<100 subscribers
We must recognize that RWA is not a replacement for IPO but a complement and reshaping of the traditional financing system.
In recent years, with the advancement of blockchain technology and the continuous improvement of regulatory frameworks, the tokenization of Real World Assets (RWA) has gradually become a focal point in financial markets. Regions such as Hong Kong, the U.S., and Singapore have responded with varying degrees of experimentation. Meanwhile, traditional Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) remain a crucial financing method for enterprises. So, what are the differences and similarities between RWA and IPO? What are their respective advantages? And how should companies choose between them? Today, our team will explore the relationship between the two, providing insights for businesses with different financing needs.
01 A Brief Introduction to RWA and IPO
RWA, or the tokenization of real-world assets, refers to the process of converting traditional financial assets—such as debt, real estate, accounts receivable, fund shares, and notes—into digital assets that can circulate on the blockchain. This not only enhances asset liquidity but also reduces transaction costs and improves transparency. For example, a fund company could bundle the income rights of a real estate project and issue them as tokens, enabling global investors to participate with lower barriers.
An IPO, or Initial Public Offering, is the process by which a company offers its shares to the public for the first time and lists them on a stock exchange. It is one of the most formal, long-established, and well-regulated financing methods in capital markets. It involves participation from accounting firms, law firms, and underwriters, requiring rigorous financial audits, legal compliance reviews, and the preparation of prospectuses, marking a company’s entry into the public market.
02 Key Differences Between RWA and IPO at a Glance
IPO or RWA for Financing? A Question Worth Considering
03 Advantages of IPO and RWA
While RWA and IPO share some similarities, their distinct financing logics give them unique advantages.
As an emerging blockchain-based financing method, RWA offers the following benefits:
Low Barrier & High Efficiency
Enhanced Liquidity: Traditionally illiquid assets, such as accounts receivable or real estate income rights, can be traded globally on-chain.
High Issuance Efficiency: It bypasses traditional underwriter processes, avoids long waiting periods, and enables rapid issuance once the technical infrastructure is in place.
On-Chain Transparency: All transactions are traceable on the blockchain, strengthening trust mechanisms.
As a traditional route to capital markets, IPO boasts the following strengths:
Large Financing Scale: A successful IPO can raise hundreds of millions or even billions in capital.
Brand Credibility Boost: Listing signifies passing stringent regulatory scrutiny, significantly enhancing corporate reputation.
Expanded Capital Operations: Follow-on offerings, mergers and acquisitions, equity incentives, and other tools empower multidimensional growth.
Robust Investor Protection: A well-regulated environment, mature systems, and legal safeguards protect investor rights.
Diverse Investor Base: Coverage of institutional and retail investors ensures ample market liquidity.
04 Regulatory Differences Between IPO and RWA: The Case of Hong Kong
As an international financial hub bridging East and West, Hong Kong strives to balance traditional and emerging finance. Its regulatory approach to IPO and RWA reflects a clear "differentiated stance": strict compliance, disclosure, and investor protection for IPOs, versus an open, innovation-friendly yet gradually regulated attitude toward RWA.
Hong Kong’s IPO regime has long adhered to the stringent Securities and Futures Ordinance, with processes jointly overseen by the Hong Kong Exchange and the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC). These cover sponsorships, due diligence, audits, disclosures, and public float requirements, ensuring listed companies demonstrate stable finances, operational continuity, and sound governance. This robust framework safeguards investors and bolsters market credibility.
In contrast, Hong Kong’s RWA regulation adopts an "inclusive yet cautious" experimental mindset. The SFC has frequently issued circulars on tokenized assets, gradually establishing regulatory sandboxes, licensing for virtual asset service providers, and incorporating RWA tokens into qualified investment products. For instance, its 2023 Circular on Tokenized SFC-Authorized Investment Products mandated that issuers ensure the reliability of tokenization arrangements, compatibility with service providers, and third-party audits or legal opinions where necessary—highlighting Hong Kong’s effort to balance innovation with investor protection.
05 IPO vs. RWA: Suitable Clientele at a Glance
IPO or RWA for Financing? A Question Worth Considering
06 Final Thoughts: IPO and RWA—Complementary, Not Substitutive
It’s essential to recognize that RWA does not replace IPO but supplements and reshapes traditional financing. It unlocks unprecedented channels for SMEs and asset holders, enhancing financial inclusivity, while IPO remains key for mature companies seeking public markets and global capital. Businesses should choose or combine RWA and IPO based on their growth stage, financing needs, asset structure, and strategic goals. Moving forward, as regulations mature, technical barriers lower, and market acceptance grows, RWA and IPO may together forge a more diverse, transparent, and efficient financing ecosystem.
Support dialog
