On May 21, 2026, Washington and Wall Street, in a back-and-forth manner, pressed the Enter key on the imagination of tokenized finance, setting a boundary: SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce publicly defined the proposed "innovation exemption" for the first time, stating that this would only be a "very narrowly defined" small door, mainly reserved for on-chain equity products that transfer existing stocks onto the chain while still granting holders full or normal shareholder rights, while synthetic tokens that only track stock price performance but do not provide shareholder rights were explicitly excluded from the exemption discussion; on the same day, a JPMorgan analyst released a report on tokenized money market funds, admitting that such products would continue to grow under existing rules but presented a highly unromantic ceiling—conditional on no significant changes in regulatory rules, their scale is unlikely to surpass 10%-15% of the overall stablecoin market, which currently only amounts to about 5% of the latter. When regulators used "tentative loosening" to frame on-chain equity and investment banks set limits on tokenized money market funds, the consensus conveyed by reality is very clear: whether wrapped as "on-chain cash instruments" or classified as "real-world asset" equity tokens, both are more like a digital extension firmly pulled back within the framework of traditional securities law in the short term, rather than an opportunity to start anew in a regulatory vacuum.
Peirce Tightens Innovation Exemption Boundaries
In her speech on May 21, Hester Peirce drew a red line around the so-called "innovation exemption": this would not be a general exemption for all on-chain assets, but rather a "very narrowly defined arrangement." The applicable subjects she named are "the digital representation of existing stocks on the chain"—that is, equity products that involve the migration of traditional stocks onto the chain after registration and custody, and not any new things wrapped in the "asset tokenization" label. More importantly, she tied the exemption threshold directly to shareholder status: only designs that allow token holders to enjoy full or at least normal shareholder rights are qualified for discussion, which effectively treats core elements like voting rights and shareholder status as the "tickets" to enter the exemption pathway.
In contrast, Peirce explicitly excluded an entire track from the door—those synthetic tokens that merely mimic stock price performance but do not grant any shareholder rights are not considered within the exemption scope. Price anchoring itself is not seen as a sufficient "security proxy," and on-chain notes lacking a rights structure should still be treated as subjects constrained by existing securities law, rather than as experimental fields that can bypass existing regulations through innovation exemptions. Coupled with the fact that the SEC has yet to publish the official text, effective date, and detail of the innovation exemption, the signal released by this "narrow door" statement is quite direct: regulators prefer to open a narrow experimental passage for on-chain equity under existing securities law rather than creating any institutional vacuum for synthetic assets lacking shareholder rights support.
The Narrow Door of the RWA Track is Only for Real Shareholders
Peirce raised the threshold for the "innovation exemption" very specifically: only on-chain equity that corresponds to real stocks and can transfer "full or normal shareholder rights" to holders are eligible to queue. In other words, tokens merely move the registration location of traditional stocks from broker records to the blockchain, and rights such as voting, dividends, and information access must also be transferred; any product that only plays with price is blocked outside the door. She explicitly pointed out that synthetic tokens that merely mimic stock price performance but do not confer shareholder rights are not considered for the exemption, which directly places a large number of "on-chain US stocks" and "synthetic stock indices" that rely on oracles for pricing into a highly uncertain gray area.
For project parties, it is already very clear for whom this door is opened: if they want to squeeze into the exemption corridor, they cannot only do price mirroring or leverage plays but must restructure around shareholder rights, implementing traditional securities elements such as voting, dividends, and company actions on-chain through contracts and infrastructures, which means they must deeply cooperate with offline issuers and intermediaries in shareholder registries and rights exercise, significantly raising compliance and operational thresholds. The SEC's intentions are equally clear—so-called tokenization is confined to "the digital mapping of traditional securities," rather than opening a set of rules wandering outside existing securities law for synthetic stocks, price-tracking tokens, and relevant DeFi derivatives. Under such a framework, the incremental stories of the RWA track belong more to the few institutions and projects that can become "real shareholders" rather than any developer who issues contracts.
