CZ와 우드의 첫 번째 연결: 블록체인을 모르는 CEO는 도태될 것; 2026년 비트코인 4년 주기 깨질 것

Original Link: ARK INVEST: From Binance To Beyond: CZ Predicts Crypto’s Next Phase

Translation & Editing by CryptoLeo (@LeoAndCrypto)

CZ and Cathie Wood have rarely crossed paths, but whenever they do, it sends ripples through the industry. Their only existing connection is rooted in the crypto sector: Cathie Wood has been a long-term bull on Bitcoin, with her Ark Invest releasing multiple reports evaluating Bitcoin's future prospects; CZ, the founder of the industry's leading exchange, also maintains a long-term optimistic outlook on Bitcoin.

Recently, CZ appeared for the first time on Cathie Wood’s Ark Invest FYI podcast (click to watch). CZ shared his story about Binance and his views on the crypto industry. Cathie Wood also recommended CZ’s new book, "The Binance Life," to the audience, calling his story inspiring. Additionally, at the end of the podcast, Cathie Wood addressed the "1011" market incident, clarifying that it was not triggered by Binance but by panic over tariffs. Below is a concise summary by Odaily.

Traditional Finance Boosts Bitcoin, AI, Stablecoins, and Tokenization

Cathie Wood: Which areas do you think have developed slower/faster than you expected?

CZ: First, I expected crypto payments to be widely adopted by now, but they aren't. Most people don't use cryptocurrency for payments. Many merchants are unaware of the convenience of crypto payments, which are similar to Visa or Mastercard.

In the past year, the pace of institutional participation in cryptocurrency in the US has been very fast. The Biden administration hindered crypto innovation; many builders of large crypto projects were sued by the SEC, causing people to turn to Meme coins while few truly useful applications were developed. However, I don't think crypto development is in a vacuum; it's just much slower than I anticipated. I hope pro-crypto regulations in the US pass quickly so we can see more of this development and innovation.

Many things have diverged from my expectations, but we will fill the gaps and continue to develop over time.

Secondly, the rise of stablecoins and the popularity of AI Agents. I believe AI will help in many ways. First, the trading volume of AI Agents is far higher than humans. Also, AI will use cryptocurrencies. They won't use traditional financial systems for payments; crypto is more convenient. Furthermore, I think AI will increase development speed. AI coding can greatly accelerate code writing, though it's not yet fully automated (perhaps soon). AI can also help build applications faster, like more user-friendly wallets, more secure wallets, and faster chains.

The development of stablecoins has also exceeded my expectations. Back in 2014 when Tether was just starting, and even in 2017 when Binance listed USDT, I thought stablecoins were just a temporary measure to hold a value pegged to fiat currency during market downturns. Another interesting thing is that I didn't expect gold trading to be so active in the crypto industry. I recall Binance only listed a gold token about two months ago, and now it's the largest gold trading venue outside of traditional markets, with gold accounting for up to 10% of our contract trading volume – crazy! And Binance recently launched oil trading. We are witnessing the fusion of traditional assets and crypto, a trend that originally stemmed from the tokenization of assets like stocks, as people often mention.

Cathie Wood: Larry Fink foresaw asset tokenization about two or three years ago, which also provided ideas for traditional finance. (Even during the Biden administration) Why have these traditional assets gained such a large volume in the crypto industry in such a short time?

CZ: I think Larry certainly has his network, especially in traditional financial markets. The messages Larry conveys are often seen as primary information by global leaders, other financial institutions, and traditional institutional investors. He has established connections with global leaders. Furthermore, he is forward-thinking, believing that everything will be tokenized and possesses sufficient trading volume. Frankly, although I have worked in traditional finance before, my understanding of the money market is not as deep as Larry's. I am essentially a technical person. His understanding of the industry and his support have greatly boosted asset tokenization. What I didn't expect is that Binance now has over 300 million users who genuinely have demand. As I mentioned earlier, the cryptocurrency space currently lacks quality assets. In the past four years, not many good projects have emerged, so people are trading Meme coins, which is just one category. Now, when tokenized assets like gold and oil become available for global crypto investors to trade, their trading volume will increase due to geopolitical tensions and high asset volatility. It's only a matter of time.

Cathie Wood: Do you think traditional finance is adopting cryptocurrency because they believe it will lower costs and eliminate friction? Or is it because they see the technology stimulating more financial activity?

CZ: That's a great question. I think they see the potential of cryptocurrency. The trading volume on Binance or other crypto exchanges/chains is enormous; the potential is huge, so they have to seize the trend. On the other hand, this new technology also reduces fees and costs. So, in the short term, profits might decrease, but trading volume will increase. Ideally, if you reduce fees by 50%, your trading volume could double, quintuple, or even increase tenfold. As the technology evolves, fees will keep getting lower. If you don't lower fees, you'll lose market share. Traditional finance has realized this, and it's another factor driving their adoption of crypto: charging customers less to attract more customers.

