Many crypto research institutions' operations are indeed worth paying attention to. Some members of the crypto community have pointed out that compared to Europe's more regulated stock research environment under MiFID II regulations, research institutions in the US crypto space generally face some issues—there are numerous paid research projects, but the disclosure mechanisms are severely lacking.
This phenomenon has sparked industry discussions. Some industry analysts have responded, noting that standardization and transparency in crypto research remain long-term challenges. The differences in regulatory frameworks indeed lead to operational disparities among research institutions in different regions—Europe, due to stricter financial regulatory requirements, is more disciplined in information disclosure and conflict of interest statements; while the US, although overall crypto regulation is more open, still needs to further improve self-regulatory mechanisms in the research field.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
7 Likes
Reward
7
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
LayerZeroHero
· 01-03 08:19
That's why I never trust those paid reports from the US; they're all driven by interests.
View OriginalReply0
DAOplomacy
· 01-03 04:29
look, the irony of america preaching decentralization while having the most opaque research ecosystem is... *chef's kiss*. anyway, governance primitives around disclosure standards will take another cycle or two, historically speaking.
Reply0
bridgeOops
· 01-03 04:28
Research institutions in the US are really everywhere with paid projects. Who knows who the real benefactor behind the scenes is... Europe's regulations are complicated, but at least they make the interests clear.
View OriginalReply0
CafeMinor
· 01-03 04:28
Research institutions in the US are really doing a bunch of paid projects with black-box operations, not like this routine... On the other hand, Europe is being tightly regulated, and as a result, information has become more transparent. Isn't that ironic?
View OriginalReply0
LiquidityNinja
· 01-03 04:24
Research institutions in the US are indeed full of fluff, with a bunch of paid projects but nothing substantial to say. Europe, on the other hand, is more transparent because of stricter regulations. Irony.
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeNightmare
· 01-03 04:14
It's another paid research package. I'll just say, you can smell that vibe when digging into research reports late at night—there's a lot of water content.
Europe's MiFID II is indeed strict, but over here, it's all about who can bluff better.
Rather than focusing on the transparency of research institutions, it's better to study the actual gas tracker money-saving strategies...
There are so many wild research institutions in the US, it's like the number of trading pairs—anyway, I don't trust them.
That's why I prefer to dig up data on my own on the chain late at night rather than paying for those crappy reports.
Many crypto research institutions' operations are indeed worth paying attention to. Some members of the crypto community have pointed out that compared to Europe's more regulated stock research environment under MiFID II regulations, research institutions in the US crypto space generally face some issues—there are numerous paid research projects, but the disclosure mechanisms are severely lacking.
This phenomenon has sparked industry discussions. Some industry analysts have responded, noting that standardization and transparency in crypto research remain long-term challenges. The differences in regulatory frameworks indeed lead to operational disparities among research institutions in different regions—Europe, due to stricter financial regulatory requirements, is more disciplined in information disclosure and conflict of interest statements; while the US, although overall crypto regulation is more open, still needs to further improve self-regulatory mechanisms in the research field.