CZ: Bitcoin Returns Power to Individuals
Zhao Changpeng stated that Bitcoin does not weaken or strengthen governments; its role is to empower individuals. This statement defines Bitcoin as a tool for individuals to hold and transfer value, rather than a political mechanism that directly alters the balance of state power. Bitcoin allows users to self-custody their private keys, initiate transfers directly on a global network, and complete value transfers without going through traditional banking systems. However, the boundaries of individual power are still constrained by fiat currency inflow and outflow channels, compliance of trading platforms, tax reporting, internet access, asset freezing rules, and judicial jurisdiction; holding Bitcoin does not equate to detachment from national financial and legal systems. Zhao previously advocated for countries to promote asset tokenization to attract foreign investment and expand financing channels; this stance shows he does not view blockchain technology as a substitute for government but as financial infrastructure that can be used by states, enterprises, and individuals simultaneously. In market mechanisms, the demand for self-custody by individuals will drive the use of hardware wallets, decentralized exchanges, privacy, and payment infrastructure; institutions and governments will continue to maintain compliance and liquidity control through exchanges, custodians, stablecoin issuers, and fiat currency entry points. Beneficiaries will be infrastructure providers offering secure self-custody and compliant settlement services, while platforms relying on opaque custody or single centralized inflow and outflow channels will face user migration pressure. Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
The core historical path of Bitcoin since its inception is not to replace government currency, but to provide an asset system that allows holding and broadcasting transactions without bank permission. Events such as the Cyprus banking crisis, Argentina's capital controls, and cross-border donations during the Ukraine war have provided real-world scenarios for Bitcoin's "personal portability"; however, these scenarios have not eliminated government control over banks, taxation, energy, communication, and the legal currency settlement system. Bitcoin expands individual choice in specific fund transfer processes, rather than the total amount of state power. Zhao Changpeng's path of creating and expanding Binance also illustrates that personal asset sovereignty does not naturally align with large-scale liquidity. Binance relies on a centralized order book, fiat channels, custodial wallets, and cross-border market operations to gather liquidity, and later reached a settlement with U.S. regulators due to anti-money laundering, sanctions compliance, and unlicensed operations. Individuals can self-custody Bitcoin, but as long as they need to exchange for fiat, use credit channels, or enter large-scale liquidity markets, they will re-enter regulated intermediary networks. Historically, PayPal, mobile payments, and stablecoins have expanded by "lowering the threshold for personal transfers", but ultimately formed new entry layers. PayPal is constrained by account rules and banking partners; stablecoins depend on issuer reserves, redemption mechanisms, and regulatory permissions; the difference with Bitcoin is that its underlying asset can be directly controlled by individuals, but it cannot automatically provide price stability, consumer protection, and commercial credit. It occupies a position of "asset sovereignty infrastructure" rather than a complete substitute for monetary sovereignty. Essentially, it involves the transfer of pricing power: Bitcoin transfers the asset transfer rights controlled by private keys to individuals, but does not transfer the pricing of fiat currency, tax collection, and credit creation rights. The mechanism is that decentralized networks can lower the threshold for bookkeeping and transfer permissions, but economic activities still rely on legal contracts, commodity pricing, wage payments, and the credit of financial institutions. Individuals gain exit or alternative channels, while governments and large financial institutions retain the most important pricing, regulatory, and liquidity entry points in the real economy.
ABAB News · Cognitive Law
- Private keys change control, fiat entry determines scale
- Decentralization lowers permissions, does not eliminate regulation
- Individuals have exit rights, institutions control liquidity