I just saw this tweet from @ HashKeyGroup, and the amount of information is actually quite large: The real goal of e-CNY is not payment But rather 'cross-border settlement+regional monetary infrastructure' Many people may think that this is just a clich é, isn't it? But if you put this sentence together with the recent RWA actions in Hong Kong, you will find something even more interesting ✅ Summary in one sentence: Hong Kong is doing: Asset on Chain (RWA) Mainland China is doing: currency on chain (e-CNY) Put together, it is a complete prototype of an on chain financial system. The focus is not on structure, but on how funds will flow ✅ Phase 1 (already started) Market makers/quantitative funds move first, they don't read stories, only two things: Financial efficiency Risk structure If there is a safer on chain 'cash pool', it will be migrated first. ✅ Phase 2 (Next) Institutional allocation funds entering the market Family offices and asset management are starting to test the waters: they need to be compliant, trustable, and auditable Large in size, but slow in progress. ✅ Phase Three (True Change) The old system is starting to bleed passively Part of the funds for stablecoins Idle funds on the exchange Partial off chain USD Slowly migrate to on chain compliant assets Not a replacement, it is: chronic diversion. ✅ The most crucial sentence Hong Kong is building an 'asset Lego', while the mainland is laying out a 'currency base'. When money starts flowing towards this structure, it is no longer a narrative of encryption, but a restructuring of the financial system. So don't just ask if RWA will explode. What should really be asked is: When money starts to migrate, which side do you stand on?