Interview with Circle's Vice President of Strategy and Policy: The Latest Turning Point in Cryptocurrency Presents an Opportunity for Asia to Take the Lead

By WILL FEE, Forkast News

Translated by hiiro, SevenUpDAO Overseas Returnees Guild

Regulatory conflict and confusion in the U.S. digital asset industry have prompted policymakers and Web3 developers elsewhere to stand up and recognize an emerging opportunity. Across Asia, governments in jurisdictions such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan are establishing new roadmaps to attract investment and jobs from these nascent industries—while the United States remains distracted by debates over cryptocurrency definitions and ongoing litigation.

Yam Ki Chan of Circle—the Boston-based issuer of the world’s second-largest stablecoin, USDC—says it's too early to declare the death of the U.S. digital asset market. But he adds that Asia’s ongoing shift from Web2 consumers to Web3 creators presents the region with a chance to play a central role in shaping the global digital asset industry.

Chan spoke with Forkast’s Will Fee at the WebX conference held in Tokyo on July 25–26.

This article has been edited.

Will Fee: You joined Circle this April from Google in Hong Kong, after serving as Asia economic policy lead in the Obama administration. How has the transition into the digital asset industry been for you?

Yam Ki Chan: I’ve learned a lot. It’s a very dynamic industry, as you can see here at WebX. As I’ve attended various conferences since joining, I’ve seen how excited the entire community is. This is still a very nascent industry, and I think much of it relies on the ecosystem working together. We all want to see this ecosystem function. We all want to see it thrive. And we’re also collectively striving to improve transparency, consumer protection, and overall industry stability.

Fee: Corey Then, Circle’s global policy vice president, said in a previous interview that regulatory scrutiny in the U.S. will have a long-term positive impact on the development of the digital asset industry. Do you agree with that view?

Chan: Absolutely. Before all this, I was a crypto skeptic. I’m a traditional finance (TradFi) person. My first job out of college was at an investment bank in Silicon Valley—a tech-focused investment bank, but still an investment bank. Then I worked at hedge funds, microfinance institutions, and the U.S. Treasury. So very traditional finance. There are many valid reasons for people outside the crypto industry to be skeptical, to genuinely wonder and question—what does this thing actually do? And the industry hasn’t helped itself; over the past 12 to 18 months, we’ve seen a lot of bad behavior from various participants.

Now, the industry is cleaning house, and policymakers are stepping in to set clearer rules about how they want the industry to operate. I think in the past, policymakers hesitated because they weren’t sure whether this would last or just be a passing fad. But now we’ve seen several cycles in the crypto industry, and each time, its equilibrium state grows a little larger. We’re also seeing traditional financial firms seriously engaging with the space—for example, Citadel Securities backing a decentralized exchange and BlackRock filing for a Bitcoin ETF.

So we’re reaching a turning point where bad actors are being removed, and traditional financial institutions are beginning to offer tangible, visible products in this space. Then, the final missing piece we believe is coming is the shift from the speculative phase of digital assets to the utility phase—and legislation and policy will only help accelerate that transition.

Fee: When you joined Circle, you were quoted as believing the company’s role as a stablecoin issuer and Web3 developer is to increase global economic prosperity. You're now based in Singapore. How do you see this mission playing out across broader Asia?

Chan: We’re now seeing stablecoins used in payments, which is very interesting—especially as it’s highly relevant to Asia. Trade-to-GDP ratios in Asian economies are higher than in the U.S. or Europe (when you exclude intra-European trade, since that’s essentially one monetary system). As a result, Asian businesses pay a higher proportion of their revenue toward transaction costs.

This affects not only their costs but also their settlement times. In Asia, many companies operate across different countries. You might be a business based in Osaka with customers in Taipei or Seoul, so you accept New Taiwan dollars or Korean won. Meanwhile, your suppliers and manufacturers may be in Vietnam or Thailand, and you need to pay them in Vietnamese dong or Thai baht. All these transactions are expensive for the average Asian business. That’s not the case if you’re manufacturing in Germany and selling to France, or producing in Oklahoma and selling to Colorado. So these costs really do impact businesses here—and disproportionately so.

Another aspect is trade finance. The Asian Development Bank estimates a $500 billion financing gap in Asia. Many of these businesses want to export but can’t because they can’t secure funding—whether working capital, loans, insurance, or other forms of financing they need to produce goods and ship them overseas before receiving payment. Stablecoins could help fill part of this gap.

Then there’s cross-border remittances. Across Asia, there are many migrant workers who must send money home and face high transaction fees—around 5.9% per transaction on average for a $200 transfer. We believe stablecoins offer a digitally native way to reduce transaction costs, shorten settlement times, and make users safer. This isn’t just through full reserves, transparency, and regulation, but also by existing directly on users’ mobile phones—which are now ubiquitous across Asia and the world.

You no longer need to go to a bank, stand in line, hope you’re not robbed, deposit your money, and hope the bank remains solvent so it can eventually send funds to your family on the other side of the world. Now, I can send money home with just a few clicks. So this is truly exciting.

Will Fee: Given the regulatory stalemate in the U.S., there’s an argument that Web3 companies might choose to leave the West—particularly the U.S.—and move to Asian jurisdictions more favorable to their activities. Do you believe this is happening? If so, where is the evidence?

Yam Ki Chan: A smart person can hold two contradictory thoughts as true. So yes, it’s happening. No, it’s not—because ultimately, the U.S. remains a very important and vibrant market. It’s a large market, even though it still lacks regulatory clarity. But it’s moving toward clarity. There is legislation now on Capitol Hill that would provide exactly that. We strongly support it.

At the same time, Asian nations aren’t standing still. They’ve seen this pattern before. If you step back and look at the evolution of the internet, Web1 and Web2 were primarily driven by U.S. companies expanding their products overseas. Asia was the consumer. Google created a search engine and put it online—anyone could use it. It wasn’t until the latter half of Web2 that three things converged to enable creation in Asia, allowing Asia to become a creator.

Those three things were: affordable yet powerful smartphones, cheap and accessible high-bandwidth broadband, and—critically—the emergence of developers. The region benefits from a broadly young population that grew up with the internet and intuitively understands this as their global opportunity. That inspired them to start building.

Across Asia, there are countless companies that haven’t yet gone global but are already regional players and leaders in their respective countries. Interestingly, as we look ahead to Web3, these companies—and policymakers—are saying, wait, we have a chance to leapfrog other regions and truly lead here. The question becomes: how can we leverage our talent, open-source technology, and growing market scale to truly build for ourselves—so we’re not just consumers, but creators and owners of technology?

I believe it’s because of this mindset that Asian nations have been leading efforts to establish new industry rules. More coordination will be needed. But they’re ready. They want to be prepared to go there, especially once the U.S. achieves greater clarity. But even without that, they’ll do their best to support industry growth.