Hong Kong Virtual Asset License Progress: First Batch of Stablecoin Licenses Issued, Entering the Era of Compliant Digital Assets

On April 10, 2026, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority officially granted stablecoin issuer licenses to two institutions, namely HSBC Hong Kong, applying as a licensed bank entity, and Anchorpoint Financial Technologies Limited, a joint venture established by Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong), Hong Kong Telecom, and Animoca Brands. The licenses take effect immediately, and both institutions are expected to launch regulated Hong Kong dollar stablecoins in mid to late 2026 after completing system testing and risk control measures.

The core significance of this implementation event is not merely the issuance of the “first batch of licenses,” but that Hong Kong has become the world’s first major financial center to establish a dedicated licensing regime for fiat-backed stablecoins and to complete the initial licensing. Since the Stablecoin Ordinance came into effect on August 1, 2025, the HKMA has received 36 qualified applications, including banks, tech giants, payment institutions, e-commerce companies, and Web3-native startups, but only about 5% of these applications have been approved. HKMA Chief Executive Eddie Yue reiterated after the license issuance that the issuance of stablecoin licenses involves high thresholds; even if more licenses are issued in the future, the total number will remain very limited.

From a substantive constraint perspective, Hong Kong’s stablecoin licensing regime incorporates issuers into a compliance framework approaching that of banks. The Stablecoin Ordinance requires issuers to be registered in Hong Kong, with paid-up capital of no less than HKD 25 million, and each stablecoin must be fully backed by equivalent high-liquidity assets—including cash, bank deposits within three months, or government or central bank bonds within one year—strictly prohibiting holdings in stocks, corporate bonds, or cryptocurrencies. Reserve assets must be held in trust with licensed banks or independent custodians approved by the HKMA, kept separate from the issuer’s own assets, and holders have statutory redemption rights, with redemptions to be processed within one business day. Issuers are obliged to prepare daily reserve reports, submit weekly reports to the HKMA, and disclose certified reports by independent auditors monthly. Crucially, licensees are prohibited from paying interest to stablecoin holders—this directly blocks the path of “financialization” of stablecoins, anchoring them firmly as payment tools. Algorithmic and unsecured stablecoins are fully prohibited.

This licensing outcome also reflects a deeper structural change: stablecoins are no longer just trading tools in the crypto market but are being integrated into Hong Kong’s mainstream financial infrastructure. HSBC plans to launch its HKD stablecoin in the second half of 2026, directly integrated with PayMe and HSBC Hong Kong’s mobile wealth management app, targeting retail customers and merchants for daily payment scenarios. Anchorpoint plans to issue a stablecoin pegged to HKD, HKDAP, in phases starting in Q2, adopting a B2B2C model focused on tokenizing real-world assets (RWA), optimizing cross-border fund flows, and payment networks. Their business plans cover cross-border payments, local payments, tokenized asset trading, and innovative applications, with tokenized assets serving as on-chain settlement tools for compliant stablecoins, directly supporting the development of tokenized asset markets and enhancing liquidity.

How the Regulator Selected the First Batch of Licensed Institutions from 36 Applications

Looking at the number of registrations, market demand for stablecoin licenses far exceeds the regulator’s capacity—out of 36 applications, only 2 were approved. The HKMA’s “36 to 2” outcome sends a clear signal: this is not a “first-come, first-served” licensing race, but a risk-controlled, scenario-validated screening process focused on quality.

HKMA Deputy Chief Executive Julia Leung stated that the approval process treats all applicants equally, mainly considering two factors: whether the applicant has sufficient risk management capabilities and experience, and complies with relevant laws in Hong Kong and other jurisdictions; and whether the applicant can propose specific application scenarios, feasible business plans, and development strategies. In reality, the 36 applications include banks, tech giants, payment institutions, e-commerce firms, and Web3-native startups. The final approved applicants—HSBC and Anchorpoint—both have strong banking backgrounds and have participated in HKMA’s experiments related to central bank digital currencies and tokenized deposits. HKMA Assistant Chief Executive Hoi Huen-kit emphasized that the regulator applied uniform standards to all 36 applications, and the fact that the approved applicants all have banking backgrounds was coincidental.

Regarding sandbox pathways, HKMA launched a stablecoin issuer sandbox in March 2024. The first batch of sandbox participants included JD Chain Technology (Hong Kong), Yuan Coin Innovation Technology, and a joint application by Standard Chartered (Hong Kong), Animoca Brands, and Hong Kong Telecom. After testing cross-border payments, tokenized asset trading, retail payments, and other scenarios in a controlled environment, only Standard Chartered’s joint team, operating as Anchorpoint, was approved for a license. JD Chain and Yuan Coin Innovation did not make the first batch. This reveals a key fact: sandbox testing provides valuable “pre-approval” information for regulators, but participation in the sandbox does not guarantee license approval.

