When Trump Returns to the White House: The Implications of His Cryptocurrency Policies
After Trump’s return to the White House, his policy layout in the cryptocurrency sector has sparked widespread discussion. From stablecoins to RWA (Real World Assets), and ICO regulations, his new crypto policies not only pertain to the economic strategy of the United States but may also reshape the global financial landscape. This article delves into the logic and potential impacts of these policies through an exclusive interview. The article is sourced from Meng Yan’s Blockchain Thoughts, compiled, translated, and written by wublockchain.
(Background Summary: Fed’s Bostic: Expected to “cut rates only once” this year; the trade war hampers the effectiveness of inflation control, and Trump is pressuring Powell to lower rates.)
(Context: Trump on April 2nd discussed equal tariffs or more targeted measures that “take effect immediately.” Can Taiwan escape this predicament?)
Trump’s Return and the Focus on Cryptocurrency
After Trump returned to the White House, a series of statements and actions in the cryptocurrency realm have drawn significant attention. As related policies gradually materialize, a policy outline encompassing crypto asset reserves, stablecoins, RWA, and new ICOs is emerging. Logically, this serves not only Trump’s geopolitical strategy of “revitalizing America” but also quietly constructs a future financial infrastructure deeply integrated with AI technology.
However, due to Trump’s many unconventional actions, his new crypto policies have also sparked considerable controversy and ridicule. To gain a clearer understanding of this topic, I invited Dr. Qingshao, who has long resided in the United States and has extensively studied the cryptocurrency and digital asset industry, for a discussion on the policy logic behind Trump’s new crypto policies and their potential variables in the context of the AI revolution and the reactions from other countries.
TL;DR:
Trump’s new crypto policy aims to provide a new channel for billions of people worldwide to “purchase America” by using U.S. dollar stablecoins to buy on-chain American assets, thereby hedging against the threats posed to the international status of the dollar due to the hollowing out of American industries and high debt levels, buying time for the hegemony of the dollar and the revival of American manufacturing. However, the truly unpredictable variable of this policy is the fusion of cryptocurrency technology with AI, which could lead to a transformation where hundreds of billions or even trillions of intelligent entities coordinate and collaborate through blockchain, fundamentally altering all aspects of human economy, military, and life, accelerating the world toward a technological singularity.
1. Buying Time for the Dollar
Meng: We are beginning to see concrete signs that the Trump team is systematically advancing a new framework for cryptocurrency policy. What is the current reaction from related industries in the U.S.?
Qingshao: Indeed, since mid-2024, Trump and his team have presented themselves as reformers in the cryptocurrency space, with surprising public statements, acceptance of donations, support for specific projects, and even personal involvement in meme coins that have astonished many.
After taking office, they promptly established a digital asset policy working group that includes almost all key decision-makers from important departments, pledging to launch a new regulatory framework for the cryptocurrency industry within 180 days, aiming to make the U.S. the “world’s crypto capital.”
In the past two months, they have cautiously pushed for the implementation of related policies. Recently, they announced Bitcoin reserves and storage of crypto assets and held the first White House crypto summit.
Historically, most technological innovations have been driven by enterprises pulling the government along, but in the cryptocurrency industry, the U.S. now exhibits a clear scenario where the President personally leads the charge while enterprises follow behind. In my view, the high-tech industry in the U.S. is generally unprepared for this situation and has only recently begun to consider and respond seriously.
Recently, financing related to stablecoin payments and RWA has rapidly heated up, but overall it is still in its early stages.
Trump’s Unpredictable Style
Meng: Trump’s governing style is notoriously unpredictable. Surrounding cryptocurrency assets, he and his family have engaged in many unconventional activities, leading many to believe that Trump is merely “foolish” in the crypto industry, only seeking to profit for himself and his family. However, your analysis clearly dispels this shallow view. At least in the crypto realm, Trump’s actions are coherent. What do you think is the dominant logic behind these initiatives?
Qingshao: From my perspective, not only in the cryptocurrency industry, but Trump’s current administration is markedly different from the previous one, featuring a very clear set of goals and strategies. His unpredictability and disruptive actions are essentially aimed at dismantling the existing establishment to reduce resistance to his reform measures.
You might want to download the Project 2025 white paper from the American Enterprise Institute website; a quick read will clarify this. His new crypto policy aligns with his overall strategy, so while these actions may appear unconventional, observing them within a larger strategic framework reveals that they are not isolated actions but instead form a complete and logically coherent policy deployment.
