On April 24, 2026, the People's Bank of China and eight other departments jointly issued the "Regulations on the Management of Financial Product Online Marketing," signaling not just a continuation of pressure on the trading and mining fronts but an expansion of regulatory scrutiny into the network traffic entry points. Since China imposed a comprehensive ban on related trading and mining in 2021, a high-pressure environment has already been established; however, the online traffic chain composed of social platforms, search ads, app distribution, and content collaboration has remained the hardest part to sever entirely in gray promotions. Now, this gap has officially come to the forefront.

What truly tightened the industry's nerves wasn't merely a principled statement, but rather a very clearly defined time point: the regulations will take effect starting September 30, 2026. Once the countdown begins, all participants relying on online customer acquisition—be it project parties, channel parties, or platforms engaging in traffic distribution—will have to face the same question: can the formerly routine customer acquisition methods continue? The document has already made it clear that providing online marketing services for illegal financial activities such as token issuance and trading is prohibited. The conflict thus becomes direct and sharp: regulators aim to cut off the traffic chains for illegal financial activities, while the crypto industry, for many years, has mainly relied on social media exposure, search ad placements, and content partnerships for user entry.

September 30 as the Lifeline for Traffic

If the April 24 regulations outlined the boundaries, what truly pushed the industry into countdown mode was the accompanying effective date: September 30, 2026. This is not an abstract declaration nor a temporary hint released by a department, but rather a macro-regulatory rule jointly announced by the People's Bank of China and eight departments that has already set the execution timeline. For platforms, project parties, and channel partners, the issue is no longer just about "how to interpret the policy attitude," but rather a necessity to complete a round of real choices before the effective date: which operations need to be cut, which links need to be taken offline, which partnerships require re-evaluation for compliance.

This is also where the latest policy carries the most sense of urgency. Past industry discussions on regulation often centered around "what can be done"—whether something can be launched, listed, or traded. However, once the regulations clearly prohibit providing online marketing services for illegal financial activities such as token issuance and trading, the narrative focus has evidently shifted to a more pressing concern regarding traffic entry: can traffic still be channeled? Because what truly connects users to projects is not just the transaction itself, but also search results, social platform content, app distribution, ad placements, and various cooperative entry points. Once marketing channels fall under regulatory scrutiny, the first issue faced by existing promotional models becomes not one of growth, but one of survival.

Therefore, September 30 more resembles a "red line for traffic" drawn for the entire industry. Before this day arrives, what the external world sees may still be content updates, community activity, and normal advertising spend, but for participants reliant on online customer acquisition, the internal clock has already begun ticking. Platforms need to assess whether they are qualified to continue engaging in relevant marketing activities; project parties need to evaluate whether their existing placements touch the boundaries of the new rules; and channel partners must re-examine those traffic-generating actions previously viewed as routine business collaborations to see if they still hold under the new rules.

This is why the significance of this policy release goes far beyond just "tightening regulation." It is not merely the short-term shock from a single enforcement case but a systematic shift propelled by eight departments: regulatory scrutiny is extending from the trading end to the path leading up to user entry into the market. September 30 thus becomes a clear narrative anchor—not a watershed moment in market sentiment, but rather the deadline for existing marketing models.

Regulation Reaches the Final Mile

Viewing the regulatory path over the past few years, this is not a sudden escalation but rather a further extension of a line that had been laid out long ago, pushing it closer to the user. Since the comprehensive halt to related trading and mining in 2021, the main regulatory line has remained clear: first suppress the production and trading ends, then gradually tighten the chain segment by segment through joint announcements from multiple departments. By April 24, 2026, this loophole that had previously been hardest to block—the marketing entry—was finally addressed.

The problem lies precisely here. The trading scenes have long been under pressure, but project parties and channel partners do not necessarily have to direct users to trading pages immediately; they can first generate "word-of-mouth" elsewhere: content placements on social media, keyword traffic on search engines, product packaging and distribution in app stores, all previously seen as gray channels for indirect promotion. The historical loopholes identified in research briefings are exactly these online channels. They may not directly complete transactions, but they can build attention, interest, and pathways before users enter the market.

