Duncan Chiu on Hong Kong's Crypto Regulation: Logic, Caution, and the Singapore Comparison

This article features an in-depth interview by WuBlockchain’s Colin Wu with Hong Kong Legislative Council member Duncan Chiu. In the conversation, Chiu shares his perspectives on the Web3 and crypto industries and outlines his vision for promoting their development. He reflects on his personal journey from tech venture capital to supporting blockchain innovation, highlighting blockchain’s significance as a foundational technology.

Chiu explains how Hong Kong’s approach has evolved — from a “permissive experimentation” phase to the implementation of clearer regulatory policies. He argues that a steady, cautious regulatory framework helps build long-term market confidence and protects Hong Kong’s financial reputation from being damaged by speculative short-term hype.

He also compares Hong Kong’s position to that of Singapore, Japan, and other regions, suggesting that Hong Kong should focus on expanding into global markets and becoming a hub for innovative financial products. Chiu identifies stablecoins, licensed exchanges, and on-chain financial infrastructure as key pillars for the next phase of Hong Kong’s crypto development.

Importantly, he stresses that Hong Kong’s strategy is not driven by short-term economic gains but by a commitment to building a sustainable industry through sound legal and institutional foundations. He believes Hong Kong should maintain openness in its international role and complement, rather than compete with, mainland China’s development.

From VC to Legislature: Chiu’s Early Encounter with Crypto

Colin: Today we’re joined by Duncan Chiu, a member of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council and one of the city’s most vocal supporters of Web3. He has shared many perspectives on the topic. Recently, there’s been a surge in Hong Kong’s institutional support and public enthusiasm for Web3. We’ve prepared some questions for Chiu to better understand Hong Kong’s current position and its future direction.

To start, could you introduce yourself and tell us when you first encountered cryptocurrency? And when did you first buy Bitcoin?

Chiu: I’m a member of Hong Kong’s seventh Legislative Council, representing the technology and innovation sector. Before joining the legislature, I spent over two decades in tech venture capital, working through my family business and later through a fund I established. I entered the Legislative Council in 2021.

My first exposure to crypto was around 2014 or 2015. At the time, we were running a fund and frequently traveled to the U.S., where interest in blockchain was just beginning to grow. Ethereum and Bitcoin were gaining traction, and the ICO boom was starting to take off around 2015–2016, with many new tokens launching in the U.S.

That said, we were managing a fairly traditional tech fund, so even with our VC background, we were cautious and didn’t actively invest in those token projects.

On a personal level, I did try buying some Bitcoin back then — mainly just to get a feel for the process. I wouldn’t say I was deeply involved in the crypto space, but I was definitely observing and keeping an eye on how it was evolving.

A Conservative Start: From Technical Interest to Broader Embrace

Colin: Over the years, when you first started observing crypto and blockchain, what was your initial impression? Were you optimistic from the beginning, or did you feel the space was chaotic and problematic?

Chiu: Honestly, at the beginning we were definitely trying to understand it — looking into early teams and the underlying logic behind projects. As VCs, it’s our job to explore all kinds of ventures. But the truth is, when we first encountered crypto, it was during a pretty wild period. ICOs were everywhere, and tokens were launching nonstop.

As a traditional VC fund, our stance was quite conservative. I personally didn’t get involved in the ICO boom. While we were open to investing in blockchain infrastructure and underlying technology, we stayed away from projects that were purely token-driven. So yes, I’d say my attitude at that time was cautious.

Colin: From 2017 to now, it’s been seven or eight years. Has your thinking changed? Because I’ve seen you express very supportive views in the media about Hong Kong’s crypto policies and pushing for development.

Chiu: First off, we’ve always believed blockchain is a critical technology. Even ten years ago, we were tracking blockchain developments and investing in companies offering blockchain-based solutions. We’ve seen it as a fundamental technology, much like AI today, and we’ve been following it closely since the beginning.