The Ceiling for Tokenized Money Funds
As Peirce locked the "innovation exemption" into the narrow corridor of traditional equity, Wall Street began to draw lines for another category of on-chain products. The judgment made by JPMorgan analysts in their latest report is very calm: tokenized money market funds will continue to grow, but under a capped growth ceiling. According to their estimates, the size of such products currently is only about 5% of the total size of various accounting-focused dollar tokens across the platform; under the premise that regulatory rules do not undergo significant changes, even if they expand smoothly, the final scale is unlikely to exceed 10%-15% of similar on-chain accounting tools. More critically, the model and assumptions underlying this prediction have not been disclosed in the public briefing, essentially telling the market—that this boundary judgment is provided under the premise that the current regulatory framework does not shift by a millimeter.
For participants attempting to rewrite the on-chain cash order with "fund share tokens," the implications of this set of numbers are very direct: from a medium to long-term perspective, even if tokenized MMFs are fully accepted by regulators, they are more like regulated attachments serving specific institutional client groups, and find it hard to shake up the funding landscape dominated by accounting-type tokens. Traditional money market funds are already locked into the registration, disclosure, and adequacy requirements of securities law, and the tokenized version has only done a digital extension in recording shares on the chain without deviating from the original structure. Peirce's described "narrow door" exemption, combined with JPMorgan's proportion limit, actually forms a synergy: on-chain "fund-like cash substitutes" can grow, but are likely only to serve as compliant supplements to the existing accounting-type token ecosystem rather than becoming the dominant form of funding.
Why the On-Chain Cash Throne Remains in Hand
Legally speaking, tokenized money market funds are first "funds," and only secondarily "on-chain assets." In the United States, these products are regarded as investment tools subject to securities law, requiring registration and disclosure of information, and holders are also assumed to be investment managers making returns, rather than ordinary users swiping cards to buy coffee. After tokenization, the on-chain "fund share token" simply records the original shares on the blockchain, and the regulatory perspective will not loosen due to the change of technical carriers concerning transfer scope, investor suitability, or compliance obligations, which naturally restricts its free circulation and combinability in the open network.
In contrast, the on-chain "dollar tools" that exist in the form of accounting tokens were designed from the outset as payment media and transaction unit metrics, able to be directly called by smart contracts for use as collateral, margin, and cross-border settlement, without the need to report back to a highly regulated fund structure in every step. Before any additional exemptions or classification adjustments, the role of tokenized money market funds on-chain is more like a compliant bridge that orderly connects traditional fund pools to the chain: institutions and high-net-worth users can hold and manage yield-bearing positions on-chain, but to bear high-frequency payment functions and transaction matching on a large scale, they will have to face circulation constraints that are difficult to bypass within the framework of securities law. Therefore, under the "narrow door" exemption depicted by Peirce and JPMorgan's 10%-15% scale ceiling assumptions, what truly occupies the on-chain cash throne are still those accounting-type tokens that are widely embedded in transactions, collateral, and settlement processes, while tokenized funds are locked into the positioning of "bridges" and "position management tools."
Regulation and Wall Street Collaboratively Narrowing the Tokenization Track
In this round of rule rewriting, what regulators and Wall Street are providing is not an open new road, but a carefully narrowed "legal passage." On one side is the innovation exemption mentioned by Peirce, clearly limited to "on-chain equity products granting full or normal shareholder rights," only the digital mapping of real stocks on the chain has the opportunity to enjoy limited loosening within the framework of securities law; any synthetic tokens that only track prices and do not provide shareholder rights are excluded from exemption discussions, making it very difficult for most decentralized derivatives built on such assets to squeeze through this narrow door. On the other side is JPMorgan's delineation of the development range for tokenized money funds: under the premise that regulatory rules do not undergo significant changes, the scale limit for such products is roughly locked at 10%-15% of the mainstream on-chain cash tool market, while currently only about 5%, which equates to setting a "ceiling" on the imaginative space for tokenized funds from Wall Street's perspective. The direct result of the combination of the two is that in the short term, what is termed RWA and on-chain cash substitutes resembles a "on-chain accounting" completed within the existing securities and fund systems, rather than rewriting the rules of capital markets through technological innovation. The real uncertainty has shifted from "can it be done?" to "how narrow will the SEC's final exemption text be, and will future legislation leave an independent track for synthetic assets and new on-chain products?"
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 Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare 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。
