China’s State Council has released a document containing 19 policy measures. One of them is:
Build a national blockchain network.
Other proposals include a nationwide integrated computing power network, the digital upgrading of manufacturing, a mechanism for cross-border data flows, and the transfer of computing power under the “East Data, West Computing” initiative.
This is a signal worth pausing to think through:
China still bans retail cryptocurrency trading and the operation of domestic crypto trading platforms.
But the State Council is now building blockchain as national-level infrastructure.
These two things aren’t contradictory—in Beijing’s logic, what’s banned is decentralized speculative trading, not blockchain technology itself. A national blockchain network means state control over access, data sovereignty, and standard-setting—as well as a potential export architecture for rolling out this system to allied economies.
This marks a clear divergence from the direction the West is taking:
In the U.S., public blockchains such as Ethereum and Solana are attracting institutional capital, the SEC has issued an innovation exemption allowing tokenized stocks, and stablecoin legislation is moving forward. This is an open, minimally permissioned approach.
In China, the digital yuan pilot—which already involves 30 banks—is now being joined by a national blockchain network. This is a permissioned, state-led approach.
Both paths are advancing rapidly, but in completely different directions.
For BTC: building a national-level blockchain is an endorsement of blockchain technology’s legitimacy—but the core of China’s model is state control, which directly conflicts with BTC’s decentralized ethos. The short-term sentiment is positive; over the long term, they are in competition.
Do you think national blockchains and public blockchains will ultimately coexist or clash?
$BTC
#国务院提出建设国家区块链网络
Build a national blockchain network.
Other proposals include a nationwide integrated computing power network, the digital upgrading of manufacturing, a mechanism for cross-border data flows, and the transfer of computing power under the “East Data, West Computing” initiative.
This is a signal worth pausing to think through:
China still bans retail cryptocurrency trading and the operation of domestic crypto trading platforms.
But the State Council is now building blockchain as national-level infrastructure.
These two things aren’t contradictory—in Beijing’s logic, what’s banned is decentralized speculative trading, not blockchain technology itself. A national blockchain network means state control over access, data sovereignty, and standard-setting—as well as a potential export architecture for rolling out this system to allied economies.
This marks a clear divergence from the direction the West is taking:
In the U.S., public blockchains such as Ethereum and Solana are attracting institutional capital, the SEC has issued an innovation exemption allowing tokenized stocks, and stablecoin legislation is moving forward. This is an open, minimally permissioned approach.
In China, the digital yuan pilot—which already involves 30 banks—is now being joined by a national blockchain network. This is a permissioned, state-led approach.
Both paths are advancing rapidly, but in completely different directions.
For BTC: building a national-level blockchain is an endorsement of blockchain technology’s legitimacy—but the core of China’s model is state control, which directly conflicts with BTC’s decentralized ethos. The short-term sentiment is positive; over the long term, they are in competition.
Do you think national blockchains and public blockchains will ultimately coexist or clash?
$BTC
#国务院提出建设国家区块链网络