But when it came to token issuance, I was skeptical. There were no clear rules or consensus at the time. You could basically write a white paper and start issuing tokens. I disagreed with that model, so I stayed out of the ICO frenzy. Sure, some people made money, others lost it — but in my view, the idea that a white paper alone could create liquidity was questionable, and I still have reservations about that approach.

Now, with the growth of blockchain, we’ve seen an explosion of new products — not just niche ones, but backed by large communities. More people now agree that regulatory clarity is the way forward. There’s a growing consensus on how products should be launched, the infrastructure needed, and the rules that should apply.

That shift is what’s driven our change in attitude. Assets gain value because people believe in them. Now, more people are trading in these new asset classes, and the shared understanding is becoming stronger.

In the future, we’ll see more structured regulation — how products are launched, traded, and supervised. That path is inevitable and only growing, so we need to think about how to engage and help shape it.

And this isn’t just about Hong Kong. This is part of a global consensus. Many countries and regions are pushing in the same direction. So it’s not about Hong Kong chasing an opportunity — it’s about giving this industry new life.

For crypto to become mainstream, it needs the support of jurisdictions like Hong Kong — with a strong legal system, financial infrastructure, professional talent, and clear standards. Otherwise, it stays confined to niche communities and can’t reach the broader public.

That’s why I see this as mutually beneficial. It’s not that Hong Kong wants a piece of the Web3 pie; it’s that we can help elevate the entire space by contributing our institutional foundation.

The Evolution of Hong Kong’s Regulatory Approach

Colin: Let’s talk about Hong Kong’s position in the crypto space. A lot of people outside the region aren’t familiar with how Hong Kong’s regulatory policies have evolved. The traditional view is that Hong Kong used to take a more hands-off approach. Many major global companies started out here — Tether, for instance, and even FTX was initially based in Hong Kong. So what led Hong Kong to shift from that relatively laissez-faire stance to its current more structured regulatory framework? What were the considerations behind that change?

Chiu: I don’t speak for the Hong Kong government, but I can share my personal perspective. I don’t think this shift is surprising. Hong Kong has always been a very open and permissive environment. Our legal framework generally allows anything that isn’t explicitly prohibited, and that’s long been the case with tech. The idea is to let innovation flourish — let people build and test new products.

The standard approach here is: if you want to try something new, go ahead. But once things mature to a certain point — especially when potential risks or broader impacts emerge — then it’s time to consider legislation and regulatory involvement.

So no, I wouldn’t say we were ever completely hands-off. It’s more accurate to say we allowed the industry to grow organically. But when problems began to surface within the sector, there was a need to reassess. Would those issues recur? Could they affect public trust or social stability? And does this industry have real, lasting technological value?

At this point, I think we’ve reached consensus: the industry is here to stay and will only grow larger, with more people entering the space. That makes it necessary to set clearer rules and development pathways. That’s the thinking behind Hong Kong’s move toward formal regulation.

And, as I’ve mentioned before, Hong Kong is well-positioned to contribute positively to this sector. Back in 2022, we released our first official policy statement on virtual assets, which garnered significant attention. It sent a strong message: since this industry will continue to grow, Hong Kong — as a global financial hub — has both the ability and responsibility to support its healthy development.

Over the past two years, we’ve seen real progress. Legally, the government has provided clear guidance to founders and industry participants. The ecosystem has evolved from something purely crypto-native into something that’s increasingly integrated with traditional finance.

Looking ahead, I still believe that all financial products — whether they’re crypto-native or traditional — will eventually live on-chain. That means they’ll be traded, recorded, and secured via blockchain, forming a new kind of financial infrastructure.

That’s why I think the term “Web3,” which started gaining traction in 2022, is such a fitting one. It captures a broader policy vision — not just about crypto trading, but about how blockchain can transform the entire financial system. Some countries still frame this space narrowly, focusing solely on crypto payments. But Hong Kong chose “Web3” to describe the space, reflecting a wider, more forward-looking perspective.