This is also where the true weight of the "Regulations on the Management of Financial Product Online Marketing" lies: regulatory reach has explicitly been extended to the marketing phase, no longer solely focusing on the moment of transaction but moving upstream to the starting point of customer acquisition, traffic generation, and outreach. In other words, the last remaining gap in the previous closed loop is now formally integrated into the regulatory framework. For relevant entities still attempting to maintain exposure through platform traffic, search distribution, and content packaging, this is not the beginning of a new story, but the natural conclusion of an old pathway.

The License Red Line Cuts Platforms in Half

If the previous layer of regulatory logic was about blocking "how to sell," this round's sharp cut first addresses "who can sell." The guidelines set the qualification threshold very plainly: only approved financial institutions and their self-operated platforms, as well as entrusted third-party internet platforms, can conduct relevant online marketing. That is to say, the space for discussion does not start from content form but first from the identity of the entities involved. Whether one holds a license primarily determines if one is qualified to sit at this table of play.

Once this line is drawn, platforms, traffic channels, and content partners are no longer just "intermediaries" or "distribution tools" but will be reevaluated within the same qualification framework. For entities within the market, a license is a pass; for those on the outside, a license represents the most direct divide. Many crypto-related projects in the past did not necessarily establish trading entries themselves but relied on platform exposure, content packaging, and traffic import to maintain reach and conversion. Now, the question is no longer just "can transactions be conducted," but rather "is there qualification for marketing."

More critically, the regulations also clearly state that providing online marketing services for illegal financial activities such as crypto asset issuance and trading is prohibited. Viewed together, the two rules point to a very clear directive: one side is that only licensed entities can enter the marketing chain, while the other side is that related illegal financial activities are explicitly excluded from the scope of services. Consequently, the change means that unapproved entities, even if they do not directly provide the transaction itself, will face more direct legal risks in terms of marketing.

This is precisely why "license" has become a core term in this round of adjustments. It is not merely the language of compliance departments in institutions but a hard threshold that determines who can continue to advertise, accept orders, and collaborate in practical scenarios. For platforms, whether to undertake relevant promotions begins to transform into a qualification issue; for channels, whether to continue distributing relevant content starts to become a boundary issue; for content partners, whether they can still operate in the market first depends on whether their collaborative partners are recognized by the rules. Before this red line of September 30 is truly implemented, the market will first be cut open by this "license knife."

Not Just Blocking Ads but also Monitoring Recommendations and Naming

If the previous layer cut concerns "who is qualified for marketing," then this layer focuses on how content is delivered to users. From the direction of the disclosed rules, it appears that these regulations do not merely block an overt advertisement but bring the entire content distribution chain into focus: the authenticity of marketing content must be constrained, risk disclosures must not be missing, and algorithmic recommendations, pop-up ads, and account naming must all be incorporated into the same set of regulatory frameworks. In other words, regulatory attention has already shifted from isolated placements to the complete path from content generation, packaging, distribution to outreach.

This presents challenges for the industry, rapidly broadening from "can we still advertise?" to "how do we recommend, how do we name, how do we disclose risks?". Many previously gray-area actions that blurred the boundaries between ads and content may no longer evade scrutiny merely by switching forms. Simply hiding the word "advertisement" does not pass muster, nor can one avoid identification by breaking down promotional actions into recommendations, pop-up slots, and account names. For platforms, audit pressure will correspondingly increase—they must not only evaluate whether a piece of content superficially resembles an advertisement but also assess its information authenticity, the sufficiency of risk prompts, compliance of distribution mechanisms, and whether outreach methods cross boundaries.

More crucially, this granularity means that regulation is beginning to address those more subtle traffic generation methods. Overt advertisements will certainly be blocked, but real ecological shifts may arise from constraints on recommendation logic, outreach rhythms, and account packaging. It targets not specific ad placements but those interfaces within the platform traffic system most easily leveraged by content providers. It should be noted that the aforementioned requirements regarding authenticity, risk disclosure, algorithm recommendations, pop-up ads, account naming, etc., currently belong to the disclosed rule directions; the complete terms still require formal verification in their full text. However, based on these directions alone, after September 30, platforms will need to supplement not only "advertisement review," but also the entire set of content distribution compliance.

