Recently, the UK government is discussing a proposal to restrict the use of Crypto Assets for political donations, with the official reason being to prevent foreign interference. However, behind this move, there may be a more complex power struggle.

Let's first look at an interesting phenomenon. The Reform Party in the UK has been gaining momentum recently, with some of its funding sources including Crypto Assets donations. The party leader Farage has even publicly expressed support for the encryption industry. This is not an isolated case—during last year's US election, after a certain candidate started accepting Crypto Assets donations, the related sector tokens surged by 40% in a short period. Why are political figures suddenly interested in this field?

The answer may be straightforward: young voters, tech communities, and advocates of decentralization are becoming voices that cannot be ignored. The traditional donation system has banks, audits, and layers of traceability, while on-chain donations are more flexible, more transparent (to some extent), and also harder for the old system to completely control.

So when the government proposes restrictions, what do you think they are worried about? Are they really afraid of foreign intervention, or are they just uncomfortable with this new type of capital flow? History tells us that whenever new things start to challenge the existing order, the first reaction is often to impose limits. Didn't the early days of the internet and the rise of social media go through similar doubts and restrictions?

For ordinary investors, these policy trends are actually a signal. It's not about being blindly optimistic, but about seeing the trend clearly: encryption is no longer just a speculative tool; it's penetrating more social levels. Regulation will come, volatility will continue, but those who can understand the underlying logic often go further than those who just focus on the candlestick charts.

Market fluctuations are cyclical, but understanding the essence of things is the long-term advantage. When the traditional system begins to take a certain field seriously, it indicates that this field has gained significance. What do you think about this policy discussion in the UK?