最新报道：Over the past week, prominent entities such as Circle and Ripple Labs have taken steps to obtain banking licenses in the United States. While this is a positive development for crypto companies aiming to achieve institutional adoption, it has also raised concerns among enthusiasts who prioritize a pure cryptocurrency vision. Representatives from XBTO and Kronos Research said that two seemingly contradictory ideas can coexist. They believe that while institutional adoption is undoubtedly a departure from Satoshi’s core principles of decentralization and disintermediation, it is also a sign that the crypto industry is maturing and taking on new forms. Race for regulatory approval heats up The wave of institutional adoption continues as several prominent companies seek to obtain U.S. banking licenses. Circle set off this chain reaction after applying to establish a national trust bank last Monday. If approved, the license will allow Circle to act as a custodian of its own USDC reserves and provide digital asset custody services to institutional clients. The move comes on the heels of Circle’s successful initial public offering (IPO). This is in line with their long-term goal of integrating more deeply into the traditional financial system in light of emerging U.S. stablecoin regulations. Two days later, Ripple Labs similarly sought a state trust bank charter, primarily with the goal of bringing its recently launched stablecoin, RLUSD, under federal regulation. Gaining approval would allow Ripple to operate as a federally regulated bank, eliminating the need for a separate state money transmitter license. Reports have also surfaced indicating that other major players such as Fidelity Digital Assets and Bitgo also intend to seek banking charters. While crypto pragmatists have welcomed these developments, in large part due to the Senate’s passage of the GENIUS Act, Bitcoin traditionalists have been skeptical of the news. Can Satoshi’s Vision Coexist with Regulation? The move by crypto companies to seek banking charters highlights a core industry tension: permissionless decentralization versus regulatory integration. Satoshi’s ethos, embraced by early adopters, advocated for decentralization, censorship resistance, and disintermediation. As such, concerns about staying true to these fundamental principles naturally arise as crypto firms seek to align with the very system Bitcoin was designed to circumvent. While this move may run counter to Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision of a peer-to-peer system that bypasses banks, the reality is more complex. It represents a natural evolution in the maturation of the crypto industry, moving from its ideological foundations to actual infrastructure and integration. In order for cryptocurrencies to gain widespread adoption, a banking license is now essential. Banking Licenses: Benefits Beyond Centralization Crypto companies must comply with regulatory safeguards in order to attract institutional clients. While this shift moves them further away from pure decentralization, it brings them closer to a model that offers enhanced end-user protection. Rather than viewing this as a concession, it should be viewed as a calculated step toward broader integration. However, this development has not eliminated the need for decentralization. Instead, it has created the need for two different systems. The Multifaceted Crypto Ecosystem The crypto ecosystem is vast. There are Bitcoin, altcoins, stablecoins, meme coins, and real-world assets, among many other use cases. This diversity inherently attracts attention from a wide range of people. For example, Bitcoin is immutable. Its immutable and permissionless nature cannot be manipulated or modified by any degree of institutional interests. Therefore, people from the traditional financial sector may prefer stablecoins. Unlike Bitcoin, stablecoins are pegged to traditional currencies and are not subject to the same volatility. Now, at least in the United States, companies can issue their own stablecoins. Since they serve different purposes, they are not in conflict. Therefore, they can coexist, allowing decentralized and centralized realities to exist at the same time. In the long run, such a setup may even benefit the ecosystem. Pragmatists and Purists: A Necessary Balance? In an environment where pragmatists and purists coexist, they can act as a check and balance force against each other. When cryptocurrencies favor traditional industries over decentralization, purists help control the industry. Conversely, if purists become too rigid and reject any intermediaries at the expense of adoption, pragmatists can step in. This trend may lead to greater market segmentation, which is beneficial to any industry. The convergence of cryptocurrencies and traditional finance is an inevitable and necessary development. Rather than viewing this evolution as a betrayal, it is better to understand it as an important step for the industry to reach considerable scale and provide strong and secure services. These services can then coexist with the crypto ecosystem and ultimately enhance it. Going forward, the market is likely to be more nuanced, with permissionless innovation and regulated financial infrastructure thriving to meet the diverse needs of a global user base.