CZ Claims UAE Leads in Crypto Regulation, Abu Dhabi Global Market Grants Binance.com Global License Covering 'Almost All Products'
Changpeng Zhao stated that the UAE currently may have the most proactive regulatory framework for crypto assets globally, with the Abu Dhabi Global Market granting Binance.com a global license covering 'almost all products'.
Zhao's remarks at Bitcoin Asia 2026 positioned different markets as complementary rather than synchronous: the UAE emphasizes comprehensive licenses and product access, the U.S. prioritizes stablecoin regulations and federal-level futures and derivatives oversight, Japan is at the forefront of regulatory implementation, and Singapore maintains a relatively cautious access pace.
He noted that the UAE has not yet produced a major stablecoin. This distinction means that the ADGM's licensing progress for trading, clearing, custody, and asset management activities does not necessarily equate to the establishment of a local currency or a large-scale stablecoin issuance system; exchange licenses, stablecoin reserve rules, and issuer approvals belong to different regulatory tiers.
Binance disclosed on its product page for UK users that the relevant ADGM entities are regulated by the Abu Dhabi Global Market Financial Services Regulatory Authority and involve activities such as exchanges, clearing, custody, and asset management; market data also lists it as one of Binance's most comprehensive formal regulatory licenses.
Zhao also mentioned that Pakistan's regulatory progress is relatively fast, but actual implementation has not fully caught up, while Kazakhstan has provided banking support to Binance. The differences reflected are not merely about whether crypto is allowed, but rather the varying maturity levels of rule issuance, bank access, fiat currency inflows and outflows, license enforcement, and cross-border customer services.
In terms of market mechanisms, global trading platforms, market makers, custodians, and token issuers will direct capital, compliance teams, and regional headquarters to jurisdictions that can simultaneously provide legal certainty, banking channels, professional investor funds, and multi-product licenses. Beneficiaries include licensed exchanges, local banks, stablecoin reserve managers, and legal and compliance service providers; markets lacking fiat channels or with unclear product boundaries will lose opportunities for high-frequency trading, institutional custody, and issuer establishment. The essence of regulatory competition is the long-term fee rights generated from trading, clearing, custody, and settlement.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Binance's regulatory path has long been characterized by simultaneous global expansion and local entity compliance: the UK's Financial Conduct Authority restricted Binance Markets Limited from conducting regulated activities in the UK in 2021, and U.S. regulators took significant enforcement action against Binance and Changpeng Zhao in 2023, leading to a settlement and Zhao stepping down as CEO. Subsequently, the company sought to obtain local licenses in various markets, reflecting that large exchanges can no longer rely solely on cross-border websites and offshore entities to maintain access to major markets. The value of the UAE lies in providing a recognizable licensing framework from trading to custody against this backdrop.
The capital path revolves around "compliance entry." Once exchanges obtain authorization from jurisdictions like ADGM or VARA, they can allocate matching, clearing, custody, asset management, fiat channels, and professional client sales to licensed entities; banks thus gain deposit, payment, and inflow/outflow business, while legal, auditing, and on-chain risk control service providers secure ongoing compliance revenue. Binance's ADGM page clearly distinguishes between regulated entities and the scope of available products, indicating that capital is no longer chasing trading volume alone but must allocate independent entities, capital, and control processes for each activity.
Historically, Singapore attracted numerous digital asset companies after 2021 through its Payment Services Act framework but then compressed disorderly expansion with stricter licensing, retail customer restrictions, and risk management requirements; Hong Kong sought to become a regulated regional trading center through its Virtual Asset Service Provider system. The UAE's positioning is closer to a "dual center" model: Dubai's VARA handles virtual asset rules for the Dubai jurisdiction, while ADGM's FSRA forms another financial regulatory entry within the Abu Dhabi International Financial Centre. Its competitors are not a specific token but the capital, talent, and company registration choices under Singapore, Hong Kong, London, and the EU's MiCA framework.
Essentially, this represents regulatory change: the value chain of the crypto industry is shifting from "issuing tokens - listing - trading" to "licensing - banking - custody - clearing - stablecoin settlement." Regulatory agencies are willing to provide clear product boundaries, enabling platforms to attract institutional funds; however, clarity does not equate to leniency, as licenses will turn capital, anti-money laundering, customer asset segregation, market monitoring, and product restrictions into fixed costs. Ultimately, those typically squeezed out are not exchanges lacking technology but rather small and medium participants unable to bear the compliance costs across multiple jurisdictions and unable to secure banking partnerships.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
Regulation is not a cost center but a passport for capital.
Exchanges compete for traffic, while jurisdictions compete for settlement rights.
Without banking interfaces, no amount of licenses can transform into a market.