, the design of such requirements is not smooth, often requiring multi-layer arrangements to barely achieve. After the circular takes effect, essentially, it supplements a clearer compliance path for these existing business needs.
If the circular outlines the overall policy direction, then the three appendices more reflect the regulator's considerations on the operational level of "how to implement."

Appendix I, which revises the token inclusion rules, seemingly lowers the threshold for the launch of some products, but in essence, it does not weaken the platform's due diligence obligations. The threshold has not disappeared; it's just that the VATP needs to support its judgment with more robust due diligence and disclosure.


Appendices II and III further clarify the boundaries of the platform's business scope and the customer asset holding arrangements during distribution. By redefining the "relevant activities," the regulator formally includes in the VATP's scope of practice the distribution of investment products related to digital assets, tokenized securities, and custody services for off-platform trading assets. At the same time, in the distribution business, the platform is allowed to open and maintain trust accounts or client accounts in its own name at the relevant custodians to enable clients to hold these assets. These adjustments do not lower the requirements for protecting client assets but rather make the business structure truly "compliant" at the legal and regulatory levels.
After the circular, what changes should practitioners pay attention to?
With the issuance of the new circular, for VATPs, activities that were previously unified into the scope of "platform services," such as trading, custody, research, product introduction, and even some distribution activities, as long as they were overall included in the VATP license supervision, now must more clearly distinguish which behaviors belong to the core functions of the trading platform, which are already close to independent custody, distribution, or advisory activities, and correspondingly achieve compliance effects through different entity arrangements and business boundary divisions.
For other participants such as OTC, custodians, etc., spaces that previously operated relying on role ambiguity or functional conflation are rapidly narrowing, and now they must more clearly answer a question: Specifically, what type of virtual asset service are they engaged in? And under what regulatory framework should they assume corresponding responsibilities?
Conclusion
Overall, what this circular reflects is not a sudden shift in regulatory attitude, but a more pragmatic choice: The VATP platform is gradually evolving from a single trading venue to a compliant node that connects trading, products, and asset management, and regulators are accordingly shifting their focus from formal requirements to whether the platform is truly taking on its due responsibility.
This circular does not mean that businesses have been suddenly "unshackled" overnight, but the change in regulatory attitude is clear: Compliance is no longer just about "staying within the lines," but about taking responsibility for one's own judgment; for project parties and investors, it also means that regulatory expectations are gradually becoming clearer, rather than continuing to rely on a vague space for survival.
Going forward, how far the market can go no longer depends on whether regulation allows for leeway, but on whether participants are truly ready to operate under a more clear and serious rule system.
This article is contributed content and does not represent the views of BlockBeats.
You may also like

Bitcoin Falls Below 200-Week Moving Average as On-Chain Data Shows Over Half of Supply in Loss
Bitcoin dropped below its 200-week moving average as on-chain data showed over 50% of circulating supply is now in loss, signaling rising market stress.

CFTC Reportedly Plans New Prediction Market Rules Focused on Manipulation Risk and Public Interest Review
The CFTC is reportedly preparing new prediction market rules focused on manipulation risk, public interest review, and retail trader protections.

Meet the new WEEX trial fund—your gateway to greater profits

WEEX Labs Lands at Dutch Blockchain Week: A Disruptive Crypto × AI Conversation Sets Sail in Amsterdam

SK Hynix Reportedly Plans U.S. ADR Listing as Early as August, With SEC Approval Possible in Late June
SK Hynix may pursue a U.S. ADR listing as early as August, with SEC approval reportedly possible in late June amid strong AI chip supply chain demand.

SpaceX vs Tesla vs xAI: Which Elon Musk Trade Has the Biggest Upside in 2026?

OpenAI Reveals It Has Confidentially Submitted an S-1 to the SEC, Keeping the Door Open for a Future IPO
On June 9, according to an OpenAI announcement, the company recently confidentially submitted a draft S-1 registration statement to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), beginning the preliminary compliance process for a potential initial public offering. OpenAI said it chose to disclose this proactively because it expected the news might leak; however, the company has not yet set a specific listing timeline, and related arrangements may still take some time.

Latest research from 13 top universities including Cornell University: The current state, challenges, and misconceptions of the fusion of Crypto and AI

Deconstructing Anthropic: The Best AI Company, Possibly Also a Type of Organizational Invention

Apollo and Blackstone Reportedly Back $35 Billion Anthropic Chip Financing as Deal Details Remain Unclear
On June 9, according to currently available news alerts, Apollo and Blackstone Group participated in a $35 billion financing for an Anthropic “chip project.” Based on the original wording of the report, the funding has already been raised, but public information remains limited. The financing structure, use of proceeds, project entity, and whether Apollo and Blackstone participated through equity, debt, or project financing have not yet been disclosed.