Cathie Wood: Yes, when we enter a technology-driven disruptive phase, the traditional world usually fights against it. But now they seem to be embracing the new technology. Perhaps, as you said, they have to, or they'll lose significant market share. But comparatively, crypto-native participants are more likely to be winners because they aren't bound by legacy constraints. What are your thoughts?

CZ: I think there's a very delicate balance. Some CEOs of large traditional finance companies might think, "I won't be at this company for long; I'll just maintain the status quo." They just want to do their job well. But the next CEO might think, "I'll be here for five or ten years; I want the company to have a long-term vision." Also, public companies typically have short time windows; they need to report earnings every quarter. So, there's always a balance between short-term and long-term thinking. However, if a company focuses solely on short-term thinking without adopting a long-term strategy, they will suffer losses.

As you said, crypto-native companies don't have that burden; they are startups. They can adopt innovative strategies. Private companies usually have a longer-term perspective than public ones. Therefore, adopting crypto might be disadvantageous for public companies in the short term, but the trend of crypto adoption will continue in the long run. Whoever adopts the better technology that saves costs and improves efficiency will win; those who don't will be negatively impacted. So, even if a CEO of a large traditional finance company doesn't change in the next two years, they will eventually lose a lot of business and be forced to change.

Blockchain technology and AI are rapidly converging, and AI is developing faster than any other technology we've seen before, providing faster feedback. A CEO might think that if they don't use AI and blockchain, they could be fired within a year. In the internet era, if a CIO of a financial company didn't consider cloud computing, they would be fired. If a CTO doesn't consider AI, they will be fired soon. If a CEO doesn't consider blockchain, they might also be phased out. Perhaps we will soon reach that stage.

Everything Exchange: Keep an Open Mind, Embrace All Integrations

Cathie Wood: Regarding Binance, there are so many competitors with vast resources. I wonder how you've managed to stay number one in the industry for all these years?

CZ: There are several different reasons. First, we always prioritize protecting our users above our profits. So, whenever an unexpected situation arises, our first move is to protect the users. The users know this too. Second, we are very lucky to have a wider coverage. Over the past decade, regulatory uncertainty has been quite severe. Some exchanges are more or less constrained by the country they belong to. If that country supports cryptocurrency, they do well; if that country is against it, they don't do as well.

Binance goes wherever there is support. We attract a small portion of users from each country or those that support crypto. Cumulatively, this makes for a very large number of users, which leads to the best liquidity. And when you have the best liquidity, users choose you, creating a network effect. So far, we have always kept our company costs very low. Binance has a few offices, all small, and we don't waste much money. Our work-from-home policy also keeps costs low. I truly hope Binance can maintain its startup feel, even though it's now a huge team.

Furthermore, there's a trust issue in the crypto industry, especially towards CEXs. We have been number one for a long time, have high trading volume, and have always been very secure, which builds trust. Some similar companies in the US have costs that are too high, and fees are too high, but US users have no choice but to use those platforms, creating almost a monopoly in their own market. I think the US should open up to global competition, which would bring down prices. Consumers would have more choices, which would also increase crypto penetration in the US, benefiting current American companies in the long run.

Cathie Wood: How do you view the future of crypto exchanges like Binance and Coinbase? We talked about other asset classes coming on-chain. Do you think the "everything exchange" we often hear about, like Coinbase, will really trade every asset class? Now we see prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket emerging. How do you see the future development of these exchanges?

CZ: The industry might evolve in several different ways. Everyone wants to be the everything exchange trading everything. This will largely happen. Binance now trades oil and gold, something I wouldn't have dared to think about a year ago. Coinbase will likely do the same, and other exchanges will follow. Binance has also recently integrated with prediction markets, and I believe other exchanges will do similar things. Some exchanges might even launch their own prediction markets if they get licensed.

With the advent of new technology, a single platform cannot exclude intermediate players. You don't need that many different platforms. We don't like the word "centralized," but this is centralization/concentration, it's a network effect. At the same time, there are regional differences and user differences. For example, when non-technical users enter the crypto space, they might prefer using a CEX over a DEX. However, once the technology becomes more advanced, and ordinary people (non-technical) can use self-custody wallet tools more easily and safely, they might switch to DEXs. So, it depends on which side develops faster. If 10% or 20% of the global population suddenly switches to crypto, CEXs will scale rapidly, while DEXs will stay stable for a while. But if people gradually and increasingly move to DEXs, we might see DEXs developing faster than CEXs. Currently, using a DEX still involves dealing with wallets, addresses, etc., which might be complex for some people. Most non-technical people don't want to deal with that. So, it's hard to say which direction it will go.

