随着近期多起脱锚安全事故的发生，整个加密行业也开启了专属的“蝴蝶效应”，从稳定币脱锚到资金池连锁反应，风险在各个协议之间迅速扩大，市场弥漫着一股不安的气息，让原本沉寂的问题重新泛起涟漪，进入公众视野，于是开始反思：在充满不确定性的链上世界，什么才是“真正的稳定币”？

稳定币不仅是链上交易的媒介，更是整个链上经济体系的“基石”，当市场信任体系受到挑战，唯有具备透明机制与坚实支撑的锚定稳定币，才能在波动中维持平衡。而这，也正是 BenFen 链上 BUSD 存在的意义，它不依赖复杂对冲、不追逐高杠杆收益，而是通过跨链锁定的刚兑模型，为用户提供一种无脱锚风险的美元锚定币。

一、BUSD是什么：BenFen 链上的原生美元锚定币

BUSD 是由 USDC/USDT 跨链 1:1 铸造而成的美元锚定币。

它通过 BenFen 原生跨链桥机制，以 1:1 锚定跨链转入的 USDT / USDC 等主流美元稳定币，实现刚性兑付与恒定价值，从而在系统内部形成一个高流动性、低风险的结算单位，是BenFen链上的核心锚定币，专为链上支付与价值流通设计，是公链底层经济体系的重要组成部分，也是整个 PayFi 网络中最具底层意义的资产单位。不同于传统合约层发行的锚定币，BUSD 不是“生息型稳定币”，而是美元的链上映射，让用户在 DeFi 与现实支付之间无缝切换，由 BenFen 公链原生支持，是本分生态的“第一公民”，用户可直接使用 BUSD 支付 Gas 费用，实现真正意义上的稳定币原生支付体验。

二、BUSD运行机制

BUSD 的稳定性来源于 跨链映射与实时销毁机制。当用户将 USDT 或 USDC 等主流稳定币跨链转入 BenFen 链时，系统会自动在链上生成等额的 BUSD；当用户选择将 BUSD 兑换回外部资产时，对应数量的 BUSD 会在链上被实时销毁，而原生资产则从桥端释放返还至用户地址。其运行逻辑为：

• 当用户将 USDT/USDC 跨链跨入 BenFen链时，系统会按1:1比例自动铸造成 BUSD。

• 当用户赎回时，可将 BUSD 通过跨链提取 按 1:1 兑换回 USDT/USDC。

• 所有铸造与销毁操作均在链上实时记录，过程透明可追溯。

这一机制使得 BUSD 与美元价格保持严格锚定，同时避免了传统第三方托管与信任风险，保证了资金的稳定性和可验证性。

三、安全保障：原生架构与刚性兑付

BUSD 的安全性并非依赖事后补救，而是从机制源头彻底切断脱锚路径。其核心在于纯粹的 1:1 储备刚兑，不引入任何杠杆、对冲或链下交易策略，彻底规避了市场波动引发的系统性风险，与市面上由智能合约二次发行的稳定币不同，BUSD 原生内嵌于公链层面，基于 MOVE 语言安全架构构建，具备更高的合约执行安全性和系统防护级别。

• 原生安全性：Move 语言在资产管理与状态验证上具备形式化安全特性，可从语言层面防止资产滥发或逻辑漏洞。

• 刚性兑付：每一枚 BUSD 背后都有等值 USDT/USDC 资产作为支撑，实现可验证的 1:1 铸造与赎回。

• 链上可追溯：所有铸造与销毁记录公开上链，用户可随时通过区块浏览器验证储备充足性，消除任何黑箱操作空间。

• 跨链桥安全多层防护：BenFen Bridge 采用高比例多节点共识机制，配合充分的结算延迟与单笔交易限额，有效抵御重组攻击与异常流动。

最重要的是，BUSD 的设计采取 “简单即安全”方案，没有复杂的收益生成路径，就没有隐藏的风险传导链条。用户资金始终掌握在自己手中，赎回路径对称可逆——只要持有 BUSD，就等于持有可随时 1:1 兑换的 USDT/USDC 凭证。这意味着即使外部链出现流动性枯竭或价格剧烈波动，锁定的储备资产不会贬值，BUSD 仍可按面值赎回。

四、实际应用场景

在 BenFen 链上，BUSD既是价值媒介，也是生态底层资产，广泛应用于：

• Gas 费代付： 用户在 BenFen 链上使用 DApp、转账或交互时，可直接使用 BUSD 进行 Gas 费支付，无需持有额外的原生代币。

• 链上支付与结算： BUSD 被广泛应用于BenPay Card、BenPay Merchant等生态应用中，用于日常支付、跨境结算及商户服务等场景，实现“用稳定币消费”的真实体验。

• 其他金融应用： 作为 BenFen 生态的核心资产，BUSD 可被用于抵押借贷、流动性池等关键场景，形成稳定的资金基础层。

无论是 RWA 资产上链、隐私支付功能，还是多链资产桥接，BUSD 都是贯穿整个系统的价值桥梁，通过这些核心功能，BUSD 实现了从“稳定币”到“生态通证”的角色进化，成为 BenFen 经济体系中不可或缺的核心资产。

五、结语

这一底层不仅确保了生态内的每一笔资金流转都具备可追溯性与可验证性，更为所有基于 BenFen 构建的应用（无论是支付、DeFi、RWA 还是隐私交互）提供了稳定的价值计量体系与结算支撑。

随着 BenFen 公链的持续升级与生态应用的不断扩张，BUSD 的角色正逐步从“系统基础货币”向“生态金融枢纽”演进。 它不仅承担链上运行的核心职能，更成为连接去中心化金融与现实世界资产的重要桥梁：

• 在链上，BUSD 是所有智能合约与经济模型的清算核心；

• 在链下，BUSD 代表了用户与真实世界价值的映射与兑换通道。 通过 BUSD，使得 BenFen 不仅具备更高的系统自洽性与可持续性，也在更深层次上实现了去中心化经济的真正闭环——让每一份链上价值都能被安全托付、被高效使用，并最终沉淀为支撑整个生态增长的坚实底座。

With a series of recent depegging-related security incidents, the entire crypto industry has entered its own version of a "butterfly effect." From stablecoins losing their peg to liquidity pools triggering chain reactions, risks are rapidly spreading across protocols. A sense of unease is permeating the market, bringing previously dormant issues back into the public eye and prompting the question: In an on-chain world full of uncertainty, what is a "true stablecoin"?

Stablecoins are not only a medium of on-chain transactions—they are the "foundation" of the on-chain economic system. When market trust is challenged, only stablecoins with transparent mechanisms and solid backing can remain steady amid volatility. This is precisely the value of BUSD on the BenFen chain: it does not rely on complex hedging strategies or high-leverage yields; instead, it provides a dollar-pegged token with zero depegging risk through a rigid-redeem cross-chain lock-and-mint model.

I. What Is BUSD: The Native USD-Pegged Token on the BenFen Chain

BUSD is a USD-pegged token minted 1:1 through cross-chain USDC/USDT.

Using the BenFen native cross-chain bridge mechanism, it maintains a strict 1:1 peg to USDT/USDC and other mainstream USD stablecoins transferred from other chains, achieving rigid redemption and constant value. This makes it a highly liquid, low-risk settlement unit within the system—the core pegged asset of the BenFen chain, designed for on-chain payments and value circulation. It is a fundamental component of the PayFi network. Unlike traditional pegged coins issued at the contract layer, BUSD is not a yield-bearing stablecoin, but an on-chain mapping of the U.S. dollar, enabling seamless switching between DeFi and real-world payments. Natively supported by the BenFen public chain, BUSD is the "first-class citizen" of the ecosystem—users can even pay gas fees directly with BUSD, creating a true stablecoin-native payment experience.

II. How BUSD Works

BUSD's stability comes from cross-chain mapping and a real-time mint-and-burn model.

When users transfer mainstream stablecoins such as USDT or USDC across chains to the BenFen chain, the system will automatically generate an equivalent amount of BUSD on the chain. When a user chooses to exchange BUSD back for external assets, the corresponding amount of BUSD will be burned in real time on the chain, while the native assets will be released from the bridge and returned to the user's address. The operation logic is:

• When users cross-chain USDT/USDC into the BenFen chain, the system will automatically mint it into BUSD at a 1:1 ratio.

• When users redeem, BUSD can be withdrawn across chains and exchanged back into USDT/USDC at a 1:1 ratio.

• All mint and burn operations are recorded in real time on the chain, and the process is transparent and traceable. This mechanism ensures a strict USD peg, eliminates third-party custody and trust risks, and guarantees the verifiability and stability of the asset backing.

This mechanism ensures a strict USD peg, eliminates third-party custody and trust risks, and guarantees the verifiability and stability of the asset backing.

III. Security Assurance: Native Architecture & Rigid Redemption

BUSD's security does not rely on after-the-fact interventions; it eliminates depegging risk at the root. Its strength lies in a pure 1:1 reserve model with no leverage, hedging, or off-chain trading strategies. This avoids systemic risk caused by market volatility. Unlike contract-layer re-issued stablecoins, BUSD is embedded at the blockchain's native layer, built with the Move language, offering superior execution safety and system-level protection.