The core objective is to reshape the global accessibility and investability of the dollar through crypto infrastructure, thus supporting the dollar’s international status and buying time for the return of American manufacturing and capital repricing.
Details of the Complete Policy Deployment
Meng: Can you break down this so-called “complete policy deployment” into its structural pathways?
Qingshao: I categorize it into five continuous steps that are interwoven and interconnected.
The first step is loosening public opinion and conceptual frameworks. Trump does not directly amend laws but instead utilizes language, gestures, policy signals, and even the unconventional actions of himself and his family to break the psychological constraints established during the Biden administration, creating a new narrative framework of “crypto = innovation,” gradually leading the Republican Party and traditional conservatives to accept the crypto industry as part of a strategic resource.
The second step is to establish a national digital asset reserve in the U.S., including federal Bitcoin reserves and crypto asset storage, as well as some Republican-controlled state governments publicly holding Bitcoin and discussing the reserve roles of mainstream assets like Ethereum.
The implied significance of this action is that at the government level, or at least part of it, crypto assets are being incorporated into the pre-set category of “strategic financial assets,” thereby elevating the consensus level of crypto assets.
The third step is the establishment of a regulatory framework for stablecoins. This is the policy nexus of the entire plan because only within a compliant U.S. dollar stablecoin system can digital dollars leverage the decentralized and globally accessible characteristics of blockchain to become the settlement and issuance medium for global asset investments.
This is why Coinbase and Circle frequently interact with the Republican Party on policy matters.
The fourth step is bringing Real World Assets (RWA) on-chain, including U.S. Treasury bonds, stocks of major U.S. companies, corporate bonds, mortgage-backed securities, and other high liquidity or securitizable assets. This move shifts the act of “investing in America” from bank accounts to blockchain, transitioning from capital markets to on-chain DeFi systems.
The final step is launching a mechanism for “regulated new ICOs.” This is not simply a replication of the 2017 frenzy, but rather a way to restore the legitimacy of “on-chain fundraising,” unleashing on-chain venture capital supply to serve domestic industry financing, especially the reconstruction of manufacturing supply chains.
Strategic Logic and Tensions
Meng: It sounds like a progressively layered policy package, but does it truly possess a strategically logical closed loop? The long-standing relationship between crypto assets and dollar hegemony has been tense; how is this relationship restructured in Trump’s version of the new crypto policy?
Qingshao: Your question hits the mark. The mainstream crypto narrative emphasizes decentralization, de-dollarization, and cross-border circulation, while dollar strategy has long been based on controlling the degree of openness of the clearing system, banking regulation, and capital accounts. There is indeed structural tension between them.
However, Trump’s attempt to mediate this tension is “absorption rather than confrontation”: he does not suppress financial innovation on-chain but tries to transform it into a new infrastructure that serves the dollar.
The core of this idea is that the dollar does not necessarily need to spread through bank accounts; it can also be propagated through on-chain means, as long as its units remain anchored to the dollar standard.
In other words, as long as global investors use dollar stablecoins on-chain and invest in U.S. RWAs, the U.S. continues to collect “seigniorage” and maintain pricing power.
Furthermore, through on-chain stablecoins and on-chain assets, the U.S. could even bypass the increasing compliance and geopolitical frictions within the traditional financial system, achieving financial “frictionless” transactions. This represents an extension of geopolitical financial power.
Attractiveness of the New Model
Meng: Does this model truly hold attractiveness? How do you view its potential impact on economies outside the U.S.?
Qingshao: We must recognize that the ultimate goal of this policy path is not merely the internal reconstruction of industries but to attract foreign capital to “purchase America” in an on-chain manner. In simple terms, it aims to enable global investors to use digital wallets to buy dollar-denominated on-chain Treasury bonds, corporate stocks, startup equity, and other asset tokens, thereby completing the “re-anchoring” of the dollar in the Web3 era.
The attractiveness of this model lies in its ability to reduce the barriers for global capital entering the U.S. market in a digitally native manner.
The shock lies in its challenge to other sovereign currency zones’ ability to control capital inflows and outflows. If capital from emerging markets begins to bypass the banking system and directly enters the U.S. on-chain asset market through wallets, this “financial ant migration” of capital transfer will undermine the effectiveness of local financial policies.