I think with the SEC announcing a positive and encouraging regulatory stance towards DEXs, the US might ease up on policies and trading categories. The CFTC also seems very supportive of the derivatives market.

Exchanges need to think about how to integrate with this, or simply launch their own derivatives markets. I think all of this is likely to happen. The US currently has a regulatory policy advantage, and we might see exchanges in a certain region develop faster than the rest of the world under favorable regulation. It's hard to say, but for Binance, I encourage keeping an open mind and being open to all places that are open.

Coinbase has a great opportunity. You invested in Coinbase. They have done excellently over the past 14 or 15 years and have weathered all the US regulatory issues. I think for a long time, multiple exchanges will continue to exist.

Stablecoin Landscape May See a Flourishing of Diverse Players

Cathie Wood: In terms of regulation and the US, we are still waiting for more clarity, especially regarding stablecoin yields. What are your thoughts on this? I know you and Tether, or Binance and Tether, have had a very close relationship for years. We know Tether is unlikely to generate interest in the short term. How do you see this situation?

CZ: A small correction: Binance and Tether actually have no business relationship. Binance listed USDT early on, which helped Tether grow, but we have no equity, no revenue sharing, not even a commercial contract.

Personally, I believe stablecoins should generate yields for users, but Tether won't do that in the short term. As the early stablecoin giant, they already dominate, even without doing so. But they are leaving room for competition, as other newer stablecoins are offering yields.

Regarding stablecoin yields, there can be different ways to do this. I think saying yields cannot be provided to users is impractical. Regulations might say stablecoins can't offer yields, but people will find other ways. There have been discussions about activity-based rewards, for example. You could set up different types of accounts, different activities, different staking methods. There are always many different ways to pay people returns. If you are a business that wants to reward users, there are many different ways to do it.

I don't know if you can completely restrict returns. A business offering zero-fee trading is, in a way, providing returns to its users. At the same time, I realize we want to integrate with traditional finance, but we don't want to completely destroy or disrupt them, so we need to give them time to react and decide on regulations.

But soon, in the US or elsewhere, a stablecoin that provides a good yield for users while being convenient for transactions will win. Currently, Tether is dominant, but USDC is not small, and USD1 is growing quite fast. We also see other stablecoins outside the US growing rapidly. So, I think the stablecoin space is a crucial part of crypto. Whether it's low fees, user rewards, or any business that offers better returns to users, they have a significant advantage. Competition will be fierce. If the US doesn't allow stablecoin yields, international stablecoins might stand out in the short term.

Cathie Wood: Very interesting. I've discussed this before. For instance, people worry that deposits in traditional institutions will flow into stablecoins. Do you think this concern is valid, or is it more like banks spreading fear?

CZ: I think there is some validity to this concern. On one hand, we are just placing assets in a relatively safe place, but it generates interest. That's one way. However, once you get on the interest rate track, people demand higher rates. The way to increase rates is to invest assets into riskier ventures. Compared to banks, which operate on a fractional reserve system, banks invest large sums of money elsewhere. They might/might not be able to recover funds in time, so bank runs are terrifying for banks.

So far, crypto exchanges and even stablecoin issuers mostly maintain a 1:1 reserve of customer funds, and some of the top exchanges are undergoing audits. So, my personal opinion is that we shouldn't break this tradition in crypto. It's a tradition worth keeping, one that doesn't exist in traditional finance. Crypto exchanges and stablecoin issuers should maintain a 1:1 peg and hold 100% reserves. Of course, they can also generate returns through other means. Regarding the returns we generate, if the law allows, I would actually encourage companies to pass them on to users. It's very likely that globally, more and more people will use these stablecoins unless they are prohibited from holding them. Fundamentally, users will choose stablecoins based on rewards, economic benefits, ease of use, and security.

Cathie Wood: When it comes to the stablecoin and crypto ecosystem, is there a conflict where only a few large stablecoin issuers can win? You also mentioned earlier that in the early stages, we will see many stablecoins. What do you think the final outcome will be? Winner-takes-all, or the opposite?

CZ: It might be a winner-takes-all scenario. But in the short term, we will still see more competition than consolidation. Historically, issuing stablecoins was quite difficult. Before the Trump administration, governments around the world were fairly hostile to cryptocurrency. For years, whenever Tether disclosed its bank account, that bank account would be closed. So, the fact that Tether managed to maintain a bank account with massive assets while the US government tried to shut them down is like a very difficult skill to master. I still don't know how they did it. Maybe that's why they are so big. Now, I think that barrier no longer exists. Anyone can issue a stablecoin. You can open