Key features:

• Native Security: Move provides formal verification capabilities for asset management and state validation, preventing over-issuance and logical flaws at the language level.

• Rigid Redemption: Every BUSD is backed by equivalent USDT/USDC reserves, ensuring verifiable 1:1 minting and redemption.

• On-Chain Traceability: All mint and burn records are public, allowing users to verify reserves at any time and eliminating any possibility of a black box.

• Multi-Layer Cross-Chain Bridge Protection: BenFen Bridge uses high-threshold multi-node consensus, settlement delays, and per-transaction limits to resist chain reorganizations and abnormal flows.

Most importantly, BUSD follows a "simplicity equals security" philosophy: No complex yield routes → no hidden contagion risks. Users always retain control of their funds. Redemption is fully symmetric: as long as they hold BUSD, it is equivalent to holding USDT/USDC certificates that can be exchanged at a 1:1 ratio at any time. Even if external chains face liquidity shortages or violent price swings, the locked reserves remain intact, and BUSD can still be redeemed at face value.

IV. Real-World Use Cases

On the BenFen chain, BUSD serves as both a value medium and a base-layer asset, widely used in:

• Gas Fee Payments: Users can pay gas fees in BUSD directly when interacting with DApps, transferring tokens, or performing on-chain operations—no need for holding additional native tokens.

• On-Chain Payments & Settlement: BUSD is deeply integrated into BenPay Card, BenPay Merchant, and other applications for daily payments, cross-border settlement, and merchant services—enabling genuine "stablecoin spending."

• Other Financial Applications: As a core asset of the BenFen ecosystem, BUSD can be used in lending, liquidity pools, and more key use cases, forming a stable capital foundation.

Across areas such as RWA on-chain integration, privacy payments, and multi-chain bridging, BUSD serves as the value backbone—evolving from a "stablecoin" into an "ecosystem token" essential to the BenFen economic system.

V. Conclusion

This foundational design ensures every transaction within the ecosystem is traceable and verifiable, providing a stable valuation and settlement layer for all applications built on BenFen—whether payments, DeFi, RWA, or privacy-focused interactions. As the BenFen chain continues upgrading and expanding its application ecosystem, BUSD is transforming from a "system base currency" into the "financial hub" of the entire network.

• On-chain, BUSD is the clearing and settlement core for all smart contracts and economic models.

• Off-chain, BUSD represents a conversion channel between user assets and real-world value.

• Through BUSD, BenFen achieves profound system coherence, sustainability, and a true decentralized economic closed loop—where every unit of on-chain value can be safely stored, efficiently utilized, and ultimately contribute to the long-term growth of the ecosystem.

Against the backdrop of falling interest rates and global capital reallocation, the compliant tokenization of onshore real-world assets (RWA) in Hong Kong has evolved from a "conceptual pilot" to an "executable solution." For Mainland asset owners, this path offers three major advantages:

• More flexible financing and monetization: Receivables, bills, energy revenues, computing power leases, equity/REITs, and other assets can be transformed into divisible, tradable digital certificates.

• Connect global capital: Leverage Hong Kong's legal framework and licensed intermediaries to connect with offshore funds and new types of investors directly.

• Reduce operational friction: Issuance, registration, distribution, and disclosure can be programmable on-chain, enhancing transparency and trust. This guide unfolds in a sequence of various dimensions, including regulation, assets, issuance, structures, roles, technology, and risks, providing actionable steps and checklists to help implement the first minimum viable product (MVP) within 8 to 12 weeks at the fastest.

This guide unfolds in a sequence of various dimensions, including regulation, assets, issuance, structures, roles, technology, and risks, providing actionable steps and checklists to help implement the first minimum viable product (MVP) within 8 to 12 weeks at the fastest.

Hong Kong's Regulatory Landscape and Latest Developments

First, it is necessary to clarify the fundamental principle that "tokenization does not change the essence of assets", so that all subsequent issuance, sales, custody, and trading can "match their positions" and find the correct and compliant path.

Tokenization does not change the asset substance: The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has made clear that tokenizing real-world assets does not change their legal nature. If the underlying asset qualifies as a security, the tokenized version is still treated as a security and must comply with existing securities laws. In essence, "tokenized securities" are traditional regulated securities wrapped in digital technology: the underlying asset remains regulated under securities law, while the token "wrapper" must also meet technical compliance requirements. Regulators apply a "substance over form" principle — same business, same risks, same rules — to prevent issuers from evading the existing legal framework under the guise of tokenization.

Key regulatory documents, 2019–2025: In March 2019, the SFC issued the "Statement on Security Token Offerings (STO Statement)," stressing that security tokens are highly likely to fall within the definition of "securities" under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO). Unless exemptions apply, anyone promoting such tokens in Hong Kong must obtain a Type 1 (dealing in securities) license. The statement also reminded intermediaries that tokens should only be offered to professional investors. On November 2, 2023, the SFC issued a circular to licensed intermediaries that updated and replaced the 2019 STO Statement. It explicitly defined tokenized securities as securities that use distributed ledger technology (DLT) at any stage of issuance, trading, or settlement. These tokens remain subject to existing securities offering rules. Importantly, the SFC no longer automatically classifies tokenized securities as "complex products." With regulatory approval, such products may in the future be offered beyond professional investors.

Stablecoin legislation timeline: At the end of 2023, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) launched a consultation on stablecoin regulation. In 2024, it actively drafted legislation and initiated sandbox testing. In May 2025, the Legislative Council passed the "Stablecoin Ordinance Bill," establishing a licensing regime for fiat-backed stablecoin issuers, which came into effect on August 1, 2025. This positioned Hong Kong among the first jurisdictions with a comprehensive stablecoin regulatory framework. The ordinance requires issuers of fiat-pegged stablecoins to obtain licenses. During the transition, unlicensed issuers may only serve professional investors. Meanwhile, HKMA's 2024 stablecoin issuer sandbox allowed qualified institutions to pilot operations and build regulatory experience.

Regulatory sandbox and innovation pilots: Hong Kong regulators have taken a proactive yet cautious stance toward tokenization. Between 2022–2023, the government pioneered tokenized bonds: In February 2023, HKMA helped the government issue the world's first government tokenized green bond (1-year maturity, HKD 800 million), recorded on blockchain. In January 2024, it issued multi-currency digital green bonds raising around HKD 6 billion. These pilots proved Hong Kong's legal and financial infrastructure is compatible with tokenization. Investors experienced faster settlement (T+1 or even T+0) and 24/7 operations, while regulators tested how to register, transfer, and pay interest for on-chain bonds. Best practices included starting with high-credit, low-risk assets, integrating the Central Moneymarkets Unit (CMU) with blockchain, the operational changes of market participants can be reduced. Fully disclose technical details to enhance market confidence.

The impact of the VATP licensing framework on secondary trading of RWA: Since June 2023, Hong Kong has implemented a new licensing system for virtual asset trading platforms (VATP), also known as VASP licenses, bringing virtual asset trading under the purview of anti-money laundering regulations. According to this framework, secondary market trading platforms for non-securities tokens (such as pure digital goods, physical asset tokens, etc.) must apply for and hold VASP licenses; while trading platforms or intermediaries for securities tokens (essentially securities trading) need to obtain the corresponding securities business licenses (such as Type 1 securities brokerage license or Type 7 automated trading service license). This means that when RWA projects seek secondary market liquidity, they must choose the appropriate licensed platform based on the token's attributes: securities-type RWA can typically only be traded privately through the internal ATS systems of licensed brokers or other SFC-regulated venues; non-securities-type RWA can be listed on licensed virtual asset exchanges (currently only open to professional investors). It is important to note that the attributes of tokens may not be static - some tokens initially designed as non-securities may become securities if additional rights are granted to their holders in the future. Regulatory authorities suggest that issuers conduct dynamic evaluations and, when in doubt about the attributes, apply for comprehensive licenses in advance to ensure continuous compliance with regulations.

After clarifying the regulatory boundaries, the next step is to select appropriate assets and match them with target investors, which will directly determine the speed and scale of the project's progress.

Tokenized Assets and Investor Suitability

Asset selection is the cornerstone of project success, while investor suitability ensures compliance and efficiency.

Scope of tokenizable assets: The category of real-world assets (RWA) is extremely broad, covering almost all physical and financial assets with stable value or cash flow. Currently, typical asset classes suitable for tokenization include:

• Accounts receivable and bills: Corporate accounts receivable, supply chain finance bills, commercial bills, etc. Tokenization of these short-term debts can enhance liquidity and convert future cash flows into tradable digital certificates. For instance, in August 2025, Shangao Holdings issued the first tokenized corporate accounts receivable bill in Hong Kong, with a scale of 40 million US dollars. Investors holding the token are equivalent to holding the corresponding bill claim and receive the principal and interest of the bill upon maturity.

