Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao has endorsed a proposal for “license passporting” across ASEAN, arguing that crypto firms already authorized in one country should not have to restart the licensing process from scratch when expanding to neighboring markets.
Zhao made the remarks during a fireside chat at the ASEAN Tech Summit Manila 2026 on Tuesday, backing an idea raised by Lito Villanueva, founding chair of FinTech Alliance PH. The core concept is a simplified approval pathway—while still allowing regulators to assess applicants—so that cross-border operations can be reviewed without duplicating every step of initial authorization.
Key takeaways
- Zhao argues ASEAN could enable crypto license portability, reducing the need for firms to reapply from scratch in each member state.
- The proposal is framed as “simplified authorization” rather than full deregulation: regulators would still retain review power.
- ASEAN already uses cross-border frameworks in other financial areas, offering precedents for streamlined regional processes.
- Analogies to the EU’s crypto passporting approach suggest a path forward, but ASEAN’s policy fragmentation could slow standardization.
Why passporting matters for ASEAN crypto and stablecoins
ASEAN member states regulate digital assets through separate national regimes, which can create multiple parallel compliance pathways for companies attempting regional expansion. Zhao’s argument centers on how that fragmentation affects both operational costs and competitive dynamics.
A regional licensing framework, proponents say, could lower compliance expenses and make it easier for crypto and stablecoin services to operate across borders. Zhao also linked passporting to consumer outcomes, suggesting that expanding the set of platforms able to compete through lighter processes could reduce costs and improve service quality.
He characterized the biggest obstacle as political rather than technical, adding that the underlying “technology” of coordinating authorization should not be the deciding factor. For investors and market participants, the practical implication is that clearer and less duplicative regulatory pathways could support more consistent regional market access—potentially affecting liquidity, product availability, and the speed at which regulated offerings scale.
ASEAN’s existing playbook: streamlined approvals in other sectors
While ASEAN does not currently operate a bloc-wide “passport” specifically for crypto firms, regional regulators have created mechanisms that resemble elements of mutual recognition and simplified cross-border authorization in capital markets.
According to the ASEAN Capital Markets Forum (ACMF), the ASEAN Capital Markets Forum’s Collective Investment Schemes Framework allows a fund authorized in its home jurisdiction to be offered in participating host jurisdictions through a streamlined authorization process. The framework was first operationalized in Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand in 2014, and the Philippines joined in 2021, based on an ACMF news release stating that ASEAN capital markets connectivity would be enhanced with the Philippines’ entry into the scheme.
The ACMF has also introduced the ACMF Pass under its Professional Mobility Framework. The program enables eligible investment advisers licensed in one participating jurisdiction to receive fast-track registration to provide advisory services in another, without obtaining a new license.
These frameworks are narrower than the “passporting” approach Villanueva and Zhao discussed for crypto firms. They do not eliminate host-market requirements, and the review still ultimately depends on what host jurisdictions require. Still, they show that ASEAN regulators have already experimented with regional integration tools that reduce redundancy and speed up cross-border market entry—an important reference point for any push toward license portability in digital assets.
Notably, these regional arrangements also help explain how a passporting model might be structured to satisfy regulators: authorization can be streamlined through predefined criteria and processes, while host markets maintain the ability to enforce local rules.
What the EU’s crypto-asset passporting shows—and what ASEAN may differ on
Zhao’s comments also echo a familiar global comparator: the European Union’s approach under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). In the EU, an authorized crypto-asset service provider can use passporting rights to provide services across member states after notifying its home regulator of the countries and the specific services involved, according to prior reporting that discussed early tests as national regulators pushed back against passporting.
However, Zhao highlighted a key constraint: differences in national policy priorities and regulatory approaches can make alignment harder in ASEAN than in the EU. That said, his stance remains that a firm already licensed in one ASEAN market should face a lighter process when entering another—suggesting that “full harmonization” may not be required for progress, even if perfect uniformity is still unlikely.
For readers evaluating the potential impact, the most important takeaway is the distinction between two extremes. On one end is a fully unified bloc-wide regime; on the other is complete duplication of licensing in every jurisdiction. Passporting, as described here, aims to live in the middle—preserving regulatory oversight while cutting down repetitive administrative work.
Next steps: what investors and builders should watch
Whether ASEAN moves toward license portability for crypto will depend on how regulators balance political coordination with market needs for clarity and scale. The immediate signal to monitor is whether proposals like this shift from concept to an actionable framework—particularly around what would be required for streamlined cross-border authorization, how host jurisdictions would apply conditions, and where regulators draw the line between portability and re-licensing.
Be the first to comment