Another important variable is the influence of mainland China’s regulatory policies. Market information indicates that, given the clear restrictions on stablecoins by mainland regulators, several Chinese-funded applicants that initially showed enthusiasm have received requests to delay participation. This is a significant reason for the collective absence of Chinese-backed entities in the first batch. Yue Wucheng stated that the HKMA will continue to process remaining applications with an open and cautious attitude, but reiterated that even if more licenses are issued in the future, the overall number will remain very limited.

How 12 Licensed Virtual Asset Trading Platforms Are Reshaping Hong Kong’s Trading Infrastructure

Almost simultaneously with the stablecoin licensing, Hong Kong’s virtual asset trading platform (VATP) licensing process has advanced further. As of April 2026, 12 institutions have officially obtained licenses from the SFC, with 7 more applications pending. This signifies that Hong Kong has established a substantive licensed trading infrastructure, transitioning from the “licensing phase” to the “market operation phase.”

Reviewing the licensing trajectory, a clear market access logic emerges. In 2023, when the HKMA approved virtual asset trading platforms, only OSL and HashKey received licenses—these were the earliest platforms to offer retail crypto trading services. Subsequent licensed platforms include HashKey Exchange, HKVAX, HKbitEX, Accumulus, DFX Labs, VDX, and others. In January 2025, Futu Securities’ PantherTrade was approved, further diversifying market participants. Notably, among the 12 platforms, internet brokerages and traditional financial institutions are increasingly prominent—examples include Futu’s PantherTrade, Tiger International’s YAX, Sina’s Huasheng Capital’s EXIO, and Victory Securities’ VDX, all representing traditional or internet brokerage firms transitioning into licensed virtual asset trading.

From 2 to 12, a matrix of licensed platforms has formed a foundational trading infrastructure. However, there remains a gap between “licensing” and “full-scale operation.” By Q1 2026, early transitional arrangements for “operating under the license” have gradually ended, with many platforms completing Phase II audits and being permitted to operate fully. Yet, differences persist: some platforms have completed Phase II audits and can operate comprehensively, others are still in transition; retail client onboarding, OTC services, and wealth management capabilities vary. In terms of market competitiveness, HashKey and OSL, leveraging first-mover advantages and comprehensive business matrices, dominate the core market share; the second tier includes platforms like EX.IO, PantherTrade, YAX, and VDX, which have traditional financial backgrounds and have rapidly achieved compliance. This indicates that Hong Kong’s virtual asset market is characterized not by “platform homogeneity,” but by deeper capability differentiation among licensed platforms—those with more solid compliance, more specific business scenarios, and more robust liquidity structures will gain more users and market share.

How Stablecoin Licensing and VATP Licensing Can Create Synergy

The relationship between stablecoin licensing and VATP licensing is not two separate regulatory tracks but two interdependent infrastructure layers within Hong Kong’s virtual asset ecosystem. As “settlement currencies,” stablecoins and “trading venues” (VATPs) together form a complete, compliant capital flow and asset allocation cycle.

Functionally, licensed virtual asset trading platforms are natural venues for stablecoin applications. Both licensed stablecoin institutions explicitly include tokenized asset trading, using compliant stablecoins as settlement tools for tokenized assets. This creates institutional-level application demand within the VATP’s compliance framework. In other words, compliant stablecoins issued by licensed issuers gain trading liquidity on VATPs, which in turn enhances trading efficiency and asset management convenience through access to compliant stablecoins. The regulatory linkage is substantively locked—licensing covers reserve assets, redemption mechanisms, and disclosure obligations, forming the regulatory backbone for infrastructure integration.

Another key synergy is the entry of traditional financial institutions. As the VATP license matrix develops, traditional brokerages are expanding into virtual asset trading by upgrading their SFC License Type 1 (securities) and Type 4 (advisory) licenses. Over 42 institutions have been approved to provide virtual asset trading services via integrated accounts. These traditional players naturally require access to a compliant settlement currency system, and the stablecoin licensing regime provides an institutionalized solution. The overlapping regulatory frameworks within the same institutional ecosystem reduce coordination costs and compliance friction.

On a macro level, stablecoin licensing and VATP licensing form a “standard-setting” synergy. The total global stablecoin trading volume reached USD 33 trillion in 2025, growing 72%. By establishing both stablecoin and trading platform licensing regimes, Hong Kong effectively creates a full-chain, compliant loop from “currency issuance” to “asset trading.” This structure not only provides a practical compliance pathway for traditional financial institutions entering Web3 but also lays the institutional groundwork for cross-border applications of other fiat-backed stablecoins (e.g., offshore RMB stablecoins). The Hong Kong Treasury and SFC are drafting regulations covering virtual asset trading, custody, advisory, and asset management services, with a legislative proposal expected by 2026.