• Bonds and loans: Including corporate bonds, government bonds, loan assets, and other fixed-income products. Tokenization of bonds can shorten settlement cycles and expand the investor base. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority has collaborated with international organizations to test the concept of tokenized green bonds and successfully issued government tokenized green bonds to verify market response (see above). Additionally, tokenization of credit assets such as non-performing loans also has the potential to release liquidity, transforming illiquid claims into tradable assets on the blockchain.

• Real estate and property rights: Commercial real estate, residential properties, land use rights, infrastructure projects, etc. Tokenization of these assets enables them to be sold in shares, lowering the threshold for individual investment. Investors holding real estate tokens obtain corresponding property rights or income rights. Special attention should be paid to issues such as property rights confirmation, valuation, and cross-border legal matters. For example, cross-border transfer of domestic real estate rights must comply with foreign exchange and foreign investment regulations. Hong Kong has seen real estate investment trusts (REITs) exploring the possibility of tokenized transactions, but currently, most are still in the concept validation or private placement stage.

• Fund shares and financial products: Securities investment funds, private equity funds, structured products, etc., can also be tokenized, meaning that fund shares can be registered and traded on the blockchain. Internationally, large asset management institutions have begun to test this: for instance, Franklin Templeton in the United States tokenized its money market fund shares and traded them on a public blockchain, allowing investors to hold traditional fund shares through tokens. If such fund tokens are issued to the public in Hong Kong, they need to obtain approval from the Securities and Futures Commission (i.e., product authorization) before public offering, so currently, most are launched as pilot products for professional investors in a private placement format.

• Green assets (carbon credits, green energy certificates): Green financial assets such as carbon emission quotas and renewable energy certificates can improve market transparency and transaction efficiency through tokenization. Carbon credits themselves have quasi-public good attributes, and tokenization must comply with carbon trading regulations. Enterprises with large amounts of new energy assets (such as photovoltaic power stations, wind farms) can also tokenize future carbon reduction benefits through the Hong Kong market to achieve financing. It is important to note that different jurisdictions have different definitions of carbon asset attributes (commodities, securities, or contracts), and potential legal uncertainties should be disclosed at the time of issuance.

• Energy and computing power leasing: Emerging categories, including cross-border new energy project power generation revenue rights, as well as data center cabinets/computing power leasing and other digital infrastructure assets. The market views these as the core "hard currency" of the next-generation RWA, such as AI computing power and green energy rights. For example, a mainland enterprise issued tokenized bills for financing in Hong Kong, packaging the leasing rights of tens of thousands of IDC cabinets and renewable energy certificates into tokens, achieving the integration of the real economy and digital finance. Tokenization of such assets requires assessment of technical feasibility (such as monitoring computing power usage on the blockchain) and legal compliance (such as cross-border enforcement of power/computing power leasing contracts).

Investor Suitability: Professional Investors vs. Retail Public - In line with regulatory requirements for investor protection, RWA token projects need to consider investor classification when choosing their target audience:

• Professional Investor Path: Currently, the vast majority of onshore asset tokenization projects in Hong Kong are only available to professional investors and are financed through private placements. Hong Kong regulations provide several private placement exemptions, allowing the issuance of securities to professional investors (individual assets ≥ HKD 8 million, or institutional investors, etc.) without the need for prospectus registration. Professional investors typically have a higher risk tolerance, and regulatory review for such issuances is relatively lenient.

• Retail Public Path: Public token offerings are currently very limited and can only be conducted through products authorized by the Securities and Futures Commission (e.g., embedding tokens in mutual funds or retail bonds). Retail investor protection is strict, and issuers must meet the same disclosure and risk control requirements as traditional public offerings. Regulatory authorities are particularly cautious about any token products targeting retail investors. Currently, apart from official pilots, there are no precedents for direct public offerings of pure RWA tokens.

After identifying the assets and target audience, the project proceeds to the selection and implementation of the issuance and sales path.

Compliance Path for Issuance and Sales

In practice, the prevailing approach is Private Placement to Professional Investors (PI), while the retail pathway is more suitable for mature products with full licensing, strong disclosure, and substantial scale.

Private placement for professional investors (exemption framework): Most RWA token issuances choose to rely on the private placement exemption framework in Hong Kong. According to the "Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance" and Part IV of the "Securities and Futures Ordinance", if the securities issuance is only targeted at professional investors or meets other specific conditions (such as each investment being no less than 5 million Hong Kong dollars, etc.), the pre-registration of the prospectus can be exempted. This enables the issuer to issue tokenized assets quickly through a private placement method, without going through the lengthy approval process of public offering. A typical approach is: establishing a Hong Kong SPV as the issuance entity, preparing an investment agreement or private placement statement, and non-publicly promoting to a few qualified investors. During this process, the issuer still needs to ensure adequate risk disclosure, obtain the professional investor qualification confirmation from investors, and comply with the restrictions on not publicly soliciting. The advantages of private placement are speed, flexibility, and lower costs; the disadvantages are a limited investor range, relatively limited fundraising scale and secondary liquidity.

Public offering of authorized products by the Securities and Futures Commission (retail path): If RWA tokens are to be issued to the public, the product must be operated within the regulated product category in Hong Kong. For example, a traditional fund or trust can be established, with RWA tokens serving as the fund assets or beneficiary rights. After obtaining SFC authorization, the fund shares can be publicly sold (similar to the form of public funds). Another option is to apply for the issuance of tokenized bonds and list them for trading on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange or recognized markets. The issuer must submit the prospectus for approval to the Companies Registry and the Securities and Futures Commission. This path requires the issuer to meet the standards of traditional public offerings in terms of law, finance, and risk control, including appointing a licensed institution as the sponsor/trustee, providing historical performance and due diligence reports of the underlying assets, etc. As an example, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) assisted in preparing a detailed issuance circular and completed the bond settlement through the Central Clearing and Settlement System (CMU). The retail path can significantly expand the investment group and enhance brand awareness, but it has a long preparation period and high costs. Moreover, due to the current limited public understanding of tokenized products, there is uncertainty in market reactions (regulation will also be more cautious). Overall, retail issuance is suitable for large-scale and reputable issuers (such as governments, financial institutions), or for considering a public offering of certain RWA after the regulations are further clarified in the future.

Requirements for securities token-related licenses: Regardless of whether the issuance is conducted through private placement or public offering, the issuance of RWA involves regulated activities and must comply with the licensing requirements of Hong Kong. The main licenses include:

• Type 1 License (Dealing in Securities): If the issuance or sale of tokens involves trading or soliciting securities in Hong Kong, the relevant institution or individual must hold a Type 1 license (or operate under the supervision of a licensed institution). For example, underwriters, distribution agents, and secondary market makers of tokenized securities all need to obtain a Type 1 license. In private placement issuance, the issuer usually hires a licensed brokerage firm as a placement agent to contact investors and arrange transactions to meet this requirement.

• Type 4 License (Advising on Securities): If the project involves providing investment advice or financial advice to investors (such as a financial advisor recommending an RWA token project to a client), then the party providing the advice must hold a Type 4 license. In practice, this means that private bank advisors, family offices, etc., who recommend clients to invest in tokenized products should also pay attention to the relevant licensing requirements.

• Type 7 License (Providing Automated Trading Services): If the project builds a trading platform to match the trading of tokenized securities (for example, allowing investors to freely list and trade token shares on the platform), then the platform falls under the category of Automated Trading Services (ATS). According to regulations, ATS operators must hold a Type 7 license and be subject to the supervision of the SFC. Currently, most RWA projects' secondary transactions are mainly conducted through off-exchange agreement transfers, and there are no public token securities exchanges. However, some licensed brokerage firms develop internal systems for professional investors to trade tokenized assets, which actually belong to ATS and require a Type 7 license.

• Type 9 License (Asset Management): If the issuance structure involves managing a tokenized asset portfolio (for example, the issuer holds underlying assets on behalf of investors and is responsible for operation and management, similar to a fund manager), then the 9th license requirements may be triggered. In the RWA scenario, a typical example is the issuance of tokenized funds, or raising funds through tokens for specific projects and being managed by the issuer or its affiliated party. In this case, it is necessary to ensure that the manager holds a 9th license or entrust a licensed asset management company to execute to comply with the regulations.

Other supporting qualifications may also need to be considered. For example, institutions providing asset custody services may need to have a trust company license or a TCSP trust/company service provider license; structures involving providing loans may require a lender's license, etc. The regulatory authorities remind that due to the evolving nature of token attributes and business models, it is necessary to plan the licensing layout in advance to ensure that all related activities are supported by appropriate licenses. In summary, RWA issuance is a cross-border financial innovation, but under the regulatory concept of "the same business, the same risk, the same rules" in Hong Kong, all participants still need to perform their respective duties and hold appropriate licenses to legally conduct business.

After determining the issuance route, the "domestic assets - overseas issuance" structure and loop need to be connected first.

Structuring for "Outbound Assets to Hong Kong"

The Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) and Trust serve as the "bridge", while the cross-border rights transfer and collection closed loop is the "beam". First, the bridge must be properly constructed before the funds can cross over.

