Regarding RWA, my frequent viewpoint is:
This may be an area of interest for institutions and traditional financial players.
For retail investors, our interests in this are quite limited, and there’s not much to see. The only potential benefit we might gain is from the tokenization of unlisted shares of technology companies (especially American tech companies).
The reason I hold these views is that many core interests and key points in this field are firmly controlled by centralized regulatory agencies.
Essentially, it is 100% a centralized application, just packaged with decentralized technology.
However, I still have a strong interest and a strong desire to participate in the remaining opportunities for equity tokenization in this field. Therefore, I have recently observed several companies that are tokenizing and selling unlisted shares of American tech companies. But the conclusions drawn are not optimistic at all.
Users must apply for their accounts, and in addition to undergoing strict KYC, they must also be rigorously checked to see if they meet the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's definition of "accredited investors": whether their annual income meets the standard or whether their net worth, excluding debt, meets the standard.
These two criteria are quite harsh, not only for ordinary users in China but also for ordinary users in the U.S.
Why set such review standards and thresholds?
The companies state clearly on their official websites that they must strictly comply with the regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Therefore, according to this rule, at least for the current equity tokenization companies, the vast majority of retail investors are excluded. The potential benefits of this path are like flowers in a mirror or the moon in the water, desirable yet unattainable for most retail investors.
I believe that in the future, this will not change much.
In addition, there are two recent pieces of news that have gradually made me lose interest in the RWA development in Hong Kong, which I have been paying attention to.
First, under the requirements of relevant agencies, mainland internet companies are being asked to gradually withdraw from tokenization businesses in Hong Kong.
Second, mainland brokerages are being asked to suspend their RWA businesses in Hong Kong.
Earlier, I was relatively optimistic, believing that as long as mainland companies strictly adhered to the bottom line of not allowing mainland users to participate in tokenization or RWA businesses in Hong Kong, there would still be some room for development and layout according to the Hong Kong government's regulations.
Doing so would, on one hand, attract overseas buyers for some assets and businesses from mainland China, as they still hold considerable appeal. After tokenization, it should attract some overseas buyers.
On the other hand, this approach would allow companies to use Hong Kong as a gateway to go global, maintaining communication and connection with the world, which would be beneficial in many aspects.
Now, with this approach also being restricted, the only two types of businesses that can still be conducted in Hong Kong are:
- Local Hong Kong companies tokenizing or RWA-izing local or overseas businesses.
- Foreign companies tokenizing or RWA-izing foreign businesses or local Hong Kong businesses.
First, what businesses can these two methods tokenize or RWA-ize to attract customers?
I can't seem to think of too much room for further enhancement in this area in Hong Kong.
Secondly, even if these businesses can be tokenized or RWA-ized, who are their buyers?
Certainly, they cannot be mainland users. If they are targeting overseas users, wouldn’t the U.S., with its much looser regulations than Hong Kong, have an advantage?
From these observations, we can draw the following conclusion:
Businesses like RWA are essentially centralized, and the direction of such businesses completely depends on the values and thought processes of the centralized institutions.
If the values of this centralized institution are conservative (small government, loose regulation), then retail investors may (just may) have some opportunities; otherwise, discussing opportunities for retail investors is basically a pipe dream.
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。