It’s not just about enabling crypto — it’s about reinventing financial markets through blockchain. And that’s a mission Hong Kong is well suited to lead.

Addressing Concerns Over “Overly Tight” Policies and the Case for a Steady Approach

Colin: Over the past two years, Hong Kong has introduced a number of new policies, and overall the atmosphere has been quite positive. Still, there’s been some discussion in the community that while the government is vocally supportive of Web3 across different levels, actual policy implementation feels slow or overly restrictive. Compared to other regions, some feel Hong Kong is too conservative. How do you view this sentiment? How should we balance the positives with the criticisms?

Chiu: It’s a valid concern, and yes — there will always be complaints. You can’t please everyone. But I’ve consistently said: to go far, you have to go steady. That’s always been our stance. Speed doesn’t guarantee good outcomes.

In my view, Hong Kong is taking a steady-but-progressive path. We’re laying the groundwork for a ten- to fifteen-year development trajectory. If we suddenly opened the floodgates and allowed all kinds of products to launch without restraint, it could easily lead to chaos — and potentially damaging incidents.

Of course, many in the industry are eager to build and see the opportunities ahead. And yes, there are other regions offering more liberal environments. But the question for us is: Should Hong Kong compete to be first, or focus on being reliable?

Hong Kong’s strength as a financial center comes from trust. We have a wide array of financial products, strong valuations, and high trading volumes because investors have confidence in our market. To build a sustainable crypto sector — one that can form part of the new financial infrastructure — trust and stability must come first.

If we act too quickly and allow unchecked speculation, we risk a boom-and-bust cycle that could damage not just the crypto market, but our broader financial ecosystem. That would harm Hong Kong’s reputation and long-term interests.

So internal review and policy coordination are essential. For example, there are products already operating successfully in other markets — mature, financially integrated offerings. If we’re not even considering those in Hong Kong, that’s a problem. This is where the Legislative Council plays a crucial role — we constantly need to assess whether our policies make sense.

On the other hand, from a Web3 development perspective, we also have a duty to ensure that Hong Kong progresses steadily. That doesn’t mean drawing no red lines or letting everything slide. There are a lot of smart people in this space — many capable of seizing any loophole to turn a quick profit. Without regulation, the hype may last a year or two, but by year three or five, the ecosystem could collapse. That’s the scenario we want to avoid.

Since Hong Kong has committed to developing this space, I personally support a “stability-first” strategy. That said, as you pointed out, stability shouldn’t become an excuse for stagnation. We need to continually evaluate market feedback.

I think our regulators have actually been quite responsive. For instance, when AETF (Asset/Exchange Traded Fund) products were discussed early last year, they quickly understood the product and approved several within three months. When they’re familiar with a product, the process moves fast.

But for newer, more innovative offerings — things Hong Kong hasn’t seen before — approvals do take longer. We’re still learning, and I hope more new products can be launched here. But we must also weigh the potential risks carefully as we move forward.

The Profitability Challenge for Licensed Exchanges and Hong Kong’s Global Ambition

Colin: When it comes to positioning within the global crypto market, Hong Kong seems more similar to Singapore than to countries like the U.S. or South Korea, which have large domestic markets. In places like the U.S. and Korea, licensed exchanges can be profitable just by serving their local users. But recent reports suggest that licensed exchanges in Hong Kong are struggling financially under the current regulatory framework, some even operating at a loss long-term. What’s your take on this? If compliant entities are losing money, how can this regulatory model be sustainable?

Chiu: This is an industry that inevitably requires an investment phase. As with any emerging sector, you invest for the long term. Our goal is to foster sustainable growth and create more opportunities on the product side to expand the market.

Right now, only two or three licensed exchanges in Hong Kong are fully operational, despite 10 or 11 licenses being issued. I’ve been traveling to Japan frequently, and even though they’ve issued over 40 licenses, only a handful of those exchanges are profitable. In the U.S., there were once many types of exchanges — onshore, offshore, unlicensed — and most weren’t profitable in their early days either. It was only after regulatory consolidation that a few large, successful players emerged.

