Last week, the Student Union of New Asia College at The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) released a consultation document for a referendum on its intent to register independently, with voting held from October 3rd to 20th.

Coincidentally, it was in October four years ago, just as the CUHK Student Union (CUSU) was being shut down, that I wrote a three-part series discussing the possibility of a CUSU DAO or even a CUSU Coin. Looking back now, these ideas were not detached fantasies but foreshadowing for the future. An election cycle—and also a Bitcoin halving cycle—has passed, providing a perfect moment to compare with the current situation and add some supplementary thoughts.

• Is building a CUHK Student Union on the blockchain possible? On CUSUDAO

• Gathering from all corners: How an on-chain CUHK Student Union would vote

• The CUHK Student Union could issue a CUSU Coin

First, a simple background for readers unfamiliar with the situation in Hong Kong, especially those from Taiwan or other regions.

The Chinese University of Hong Kong, founded in 1963 through the merger of New Asia, United, and Chung Chi colleges, has since expanded to nine colleges. For years, the university and college student unions were an integral and smoothly operating part of the university structure. However, after the 2019 Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement, university and college administrations, fearing trouble, began demanding that student unions register as independent societies with the Police Force under the Societies Ordinance. In short, they were severing ties.

Aside from the S.H. Ho College Student Union, which had always been independently registered, the Morningside College Student Union chose to register under pressure. The C.W. Chu College Student Union, on the other hand, was shut down last year for failing to meet the independent registration requirement. Several years have passed, and the pressure has not eased despite Hong Kong has "advanced from governance to prosperity." Now, it is the turn of New Asia, an older college and my alma mater, whose student union and students face the same problem.

It was to read the New Asia Student Union's announcement that I opened Instagram for the first time in years. Under the title "When we must stand at the crossroads of fate," the students clearly explained the situation's origins, listed the main considerations for both sides, and left the final decision to a referendum by the entire student body. Regardless of the outcome, their handling of the matter has been remarkably mature. Standing at this crossroads of fate, they are withstanding the pressure and living up to the weight of history.

As an old-timer, I don't intend to take a stance on the referendum. The students are the stakeholders; they understand the situation better and are more astute than I am. However, I want to take this opportunity to once again explore whether, outside of the law and the system, university student unions can leverage new technologies like blockchain and DAOs to build a new model of autonomy.

First, a disclaimer: the following is not legal advice. I am neither a lawyer nor a scholar; on the contrary, I am quite grassroots and measure things by common sense. In today's Hong Kong, legal advice is certainly important, but it is often also superfluous. After all, anything meaningful is likely to be described as "possibly violating a certain law, with no guarantee of not contravening a certain ordinance."

The older generation holds a belief: you must register a company to do business, register a non-profit to do charity, and register a society to do advocacy. When asked why, the answer is usually, "Because you need a bank account." But today, sixteen years after the birth of blockchain, with Ethereum being fast and cheap and stablecoins in wide use, banks are simply not necessary. You can open a wallet account in seconds and immediately start sending and receiving payments.

Another reason given is "registration grants you an identity." But today, everyone's identity is built on Instagram, Threads, or for the older crowd, a Facebook page. Even the student union's official announcements can only be found on Instagram. A license or corporate status is merely a "legal identity"; apart from government departments, few people care anymore.

Some also say registration allows the legal entity to be responsible, so individuals don't have to "take the fall." But from what I've seen in Hong Kong, when trouble really hits, the government always prosecutes the people behind the legal entity, rarely stopping at the corporate level.

The last reason is the real one—according to Chapter 151 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the Societies Ordinance: "Any organization established in Hong Kong must be registered as a society." Ultimately, the purpose of registration is singular: to allow the government to control you.

By common sense, for this ordinance to be coherent, it cannot possibly deem any three people who gather together an "organization"; it must first meet certain criteria. To reiterate, this is not legal advice, but common sense. For example, if Alice, Bob, and Carol form a "Weekend Foodie Group," Dave, Eve, and Frank start a reading group on WhatsApp, and Grace's Facebook page has 100,000 members—must all these "organizations" be registered? Would they be breaking the law if they weren't? This is clearly inconsistent with reality and impossible to enforce.

I am not encouraging my junior schoolmates to engage in civil disobedience, much less to disregard the law. Rather, I want to point out that with the rapid development of technology, the forms and definitions of things inevitably change, and legislation can never keep up. All we can do is to test the waters as we go, moving forward in the unknown.