In the longer term, the U.S. may leverage this to rebuild a position as a “financial network hub,” becoming the endpoint for global asset issuance, settlement, and clearing on-chain. Any economies posing a potential challenge to the dollar’s status will have to take this seriously.
Thinking about the competitive pressure and governance spillover brought by this path.
2. ICO Mechanism and the Restructuring of the U.S. Innovation Financing Structure
Shao: Among the five steps mentioned above, the one I am least confident about is the so-called “new type of ICO.” It seems to be the most controversial and groundbreaking part of this new cryptocurrency policy. Does it really have a possibility of landing in reality? How will it support technological and industrial innovation? I know you have invested a lot of time researching this issue; do you have any conclusions?
Meng: This issue is relatively sensitive in the Chinese context, but to be objective, the matter itself is quite clear. Including the United States, the core dilemma of the global innovation financing mechanism is becoming increasingly prominent.
Over the past twenty years, U.S. high-tech entrepreneurial financing has mainly relied on three channels:
- First, the Silicon Valley venture capital system;
- Second, Nasdaq IPOs;
- Third, various government science research grants and innovation incentive programs.
However, each of these has its own limitations: VC is gradually concentrating on later-stage projects, resulting in an increasingly severe bottleneck in early-stage financing; IPO thresholds are too high, leading to many technical projects being eliminated before maturity; and government incentives are often inefficient with lengthy cycles.
ICO (Initial Coin Offering) once provided a brief experiment in financing equity. It allowed projects to raise funds directly from global investors and end-users by issuing tokens, without relying on traditional financial intermediaries. However, due to regulatory gaps and frequent abuses, this mechanism was almost sentenced to death after 2018.
An important member of Trump’s crypto team is SEC Commissioner Hester Pierce, who proposed the “Crypto Safe Harbor” plan. She has been working to restore some legitimacy to ICOs by creating a new regulatory framework.
This does not mean reverting to the original state of barbaric growth, but rather establishing a “new type of ICO” system based on “transparency + approval + disclosure.” Its core principles are:
- Token issuance must be anchored to actual products, assets, or cash flows, avoiding the proliferation of hollow tokens;
- Issuers must register with the SEC or CFTC but enjoy relaxed compliance treatment;
- Projects can conduct on-chain fundraising targeting qualified investors or foreign users, bypassing traditional secondary market issuance processes;
- Issuance proceeds must be used for domestic technology, manufacturing, and infrastructure projects in the United States, aligning with Trump’s “re-industrialization” agenda.
This institutional design is actually closer to a combination of “regulated Kickstarter + digital bonds + disintermediation issuance,” representing a reconstruction attempt of the U.S. risk financing technology stack.
Shao: It sounds like once this mechanism is established, it won’t just benefit the crypto industry; the entire U.S. industrial financing system could be reshaped?
Meng: You could say that. If on-chain financing and on-chain asset issuance can be systematically integrated into a compliant path, then the cycle of “innovation – financing – circulation” will be significantly shortened.
More critically, this mechanism is naturally better suited for cutting-edge industries like Web3, AI, and energy technology, which are characterized by high early capital demands, high traditional investor understanding thresholds, and mismatched financing rhythms and cycles.
On-chain fundraising + stablecoin settlement + global liquidity will significantly unleash the financing capabilities of long-tail projects.
Ultimately, this will also make “registered in the U.S. + issued in USD stablecoins + fundraising from global investors” the new paradigm, thereby further consolidating the U.S. dominance in the tripartite relationship between technology, capital, and narrative.
Conversely, regarding the logic of “consolidating the dollar’s position” that you just mentioned, it could also be argued that through this method, the U.S. high-tech industry and innovation system could evolve into the foundational support for the dollar, and through the atomization and decentralization of dollar circulation, weaken other geopolitical rivals’ interference and capabilities in this process.
Shao: What you mentioned might not be the endgame; the endgame could be the disappearance of all securities markets, including today’s digital asset exchanges.
Meng: Technically, it indeed points to the situation you described.
3. Challenges: Institutional Friction and Compliance Rigidity
Meng: Overall, I believe this new policy is indeed logically coherent in theory and strategically has a high degree of political calculation. But back to reality, is it really possible for it to succeed? What are the resistances? Having lived in the U.S. for a long time, what is your perspective on this?