What Does Bank-Led Stablecoin Issuance Mean for Industry Power Dynamics

The fact that all first-round stablecoin licenses went to bank-backed institutions is not accidental but a direct reflection of Hong Kong’s regulatory design—stablecoin issuance is viewed as a financial service closely aligned with traditional payment infrastructure, not an experimental field open to non-financial firms.

From a power transfer perspective, this licensing outcome firmly places the “monetary issuance” authority of stablecoins within the traditional banking sector. HSBC, one of Hong Kong’s three major note-issuing banks, entered as a licensed bank, planning to connect its HKD stablecoin directly to PayMe and HSBC Hong Kong’s mobile wealth app, giving its stablecoin a retail user base in the millions. Anchorpoint, although a joint venture, is led by Standard Chartered (Hong Kong), which holds 50.5% equity, and includes Hong Kong Telecom’s payment channels and Animoca Brands’ Web3 applications—forming a bank-led, telecom, and digital asset ecosystem. In contrast, JD Chain and Yuan Coin Innovation, which entered the sandbox in 2024 with unique supply chain and cross-border trade use cases, did not make the first batch. HKMA officials describe this as a “steady start,” reinforcing Hong Kong’s reputation as a trustworthy stablecoin jurisdiction.

This regulatory choice will produce at least three structural effects. First, the credit backing of stablecoins is directly linked to the risk management systems of banks themselves, with issuance thresholds far exceeding those of non-financial firms focused on payments or e-commerce. Second, stablecoin applications are guided into existing bank payment networks and customer bases, avoiding the cold start problem—HSBC integrating stablecoins into PayMe and banking apps, Anchorpoint leveraging SC’s corporate client network, both sidestepping initial adoption hurdles. Third, since the number of licensed stablecoins is explicitly limited, there may be exclusive stablecoin application networks among bank licensees rather than a fully open competitive market.

The HKMA emphasizes that future license issuance will be very limited, implying that the “bank-controlled stablecoin issuance” pattern may persist for a long period. For Web3-native startups and non-bank tech giants, this means access to stablecoin issuance is becoming highly constrained; for traditional banks, it presents a strategic window to gain early advantages in digital financial infrastructure.

How the Capital Background of 12 Licensed Platforms Influences Industry Segmentation

Among the 12 licensed virtual asset trading platforms, differences in capital backgrounds not only reflect diverse origins but also reveal an accelerating market segmentation trend—entry of traditional financial institutions is shifting the competitive logic from “qualification race” to “resource endowment race.”

In terms of capital sources, these 12 VATPs can be grouped into several categories. The first includes industry pioneers like HashKey and OSL, which were among the earliest to obtain retail client licenses, holding leading market share and a full suite of services. The second comprises virtual asset branches of internet brokerages—Futu’s PantherTrade, Tiger International’s YAX, Sina’s Huasheng Capital’s EXIO—backed by mature user bases, trading tech, and compliance experience. The third includes traditional brokerages’ virtual asset units, such as Victory Securities’ VDX, and institutions like Guotai Junan International and Interactive Brokers, which have upgraded their Type 1 licenses to provide virtual asset trading. The fourth includes crypto-native entities like Bullish HK Markets. The fifth encompasses diverse participants like DFX Labs and HKbitEX.

This diversification in capital backgrounds fundamentally alters the competitive landscape. HashKey and OSL, leveraging first-mover advantages and comprehensive business matrices, form a near-duopoly. Behind them, platforms like Futu, Tiger, and Sina benefit from active user migration and seamless integration with existing products; traditional brokerages face the challenge of converting existing securities clients into virtual asset traders. The differentiation in compliance progress is also evident—some platforms have completed Phase II audits and can operate fully, others remain in transition; retail onboarding conditions and service capabilities vary. In market competitiveness, HashKey and OSL dominate the core share, while EX.IO, PantherTrade, YAX, and VDX form the second tier, combining traditional financial backgrounds with rapid compliance. This indicates that Hong Kong’s virtual asset market is characterized not by “platform homogeneity,” but by capability differentiation based on license quality—those with stronger compliance, more specific scenarios, and more stable liquidity structures will attract more users and market share.

How Licensing Policies Create Synergies in Hong Kong’s Virtual Asset Ecosystem

The relationship between stablecoin licensing and VATP licensing is not two isolated regulatory tracks but two interconnected infrastructure layers within Hong Kong’s virtual asset ecosystem. Stablecoins serve as “settlement currencies,” while VATPs are “trading venues,” together forming a compliant capital flow and asset allocation cycle.

