CZ Endorses Crypto License Passporting for ASEAN Markets

Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao has endorsed the concept of “license passporting” across ASEAN, arguing that crypto and stablecoin providers that are already regulated in one country should not have to restart the licensing process when expanding into neighboring markets.

Speaking Tuesday at the “One ASEAN, One Digital Economy” fireside chat during the ASEAN Tech Summit Manila 2026, Zhao backed an approach originally raised by FinTech Alliance PH founding chair Lito Villanueva: a simplified approval pathway—or license portability—so regulators can still conduct due diligence, but without forcing applicants to complete a wholly new application from scratch in each jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

• Zhao supports regulatory passporting across ASEAN to reduce the “apply from zero” burden for already-licensed crypto and stablecoin firms.
• He framed cross-border coordination as largely a political issue, while suggesting the underlying technology and compliance architecture are manageable.
• A streamlined regional licensing model could lower compliance costs and encourage competition across fragmented ASEAN rules.
• ASEAN has precedent for simplified cross-border authorization in other parts of finance, though crypto-specific passporting does not yet exist.
• The EU’s MiCA framework provides a clearer passporting example, highlighting the contrast between region-wide rules and ASEAN’s country-by-country regulatory environment.

Why “passporting” matters for crypto in ASEAN

ASEAN countries currently regulate digital assets through separate national frameworks, which can translate into multiple licensing processes for firms trying to operate regionally. Zhao’s argument is that this patchwork discourages cross-border expansion and increases overhead—both of which can slow access to new services and leave costs higher for users.

At the same time, Zhao did not suggest regulators would be sidelined. His core position was that regulators should retain the ability to review and assess applicants, but that the administrative burden should be lighter when a firm already holds a license in another participating market.

In practical terms, that distinction could matter most for compliance-heavy business models—such as custody, exchange operations, and certain stablecoin-related activities—where duplication of documentation, legal reviews, and internal controls can become expensive and time-consuming with each new country entry.

ASEAN already uses simplified approvals in other sectors

While ASEAN does not currently have a bloc-wide “passport” specifically for crypto companies, regulators have used streamlined cross-border mechanisms in capital markets to deepen integration. One example is the ASEAN Capital Markets Forum (ACMF) framework for Collective Investment Schemes (CIS).

According to the ACMF, its 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 initiative began operating in Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand in 2014, and later expanded when the Philippines joined in 2021. The ACMF describes the Philippines’ entry as an enhancement to ASEAN capital markets connectivity. (See: ACMF CIS cross-border framework and ACMF news release on Philippines entry.)

Separately, the ACMF has also introduced the “ACMF Pass” under its Professional Mobility Framework. This arrangement enables eligible investment advisers licensed in one participating jurisdiction to receive fast-track registration to provide advisory services in another jurisdiction without obtaining another full license. The ACMF details the Professional Mobility initiative and related arrangements on its website. (See: ACMF Professional Mobility and ACMF announcement.)

Zhao’s crypto “passporting” idea is broader than these finance-specific programs, but the examples underscore a key point for investors and operators: ASEAN regulators have, in practice, found ways to use mutual recognition and simplified approvals in areas where rules differ across member states.

Europe’s MiCA shows how passporting can work in practice

A closer analogue outside ASEAN is the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) regime, which includes passporting rights for authorized crypto-asset service providers. Under the approach described in earlier reporting, an authorized provider can offer services across EU member states after notifying its home regulator about the countries and services involved. (See: Cointelegraph’s coverage of MiCA passporting.)

Zhao’s comments suggest he sees alignment across ASEAN as more difficult than building common technical rails, partly because policy and regulatory approaches vary between countries. Still, his central claim remains: the pathway for a firm already licensed in one ASEAN market should be meaningfully easier when it enters another—provided regulators can still evaluate the application on its substance.

What changes—and what remains uncertain

If ASEAN regulators adopted a passporting or license portability model for crypto, the biggest immediate change would likely be operational: firms could focus compliance resources on meeting baseline requirements, rather than rebuilding licensing dossiers for each country. That could also affect market dynamics by making it easier for licensed operators to expand service offerings, potentially improving competition and reducing consumer-facing costs over time—an outcome Zhao explicitly tied to broader regional participation.

However, a major uncertainty remains how “lighter” the process could realistically be under current political and regulatory structures. Even within systems that use simplified approvals, host jurisdictions often still apply their own rules or requirements. In other words, passporting can reduce duplication without eliminating local oversight.

For readers watching ASEAN’s crypto landscape, the next signal to track would be whether regional bodies or individual regulators begin converging on shared standards for licensing and ongoing supervision—especially for businesses tied to stablecoins and custody/exchange services, where risk controls are central.

Zhao’s endorsement highlights that the technology for cross-border licensing mechanics is not the main barrier; coordination among regulators is. The practical question now is whether ASEAN moves from principles like mutual recognition and streamlined approvals in capital markets toward comparable frameworks for crypto—without compromising local regulatory objectives.