Shao: This is a crucial question. The execution of any policy depends on whether the conditions of the system, politics, and technology are mature. Regarding Trump’s new crypto policy, its biggest challenge lies in the multiple constraints of “institutional inertia,” “regulatory infighting,” and “compliance rigidity.” We can break down the risks as follows:
- First, the current regulatory system in the U.S. is fragmented. There has been a longstanding dispute over the regulatory boundaries between the SEC and CFTC regarding digital assets, with each insisting on different definitions of “what constitutes a security and what constitutes a commodity.” Without strong presidential-level intervention, it is difficult to break this institutional friction.
- Second, there remains a cognitive split between the two parties regarding crypto assets in the U.S. Although the Republican Party is generally more friendly towards crypto, the Democratic camp retains a high degree of wariness, especially within the Senate Banking Committee and the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, where voices asserting “crypto equals financial instability” are prevalent. This means that even if Trump is re-elected, advancing relevant legislation at the congressional level will not be easy.
- Third, there is still a gap in the maturity of technology and financial infrastructure. On-chain RWA (Real World Assets), global stablecoin clearing networks, and compliant wallet systems are all in progress, but have yet to form a sovereign-level platform capable of supporting large-scale financial activities. The existing on-chain financial ecosystem (DeFi) does not possess institutional stability.
However, I believe the most difficult aspect to overcome is the U.S.’s consistently strict Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorism Financing (CFT) regulatory principles. This principle is one of the foundational beliefs that has allowed the dollar to become a global sovereign currency, and its rigidity surpasses that of short-term political objectives.
Any mechanism that bypasses the banking system and moves towards on-chain financial flows, if it relaxes KYC (Know Your Customer), identity verification, and fund source tracking, will trigger strong backlash from the Treasury, FinCEN, and even national security agencies. In other words, if Trump’s team wants to promote the legalization of stablecoins, RWA, and new ICOs, they must simultaneously build a set of “on-chain auditable and accountable” compliance infrastructure. This is not only a technical challenge but also a governance challenge.
If control is lost during implementation, any incident of “on-chain dollars participating in terrorist financing” could lead to fierce opposition against the entire new policy, or even its demise.
Additionally, resistance from the traditional financial industry cannot be overlooked. Large banks and financial service institutions are extremely sensitive to “disintermediated dollar reissuance.” They will worry about the erosion of their settlement, custody, KYC, and other businesses. This entrenched resistance at the industry level will form a significant obstacle during the policy advancement process.
Finally, and most fundamentally, global trust in the dollar is not infinitely sustainable. Even if the U.S. constructs a perfect on-chain financial narrative, if it continues to polarize in terms of political stability, debt governance, and foreign policy, external investors may still choose to sit on the sidelines.
Meng: It seems that the success or failure of this policy heavily relies on whether Trump can achieve “maximum political coordination capability?” He has now returned to the White House and assembled a highly integrated policy execution team, which indeed may push this framework to take shape within two years. However, this requires key institutions such as the President, the Treasury, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal Reserve System (Fed), and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to form an unconventional collaborative state, which has been extremely rare in the past.
Shao: From a more realistic perspective, I believe the likelihood of this new policy fully landing is no more than 50%, but the possibility of partial implementation, gradually forming market expectations and strategic inertia exceeds 70%. This means that even if a complete legal system is not ultimately formed, as long as enough capital, institutions, and developers start to bet on this direction, the U.S. will have completed the re-absorption of global resources in crypto finance.
4. Passive Responses and Strategic Choices of Other Economies
Meng: It appears we both agree that the mid-term goal of this new policy is to reconstruct the global asset investment path with on-chain dollars, which actually poses a re-challenge to financial sovereignty for major economies outside the U.S. How do you think they will respond?
Shao: Such a response will likely be “passive initiation, active defense.” Currently, whether it is China, the European Union, or regional powers such as Japan and South Korea, their understanding of Trump’s new policy is still in its early stages. There are mainly three reasons:
- First, with Trump’s return to the White House, there is uncertainty about whether this strategy will continue;
- Second, on-chain finance is still viewed by many countries as a “technological aberration” or “risk asset;”
- Third, stablecoins, RWA, and on-chain financing remain ambiguous zones in most fiat currency regulatory systems.
However, if the U.S. manages to establish an open financial platform through on-chain dollars, on-chain assets, and new type ICOs that attracts global investors “to come on-chain to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds, invest in U.S. stocks, and finance in dollars,” then other countries’ capital control capabilities, monetary regulation abilities, and even industrial financial dominance will be challenged.
We can look at it by country.