Cross-border carrier arrangements for SPV/Trust and others: If mainland assets are to be "exported" to Hong Kong for tokenization, they usually need to achieve cross-border transfer of asset rights and risk isolation by establishing a special purpose vehicle (SPV). Common practice is: The holder of the mainland assets first sets up a SPV company or trust in Hong Kong (or other offshore jurisdictions such as Cayman or BVI), transfers the assets or their income rights to this SPV, and then the SPV issues tokens in Hong Kong. Through this structure, the underlying assets are transferred from domestic entities to the name of the overseas vehicle, achieving legal and geographical isolation. Key steps include: obtaining regulatory approvals for outbound asset transfer (such as foreign exchange outbound, overseas investment filing, etc.), signing asset sale or equity transfer agreements, and legally transferring the assets to the SPV. For example, a company may package its domestic non-performing debts for issuance of tokenized products in Hong Kong, and may establish a wholly-owned subsidiary in Hong Kong as the SPV, and sign a transfer agreement with the original creditor in the mainland, selling the creditor's income rights to the SPV, and then the SPV issues tokens representing the beneficiary shares of the debt.

During this process, cross-border compliance is the core of the structural design: The exit of asset rights must comply with the "Enterprise Overseas Investment Management Measures" of the mainland and foreign exchange management regulations, and large amounts of assets cannot be transferred privately abroad. Therefore, it is necessary to go through legal channels, such as overseas investment filing by the commerce department or the development and reform commission, and the approval of funds exit by the foreign exchange bureau. If it is a receivable under trade terms, consider transferring through a trade contract; if it is equity, consider equity sale or acquisition by an overseas SPV. Each type of asset has corresponding cross-border compliance requirements, and when designing the structure, each must be evaluated to ensure that it serves the business goals without touching the red lines of foreign exchange and foreign investment supervision.

Cross-border rights transfer and collection closed loop: After successfully transferring assets to the overseas SPV, the issuer also needs to design a closed loop for the flow of funds and income between the domestic and overseas. The funds purchased by investors usually enter the SPV account to pay for the purchase price of the assets or invest in the project. Subsequently, the cash flow generated by the underlying assets (such as interest, rent, dividends, etc.) needs to be remitted from the mainland to the SPV, and then distributed by the SPV to the token holders through smart contracts or offline channels. During this process, it is necessary to ensure that each step of the fund flow is compliant and controllable. For example, if the underlying assets are domestic loans, the borrower needs to remit the funds to the SPV as stipulated, and then the SPV distributes dividends to global investors according to the proportion of token holdings. To prevent exchange rate risks, the project often adopts a dual-currency structure (such as the underlying assets being denominated in RMB and the tokens being denominated in US dollars or Hong Kong dollars), and through banks or licensed institutions to handle foreign exchange settlement, or directly use offshore funds raised in Hong Kong to issue loans to form a natural hedge. Regardless of which method is used, it is necessary to first open the channel for fund return, including obtaining the necessary foreign debt quotas, cross-border settlement channels, and setting up fund receipt and payment nodes at the smart contract level to ensure the correspondence between the on-chain and off-chain fund flows. A well-structured closed loop should follow this sequence: investor funds → offshore SPV → onshore project → project returns → remittance back to SPV → distribution to investors, with each step supported by legal documentation and records to avoid the risk of funds being stranded onshore.

Key points for due diligence and information disclosure for different asset types: Depending on the nature of the underlying assets, the SPV needs to conduct targeted due diligence and prepare corresponding disclosure materials:

• Debt-based assets (accounts receivable, loans, etc.): Focus on investigating the credit status of the debtor, sources of repayment, the legality of the contract, and whether there are collateral guarantees, etc. The disclosure documents should include the borrower's fundamentals, the amount of the debt, the term and interest rate, and the mechanism for handling default and disposal. If there is an assessment report or credit rating, it should also be provided. It is necessary to explain the legal validity of transferring the debt to the SPV, whether the debtor has been notified and their consent has been obtained, etc.

• Real estate/property: Verify the property title certificate, land use period, historical rental income, professional valuation report, etc. For domestic properties, if the property title cannot be directly transferred, usually the transfer of the project company's equity or income rights is adopted as an alternative. At this time, it is necessary to explain the specific rights and interests enjoyed by the token holders under this arrangement. The information disclosure includes the property location, area, tenant situation, valuation value, rental income, and factors affecting the property value (taxes, property management conditions, mortgage rights, etc.). It should also reveal the possible legal conflicts in cross-border transfer of domestic property rights (such as jurisdictional issues of property registration, compulsory execution, etc.).

• Equity/Equity Income: If the underlying assets are the equity of mainland non-listed enterprises or stocks of listed companies, the operating conditions of the enterprises, financial statements, shareholder structure, etc., should be disclosed. If the tokenization of the equity of listed companies (such as the case where Fosun tokenized the Sisram Medical stocks) is involved, the proportion of the shares held, the market value scale, whether it triggers the obligation of information disclosure, and the lock-up period arrangement, etc., should be explained. Due to the large price fluctuations of equity assets, it is also necessary to fully alert the investors to the risks of stock price fluctuations and the measures that the issuer may take for market value management.

• Fund Shares/Financial Products: Disclose the key information in the fund's prospectus, including investment strategies, underlying asset portfolio, historical performance, management qualifications, fee structure, etc. If the fund operates in a private equity form, the upper limit of qualified investors, the lock-up period, etc., restrictions should be explained. Usually, token holders hold the beneficial rights of the fund shares through the SPV, and it is necessary to explain the differences in rights and obligations between indirect holding and direct holding of fund shares.

• Green Assets (Carbon Credits/Light Green Certificates): Due diligence should focus on the authenticity of the assets and the verification mechanism. For example, carbon quotas should come from authoritative institutions, and green electricity certificates should be traceable to actual electricity generation. The disclosure should include the verification standards (such as CDM, CCER, etc.), validity period, usage status, and the market pricing method of these assets. Currently, global carbon prices vary greatly, and it is also necessary to alert investors to the risks of exchange rate and market fluctuations. Additionally, different jurisdictions define the attributes of carbon assets differently (some consider them as commodities, some as securities or contracts), and potential legal uncertainties should be noted.

• Computing Power/Lending Assets: Disclose the specifications of the underlying computing power equipment, operational status, existing customer contracts (if there is a long-term lease, the income is more stable), and the indicators corresponding to each token (such as how much computing power or lease rights). Explain how the expected income is calculated. If the underlying assets are data center projects, it should also disclose the policy environment of the project location (power supply, regulation, etc.). Technically, it is recommended to provide a third-party technical audit report to verify the existence and utilization of computing power resources to enhance investor confidence.

In summary, different assets require "tailor-made" due diligence lists before tokenization to ensure clear ownership and reliable quality of the underlying assets. At the same time, detailed information disclosure documents (white papers or private placement proposals) should be compiled to transparently inform investors of the asset details, transaction structure, and risk factors. Regulatory attention is particularly focused on whether the risk disclosure in the issuance materials is sufficient and true: for example, explaining the reliability of the valuation method for assets under the tokenization arrangement (valuation of non-listed assets is uncertain), the resolution mechanism for cross-border legal conflicts (which law to apply and the jurisdiction of arbitration in case of disputes), and the differences in rights between token holders and traditional holders. Only when the due diligence and disclosure processes are carried out properly can the legal and credit risks be minimized to the greatest extent, and the recognition from regulatory authorities and investors be achieved.

Once the bridge is built, it is necessary to bring in the "right type of workers" - based on the licenses and role division.

License & Role Mapping

Clarifying the responsibilities and licensing requirements of each participant is the guarantee for the "steady operation" of the project.

The smooth operation of the RWA project involves multiple professional roles, each responsible for specific functions and required to hold corresponding qualifications. The main roles and their compliance requirements are as follows:

• Issuance Vehicle (Issuer/SPV): The SPV company or trust established by the issuer, serving as the legal entity for the issuance of tokens. Responsibilities include holding underlying assets, issuing tokens, and maintaining asset operations. The SPV must complete legal registration and have an independent legal entity to achieve risk isolation. At the same time, it is necessary to establish KYC/AML systems and fulfill obligations such as investor identity verification and anti-money laundering review. If the SPV itself engages in regulated activities (such as securities issuance/management), it needs to apply for the corresponding license. In many cases, the SPV itself does not hold a license directly but hires licensed institutions to perform related functions to meet "piercing the veil" requirements. For example, the SPV may entrust a licensed brokerage firm to distribute tokens, hire a licensed asset manager to manage assets, etc.

• Issuance Advisor/Arranger: An intermediary that assists in designing the transaction structure, preparing issuance documents, and coordinating regulatory communication. Usually, it is an investment bank or law firm familiar with cross-border structures and Hong Kong regulations. The legal advisor is responsible for architecture design, drafting legal documents, and providing legal compliance opinions; the financial advisor is responsible for valuation, investor roadshow arrangements, etc. If the issuance involves the public market, a licensed underwriter must also participate in the review. The issuance advisor needs to ensure that the project plan complies with regulatory requirements and is feasible, and acts as the "overall coordinator" throughout the process.