So this is part of a natural competitive cycle. Hong Kong is still in the early stages of opening up, so early losses are expected. Plus, the nature of the products we offer here is different from other jurisdictions. We’re still figuring out how to classify and position these offerings.

Take Japan for instance — while they still have over 30 exchanges, most are simply offering token trading for retail users. My hope for Hong Kong is that our exchanges won’t just offer existing products but will become platforms for launching entirely new, innovative products. That’s where I see future revenue opportunities.

We need to think beyond the saturated “red ocean” and carve out new business models and markets. Hong Kong’s ambition is to be a global hub — not a service center for 7 million locals. The real challenge is figuring out how to bring our products to international audiences.

This is the direction we urgently need to pursue — positioning Hong Kong’s exchanges and offerings as global-facing. When companies launch products in Hong Kong, those products should be built for a worldwide audience, not just local users.

Singapore may have gotten a head start, but I wouldn’t call it conservative. Their approach is different — they’ve restricted the retail side from the beginning but have been very open to institutional players. Their government also runs various support initiatives.

I believe Hong Kong should actively engage with and learn from Singapore. At the end of the day, both of us are trying to grow the entire pie and expand our reach into the global market — not just cater to a domestic customer base.

Limited Retail Token Access: A Matter of Caution, Not Capacity

Colin: Japan is often considered conservative in its crypto regulations — for instance, every token listing requires approval, and stablecoins haven’t yet been authorized. Still, retail investors in Japan can access a wide range of tokens, with dozens or even hundreds available across different exchanges. In contrast, since Hong Kong introduced its licensing regime, only four tokens are approved for retail trading. Globally, many see this as almost laughable. Yes, we understand that not all tokens are high quality — but approving only four “good” ones feels excessively cautious, doesn’t it?

Chiu: As I mentioned earlier, let’s be honest — if you’re launching a token just to serve the 7 million people in Hong Kong, you’re probably not going to make much money.

Colin: Sure, but still, four tokens? That’s hard for people to understand.

Chiu: I agree that the number feels low, but we have to consider investor protection. In that regard, Hong Kong is quite similar to Singapore. If someone comes to Hong Kong just to issue tokens for the local market, that alone isn’t a compelling business case.

What’s more important is how to issue products here that appeal to a broader set of investors. For example, Hong Kong likely has the highest concentration of family offices and PIs (professional investors) in Asia. If your product targets PIs and family offices, the regulatory environment is significantly more flexible.

However, if you want to target retail investors, you have to seriously consider whether the market size justifies the risk. Retail oversight requires more caution, and that’s why the approach must be gradual. We can’t open the floodgates all at once.

Learning from Singapore While Expanding the Web3 Pie

Colin: Singapore has recently tightened its crypto regulations, likely due to anti-money laundering concerns. Some say it’s actively pushing crypto firms out. Do you see this as an opportunity for Hong Kong? We’ve heard that quite a few firms are moving back from Singapore.

Chiu: I don’t think Hong Kong’s opportunity lies in policy shifts elsewhere. It’s really about the overall expansion of the Web3 market. The key is growing the pie — bringing more products to market and using Hong Kong’s regulatory clarity to attract those who want to experiment, issue, and scale different types of Web3 offerings.

For example, we just passed legislation on stablecoins. This gives some of the larger, more established projects a path to operate compliantly in Hong Kong. While successful stablecoins already exist, there’s still demand for government-recognized, legally compliant alternatives. Our goal is to enable products that haven’t yet emerged — or those with new variations — to flourish here.

If Hong Kong can offer strong, attractive products, capital will follow. Historically, much of our stock market funding has come from overseas — from family offices, professional investors, and more. That depth of capital has always been one of Hong Kong’s key advantages.

The question is whether our new products align with what professional investors want. If they do, we’ll see more “smart money” coming in to participate in this ecosystem. That’s the real value driver.