Functionally, licensed virtual asset trading platforms are natural venues for stablecoin applications. Both licensed stablecoin issuers explicitly include tokenized asset trading, using compliant stablecoins as settlement tools, creating institutional demand within the VATP’s compliance framework. In other words, stablecoin issuers’ compliant stablecoins gain trading liquidity on VATPs, which enhances trading efficiency and asset management convenience. The regulatory linkage is substantively embedded—licensing covers reserve assets, redemption mechanisms, and disclosure obligations, forming the backbone of infrastructure integration.

Another key synergy is the entry of traditional financial institutions. As the VATP license matrix develops, traditional brokerages are expanding into virtual asset trading by upgrading their SFC License Type 1 (securities) and Type 4 (advisory) licenses. Over 42 institutions have been approved to provide virtual asset trading via integrated accounts. These institutions naturally require access to a compliant settlement currency system, and stablecoin licensing provides an institutionalized solution. The overlapping regulatory regimes within the same ecosystem reduce coordination costs and compliance friction.

On a macro scale, stablecoin licensing and VATP licensing form a “standard-setting” synergy. The total global stablecoin trading volume reached USD 33 trillion in 2025, up 72%. By establishing both regimes, Hong Kong effectively creates a full-chain, compliant loop from “currency issuance” to “asset trading.” This not only offers a practical compliance pathway for traditional finance entering Web3 but also lays the institutional foundation for cross-border applications of other fiat-backed stablecoins (e.g., offshore RMB stablecoins). The HKMA and SFC are drafting regulations covering virtual asset trading, custody, advisory, and asset management, with legislative proposals expected by 2026.

Implications of Bank-Led Stablecoin Issuance on Industry Power Dynamics

All first-round stablecoin licenses being granted to bank-backed institutions is not accidental but a direct reflection of Hong Kong’s regulatory logic—stablecoin issuance is regarded as a financial service closely aligned with traditional payment infrastructure, not an experimental innovation open to non-financial firms.

This regulatory choice effectively consolidates the “monetary issuance” authority within the traditional banking sector. HSBC, one of Hong Kong’s three note-issuing banks, entered as a licensed bank, planning to connect its HKD stablecoin directly to PayMe and HSBC Hong Kong’s mobile wealth app, giving its stablecoin a retail user base in the millions. Anchorpoint, although a joint venture, is led by Standard Chartered (Hong Kong), which holds 50.5%, and includes Hong Kong Telecom’s payment channels and Animoca Brands’ Web3 applications—forming a bank-led, telecom, and digital asset ecosystem. In contrast, JD Chain and Yuan Coin Innovation, which entered the sandbox in 2024 with unique supply chain and cross-border trade use cases, did not make the first batch. HKMA officials describe this as a “steady start,” reinforcing Hong Kong’s reputation as a trustworthy stablecoin jurisdiction.

This regulatory approach will produce at least three structural effects. First, the credit backing of stablecoins is directly linked to banks’ risk management systems, with issuance thresholds far exceeding those of non-financial firms focused on payments or e-commerce. Second, stablecoin applications are channeled into existing bank payment networks and customer bases, avoiding the cold start problem—HSBC integrating stablecoins into PayMe and banking apps, Anchorpoint leveraging SC’s corporate network, both sidestepping initial adoption hurdles. Third, since the number of licensed stablecoins is explicitly limited, exclusive stablecoin application networks among bank licensees may form, rather than a fully open market.

The HKMA emphasizes that future license issuance will be very limited, implying that the “bank-controlled stablecoin issuance” pattern may persist for a long time. For Web3-native startups and non-bank tech giants, this means access to stablecoin issuance is becoming highly constrained; for traditional banks, it presents a strategic opportunity to gain early advantages in digital financial infrastructure.

How the Capital Background of 12 Licensed Platforms Shapes Industry Segmentation

Within the 12 licensed virtual asset trading platforms, differences in capital backgrounds not only reflect diverse origins but also accelerate market segmentation—traditional financial institutions’ entry is shifting competition from “qualification race” to “resource endowment race.”

In terms of capital sources, these platforms can be grouped as follows: the first includes HashKey and OSL, the earliest to obtain retail licenses, with leading market share and full service offerings; the second comprises internet brokerage branches like Futu’s PantherTrade, Tiger International’s YAX, and Sina’s Huasheng Capital’s EXIO, backed by mature user bases and trading tech; the third includes traditional brokerages’ virtual asset units, such as Victory Securities’ VDX, Guotai Junan International, and Interactive Brokers, which have upgraded licenses to provide virtual asset trading; the fourth includes crypto-native entities like Bullish HK Markets; and the fifth encompasses diverse participants like DFX Labs and HKbitEX.

