2026-01-18 13:35:37

Looking at the different ways regions attract the crypto industry reveals how significant the differences are. American companies invest one billion, two billion dollars at once—real cash investments. Over in Singapore, they offer 50 Employment Passes (EP), which are essentially work visa quotas for high-end talent. These two approaches—one driven by capital, the other by talent attraction—are quite different. Which one is more effective? It's really hard to say in a single sentence 😄

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.

12 Likes

Reward
12
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LayoffMiner

· 20h ago

The US is just rich and reckless, throwing money around directly. Singapore's approach is even more clever—keeping people is the real key. Honestly, the US is tired of spending money extravagantly, but those 50 EPs in Singapore really lock in top talent. Singapore knows how to play it—attracting top talent with work visas, low costs, and high returns. The US's money-burning approach has long become boring; Singapore's move is quite interesting. Instead of wasting money, it's better to retain people—that's long-term thinking. Where talent goes, money follows. The US logic is reversed, right? In the end, it's not just capital or talent alone; relying on only one simply won't work. Singapore is smart—giving visas is more binding than just giving money. It sounds like Singapore's strategy is more sustainable.

View OriginalReply0

ContractTearjerker

· 20h ago

Once the talent pool is established, capital will come naturally—that's the fundamental logic. --- Singapore's move is actually more aggressive; securing high-end developers with an EP card. The American approach will eventually be copied. --- To put it simply, the US spends money for short-term results, while Singapore recruits talent to build a long-term ecosystem. Time will tell. --- Combining both models is the most effective; just throwing money at it won't create industry competitiveness. --- Singapore understands this; if the people are right, the ecosystem will thrive. The American approach of burning money can easily go off track.

View OriginalReply0

GasGasGasBro

· 20h ago

The United States is really tough, directly investing hundreds of millions. The approach of Xinpo seems a bit "naive" in comparison, with 50 EPs barely making a difference. Whether capital or talent is more attractive depends on whose money is more durable. Xinpo's tactic is basically challenging people; the US is casting a wide net. Their strategies are completely opposite. Honestly, spending money is easy; retaining talent is the real skill. Both sides want to hold power, but their methods differ. It still seems like capital speaks the loudest. The EP visa is a bit of a gimmick; top-tier talent is always in short supply everywhere, and they wouldn't jump just because of this. The US has $2 billion, while Xinpo has 50 brands—it's not even in the same league. This comparison itself isn't very fair; after all, the US is the big boss. Xinpo is quite clever, trying to attract talent to bypass capital competition, but whether it will succeed is another question.

View OriginalReply0

UnluckyMiner

· 20h ago

The US directly spends money, while Singapore plays tricks. The difference is really big. --- Honestly, the US's money-burning approach is the most straightforward, and Singapore's move is also top-notch. --- Want to retain talent with 50 EPs? It still depends on whether subsequent policies keep up. --- Which is more valuable, capital or talent? That's a really sharp question. --- I find the US's money-spending method quite satisfying. Is Singapore actually smarter? --- The key still depends on who can attract talent and truly produce results. --- Comparing these two approaches is ridiculous; they're not even in the same league. --- Singapore's move is a bit stingy, but it definitely saves money, haha. --- How to ensure talent mobility? Is it enough for the US to just have more money? --- I think the EP approach might be even more ruthless in the long run.

View OriginalReply0