As for Singapore, I don’t think they’ve abandoned the space at all. They’re actively working on initiatives like their CBDC and have created deep regulatory frameworks for banks and financial institutions.

In some cases, it’s actually easier for global institutions to hold crypto assets in Singapore than in Hong Kong — that’s something we need to learn from. I believe Singapore’s current tightening is likely a short-term recalibration. In the long run, crypto is heading toward regulated growth, and more and more countries will follow suit. That’s the global direction.

Stablecoin Opportunities and the Case for a Hong Kong Dollar-Pegged Option

Colin: You mentioned that stablecoins are a hot topic this year. The mainland seems to be pushing hard, including exploring offshore RMB stablecoins. Some say Hong Kong could become the hub or gateway for stablecoins in the Greater China region. What’s your take? There are concerns it might end up as hype with little substance, given how dominant and mature USDT and USDC already are. Whether it’s HKD, USD, or RMB-based, where does Hong Kong stand? Do we have any competitive edge?

Chiu: First, I agree that stablecoins are still in their early days — just a few years old. The current global circulation is around $250–260 billion, but many market forecasts project that number growing to $1.1 or even $2.1 trillion. I won’t predict exact figures, but the growth potential is clearly there.

From the perspective of usability, cost, and transaction efficiency, stablecoins are incredibly practical. So yes, there’s significant market upside. That said, our focus isn’t on competing for a slice of the existing $250 billion pie. Instead, we’re targeting users who haven’t yet entered the stablecoin space.

In international trade, many companies — especially state-owned enterprises or listed firms — can’t accept non-compliant stablecoins. These institutions simply can’t handle what’s currently circulating in the market, which leaves a substantial unmet demand.

Then there’s the potential of an HKD-pegged stablecoin. The Hong Kong dollar is backed by USD at a 1:1 peg, structurally similar to a USD stablecoin. But if the world ever faced a dollar credibility issue, the HKD would still be backed not only by USD reserves but also by the Hong Kong government’s fiscal reserves.

I’m not saying the HKD is more stable than the USD, but structurally, it offers dual backing — USD plus government reserves — which could be seen as a strength. So purely from an asset-backing standpoint, the HKD stablecoin might actually have an edge in some areas. Of course, what ultimately matters is adoption — will users trust and use it?

As we discussed earlier, there are still many potential users and institutions that can’t or won’t use existing USD-based stablecoins. That’s already a sizable untapped market.

As for how much should be issued, that’s up to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. But once a compliant product is in place and demand is clear, I believe there will be plenty of uptake.

Will Hong Kong Crack Down on Unlicensed Projects? The Future of DeFi Regulation

Colin: There’s growing concern in the crypto industry about whether Hong Kong might follow Singapore’s lead and start pushing out all unlicensed crypto operators. Many companies are based in Hong Kong but don’t serve the local market — they target users abroad. Singapore has taken a stricter stance, especially on DeFi. What’s your view? Could Hong Kong require all unlicensed projects to leave?

Chiu: First of all, Hong Kong remains committed to a steady and cautious regulatory approach. That’s our core principle. We want businesses operating in Hong Kong to be licensed. If you’re promoting or offering services to local users, then yes, you must have a license — this is non-negotiable.

Now, if your business is based in Hong Kong but serves only overseas users, that’s a different matter and would depend on the specifics. But if you’re engaging with the local market, you’re expected to be licensed. That’s the clear direction.

Colin: What about DeFi? Since it’s by nature permissionless, would Hong Kong reject DeFi altogether or even ask those projects to leave?

Chiu: At the moment, there’s no discussion about banning DeFi or pushing those projects out. To be honest, there aren’t that many DeFi operators active in Hong Kong right now.

Our approach has always been demand-driven. If DeFi gains traction and there’s clear market interest, then of course the government will consider appropriate regulatory frameworks — whether that’s registration, licensing, or something else. Any decision will be based on data from market research.