• Distribution and Sales (Distributor): The channel responsible for selling the token product to investors. If the token is of a securities nature, the distribution behavior is a securities trading activity, and must be executed by a licensed brokerage firm or the securities department of a licensed bank (usually holding the 1st license), fulfilling the tasks of introducing and arranging subscriptions to customers. The distribution institution needs to conduct due diligence on the product, fully understand the product structure and risks, and provide suitability opinions to customers. If the token is targeted at professional investors, the distributor also needs to verify the customer's eligibility. Typically, a large brokerage firm acts as the issuance coordinator, forming a distribution team to distribute tokens to multiple institutional investors.

• Asset Custody (Custodian): Divided into two parts: underlying asset custody and digital token custody. Underlying asset custody refers to the safekeeping of physical assets (funds, equity certificates, real estate title documents, etc.), usually handled by an independent third-party trust company or bank, ensuring the security of underlying assets and independence from the issuer's control, to protect investors' rights and interests. Digital token custody involves the safekeeping of investors' held tokens, which can be provided by professional digital asset custody institutions or trading platforms. According to the HKMA guidelines, institutions engaged in tokenization product custody must meet the security standards for digital asset custody, including private key security management, anti-hacking and theft prevention, consistency of chain-based/on-chain records, and emergency redemption mechanisms, etc. Many projects adopt multi-signature or custody wallet solutions to reduce single-point failure and private key loss risks. If a third-party custody is introduced, its license requirements (some jurisdictions require licenses for custody business) and risk transfer through insurance should also be considered. The custodian in the RWA framework plays the role of "asset gatekeeper", and the independence and stability of the custodian are crucial for building investor trust.

• Valuation and Audit: To ensure the authenticity and transparency of the value of the tokens corresponding to the assets, an independent valuation and audit mechanism needs to be introduced. Valuation institutions (accounting firms or professional assessment companies) should conduct valuations of underlying assets on a regular basis or when necessary. For example, the real estate industry provides professional valuation reports annually, and loan portfolios are regularly assessed for impairment. The valuation methods must be disclosed in the issuance documents and remain consistent. The auditor is responsible for auditing the financial statements of the SPV and the changes in the rights and interests of the token holders, usually once a year, and issuing an audit report. This is particularly necessary in public offering products; even in private projects, if the duration is long, it is recommended to provide audited financial statements to investors annually. The scope of the audit includes verifying whether the underlying assets exist, whether the cash flow is distributed as agreed, and whether the SPV has undisclosed liabilities, etc. The audit work must be carried out by a licensed accounting firm. Currently, major institutions such as the Big Four accountants have begun to engage in digital asset auditing, providing professional endorsements for the market.

• Platform and secondary market operators: If the RWA token is planned to provide trading liquidity after issuance, the corresponding platform operator must also "hold a license". If the platform trades non-securities tokens (such as pure carbon credit tokens), then a virtual asset trading platform license (VASP) must be obtained; if trading securities tokens, the platform should obtain the SFC-recognized ATS qualification, or match transactions through the internal system of a licensed broker. The platform operator must establish complete trading rules, monitoring, and compliance systems. For example, only whitelist addresses that have completed KYC can participate in trading, set a single transaction limit, monitor abnormal trading and market manipulation behaviors, etc. At the same time, there should be a market-making arrangement to provide basic buying and selling depth. Usually, the issuer will enter into a strategic partnership with a licensed trading platform, and after token issuance, the platform will provide secondary trading services to investors. The platform operator, in addition to its technical responsibilities (maintaining matching and wallet systems), also needs to ensure that transactions comply with anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing requirements and fulfill the obligation to report suspicious transactions. This is similar to the compliance requirements of traditional stock exchanges/brokers. Only the technical carrier has changed to blockchain.

In conclusion, the RWA project is not an individual effort by the issuer, but rather a puzzle of professional division of labor: the issuer provides reliable assets and the overall plan, the licensed intermediaries ensure the compliance of distribution and transactions, the custodian ensures the security of assets, and professional institutions provide valuation and auditing endorsements. Each role must clearly define its own responsibilities and regulatory requirements, and ensure that "whoever's responsibility is borne by whom, and whoever has the license holds it." Together, they build a trustworthy tokenization ecosystem. Only in this way can investors enjoy the same level of protection and services as in traditional finance when they come into contact with emerging RWA products.

People and licenses in place, start "writing rules into the system" - enter technology and operations

Technical and Operational Requirements

"Regulatory rules" should be translated as "contract parameters", as they are the key to the successful implementation of tokenization.

• Whitelist Mechanism and Transferability Restrictions: RWA tokens usually do not flow freely on the blockchain like public cryptocurrencies. Instead, whitelisting or transfer restrictions are set to comply with securities laws and investor suitability requirements. Specifically, the issuer embeds control logic in the smart contract: only wallet addresses that have passed KYC verification and are included in the whitelist can hold and transfer the tokens. If the tokens are restricted to professional investors only, only the addresses of qualified investors will be added to the whitelist. Once the holder attempts to transfer the tokens to an address not on the whitelist, the contract will reject the transaction. This ensures that the tokens do not circulate in an uncontrolled environment, avoiding the public dissemination of violations. Additionally, the contract can set lock-up periods and transfer limitations, such as prohibiting transfers within 6 months after issuance, or requiring approval from the issuer for each transfer. In terms of technical implementation, many platforms adopt controlled token standards like ERC-1404 or develop their own modules to manage the transfer permissions on-chain. The whitelist mechanism needs to be coordinated with the offline registration mechanism to ensure clear and traceable identities of the blockchain holders. This is crucial for regulation, as it enables the identification of the actual holders and transaction paths in case of any violations or disputes.

• Custody and Wallet Arrangements: The secure custody of digital tokens is a top priority in operational management. On one hand, issuers need to select appropriate wallet solutions to store project tokens and private keys, such as token issuance minting wallets, multi-signature custody wallets, etc. The common practice is to use multi-signature wallets, where multiple parties (such as issuers, custodial banks, lawyers) jointly manage the private key fragments. Any token transfer requires a preset number of signatures for authorization to prevent single-point leakage. On the other hand, for the investor side, two modes can be adopted: custodial accounts or self-managed wallets. Custodial accounts are managed by the platform or trust institution on behalf of the investors, and the investors see the account balance; self-custody is where the investors use their own blockchain wallets to receive tokens. Both modes have their advantages and disadvantages - custodial accounts are convenient for management and retrieval of lost assets, but the investors do not control the private keys; self-custody gives the investors full control over the assets, but it requires higher security management requirements for private keys. Hong Kong regulators are highly concerned about virtual asset custody, and the HKMA requires custodial institutions to adopt rigorous measures such as separating hot and cold wallets, backing up private keys, and multi-factor authentication. The operator needs to formulate wallet management procedures, such as which tokens are stored in cold wallets (offline and stored for high security) and which are stored in hot wallets (online to meet liquidity needs); clearly define the authorization and handover mechanisms for private keys to prevent any single person from transferring assets. To enhance security, many projects purchase insurance for custody assets or use multi-signature + time lock to achieve recoverable permissions in case of private key loss. In summary, a well-implemented wallet and custody arrangement is the key bottom line for ensuring the security of RWA project assets.

• Secondary Liquidity Design: Unlike listed securities, most RWA tokens have limited liquidity in the secondary market during the initial issuance stage, requiring careful design of trading channels. Firstly, the project team usually introduces market makers or quote support. After the issuance is completed, one or more market makers are designated to provide bilateral quotes in the over-the-counter market, providing the foundation for liquidity for the tokens. These market makers are mostly securities firms or institutional investors involved in the project, who profit from the spread and bear the inventory risk. Secondly, if the token is listed on a licensed trading platform, the platform can discover the price through competitive matching or regular auction mechanisms. Some projects conduct regular competitive trading every week to avoid continuous fluctuations. There are also projects that design a buyback/redemption mechanism: for example, allowing holders to sell back the tokens at a certain discount to the issuer at the end of each quarter, providing support for the token price. A recent innovative practice in Hong Kong is the tokenization of stocks: in September 2025, Fosun Group tokenized the equity of its Sisram Medical listed stocks, allowing investors to trade the equity on the blockchain 7x24 hours. This breaks through the trading time restrictions of traditional stock markets, allowing global investors to participate around the clock, and is regarded as a highlight in improving liquidity. However, currently, such on-chain transactions are only available in controlled environments (open only to qualified investors). Overall, the secondary liquidity of RWA tokens requires a balance between providing necessary exit routes and preventing excessive speculation. A common practice is to limit market participation to professional investors familiar with the asset value in the early stage, allowing the price to mainly reflect the performance of the underlying asset; after the project matures and information transparency improves, the participation scope can be gradually expanded, and ultimately achieve broader liquidity.