This diversity in capital backgrounds fundamentally alters competitive dynamics. HashKey and OSL, leveraging first-mover advantages and comprehensive service matrices, form a near-duopoly. Behind them, platforms like Futu, Tiger, and Sina benefit from active user migration and seamless integration with existing products; traditional brokerages face the challenge of converting securities clients into virtual asset traders. The compliance progress also varies—some platforms have completed Phase II audits and can operate fully, others are still in transition; retail onboarding conditions differ. In market share, HashKey and OSL dominate, while EX.IO, PantherTrade, YAX, and VDX form the second tier, combining traditional financial backgrounds with rapid compliance. This indicates that Hong Kong’s virtual asset market is characterized not by “platform homogeneity,” but by capability differentiation—those with stronger compliance, more specific scenarios, and more stable liquidity structures will attract more users and market share.

How Licensing Policies Foster Synergies in Hong Kong’s Virtual Asset Ecosystem

The relationship between stablecoin licensing and VATP licensing is not two separate regulatory tracks but two interconnected infrastructure layers. Stablecoins act as “settlement currencies,” while VATPs are “trading venues,” together forming a compliant, full-cycle capital flow and asset management system.

Functionally, licensed VATPs are natural venues for stablecoin applications. Both licensed stablecoin issuers explicitly include tokenized asset trading, using compliant stablecoins as settlement tools, creating institutional demand within the VATP’s compliance framework. Stablecoin issuers’ compliant stablecoins gain trading liquidity on VATPs, which improves trading efficiency and asset management. The regulatory linkage is embedded—licensing covers reserve assets, redemption, and disclosure, forming the backbone of infrastructure integration.

Another key synergy is the entry of traditional financial institutions. As the VATP license matrix develops, traditional brokerages are expanding into virtual asset trading by upgrading their SFC licenses. Over 42 institutions have been approved to provide virtual asset trading via integrated accounts. These institutions require access to a compliant settlement currency system, and stablecoin licensing provides an institutionalized solution. The overlapping regimes within the same ecosystem reduce coordination costs and compliance friction.

On a macro level, stablecoin licensing and VATP licensing create a “standard-setting” synergy. The global stablecoin trading volume reached USD 33 trillion in 2025, up 72%. Establishing both regimes enables Hong Kong to create a full-chain, compliant loop from “currency issuance” to “asset trading.” This not only offers a practical compliance pathway for traditional finance entering Web3 but also lays the foundation for cross-border applications of other fiat-backed stablecoins (e.g., offshore RMB stablecoins). The HKMA and SFC are drafting regulations covering trading, custody, advisory, and asset management, with legislative proposals expected by 2026.

What Does Bank-Led Stablecoin Issuance Mean for Industry Power Dynamics

All first-round stablecoin licenses being granted to bank-backed institutions is a direct reflection of Hong Kong’s regulatory design—stablecoin issuance is viewed as a financial service closely aligned with traditional payment infrastructure, not an experimental field for non-financial firms.

This choice consolidates the “monetary issuance” authority within the banking sector. HSBC, one of Hong Kong’s three note-issuing banks, entered as a licensed bank, planning to connect its HKD stablecoin directly to PayMe and HSBC Hong Kong’s mobile wealth app, giving it a retail user base in the millions. Anchorpoint, although a joint venture, is led by Standard Chartered (Hong Kong), which holds 50.5%, and includes Hong Kong Telecom’s payment channels and Animoca Brands’ Web3 applications—forming a bank-led, telecom, and digital asset ecosystem. In contrast, JD Chain and Yuan Coin Innovation, which entered the sandbox in 2024 with supply chain and cross-border trade use cases, did not make the first batch. HKMA officials describe this as a “steady start,” reinforcing Hong Kong’s reputation as a trustworthy stablecoin jurisdiction.

This regulatory approach will produce at least three structural effects. First, the credit backing of stablecoins is directly linked to banks’ risk management systems, with issuance thresholds far exceeding those of non-financial firms. Second, stablecoin applications are channeled into existing bank payment networks and customer bases, avoiding the cold start problem—HSBC integrating stablecoins into PayMe and banking apps, Anchorpoint leveraging SC’s corporate network, both sidestepping initial adoption hurdles. Third, since the number of licensed stablecoins is explicitly limited, exclusive stablecoin application networks among bank licensees may form, rather than a fully open market.

The HKMA emphasizes that future license issuance will be very limited, implying that the “bank-controlled stablecoin issuance” pattern may persist long-term. For Web3-native startups and non-bank tech giants, this means access to stablecoin issuance is highly constrained; for traditional banks, it’s a strategic opportunity to gain early advantages in digital financial infrastructure.

How the Capital Background of 12 Licensed Platforms Shapes Industry Segmentation

Within the 12 licensed virtual asset trading platforms, differences in capital backgrounds not only reflect diverse origins but also accelerate market segmentation—traditional financial institutions’ involvement is shifting competition from “qualification race” to “resource endowment race.”