First, regarding China. For China, Trump’s new crypto policy may bring pressure on three levels.
First, the internationalization process of the RMB will face further pressure. Currently, the cross-border use of the RMB mainly relies on state-led trade settlement frameworks and offshore clearing networks, while once the U.S. on-chain dollar mechanism is established, it will erode the marginal advantages of the RMB with “technological inducement convenience.”
Second, the technical circumvention channels for capital controls will increase.
Once stablecoins and on-chain U.S. Treasury bonds obtain clear compliance identities, individuals and businesses accessing dollar assets through unofficial wallets and agreements will become a reality. This will pose a structural challenge to China’s existing cross-border financial regulatory system.
Third, the sovereignty of industrial chain financing may be passively transferred.
If high-tech companies start to “raise funds on-chain,” whether by registering shell companies in the U.S. or issuing RWA, it will be difficult for the Chinese government to grasp the rhythm and direction of these financing behaviors.
Of course, China’s response will not be absent. I anticipate that in the future, China will respond through two lines:
- First, strengthen the connection between the central bank’s digital currency (e-CNY) and cross-border payments, building a “compliant on-chain financial system for the yuan” to create a regulatory-controlled alternative.
- Second, systematically block the transmission paths of on-chain dollars within the domestic market, including restrictions on wallets and on-chain asset access, while enhancing anti-money laundering and funding source requirements.
Meng: How will the EU respond? Their policies in the crypto space seem more open?
Sha: The EU’s approach is indeed relatively technology-neutral, but it also faces structural passivity.
MICA (the European Crypto-Assets Markets Act) is attempting to establish a unified regulatory framework, which provides a compliance pathway for on-chain assets and stablecoins. However, the problem is that the euro lacks the appeal of a global financial dominant currency; it lacks anchored assets, a global clearing network, and risk tolerance. Therefore, even if Europe encourages on-chain finance, it is likely to become a conduit for dollar stablecoins rather than an ecological center for euro stablecoins.
If Trump’s new policies progress smoothly, the EU will face only two strategic choices:
- First, participate in and attach itself to the U.S.-led on-chain dollar system to retain the role of local technologies and institutions in on-chain finance;
- Second, strengthen the European Central Bank’s regulatory dominance over crypto assets, creating a policy combination of “controlled compliance + local currency priority,” attempting to achieve independent sovereignty for the euro on-chain.
Regardless of the path chosen, the EU’s passivity has already been determined. The real variable remains “how to lose less,” rather than “whether to dominate.”
Meng: I think what countries around the world need to overcome right now is a sort of policy numbness.
Over the past decade, many countries have driven multiple rounds of attempts around crypto technology, resulting in generally unsatisfactory outcomes. Therefore, with Trump’s new policies, most countries seem to be observing, perhaps holding onto a sense of luck, waiting to see if Trump is bluffing or just dabbling. But based on the policy logic you described, Trump’s crypto new policies are an important part of his overall strategic goals, so doubts about his determination should be abandoned in favor of considering the consequences and response strategies of these policies.
Five, AI + Crypto may yield unexpected results.
Sha: We have discussed the logic and impact of Trump’s new crypto policies from multiple dimensions, including finance, regulation, and international dynamics. However, I feel that there is a larger technological backdrop that has not been sufficiently mentioned, which is AI.
Meng: You are absolutely right. Trump’s new crypto policies are not occurring during a stable period of technological evolution but rather against the backdrop of accelerated breakthroughs in AI, structural reconstruction of technology stacks, and a global technological economic surge.
We must recognize that the interaction between AI and crypto is releasing a new systematic possibility: on-chain identity, on-chain assets, on-chain payments, combined with large-scale self-driven AI agents, are rewriting “organizational boundaries” and “transaction structures.”
I remember a few years ago, Mr. ### proposed a hypothesis after studying the characteristics of blockchain technology seriously. Historically, blockchain and crypto technology may not be for humans but for AI. However, at that time, we could not visualize this hypothesis.
Now, with the rapid advancement of AI, this picture has become increasingly clear. The most intuitive example is that numerous AI agents can own crypto wallets, execute contract logic, and complete cross-platform, cross-language, and cross-business system task coordination through on-chain agreements without human intervention.
They may represent individuals, businesses, or even autonomous organizations, conducting asset allocation, resource coordination, and information governance on a global scale.