• Data Compliance and On-Chain Monitoring: The operation of RWA tokens must meet the requirements of data management and on-chain monitoring. On one hand, the platform must abide by the Hong Kong Personal Data Privacy Ordinance, securely store investors' KYC information, and not disclose identities at will. However, it must also meet the regulatory "piercing" review requirements and, when necessary, be able to correlate on-chain addresses with real identities and provide them to the regulatory authorities. Many platforms adopt a combination of on-chain identification and off-chain real-name databases: on-chain records the address and token quantity, while the real-name information of investors is stored in a secure database and managed by the compliance department. On the other hand, the platform needs to implement similar transaction monitoring mechanisms as in traditional finance, such as setting up abnormal transaction alerts (large-scale transactions within a short period, abnormal price fluctuations, etc.) and anti-money laundering pattern recognition (rapid transfer of chain funds to suspicious addresses). Once suspected illegal activities are detected (such as someone attempting to transfer large amounts of funds using the token), an investigation should be promptly initiated and reported to the relevant authorities. Fortunately, the transparent and traceable nature of blockchain provides new tools for regulation that the operator can use on-chain analysis software to track the movements of large addresses in real time, monitor token concentration, and flow. This helps to detect early signs of market manipulation, insider trading, etc. For example, if the token price surges in a short period, the operator can analyze the on-chain data to determine whether a few addresses are buying and selling to drive up the price, and based on this, issue risk warnings to investors or restrict trading. Data compliance also involves cross-border data transmission: if there are mainland investors or asset data on the chain, it is necessary to comply with the data export regulations of the mainland, and may need to anonymize sensitive data before uploading it to the chain, or keep core data in the domestic off-chain system. Finally, the disclosure of important on-chain events cannot be ignored. Once there are technical events such as smart contract vulnerabilities, hacker attacks, token contract upgrades, etc., the operator should promptly inform holders through the official website, platform announcements, or even blockchain announcement functions, maintaining information transparency. The technical operation team needs to cooperate with the compliance department to combine traditional risk control measures with the characteristics of blockchain, create a continuous monitoring and timely response on-chain monitoring system, and ensure that the RWA ecosystem operates in a controllable environment.

After the rules are launched, risks and protection should be pre-fixed and solidified to avoid "launching and then encountering problems".

Risk Disclosure and Investor Protection

For the five types of risks: technology, law, valuation, liquidity, and cross-border execution, there are respective "handles" for addressing them.

• Technical Risk: The introduction of RWA tokens has brought a series of technical risks related to blockchain. These risks need to be fully disclosed and prevented. The most prominent one is the risk of smart contract vulnerabilities - the issuance management relies on smart contracts, and hackers may exploit these vulnerabilities to steal assets or tamper with accounts. Therefore, regulatory requirements state that before issuance, an independent smart contract security audit must be conducted and the results provided to investors for reference. The second is the risk of blockchain network failures: if the underlying chain goes down or forks, it will affect token trading and settlement. Especially when using a public chain, the irreversible transaction risk should be noted - if there is a mistransfer or theft, the assets may not be recoverable. There is also the risk of private key management: if the investor or the custodian loses the private key, the corresponding token will be permanently unavailable. The disclosure of technical risks should be explained in plain language about the possible scenarios and consequences. To protect investors, the issuer and the platform need to take multiple preventive measures, such as the aforementioned contract audit, multi-signature custody, cold-hot separation, etc., and establish emergency plans (such as suspending the contract in case of hacker attack, activating backup settlement plans, etc.).

• Legal and Compliance Risk: Cross-border tokenization arrangements involve complex legal relationships, and investors may face the risk that rights cannot be effectively enforced. For example, can the tokens held by investors be legally recognized in the jurisdiction where the underlying assets are located? If the underlying assets have a default or dispute in the domestic jurisdiction, can the token holders, as foreign equity holders, smoothly claim rights through legal channels? These need to be explained in the risk disclosure. There are also issues of conflicts between different judicial jurisdictions: token transactions occur on the chain, and the participants are globally distributed, but the underlying assets and the issuer are subject to specific judicial jurisdictions. In case of an incident, which jurisdiction's law should be applied and where should it be filed needs to be pre-described. The regulatory attention also focuses on the conflicts between traditional laws and smart contract rules: for example, the automatic execution of smart contracts may conflict with court injunctions - if an investor goes bankrupt and the court requires the freezing of their assets, but the chain cannot unilaterally freeze the address, this contradiction needs to have a solution in advance. In terms of compliance risk, it is necessary to indicate the potential impact of regulatory policy changes. For example, if the law redefines a certain type of token as securities, the holding and trading of investors will be subject to new regulations, and they may need to go through additional procedures or even affect the legality of the token. Especially for cross-border issuance, it is necessary to pay attention to the regulatory dynamics in the mainland and Hong Kong: if the mainland strengthens the control over residents' participation in overseas token investment, investors may face compliance obstacles. The issuance documents should disclose the existing legal opinions under the current structure, as well as which matters have uncertainties (regulatory gray areas) that need investors to assess independently.

• Valuation and Liquidity Risk: RWA tokens often lack an active public market, exposing investors to the risks of uncertain valuation and insufficient liquidity. If the underlying assets are non-listed assets, their fair value is difficult to price in real time, and the token price usually relies on regular assessment or model valuation. There is an error margin in the asset net value. Especially during market fluctuations, model valuation may lag or be inaccurate, leading to a significant deviation between the secondary market price of the token and the fundamental value. Investors should be informed that the value fluctuation of the tokens they hold may be more volatile than the underlying assets, as liquidity discounts and market sentiment can affect the trading price of the tokens. Additionally, the limited exit channels are also a major risk point - tokens may not be able to be sold and realized immediately, especially when there is no secondary market market-making support. Investors may only be able to hold until the project ends to obtain returns or wait for the issuer to repurchase. In extreme cases, even if the book value of the tokens is high, there may be no takers, and they cannot be realized. Project parties need to clearly specify the liquidity arrangements (whether they plan to list on exchanges, whether they provide a repurchase mechanism, etc.) in the documents, and inform investors of the possible liquidity shortage during the holding period. The SFC of Hong Kong emphasized in 2019 that unapproved tokenized securities, in principle, should not be offered to retail investors, partly due to concerns that retail investors may get into products with poor liquidity and be unable to exit. Therefore, currently, restricting participants to professional investors is also a form of protection against liquidity risks.

• Cross-border Execution and Exchange Rate Risk: For cross-border RWA projects, investors need to understand the risks related to cross-border legal execution and exchange rate conversion. If the underlying assets are in the mainland, token holders as foreign creditors may face issues of mutual recognition between the two regions when executing judgments - mainland courts may not recognize the rights of token holders on the assets on the blockchain, and may require a cumbersome legal process. Investors must accept the uncertainty of realizing their rights. On the other hand, the capital control of the RMB means that there is a risk of exchange rate conversion for future returns: if the policy tightens, the returns of the underlying assets cannot be remitted to Hong Kong on time, which will directly affect the investment returns of the tokens. Moreover, currency mismatch also brings risks: for example, the returns of the underlying assets are denominated in RMB but the tokens are denominated in US dollars, and currency fluctuations during this period may cause the investment returns to deviate from expectations. Even if the project parties take hedging measures, they should remind investors that exchange rate fluctuations may harm their returns. Overall, in the current situation where there are still institutional differences between the mainland and Hong Kong, RWA projects cannot completely eliminate the inherent risks in cross-border aspects. Investors need to consider whether they can tolerate these uncertainties based on their own circumstances.

• Investor Protection Mechanism and Regulatory Expectations: To maximize the protection of investors' interests, RWA projects and regulatory authorities have set up a series of protection measures. Firstly, there is suitability management, ensuring that the appropriate products are sold to the appropriate people - as mentioned earlier, most projects limit participation to professional investors to ensure that participants have the corresponding knowledge and risk tolerance. For a few pilot projects that allow retail participation, it is also conducted within the regulatory sandbox and is accompanied by mandatory investor education and limit control. Secondly, project documents usually contain investor protection clauses, such as how to liquidate and distribute when the underlying assets are prematurely disposed of; if the asset manager defaults, how to replace the manager under the trust structure; whether major matters (asset sale, refinancing, etc.) require the consent of token holders for voting, etc. These clauses give investors certain decision-making and supervisory rights. The regulatory authorities also expect issuers to establish smooth channels of investor communication, such as designating investor contacts, providing holder reports regularly or holding holder meetings, allowing investors to understand project progress and raise questions. In addition, Hong Kong has a mature investor complaint and dispute mediation mechanism, and RWA token holders can seek legal remedies or file complaints with the regulatory authorities when encountering problems. It should be noted that the investor compensation system (such as the investor compensation fund of the CSRC) currently does not cover unapproved token products. Therefore, investors cannot expect the government to provide a guarantee. This point should also be clearly informed. Overall, the regulatory attitude towards RWA is to encourage innovation while requiring "bottom-line stability." Through the above protection measures, participants should be fully aware of the risks, bear the risks themselves, and at the same time prevent fraud and ensure proper information disclosure to maintain the long-term healthy development of the market.

The risks should be clearly stated and continuously disclosed so that investors can "see and calculate".

Information Disclosure and Reporting

Before issuance, "clarify clearly"; during the holding period, "maintain continuity"; for technical incidents, "report promptly".