Old Customer Acquisition Paths Choked

If the previous changes occurred in the platform distribution mechanisms, the more direct strike falls on the customer acquisition paths most familiar to project parties and trading platforms. Over the past few years, online placements, social media dissemination, search traffic generation, and app distribution have been the primary channels for crypto-related entities to reach users; the significance of this new regulation lies precisely in continuing the push of regulatory scrutiny from the trading end towards the marketing chain. As the September 30, 2026 effective date approaches, these old methods relying on traffic interfaces will not first confront "complete disappearance" but will face clear contraction: whether they can continue to place ads, which positions remain available, and which accounts can be retained will all initially reflect on traffic acquisition costs and channel availability.

For domestic project parties and trading platforms, short-term impacts often arrive faster than long-term transformations. The reason is straightforward: user growth can wait, but a traffic halt cannot. Once platforms and channel parties proactively carry out business segmentation and compliance assessments, the conversion link originally reliant on social media dissemination and search sourcing will shorten, and past increments gained from content packaging, keyword coverage, and event page traffic may turn into higher customer acquisition costs and lower placement certainty. What regulation fills in is precisely that gap previously utilized for indirect promotions through social media, search engines, app stores, etc.; for players reliant on these gaps for survival, pressure will not stay merely on paper.

Third-party marketing platforms are more sensitive to the impact. Their familiar risks previously involved content review standards, compliance of materials, and whether links were taken down; however, under the new framework, questions begin to shift: is what they are doing merely traffic distribution, or could it be perceived as providing marketing services for illegal financial activities? Here, the key lies not just in whether content is reviewed, but whether the nature of the business might be redefined. Especially in the context where the method clearly states that only licensed entities and their self-operated platforms or entrusted third-party internet platforms can conduct online marketing for financial products, the interpretative space available to external service providers is evidently shrinking.

What the market is currently most concerned about are the boundaries of those gray areas. Whether paid promotions, content collaborations, KOL endorsements or appearances all fall under "provision of online marketing services" currently has no clear answer, and relevant definitions still await further clarification. Therefore, a more prudent assessment is not that all these forms have already been included, but that they may all come under pressure: brand collaborations will be more cautious, channel orders will be more conservative, and content creators must reassess whether they are primarily engaged in information dissemination or have already stepped into the range of marketing services. Looking outward, whether the illegal financial activities referred to regarding issuance and trading will extend to derivatives like NFTs and DeFi remains an unresolved point. With unclear boundaries, it precisely means that markets will first contract, then wait.

From Gray Traffic to Compliance Isolation

While the boundaries have not fully landed, the direction is already quite clear. The "Regulations on the Management of Financial Product Online Marketing" jointly released by the People's Bank of China and eight departments on April 24 sends a strong signal—it is not merely about tightening a specific type of business but about further distancing crypto-related activities from the mainstream internet traffic system: on one end, only approved financial institutions and their self-operated platforms or entrusted third-party platforms can engage in online marketing for financial products, while on the other end, illegal financial activities related to issuance and trading are clearly excluded from online marketing. Over the past few years, the gray traffic that has existed between project parties, channel parties, and traffic platforms is being pushed towards a new phase of "compliance isolation."

For the market, the real time barrier is September 30. The regulations will take effect on this day, meaning that before then, business segmentation, withdrawal of placements, account organization, and restructuring of cooperative channels may occur in concentration. In the short term, those feeling the pressure first will not necessarily be the on-chain segments themselves but rather the external links reliant on social media, search distribution, app entry points, and content packaging to complete customer acquisition. Looking longer term, the old models centered on customer acquisition through online marketing, reliant on traffic substitution for growth, will only continue to narrow; as regulation extends from the trading end to the marketing end, the gaps previously present in the internet distribution system are being closed.

However, this is not yet a definitive conclusion. The full text of the regulations has not yet been made public, penalties, regulatory divisions, and transitional arrangements remain unknown; the specific boundaries of "online marketing services" will still need clarification in the formal text. The previously leaked "or convenience" phrasing has currently only been seen from a single source and cannot yet be quoted as a confirmed legal text. As for whether forms like NFTs and DeFi will fall under the same execution standards, there are currently no publicly available texts offering definitive answers. In other words, what the market can confirm now is the tightening trend and execution timeline, but cannot confirm where the final point will precisely land. Regarding the risk notification from February 2026, it can currently only be considered a lead to be verified and is insufficient to support further elaborations.

Join our community, let's discuss together and become stronger!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。