In terms of capital sources, these platforms can be grouped as follows: the first includes HashKey and OSL, the earliest to obtain retail licenses, with dominant market share and full-service offerings; the second includes internet brokerages like Futu’s PantherTrade, Tiger International’s YAX, and Sina’s Huasheng Capital’s EXIO, backed by mature user bases and trading tech; the third includes traditional brokerages’ virtual asset units, such as Victory Securities’ VDX, Guotai Junan International, and Interactive Brokers, which have upgraded licenses to provide virtual asset trading; the fourth includes crypto-native firms like Bullish HK Markets; the fifth encompasses diverse participants like DFX Labs and HKbitEX.

This diversity in capital backgrounds fundamentally alters competitive dynamics. HashKey and OSL, leveraging first-mover advantages and full service matrices, form a near-duopoly. Behind them, platforms like Futu, Tiger, and Sina benefit from active user migration and seamless product integration; traditional brokerages face the challenge of converting securities clients into virtual asset traders. The compliance status also varies—some platforms have completed Phase II audits and can operate fully, others remain in transition; retail onboarding conditions differ. In market share, HashKey and OSL dominate, while EX.IO, PantherTrade, YAX, and VDX form the second tier, combining traditional financial backgrounds with rapid compliance. This indicates that Hong Kong’s virtual asset market is characterized not by “platform homogeneity,” but by capability differentiation—those with stronger compliance, more specific scenarios, and more stable liquidity will attract more users and market share.

How Licensing Policies Enable Synergies in Hong Kong’s Virtual Asset Ecosystem

The relationship between stablecoin licensing and VATP licensing is not two isolated regulatory tracks but two interconnected infrastructure layers. Stablecoins act as “settlement currencies,” while VATPs are “trading venues,” together forming a compliant, full-cycle capital flow and asset management system.

Functionally, licensed VATPs are natural venues for stablecoin applications. Both licensed stablecoin issuers explicitly include tokenized asset trading, using compliant stablecoins as settlement tools, creating institutional demand within the VATP’s compliance framework. Stablecoin issuers’ compliant stablecoins gain trading liquidity on VATPs, which improves trading efficiency and asset management. The regulatory linkage is embedded—licensing covers reserve assets, redemption, and disclosure obligations, forming the backbone of infrastructure integration.

Another key synergy is the entry of traditional financial institutions. As the VATP license matrix develops, traditional brokerages are expanding into virtual asset trading by upgrading their SFC licenses. Over 42 institutions have been approved to provide virtual asset trading via integrated accounts. These institutions require access to a compliant settlement currency system, and stablecoin licensing provides an institutionalized solution. The overlapping regimes within the same ecosystem reduce coordination costs and compliance friction.

On a macro scale, stablecoin licensing and VATP licensing create a “standard-setting” synergy. The total global stablecoin trading volume reached USD 33 trillion in 2025, up 72%. Establishing both regimes enables Hong Kong to create a full-chain, compliant loop from “currency issuance” to “asset trading.” This not only offers a practical compliance pathway for traditional finance entering Web3 but also lays the foundation for cross-border applications of other fiat-backed stablecoins (e.g., offshore RMB stablecoins). The HKMA and SFC are drafting regulations covering trading, custody, advisory, and asset management, with legislative proposals expected by 2026.

What Does Bank-Led Stablecoin Issuance Mean for Industry Power Dynamics

All first-round stablecoin licenses being granted to bank-backed institutions is a direct reflection of Hong Kong’s regulatory design—stablecoin issuance is regarded as a financial service closely aligned with traditional payment infrastructure, not an experimental frontier for non-financial firms.

This regulatory choice consolidates the “monetary issuance” authority within the banking sector. HSBC, one of Hong Kong’s three note-issuing banks, entered as a licensed bank, planning to connect its HKD stablecoin directly to PayMe and HSBC Hong Kong’s mobile wealth app, giving it a retail user base in the millions. Anchorpoint, although a joint venture, is led by Standard Chartered (Hong Kong), which holds 50.5%, and includes Hong Kong Telecom’s payment channels and Animoca Brands’ Web3 applications—forming a bank-led, telecom, and digital asset ecosystem. In contrast, JD Chain and Yuan Coin Innovation, which entered the sandbox in 2024 with supply chain and cross-border trade use cases, did not make the first batch. HKMA officials describe this as a “steady start,” reinforcing Hong Kong’s reputation as a trustworthy stablecoin jurisdiction.

