这是加密寒冬吗？市场格局早已不同
这是加密寒冬吗？市场格局早已不同
Crypto markets have always been cyclical. When prices trend down, liquidity dries up, and narratives turn from “mass adoption” to “is crypto dead again?”, the phrase crypto winter quickly returns.
But here’s the key: today’s downturns are not playing out on the same stage as 2014, 2018, or even 2022. Regulation has moved from “after-the-fact enforcement” to system-level rulemaking, institutions now participate through regulated rails, and user priorities have shifted toward security, transparency, and self-custody.
This article expands on the “post-regulation market shift” discussion and updates it with what changed through 2025 and into early 2026.
What “crypto winter” used to mean
Historically, a crypto winter wasn’t just a price drawdown. It was usually a confidence crisis triggered by one (or more) of the following:
- A major custody or exchange failure that undermined trust
- A leverage unwind that forced sellers into a thin market
- Regulatory shocks that cut off fiat rails or market access
- A long period where builders kept building, but capital largely stopped flowing
1) 2014: Mt. Gox and the “exchange trust” shock
The first widely recognized crypto winter began in 2014, when Mt. Gox—then a dominant Bitcoin venue—collapsed after massive losses of customer funds and bankruptcy proceedings. This wasn’t just a market crash; it was a lesson that “leaving coins on an exchange” could be existentially risky. For a snapshot of how the situation unfolded, see CNBC’s coverage of Mt. Gox’s bankruptcy-era disclosures and wallet findings (CNBC report).
Market takeaway: trust was concentrated in a few centralized points, and when one failed, the whole market froze.
2) 2018: the ICO bust and demand evaporation
2018 was defined by the post-ICO hangover: too many tokens, too little product-market fit, and a demand collapse. Bitcoin’s drawdown exceeded 80% from its prior peak, and the broader market repriced “growth” narratives to near zero. A contemporary overview of that drawdown is captured here (CNBC analysis).
Market takeaway: speculative issuance can outpace real utility, and liquidity can disappear faster than expected.
3) 2022: systemic contagion (stablecoins, lenders, exchanges)
The 2022 cycle was different: interconnected leverage, opaque balance sheets, and failures that cascaded across the industry. The Terra ecosystem collapse alone wiped out tens of billions in value and triggered a chain reaction of deleveraging (one summary: AP coverage on the Terra fallout). Later, the FTX bankruptcy cemented the idea that governance and internal controls matter as much as technology (context: AP reporting on FTX’s insolvency and bankruptcy process).
Market takeaway: “counterparty risk” is not a meme—it is the core risk in centralized finance-like crypto structures.
What changed: regulation is now reshaping the market structure
If earlier winters were defined by what broke, the current era is increasingly defined by what’s being built around crypto: licensing, stablecoin rules, disclosure regimes, and operational resilience standards.
The EU: MiCA is live, and compliance is becoming measurable
The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) is no longer theoretical. Stablecoin-related provisions began applying in mid-2024, and the broader framework applied from late 2024, with transitional periods in some jurisdictions. The European Commission’s own update summarizes these application dates clearly (European Commission — Digital Finance update).
More importantly for users: enforcement is becoming visible. ESMA is publishing an Interim MiCA Register—including authorized crypto-asset service providers and other disclosures—with updates continuing into 2026 (ESMA MiCA page and register downloads).
Why this matters in a downturn: when markets fall, users care less about hype and more about which entities are licensed, how custody is handled, and what disclosures exist.
Operational resilience is now part of the conversation (not optional)
Even outside “crypto-specific” rules, financial-sector requirements increasingly affect crypto service providers and their vendors. The EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) entered into application on January 17, 2025 (EBA note on DORA application).
Why this matters: security incidents and downtime aren’t just technical problems anymore—they can become compliance and continuity risks that define winners and losers in the next cycle.
The U.S.: stablecoin regulation became law, market structure is still evolving
A major shift arrived on July 18, 2025, when the U.S. signed the GENIUS Act into law, establishing a federal framework for payment stablecoins (White House signing statement; legislative record: Congress.gov — S.1582).
Meanwhile, broader market structure legislation has continued moving through Congress. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 passed the House and was received in the Senate in September 2025 (Congress.gov — H.R.3633 status).