We’ve been conducting ongoing surveys, asking industry players what kinds of business they’re doing in Hong Kong and what models they believe could or should fall under a licensing regime. We take that feedback seriously.

Going forward, we plan to roll out additional license types, such as custody and dealing licenses. The laws are also being updated to accommodate new models of product issuance and asset custody.

As for DeFi and DAOs, the global regulatory landscape is still unclear. No jurisdiction has nailed down a comprehensive framework yet. So we’ll continue monitoring how the space evolves and respond accordingly.

Hong Kong’s Role in the “Front Store, Back Factory” Model and Web3 Talent Strategy

Colin: Given the current geopolitical climate between China and the U.S., many hope Hong Kong can become a key Web3 gateway for Greater China. We’re already seeing a “front store, back factory” model — where executives and decision-makers are based in Hong Kong, while tech and operations teams are set up in Shenzhen, Hangzhou, or elsewhere in mainland China. What do you think of this setup? What role does Hong Kong play in this model?

Chiu: This model is already taking shape. From blockchain to crypto, a large portion of the technical talent — especially those working on infrastructure and core technologies — are Chinese. Most of the developers and engineers I meet come from Chinese-speaking regions, and Chinese professionals hold significant influence in this space.

Technology development demands constant innovation. Hong Kong’s strength lies in its well-established financial sector, which includes many top-tier professionals. The real opportunity here is combining talent from both finance and technology. That’s where I see the greatest potential for Hong Kong in Web3.

You mentioned Japan and Korea earlier. They’re more like standalone markets. In contrast, Hong Kong and Singapore serve as regional financial hubs. While Singapore moves quickly, its financial market doesn’t match Hong Kong in terms of depth or capital flow. Hong Kong simply has a much larger funding base and a more diverse range of financial products.

The Middle East has taken an earlier leap into Web3 and is more open to risk. But when it comes to product oversight and international credibility, there’s still a noticeable gap compared to Hong Kong.

So looking at Web3 from a broader perspective, I believe that as long as Hong Kong balances speed with stability, it will continue to hold a significant position in Asia.

Why U.S. Web3 Giants Are Cautious About Hong Kong — And How the City Should Respond

Colin: We’ve noticed that leading U.S. Web3 companies like Coinbase and Circle have chosen Singapore for their Asia-Pacific headquarters, and they seem to remain cautious about Hong Kong. What’s your take on this? Should Hong Kong do more to attract top American firms, or should it simply focus on serving the Greater China region?

Chiu: This issue involves many layers, particularly external factors — some within our control, others not. Our approach has always been to focus on what we can control and do it well.

When it comes to companies from overseas, our stance is open and welcoming, regardless of their country of origin. I can say confidently that businesses from around the world still operate in Hong Kong, and people from all backgrounds — including those from the U.S. and Europe — live and work here.

From a historical perspective, today’s geopolitical situation is just one brief moment in time. Things were different a decade ago, and they’ll likely be very different ten years from now. We’re not going to adjust our long-term strategy based on temporary international dynamics.

What Hong Kong must do is preserve its openness and global friendliness. That’s been a key factor in our success. In Web3, we need to focus on building a solid foundation — our legal framework, for example. If something isn’t working well, we work with regulators to improve it. If change isn’t possible at the moment, we accept that and keep moving forward.

We also need to stay open to innovation — what kinds of new products can be developed here? How can we support those within a compliant framework? That’s what really matters now.

It’s impossible to predict exactly where Web3 will be in five years. Just like AI, technological shifts will continue to reshape the landscape.

So rather than worry about the uncontrollable, Hong Kong should double down on what makes it strong: openness to global markets, minimal barriers to international capital, and a trusted legal and financial infrastructure.

That’s our competitive edge, and that’s what we should focus on.