This regulatory approach will produce at least three structural effects. First, the credit backing of stablecoins is directly linked to banks’ risk management systems, with issuance thresholds far exceeding those of non-financial firms. Second, stablecoin applications are channeled into existing bank payment networks and customer bases, avoiding the cold start problem—HSBC integrating stablecoins into PayMe and banking apps, Anchorpoint leveraging SC’s corporate network, both sidestepping initial adoption hurdles. Third, since the number of licensed stablecoins is explicitly limited, exclusive stablecoin application networks among bank licensees may form, rather than a fully open market.

The HKMA emphasizes that future license issuance will be very limited, implying that the “bank-controlled stablecoin issuance” pattern may persist long-term. For Web3-native startups and non-bank tech giants, this means access to stablecoin issuance is highly constrained; for traditional banks, it’s a strategic window to gain early advantages in digital financial infrastructure.

How the Capital Background of 12 Licensed Platforms Shapes Industry Segmentation

Within the 12 licensed virtual asset trading platforms, differences in capital backgrounds not only reflect diverse origins but also accelerate market segmentation—traditional financial institutions’ involvement is shifting competition from “qualification race” to “resource endowment race.”

In terms of capital sources, these platforms can be grouped as follows: the first includes HashKey and OSL, the earliest to obtain retail licenses, with dominant market share and full-service offerings; the second includes internet brokerages like Futu’s PantherTrade, Tiger International’s YAX, and Sina’s Huasheng Capital’s EXIO, backed by mature user bases and trading tech; the third includes traditional brokerages’ virtual asset units, such as Victory Securities’ VDX, Guotai Junan International, and Interactive Brokers, which have upgraded licenses to provide virtual asset trading; the fourth includes crypto-native firms like Bullish HK Markets; the fifth encompasses diverse participants like DFX Labs and HKbitEX.

This diversity in capital backgrounds fundamentally alters competitive dynamics. HashKey and OSL, leveraging first-mover advantages and full service matrices, form a near-duopoly. Behind them, platforms like Futu, Tiger, and Sina benefit from active user migration and seamless product integration; traditional brokerages face the challenge of converting securities clients into virtual asset traders. The compliance status also varies—some platforms have completed Phase II audits and can operate fully, others remain in transition; retail onboarding conditions differ. In market share, HashKey and OSL dominate, while EX.IO, PantherTrade, YAX, and VDX form the second tier, combining traditional financial backgrounds with rapid compliance. This indicates that Hong Kong’s virtual asset market is characterized not by “platform homogeneity,” but by capability differentiation—those with stronger compliance, more specific scenarios, and more stable liquidity will attract more users and market share.

How Licensing Policies Enable Synergies in Hong Kong’s Virtual Asset Ecosystem

The relationship between stablecoin licensing and VATP licensing is not two separate regulatory tracks but two interconnected infrastructure layers. Stablecoins serve as “settlement currencies,” while VATPs are “trading venues,” together forming a compliant, full-cycle capital flow and asset management system.

Functionally, licensed VATPs are natural venues for stablecoin applications. Both licensed stablecoin issuers explicitly include tokenized asset trading, using compliant stablecoins as settlement tools, creating institutional demand within the VATP’s compliance framework. Stablecoin issuers’ compliant stablecoins gain trading liquidity on VATPs, which improves trading efficiency and asset management. The regulatory linkage is embedded—licensing covers reserve assets, redemption, and disclosure obligations, forming the backbone of infrastructure integration.

Another key synergy is the entry of traditional financial institutions. As the VATP license matrix develops, traditional brokerages are expanding into virtual asset trading by upgrading their SFC licenses. Over 42 institutions have been approved to provide virtual asset trading via integrated accounts. These institutions require access to a compliant settlement currency system, and stablecoin licensing provides an institutionalized solution. The overlapping regimes within the same ecosystem reduce coordination costs and compliance friction.

On a macro scale, stablecoin licensing and VATP licensing create a “standard-setting” synergy. The total global stablecoin trading volume reached USD 33 trillion in 2025, up 72%. Establishing both regimes enables Hong Kong to create a full-chain, compliant loop from “currency issuance” to “asset trading.” This not only offers a practical compliance pathway for traditional finance entering Web3 but also lays the foundation for cross-border applications of other fiat-backed stablecoins (e.g., offshore RMB stablecoins). The HKMA and SFC are drafting regulations covering trading, custody, advisory, and asset management, with legislative proposals expected by 2026.

What Does Bank-Led Stablecoin Issuance Mean for Industry Power Dynamics

All first-round stablecoin licenses being granted to bank-backed institutions is a direct reflection of Hong Kong’s regulatory design—stablecoin issuance is regarded as a financial service closely aligned with traditional payment infrastructure, not an experimental frontier for non-financial firms.