From this perspective, Trump’s new crypto policies may fundamentally be just a strategic attempt at global re-anchoring of the dollar, but in practice, it may lead to unexpected chemical reactions, paving the way for the “on-chain infrastructure map” of the AI era.
Stablecoins, RWA, and new types of ICOs are essentially transforming dollar, U.S. assets, and U.S. innovation capabilities into digital resource units that can be invoked by AI. Meanwhile, the on-chain clearing and settlement mechanism constructs a permissionless value collaboration layer for these AI systems.
Sha: I want to take it a step further. From the perspective of practical application, the combination of AI and crypto technology is not as easy to find closed testing scenarios as autonomous driving. Autonomous driving can be tested on closed roads and limited cities, but the essence of crypto systems, as value transfer and collaboration agreements, necessitates a real open network environment to verify effectiveness, making large-scale “rehearsals” difficult to achieve thus far.
This is one of the main reasons why the vast majority of token economy experiments have failed over the past decade.
But perhaps we can approach from another angle: the “simulated market mechanism” within enterprises.
In other words, within the internal management systems of large organizations or factories, particularly in ERP systems, the “internal settlement mechanism” may well become the “testing ground” for crypto systems.
Imagine a highly intelligent, unmanned manufacturing factory where production processes, equipment scheduling, raw material procurement, energy distribution, etc., are increasingly decided and executed by AI. At this point, if programmable payment and settlement logic are introduced, allowing machines to price and pay for resources through stablecoins, a “machine-internal economy” can be simulated.
This is not only a natural endpoint for crypto but also provides AI with an operational mechanism that does not rely on human account systems. In other words, the “digital factory” will become an ideal testing ground for the combination of crypto technology and AI.
This is a typical machine world, characterized by structural closure, highly automated participants, and highly auditable behavior. It is expected to achieve an “endogenous financial order” first: machines exchanging value in machine ways, algorithms constraining resource distribution through contracts.
This will not only reconstruct the boundaries of “human-machine collaboration” but may also give rise to a new paradigm of corporate governance based on on-chain identities and circulation.
From this perspective, the “revitalization of American manufacturing” discussed earlier in the article is also worth redefining.
Traditional notions of “repatriation of manufacturing” focus on factory locations, industrial chain layouts, and job opportunities, but the future of “manufacturing” may be a combination of “compute-driven automated production capacity” and “digital intelligent systems.”
The manufacturing advantage sought by America will not only be a reconstruction of physical industries but also a leading governance model based on digital twin systems. And crypto technology is precisely the underlying protocol choice for the financial order part of the “digital twin strategy.”
In the initial stage, it indeed serves data verifiability, process traceability, and transaction settlement for smart manufacturing; but as AI integrates, it gradually evolves into the core of clearing and settlement within fully autonomous systems.
This is a more grandiose proposition than smart manufacturing; it is a question of national-level digital order reconstruction.
Meng: Once this trend is initiated, it will significantly reduce collaborative friction across the network, making innovation no longer dependent on organizational structures or legal entities, but based on the immediate combinatorial logic of “Agent + Contract + Data.”
What is even more worth imagining is the new economic order constructed after the deep integration of AI and crypto technology.
Today, collaboration, knowledge sharing, and resource allocation among AIs still heavily rely on human preset paths and traditional payment infrastructures, such as credit card settlements, API authorizations, account systems, etc. These methods inherently face organizational boundaries, flow frictions, and settlement delays.
But in the future, when AI agents possess autonomous wallets, can execute smart contracts on-chain, and make instant payments through digital assets, they will coordinate tasks and allocate resources without human intervention, forming a truly “inter-machine market.” This mechanism will enable billions, even trillions, of intelligent entities to spontaneously form an orderly economic cooperation network without centralized scheduling. Such automated collaboration that transcends all organizational boundaries, where code is the rule, will not only greatly unleash the productivity potential among intelligent agents but also give rise to entirely new forms of industrial division of labor, on-chain governance, and social structures. In a sense, it indicates that we are entering a new economic phase dominated by machines, whose complexity, creativity, and even risks of losing control far exceed any existing system today.
In other words, we may be on the edge of a system-level innovation emergence— a critical structure leading to a technological singularity is forming. Trump may not fully understand the deep logic of this technological evolution, but his policies could potentially pioneer an experiment to rewrite foundational rules on a global scale. These policies may not be entirely implemented, but they will trigger a re-evaluation of global fintech and policy frameworks. In the coming years, we will see more economies being forced to respond.