Tokenized Stocks: Potential and Legal Hurdles in Hong Kong

Colin: Tokenized stocks have become a hot topic lately — notably with many U.S. stocks being tokenized. Some mainland China researchers have even suggested tokenizing Hong Kong or mainland stocks to attract global investors. But I heard that Hong Kong law mandates only the HKEX can trade stocks, which could legally shut this door. What’s your take? Is innovation still possible here?

Chiu: I believe this will require an interactive process and will depend on how the market evolves. Indeed, local players have already proposed tokenization strategies.

Regarding the legal barriers, the current regulations were designed years ago. They didn’t anticipate today’s technological capabilities, such as token or blockchain-based stock trading.

Moving forward, whether tokenization is viable will depend on market demand. Personally, I hope that in 10–15 years, not just stocks but bonds, real assets, and other traditional instruments can be traded on-chain. This would eliminate many intermediaries, reduce costs, and create a more efficient financial system — exactly the promise of blockchain technology. But achieving this will take time and hinges on technological development.

If we face tech setbacks — like hacks or critical security flaws — that could severely undermine confidence in on-chain markets.

Technology will evolve, but more importantly, users must have confidence. Only with trust can all financial products migrate on-chain. If that trust falters, the tokenization vision may slow or stall.

So this needs to be a gradual, phased process, constantly aligned with market needs and tech readiness, with regulatory frameworks evolving accordingly.

Colin: So at this stage, it remains a topic of discussion rather than action.

Chiu: Exactly. There’s interest and proposals, but we are still in the early exploratory phase.

Strategic Role of Web3 in Hong Kong and Its Complementary Position with Mainland China

Colin: One final question. You mentioned earlier that the U.S. now places AI and blockchain at the same strategic level — their “tech czar” oversees both areas. But if Hong Kong tries to develop AI, it faces intense talent competition from mainland hubs like Hangzhou, Beijing, and Shanghai, where Hong Kong doesn’t seem to have a clear advantage. Web3, however, seems like a natural fit for Hong Kong, especially given regulatory constraints in the mainland. Hong Kong could serve the broader Greater China region’s Web3 needs and talent. So how do the government, legislators, and leadership in Hong Kong view Web3? Is it seen as a pillar for Hong Kong’s future revival, or just another sector among many?

Chiu: I want to be clear once again — Hong Kong cannot and should not compete with the mainland. That’s never been the nature of our relationship; it has always been complementary. From the early “processing and assembly” model to helping mainland firms raise capital and go public in Hong Kong, to now assisting Chinese tech companies in going global — Hong Kong has always been a partner.

Hong Kong should serve as a window for Chinese technology to the world. We can help set globally trusted standards for AI, for example — how data is managed, how safe large language models (LLMs) are built. These are areas where Hong Kong plays a vital bridging role.

As you mentioned, building an AI engine may require thousands of engineers, and Hong Kong simply doesn’t have that talent pool. So we’re not competing — we’re here to empower mainland enterprises. Especially when it comes to collaboration with Shenzhen, I’ve never seen it as competition, but as a shared effort toward growth.

If people are still stuck in the mindset that Hong Kong is “competing” with the mainland, they’ve been misled — possibly by media narratives. The media loves dramatic language like “ruins,” but we don’t need to dwell on that. What matters is staying focused on doing the work. If there are issues with laws, market access, or regulation, and those issues are valid, we work to fix them.

That’s how Hong Kong has always succeeded. When things go well, we’re praised. When there’s turbulence, we’re doubted. If we get too caught up in those swings, we waste energy.

This current administration has actually been very efficient with legislation — whether in Web3, cybersecurity, or data protection. AI, at its core, is about data. Governing that data with internationally accepted standards is something Hong Kong can contribute to China’s AI strategy.

So I’m not concerned about “competition” at all. What we need to do is find Hong Kong’s role within the country’s broader tech blueprint — where we can contribute, where we can add value — and focus on doing that part well. That’s what really matters.

Follow us
Twitter: https://twitter.com/WuBlockchain
Telegram: https://t.me/wublockchainenglish