This choice consolidates the “monetary issuance” authority within the banking sector. HSBC, one of Hong Kong’s three note-issuing banks, entered as a licensed bank, planning to connect its HKD stablecoin directly to PayMe and HSBC Hong Kong’s mobile wealth app, giving it a retail user base in the millions. Anchorpoint, although a joint venture, is led by Standard Chartered (Hong Kong), which holds 50.5%, and includes Hong Kong Telecom’s payment channels and Animoca Brands’ Web3 applications—forming a bank-led, telecom, and digital asset ecosystem. In contrast, JD Chain and Yuan Coin Innovation, which entered the sandbox in 2024 with supply chain and cross-border trade use cases, did not make the first batch. HKMA officials describe this as a “steady start,” reinforcing Hong Kong’s reputation as a trustworthy stablecoin jurisdiction.

This regulatory approach will produce at least three structural effects. First, the credit backing of stablecoins is directly linked to banks’ risk management systems, with issuance thresholds far exceeding those of non-financial firms. Second, stablecoin applications are channeled into existing bank payment networks and customer bases, avoiding the cold start problem—HSBC integrating stablecoins into PayMe and banking apps, Anchorpoint leveraging SC’s corporate network, both sidestepping initial adoption hurdles. Third, since the number of licensed stablecoins is explicitly limited, exclusive stablecoin application networks among bank licensees may form, rather than a fully open market.

The HKMA emphasizes that future license issuance will be very limited, implying that the “bank-controlled stablecoin issuance” pattern may persist long-term. For Web3-native startups and non-bank tech giants, this means access to stablecoin issuance is highly constrained; for traditional banks, it’s a strategic window to gain early advantages in digital financial infrastructure.

How the Capital Background of 12 Licensed Platforms Shapes Industry Segmentation

Within the 12 licensed virtual asset trading platforms, differences in capital backgrounds not only reflect diverse origins but also accelerate market segmentation—traditional financial institutions’ involvement is shifting competition from “qualification race” to “resource endowment race.”

In terms of capital sources, these platforms can be grouped as follows: the first includes HashKey and OSL, the earliest to obtain retail licenses, with dominant market share and full-service offerings; the second includes internet brokerages like Futu’s PantherTrade, Tiger International’s YAX, and Sina’s Huasheng Capital’s EXIO, backed by mature user bases and trading tech; the third includes traditional brokerages’ virtual asset units, such as Victory Securities’ VDX, Guotai Junan International, and Interactive Brokers, which have upgraded licenses to provide virtual asset trading; the fourth includes crypto-native firms like Bullish HK Markets; the fifth encompasses diverse participants like DFX Labs and HKbitEX.

This diversity in capital backgrounds fundamentally alters competitive dynamics. HashKey and OSL, leveraging first-mover advantages and full service matrices, form a near-duopoly. Behind them, platforms like Futu, Tiger, and Sina benefit from active user migration and seamless product integration; traditional brokerages face the challenge of converting securities clients into virtual asset traders. The compliance status also varies—some platforms have completed Phase II audits and can operate fully, others remain in transition; retail onboarding conditions differ. In market share, HashKey and OSL dominate, while EX.IO, PantherTrade, YAX, and VDX form the second tier, combining traditional financial backgrounds with rapid compliance. This indicates that Hong Kong’s virtual asset market is characterized not by “platform homogeneity,” but by capability differentiation—those with stronger compliance, more specific scenarios, and more stable liquidity will attract more users and market share.

How Licensing Policies Foster Synergies in Hong Kong’s Virtual Asset Ecosystem

The relationship between stablecoin licensing and VATP licensing is not two separate regulatory tracks but two interconnected infrastructure layers. Stablecoins serve as “settlement currencies,” while VATPs are “trading venues,” together forming a compliant, full-cycle capital flow and asset management system.

Functionally, licensed VATPs are natural venues for stablecoin applications. Both licensed stablecoin issuers explicitly include tokenized asset trading, using compliant stablecoins as settlement tools, creating institutional demand within the VATP’s compliance framework. Stablecoin issuers’ compliant stablecoins gain trading liquidity on VATPs, which improves trading efficiency and asset management. The regulatory linkage is embedded—licensing covers reserve assets, redemption, and disclosure obligations, forming the backbone of infrastructure integration.

Another key synergy is the entry of traditional financial institutions. As the VATP license matrix develops, traditional brokerages are expanding into virtual asset trading by upgrading their SFC licenses. Over 42 institutions have been approved to provide virtual asset trading via integrated accounts. These institutions require access to a compliant settlement currency system, and stablecoin licensing provides an institutionalized solution. The overlapping regimes within the same ecosystem reduce coordination costs and compliance friction.

On a macro scale, stablecoin licensing and VATP licensing create a “standard-setting” synergy. The total global stablecoin trading volume reached USD 33 trillion in 2025, up 72%. Establishing both regimes enables Hong Kong to create a full-chain, compliant loop from “currency issuance” to “asset trading.” This not only offers