Less than thirty years ago, an unlicensed online channel would have been called an "underground radio station." Today, many people have a YouTube channel, yet we have never heard of anyone being arrested for "operating a television station without a license." Younger people probably haven't even heard the term "underground radio."

Similarly, according to the Registration of Local Newspapers Ordinance, all local newspapers must be registered. But I have never heard of an Instagram, Threads, or Facebook page getting a license, nor have I heard of anyone being prosecuted for it.

Perhaps some would call this sophistry. How can YouTube be compared to television, or Facebook to newspapers? Yet, that is precisely the point: the emergence of new things often renders old definitions obsolete. YouTube is different from a TV station, and a Facebook page is different from a newspaper. By the same token, a DAO should not be understood as an "organization" in the traditional sense.

In the past, we used "e-magazine" to describe websites and "personal TV station" to describe YouTube. While the name DAO comes from Decentralized Autonomous "Organization," it no longer belongs to the category of traditional societies. The digital and physical worlds are fundamentally different, and as they mature, they will carry out old functions in entirely new ways.

The decentralization of information gave birth to content platforms like YouTube and Instagram. The decentralization of assets brought about cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and USDT. If students can begin exploring the decentralization of organizations and governance today, perhaps the leaders of tomorrow will be NASUDAO or CUSUDAO.

The early experiences of Bitcoin and USDT illustrate one thing: "extra-legal" does not equal "illegal." Here, "extra-legal" simply means not yet incorporated into the legal system, still existing outside of it. When Bitcoin was born, it was neither recognized nor had legal status. But a decade later, it has gained recognition from many countries, its market cap exceeds two trillion US dollars, and it is the world's seventh-largest asset. Although USDT has yet to be formally accepted by the US and Hong Kong, it is widely used in DeFi and in countries with underdeveloped financial systems, with a valuation of five hundred billion US dollars.

The internet liberated information, and the blockchain went further to liberate assets. From information to assets, these successful examples span a wide range, but they share a common thread: they focus more on legitimacy than legality. They care more about public acceptance than government understanding. Instead of shackling themselves with traditional legal frameworks, they choose to live in cyberspace, governed by the public through common sense and the Golden Rule.

A counter-example is the local company HKTV. In 2013, the Hong Kong government refused to grant a broadcast license to Ricky Wong's Hong Kong Television Network, sparking widespread discussion and protest. In 2014, HKTV filed for a judicial review and eventually won, but after years of delay, it still was not granted a license and finally withdrew its application in 2018. By 2015, YouTube was already ten years old, and Netflix had long since pivoted to streaming. The new paradigm for entertainment and information had already taken shape. Yet, HKTV chose to abandon its content business and pivot to e-commerce, becoming today's HKTVmall.

I have no intention of belittling HKTVmall. E-commerce is a big business that drives the economy and supports many employees. Similarly, if the New Asia Student Union chooses to register within the system, it can continue to run its snack shop, manage venues, and raise a hand in committees to serve students. However, if it seeks a breakthrough, it must take risks and enter a new domain unfamiliar to the establishment, where the rules of the game have not yet been clearly defined, and build a new paradigm in its own arena.

Blockchain and DAOs are not a panacea, nor will they change reality overnight. But they offer a third path—"legitimacy" beyond the binary of legal and illegal—allowing us to rethink whether we can exist in another form when the system no longer recognizes our existence.

As the students wrote, the New Asia Student Union is standing at the crossroads of fate. To register is to continue; to not register is to explore. And history often belongs to the latter—to those willing to take the first step.

Beyond legality, there is still legitimacy. That is where freedom sprouts.

p.s. I spent a whole day agonizing over whether to write on this topic, not only because it's hard but also because I was worried about becoming a finger-wagging old-timer. After some thought, I realized I was not only overthinking but also being too arrogant. What makes me think that this new generation of independent thinkers would be brainwashed by my views? More fundamentally, what makes me think students would even come across these words? Besides, the New Asia Student Union is just a starting point for the conversation. This isn't just about New Asia; it's a common issue for all organizations, all Hongkongers, and even all of humanity. It is web3 civic education. As long as I have the ability to bring a little insight to anyone on this planet, I should do my best to write out my perspective.