Why this matters in “winter” conditions: regulatory clarity does not guarantee higher prices, but it can reduce tail risks—especially around stablecoins, disclosures, and intermediaries.
What changed: the “plumbing” of the crypto economy is more mature
Even when prices drop, several structural trends have continued through 2025:
1) Institutional access via ETFs changed liquidity dynamics
Spot Bitcoin ETFs created a regulated channel for demand and supply to express itself—sometimes smoothing market access, sometimes amplifying flows. For readers tracking this closely, Farside publishes a widely used daily Bitcoin ETF flow data dashboard (Farside Investors — Bitcoin ETF flows).
Practical impact: in earlier winters, the market was dominated by offshore leverage and fragmented venues. Today, a meaningful share of marginal activity can occur through regulated products and transparent flows.
2) Stablecoins shifted from “crypto-native rails” to a regulated policy priority
Stablecoins are now discussed alongside payments, banking competition, and financial stability—especially with U.S. legislation and EU rules in force. That means stablecoin design, reserves, redemption, and disclosures are no longer niche debates; they are policy-level questions.
3) Tokenization (RWA) kept expanding—even while prices cooled
A major 2025 narrative was the rise of real-world asset tokenization: tokenized private credit, Treasuries, and settlement experiments. Separately, the BIS has been explicit that tokenization can improve market efficiency, while also warning that stablecoins fall short as the foundation of a sound monetary system unless properly regulated (BIS press release on tokenised unified ledger; detailed chapter: BIS Annual Economic Report 2025, Chapter III).
Why this matters: “winter” used to mean builders lost funding and institutions ignored crypto. In the current cycle, tokenization and regulated settlement discussions continued even as market sentiment fluctuated.
So… is this a crypto winter?
It depends on whether you define winter as price or as market function.
A useful way to decide is to ask three questions:
-
Is capital permanently leaving, or temporarily repricing risk?
ETF flows and institutional activity suggest risk is repriced quickly—but access remains. -
Are core rails breaking, or being rebuilt with rules?
MiCA registers, stablecoin laws, and resilience standards suggest rails are being formalized, not abandoned. -
Are users forced to exit, or forced to mature?
The post-2022 lesson was clear: self-custody, proof-of-reserves awareness, and counterparty skepticism have moved from “advanced user topics” to mainstream concerns.
In that sense, today looks less like a deep freeze and more like a post-regulation market reset: speculation cools, weak intermediaries struggle, but foundational infrastructure keeps moving.
What users should focus on during downturns (the non-price checklist)
Regardless of whether you call it a crypto winter, bear markets are when operational discipline matters most.
1) Reduce counterparty concentration
If one platform failure can wipe out your access, you don’t have diversification—you have a single point of failure.
2) Treat self-custody as a long-term strategy, not a panic move
Self-custody is easiest to set up before markets become chaotic. Hardware wallets help isolate private keys from internet-connected devices, reducing the attack surface for malware and phishing.
3) Verify what you can, assume less, and document more
- Keep an inventory of addresses and assets
- Store backups securely (and test recovery)
- Separate daily-use funds from long-term holdings
- Be cautious with blind signing and approvals
Where OneKey fits (when “market structure” becomes personal security)
If regulation is reshaping exchanges and stablecoins, the parallel shift is happening at the user level: the market is gradually rediscovering that security is a feature, not an afterthought.
For long-term holders, a hardware wallet like OneKey can be a practical part of that shift because it is designed around self-custody, keeping private keys offline while still supporting day-to-day on-chain usage through a smoother UX. In a market defined by post-regulation transparency and recurring counterparty lessons, that “own your keys” mindset is often the difference between riding out volatility and being forced out by someone else’s failure.
Closing thought
Every cycle has its own trigger. 2014 was about exchange trust, 2018 was about speculative excess, 2022 was about interconnected leverage. The 2025–2026 era is increasingly about rules, registries, resilience, and regulated rails—a market that is still volatile, but structurally more mature.
So if you’re asking “Is this a crypto winter?”, the more actionable question might be:
Is your setup built to survive the next one—regardless of what we call it?