Humanity Protocol Security Incident Escalates: More Than $31 Million Stolen From Related Addresses as Attacker Continues Selling H for ETH
On June 9, according to monitoring by Onchain Lens, more than $31 million has been stolen from addresses linked to Humanity Protocol, and the attack is still ongoing, with the hacker continuously swapping H tokens for ETH. Project founder Terence Kwok later confirmed the security incident on X, saying the issue involved a private key leak.

Bloomberg: As Bitcoin Weakens, Stablecoins and RWA Continue to Drive Expansion in Crypto Businesses
In June, Bloomberg reported that despite Bitcoin falling below $60,000 last week, wiping out about $235 billion in market value within seven days, and dropping close to 50% from last year’s peak, some core businesses in the crypto industry are still expanding, mainly in stablecoins, real-world asset tokenization (RWA), payments, and infrastructure. The report also noted that overall altcoin activity has contracted significantly: altcoin market capitalization has fallen from a peak of about $431 billion in November 2021 to around $170 billion, and among the tens of millions of tokens issued in recent years, fewer than 1,700 still maintain meaningful trading activity.

Galaxy Deep Research Report: How Hyperliquid's HIP-4 Upgrade Changes the Landscape of Prediction Markets?

Binance Research: RWA Market Expected to Expand Nearly 6x from Early 2025, with Public Equities and Onchain Payments Heating Up Together
In June, Binance Research said in its monthly market report that the real-world asset (RWA) market is expected to grow by about 589% from the beginning of 2025. Bond- and money market fund-related RWA expanded by about $6.5 billion, up 83% year over year, while publicly traded equity RWAs grew by about 422%. The report also noted that monthly crypto debit card transaction volume exceeded $747 million in May, up 48.6% year to date.

Japan to Assess a Framework for Yen Stablecoins and Crypto ETFs as Asia’s Compliant Payments Narrative Heats Up
Recently, according to the original report, Japan is considering the launch of yen stablecoins and cryptocurrency ETFs. Public information remains limited at this stage, and there is still no complete policy text, regulatory draft, or clear implementation timeline, so this is better characterized as a “policy discussion” rather than formal implementation. The original wording also noted that advancing stablecoin regulation in Asia is driving XRP usage and supporting growth in the XRPL ecosystem. However, based on currently available public information, there is not enough evidence to directly establish a clear causal relationship between this round of discussion in Japan and XRP or XRPL.

ZachXBT: Humanity private key leak and abnormal surge in H token should be viewed separately
On June 9, according to related disclosures, on-chain investigator ZachXBT posted an update on Humanity’s roughly $31 million security incident, saying that after further analyzing fund flows, he currently tends to believe the project team was not involved in an “inside job” or a self-staged attack. According to him, the official explanation about the private key leak was broadly accurate, but before the token unlock, the price of H had been artificially pushed higher, and the hacker later took advantage of that market environment; therefore, the private key leak and the earlier abnormal price pumping should be regarded as two separate and independent events. This reframing has shifted the market’s understanding of the nature of the incident. Earlier discussion around Humanity had focused on whether the team directly participated in the attack or used the security incident to cover up internal operations. ZachXBT’s latest remarks shift the focus from “whether it was self-theft” to “whether there were pre-unlock market structure issues.” He also questioned whether the team may have.

Morning Report | OpenAI has submitted an S-1 registration statement draft to the U.S. SEC; Morpho completes $175 million financing

Morning Report | BitMine increased its holdings by 126,971 ETH last week; trader Eugene announced his exit from the crypto market
Bitcoin Falls Below 200-Week Moving Average as On-Chain Data Shows Over Half of Supply in Loss
Bitcoin dropped below its 200-week moving average as on-chain data showed over 50% of circulating supply is now in loss, signaling rising market stress.
CFTC Reportedly Plans New Prediction Market Rules Focused on Manipulation Risk and Public Interest Review
The CFTC is reportedly preparing new prediction market rules focused on manipulation risk, public interest review, and retail trader protections.
Meet the new WEEX trial fund—your gateway to greater profits
WEEX Labs Lands at Dutch Blockchain Week: A Disruptive Crypto × AI Conversation Sets Sail in Amsterdam
SK Hynix Reportedly Plans U.S. ADR Listing as Early as August, With SEC Approval Possible in Late June
SK Hynix may pursue a U.S. ADR listing as early as August, with SEC approval reportedly possible in late June amid strong AI chip supply chain demand.