• Offering Documents and Technical Risk Disclosure: For issuing RWA tokens, detailed offering documents (private placement prospectus or prospectus) need to be prepared. The quality of information disclosure directly affects investors' decisions and compliance. The documents should include: project overview (token corresponding assets and issuance purpose), introductions of all parties involved (issuer/SPV structure, custodian, auditor, trading platform, etc.), details of underlying assets, transaction structure diagram, investment terms (token equity design, term, income distribution, exit arrangement, etc.), and risk factor explanations. Especially in the risk disclosure section, additional explanations should be provided for the characteristics of tokenization, such as the legal effect of on-chain/off-chain settlement, token transfer restrictions, audit conclusions of smart contracts, cybersecurity measures, and emergency handling mechanisms, etc. Hong Kong regulatory requirements state that disclosure must be comprehensive, accurate, and understandable, avoiding excessive technical terms that prevent investors from understanding. For innovative risk points (such as irreversible transaction risks due to the use of public chains, possible changes in regulatory policies), special warnings should be given. In addition, in terms of technical operations, some offering documents may attach IT statements or technical white papers, detailing blockchain architecture, smart contract logic, security test results, etc., for reference by investors with technical backgrounds. This is equivalent to combining the offering memorandum of traditional securities issuance with the white paper of blockchain projects, meeting regulatory requirements while providing necessary technical transparency.

• Regular/Unscheduled Information Disclosure: During the holding period of the RWA project, it should follow the information disclosure requirements of traditional securities/funds to provide investors with regular reports and necessary interim reports. Regular disclosure usually includes annual and semi-annual reports, covering SPV financial statements, underlying asset operation status, current income distribution, and updates on significant matters affecting asset value. If the underlying assets are operating enterprises or projects, it is advisable to attach the management discussion and analysis (MD&A). These reports, if audited or reviewed, can enhance credibility. For closed private placement projects, there are no mandatory regular disclosures by regulators, but high-quality projects often voluntarily refer to the requirements of public offering funds and provide quarterly or semi-annual reports to maintain investor confidence. Unscheduled disclosure is required when major events occur, such as significant defaults of underlying assets, lawsuits, asset impairment, or changes in the custodian institution, regulatory environment, etc., and should be promptly disclosed through formal notifications or announcements. Particularly, the disclosure of chain-related events is worthy of attention: if smart contracts have been upgraded, vulnerabilities have been patched, or there have been hacker attacks, these technical events should also be regarded as major matters and notified to the holders. Since these technical events may not be included in the traditional disclosure list, the issuer needs to establish a system to identify which chain-related situations are major matters and disclose them. Information disclosure channels can be diverse - private placement projects are usually directly notified to investors through email/telephone conferences, while public projects can issue announcements on the exchange announcement platform, official website column, or even through the announcement function on the blockchain browser (ensuring synchronization of chain-on-chain information). In terms of regulation, for retail products, the SFC will supervise whether continuous information disclosure is in place; for private placement products, although there are no hard regulations, good information disclosure helps reduce disputes and win a market reputation.

• Special Requirements Related to Stablecoins: If the RWA project involves the use or issuance of stablecoins, it is necessary to pay attention to the special regulatory requirements for stablecoins in Hong Kong. Firstly, according to the "Stablecoin Regulations", issuing stablecoins that anchor the value of a legal tender in Hong Kong is a regulated activity. If the project team plans to issue a token that anchors the value of a certain legal tender (such as a stablecoin denominated in RMB for settlement purposes), they must obtain a license or exemption; otherwise, they cannot provide it to the public. Therefore, currently, RWA projects generally do not directly issue new stablecoins but use existing compliant stablecoins as the transaction medium. If, during operation, stablecoins such as USDT/USDC are used to raise funds or distribute dividends, attention must be paid to the related settlement risks, including the risk of stablecoin price fluctuations or depegging, the credit risk of the issuer, etc. In a joint statement in 2025, the regulatory authorities reminded the market to pay attention to the potential market fluctuations and credit risks of stablecoins. Project teams should disclose to investors the types of stablecoins used, the background of the issuer, the 1:1 reserve guarantee, and the measures to be taken in extreme cases (such as the collapse or freezing of stablecoins). Additionally, according to the new regulations on stablecoins, during the transition period, unlicensed stablecoin issuers can only provide their tokens to professional investors. Therefore, if the RWA project plans to introduce an unlicensed stablecoin as a payment method, it is necessary to limit the investors to a professional group to avoid violations. Finally, anti-money laundering and on-chain monitoring of stablecoins are also very important. If the project accepts stablecoin contributions, it should use wallets or exchanges that comply with the Travel Rule (travel rules), record the source and destination of the funds, and prevent money laundering activities from infiltrating. In summary, stablecoins can provide a convenient bridge for value exchange for RWA projects, but their own risks and regulatory requirements must not be ignored. They should be fully covered in project design and information disclosure.

After achieving information transparency, secondary liquidity can be steadily opened.

Secondary Market and Market Making

Start with "controllable liquidity", then move on to "sustainable liquidity".

• VATP Licensed Trading Process: If the RWA token is planned to be traded on a Hong Kong licensed virtual asset trading platform (VATP) after its issuance, the process will be strictly regulated. First, the platform will only allow qualified users (professional investors need to provide asset proof, etc.) to trade after completing real-name KYC. Before launching any token, the platform must conduct due diligence on the token in accordance with the SFC guidelines to ensure that it does not belong to prohibited or restricted assets (such as unlicensed security tokens or algorithmic stablecoins) and that the project is trustworthy. Once the token is approved for listing, the general trading process typically includes: Investors deposit fiat currency or recognized virtual assets into the platform account -> Submit buy/sell orders -> The platform matches the orders -> The token and funds are settled in the platform ledger. It should be noted that currently, licensed VATP platforms still have restrictions on allowing retail investors to participate, only opening up a few mainstream virtual asset trading, and most RWA tokens, even if listed on the platform, are only available in the professional investor zone to comply with regulations. During the trading process, the platform needs to continuously monitor the market to prevent manipulation and insider trading. If any anomalies are detected (such as sudden large buy orders pushing up the price), the platform has the right to suspend token trading and conduct an investigation. Additionally, the platform has the obligation to disclose information. For example, when the issuer releases important announcements, it should promptly notify users. Overall, trading RWA tokens on VATP is similar to trading stocks on a formal stock exchange, with different asset categories but consistent compliance requirements. Investors need to be fully informed of product information and risks before trading and are subject to exchange rules, monitored, and protected during the transaction.

• Liquidity Management and Price Discovery Mechanism: Since the underlying assets of RWA tokens are often unique and have low market recognition, liquidity management is a challenge for both the issuer and the platform. To facilitate price discovery, some projects introduce anchoring mechanisms or reference index prices when issuing. For example, if the token is anchored to a listed stock, the stock market price can be used as the reference benchmark; if anchored to a bond, it is valued based on the coupon and market interest rate model. With a benchmark price, market makers can quote buy/sell prices within a certain range around the benchmark price to guide the token price to fluctuate based on the fundamentals. Market makers themselves can be affiliated parties of the issuer or professional institutions, providing liquidity through continuous quotations. Some projects also set up "price cages": limiting the token trading price within a certain reference range (a certain percentage above or below the benchmark price), and transactions are invalid if exceeded, to prevent extreme and absurd prices. On the other hand, with the development of DeFi, some projects attempt to introduce RWA tokens into decentralized exchanges (DEX) liquidity pools, using the AMM algorithm to provide continuous liquidity. However, due to regulatory considerations, Hong Kong-issued RWA tokens are currently rarely directly listed on open DEX; regulation prefers controlled liquidity provision methods, such as being traded by recognized market makers on licensed platforms, so that transaction records can be audited and abnormal behaviors can be held accountable. In terms of price discovery, if the underlying asset has an open market price (such as listed stocks, marketable bonds), the token price should theoretically be closely linked to it; otherwise, there will be arbitrage opportunities. For example, for the Sisram Medical stock tokenized by Fosun, its on-chain trading price should be basically consistent with the stock price on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, and the participation of cross-market arbitrageurs will ensure the linkage between the two. However, if the underlying asset has no readily available market price (such as unlisted real estate), the token price is mainly determined by the judgment of the participants on the value of the asset, and the initial fluctuations may be large. To increase price transparency, the issuer usually regularly publishes information such as the net asset value and income data of the underlying asset to help investors adjust quotations. The regulatory authorities hope to see the actual market price formation rather than the issuer's control. Therefore, they have requirements for the market-making behavior: no insider manipulation, and no self-buying and self-selling to create false transactions. Ideally, as more investors participate and information becomes transparent, the price of RWA tokens can fully reflect the true value of the underlying assets and market expectations. Its trend will be linked to the traditional market value trend, thereby fulfilling the true function of value discovery.

  After the route and mechanism are clarified, the scheduling and budgeting process begins, and the project is pushed onto the "progress table".

Project Timeline and Cost Framework

Breaking down complex matters into milestones makes the time and cost "manageable".

