Author: Lawyer Liu Zhengyao

Introduction

On February 6, 2026, China's "first show of the year" in the field of virtual currency regulation was a significant move: the People's Bank of China, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the Ministry of Public Security, and other eight ministries jointly issued the "Notice on Further Preventing and Disposing of Risks Related to Virtual Currencies" (hereinafter referred to as "Document No. 42" or "New Regulations"), officially replacing the "9.24 Notice" that had been in effect for nearly five years. For details, see Lawyer Liu's article: "Major Event in the Crypto World! China Issues Latest Virtual Currency Regulatory Policy"

At the same time, the China Securities Regulatory Commission released the "Regulatory Guidelines for the Tokenization of Domestic Assets Issued Overseas" (hereinafter referred to as "Regulatory Guidelines"). The issuance of these two documents has brought renewed hope to the long-silent crypto space, especially in the RWA (Real World Asset Tokenization) sector. Everyone is asking: Has the "fuzzy era" of RWA business after 2021 ended? Can RWA really be done now?

Lawyer Liu interprets this as: "The 'door' is indeed open, but if you still want to play in the same 'wild continent' way as before, then this door is more like a precise strike 'trap'."

01 The "Great Separation" of RWA and Virtual Currency

In the past, RWA was often broadly viewed as "activities related to virtual currencies" in the eyes of regulators, existing in a gray area. The most significant contribution of the new regulations in 2026 is to separate RWA from the "blacklist" of virtual currencies and implement classified management.

(1) Virtual currency business activities remain a "forbidden zone"

Document No. 42 reiterates that virtual currencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Tether do not have legal tender status, and all activities related to the exchange of fiat currency and virtual currencies, currency-to-currency exchanges, intermediaries, pricing, and information services conducted domestically are strictly prohibited. This means that if your so-called RWA is merely a "hanging sheep's head to sell dog meat" type of virtual currency business activity, such as speculating on a certain token domestically, the regulatory iron fist is still there.

(2) RWA tokenization gains identity but with "conditions"

The new regulations clearly define RWA for the first time: using cryptographic technology and distributed ledgers to convert asset ownership and income rights into tokens (or similar rights, bond certificates). We can see that the regulatory authorities no longer dismiss RWA technology outright but view it as a financial tool.

At this point, if you ask, "Can I do RWA now?" the answer is yes, but you must first clarify whether you are doing it as a "financial product" or as a "sham currency."

02 The "tightening spell" of the domestic market: still prohibiting "private issuance"

For entrepreneurs looking to directly establish RWA platforms domestically, the wording of the new regulations remains extremely strict. Specifically, everyone needs to pay attention to the following three aspects:

First, the business red line. The terms "RWA," "real world asset tokenization," and similar phrases are strictly prohibited in the company name and business scope. This means you cannot register a company named "XX RWA Technology" in China.

Second, platform prohibition. Document No. 42 clearly states that conducting RWA tokenization activities, providing intermediary or technical services without authorization in China constitutes illegal financial activities and will be severely punished.

Third, the only glimmer of hope. The document reserves a very meaningful phrase—"Except for relevant business activities conducted based on specific financial infrastructure with the approval of the competent business authority in accordance with laws and regulations."

This conveys a clear signal: The current era of RWA in China is one of "licensed operation." Only those pilot projects conducted within recognized and controlled financial infrastructures (such as the digital RMB ecosystem, national-level blockchain hubs, note: this is merely Lawyer Liu's speculation) are safe. Private RWA exchanges built without authorization will still be targeted for crackdown.

03 The new regulations also "rename" overseas issuance

What has attracted the most attention and even excitement in the market is actually the "Regulatory Guidelines" issued by the China Securities Regulatory Commission. It has for the first time outlined a compliant path for the tokenization of domestic assets "going overseas."

(1) Clarified "going overseas" process

If you have quality domestic assets (such as office building rents, accounts receivable, green energy income), in the early stages, if you wanted to issue tokenized securities (STO) in Hong Kong or Singapore, mainland regulation was often in a "no one manages, don't know how to manage" vacuum.

But now the rules have changed: As long as you file with the China Securities Regulatory Commission for record, complete the filing report and overseas issuance materials, and explain the asset and token plan, you can go overseas for financing in a legitimate manner.

The original text of Document No. 42 states: Domestic entities directly or indirectly conducting real world asset tokenization business in the form of foreign debt overseas, or conducting asset securitization-type real world asset tokenization business based on domestic asset ownership, income rights, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as domestic rights) shall be strictly regulated by relevant departments such as the National Development and Reform Commission, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange in accordance with the principle of "same business, same risk, same rules."

(2) Negative list system: Who cannot do it?

The "Regulatory Guidelines" delineate six red lines. For example, if the underlying assets have ownership disputes, the actual controller has a financial crime record in the past three years, or involve national security risks, these assets are strictly prohibited from being tokenized. This effectively sets an "asset admission threshold" for RWA.

(3) "Same business, same risk, same rules"

This is the "three-same" principle emphasized multiple times in Document No. 42. This means that although you are using blockchain technology, in the eyes of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, you are issuing securities. You need to ensure the authenticity, accuracy, and completeness of the materials just like traditional securities issuance. RWA is no longer a "backdoor" to evade regulation, but rather the "front door" to the digitalization of traditional finance.

04 Three major warnings for "crypto industry" practitioners

Although the new regulations provide a path, if you are still using traditional "crypto world" tactics, you still face significant legal risks:

First, strict regulation of stablecoins. Document No. 42 clearly states that without the consent of regulatory authorities, it is strictly prohibited to issue stablecoins pegged to the RMB overseas. This closes off attempts to bypass foreign exchange management through RWA.

Second, legal liability. If you knowingly provide RWA services illegally to others in China while offering marketing, technical support, or paid traffic, you may constitute an accomplice to crimes such as "aiding and abetting" or illegal business operations.

Finally, the risk of civil liability rests with you. Any RWA investment that violates public order and morals (which also falls under the category of virtual currency investment) will result in losses borne by the investor. This means that if you purchase a "fake RWA" issued in violation of regulations, the law will not protect your principal (this only refers to civil law; if it constitutes a criminal offense, you can pursue criminal charges).

05 In conclusion: 2026, RWA enters the "licensed first" era

Returning to the initial question: Can RWA be done again? Lawyer Liu answers from three aspects:

First, for speculators wanting to engage in "crypto world models": No. Regulation remains stringent; Document No. 42 is an upgrade and supplement to the "9.24 Notice."

Second, for intermediaries wanting to do "offshore business": Yes. As long as you can help enterprises complete the filing with the China Securities Regulatory Commission, this path is now transparent.

Third, for licensed financial institutions: This is a huge opportunity. Domestic financial institutions' overseas subsidiaries can now cautiously provide RWA services as long as they are included in the parent company's risk control system.

The new regulations of 2026 announce the end of the "grassroots era" of RWA. It is no longer a safe haven; optimistically, it may become a digital highway for domestic assets to enter the global market.

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。