Project Timeline: Launching an RWA project for mainland assets to go public in Hong Kong usually takes several months, depending on the complexity of the assets and the regulatory procedures. A typical schedule is as follows:

• Pre-feasibility study (T-6 months): The issuer and legal advisors assess whether the asset is suitable for tokenization, design the basic framework and business plan, including choosing the blockchain platform, initial transaction structure, target investor group, etc. This stage requires obtaining internal company approval and reaching preliminary intentions with potential partners (brokers, platform providers).

• Architecture setup and regulatory communication (T-4 months): Set up an SPV or trust vehicle in Hong Kong, initiate the approval process for the mainland assets' export (such as filing with the National Development and Reform Commission, foreign exchange registration, etc.). At the same time, communicate the plan with the regulatory authorities in Hong Kong (for private placement projects, informal consultations can be conducted; for public offering projects, preliminary discussions with the SFC on feasibility should be held). The technical team starts developing smart contracts, and the legal team drafts the initial draft of the issuance documents. This stage requires clarifying the licenses required for the project and the way to obtain them (self-application or cooperation with a licensed institution).

• Due diligence and document finalization (T-2 months): Conduct a comprehensive due diligence on the underlying assets, issue valuation reports, legal opinions, etc. Based on the results of the due diligence, complete the issuance white paper/charter documents, including all necessary information disclosure. Invite auditors to review the financial and asset ownership of the SPV. After the documents are basically finalized, if regulatory approval is required, submit them for review (for public offering projects, this is done to the SFC before the offering date; for private placement projects, they should be sent to potential investors). Smart contract development and security audits are completed at this stage. At the same time, determine the issuance terms (issuance size, price/interest rate, term, etc.), and draft investor promotion materials.

• Issuance and distribution (T=0): Officially issue the tokens according to the planned date. If it is a private placement issuance, arrange investor roadshows and one-on-one negotiations before and after the offering date. Investors sign the subscription agreements and pay the funds, and the SPV delivers the tokens to the investors' addresses. This process can last from several days to several weeks until the fundraising amount reaches the expected target. If it is a public offering issuance, accept public subscriptions during the subscription period after the prospectus is made public. Winners receive allocated tokens. After the issuance, issue a trading announcement or allocation result announcement.

• Secondary market market-making launch (T+0.5 months): If the project plans to provide secondary market trading, it is generally launched within one or two weeks after the settlement and delivery of the offering. Market makers start to provide bilateral quotations for the tokens, or open the trading function of the platform according to the agreed time. The operation team closely monitors the initial market performance to ensure system stability and smooth trading. In case of abnormal situations, they can handle them promptly.

• Project continuation management (T+subsequent steps): The project enters the normal operation stage. The underlying assets generate income on schedule, and the SPV distributes them to token holders through chain-based or offline channels (such as quarterly interest payments, dividend distributions, etc.). At the same time, issue regular reports and temporary announcements at the established frequency (refer to the information disclosure section). When the project expires, it is liquidated or redeemed according to the terms in the documents, recovering the value of the underlying assets and distributing them to token holders, destroying the tokens or making them invalid, completing the entire cycle. A project from issuance to conclusion may take as short as six months, or as long as several years or even longer, during which continuous operation and compliance management are required.

Different project timelines will vary. Pilot projects may spend more time on regulatory communication and architecture design; conversely, simple small-scale projects may be completed within 2-3 months. Overall, sufficient time needs to be reserved to deal with regulatory approvals and various uncontrollable factors (such as delays in domestic approvals). Planning key milestones and urgent paths in advance is crucial for the success of the project.

Cost basket and budget considerations: The costs of the RWA project can be summarized into several major "baskets", and the issuer should conduct a budget assessment to evaluate the economic feasibility of the project:

• Legal/compliance and auditing costs: This includes the fees for hiring law firms to design the structure, drafting documents, and providing legal opinions; the fees for applying for licenses or product approvals (official charges and consultant fees); as well as the fees for professional services such as auditors, assessors, etc. Professional service costs in Hong Kong are relatively high, depending on the complexity of the project. The legal costs for complex projects can reach several million Hong Kong dollars, and the auditing and assessment costs also require several hundred thousand Hong Kong dollars. If a credit rating agency is involved, additional costs or benefit arrangements should also be included.

• Custody/trust and platform service costs: This includes the service fees of the underlying asset custodian or trust company, as well as the service fees of the token issuance technology platform or trading platform. Custodians usually charge management fees annually (at a certain percentage of the asset size or with a minimum charge). Digital issuance platforms may charge listing fees or technical access fees, as well as commission splits for secondary market transactions. If the platform provides market-making support for the project, additional fees or benefit arrangements may be required. In Hong Kong, cooperation with licensed brokers/exchanges often requires a certain consideration, such as transaction commissions, consulting fees, etc.

• IT development and system monitoring costs: The issuer needs to invest in technical development costs, including the writing and auditing of smart contracts, security testing, and the development of front-end systems (such as investor registration, report query, etc.). If using a third-party blockchain issuance platform, token minting fees, contract deployment fees, etc., may be required. During the operation phase, blockchain nodes or monitoring systems need to be configured to track token transactions and ensure network operation, which also has ongoing costs. In addition, information security investment (firewalls, vulnerability scanning, etc.) is indispensable. For large projects, it may be necessary to build or purchase blockchain monitoring tools for compliance analysis, which belongs to RegTech compliance technology costs.

• Administrative and distribution costs: This includes marketing promotion expenses (such as roadshows for professional investors, information sessions, etc.), investor relations maintenance costs, and the human costs of the project management team. If distributed through brokers, there may also be underwriting/discount commissions, usually paid to the distribution channel at a certain percentage of the raised amount. If the project involves cross-border operations, personnel travel expenses, and conference fees should also be included. Finally, if involving foreign exchange hedging, interest rate swaps, etc., financial operations, corresponding costs will also be incurred.

In summary, the fixed cost investment for the RWA project is not low, and it is suitable for larger-scale financing needs. Otherwise, the cost proportion will be too high. Industry experience shows that legal and license fees are usually the largest upfront expense, followed by technical development and platform costs. For example, for a tokenized note project with a fundraising amount of several hundred million Hong Kong dollars, the start-up costs may reach several million Hong Kong dollars, accounting for about 5-10% of the fundraising amount. The larger the project scale, the lower the relative cost proportion. The issuer needs to weigh: whether the incremental funds or cost savings obtained from tokenization financing can cover the upfront investment. If a large amount of capital is invested in a concept trial but raises little, the economic viability of the project is questionable. Therefore, it is recommended to establish a financial model in advance, calculate the cost proportion under different fundraising scales, and explore methods to reduce costs (such as sharing the same issuance platform and SPV for multiple projects to spread costs, striving for government subsidies such as the HKMA Digital Bond Funding Scheme). In Hong Kong, the government and industry institutions are launching incentive measures to reduce the cost of tokenization pilot projects. For example, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority once provided a subsidy of up to 2.5 million Hong Kong dollars for the issuance of tokenized bonds. Issuers should actively utilize these resources, optimize the cost structure, and improve the project's feasibility.

Practical Checklist

Legal Compliance Checklist:

• Clarify the nature of underlying assets and applicable laws: Confirm whether the assets are securities or regulated products and which laws need to be followed (Securities Law, Trust Law, etc.).

• Legal review of architecture design: Determine the establishment location and form of the SPV, list and handle the approval matters required for the outbound of domestic assets (foreign exchange, business, etc.).

• Identification and acquisition of necessary licenses: Based on the business activity list, determine the types of Hong Kong licenses required (1st/4th/7th/9th/VASP, etc.) and who will hold them (owned or co-owned licenses).

• Preparation of legal documents: Draft key legal documents such as SPV charter, asset transfer agreement, token subscription agreement, custody agreement, etc., ensuring the completeness and clarity of the terms.

• Legal opinion: Hire a law firm to issue a legal opinion to confirm the legality and compliance of the issuance structure and the legal protection of token rights. Submit it for regulatory review if necessary.

• Investor agreement and confirmation: Prepare professional investor confirmation letters, risk disclosure documents, ensuring that each investor signs the suitability confirmation and risk assumption commitment during the fundraising.

• Regulatory communication: Communicate the project plan with regulatory authorities such as the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) or the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) in advance. Submit the necessary approval letters or enter the sandbox pilot program if required.

• Domestic compliance confirmation: Seek confirmation from mainland lawyers that the asset outbound and the operations of domestic participants do not violate the red lines of mainland laws (such as not constituting illegal issuance of securities, illegal fundraising, etc.).

• Tax arrangement: Consult a tax advisor to ensure the optimization of tax treatment of the cross-border structure, avoiding double taxation, and submitting a preliminary ruling or taking advantage of tax treaty benefits if necessary.

Technical Implementation Checklist:

• Selection of blockchain platform: Choose a public chain, consortium chain, or self-developed chain, evaluate its performance, security, transaction costs, and whether it meets the requirements for regulatory reviewability.

• Development of smart contracts: Develop or configure token smart contracts, including basic functions and control logic (white list, freeze, dividend functions, etc.).

• Smart contract review: Hire an independent security institution to audit the contract code, fix the identified problems, and obtain the audit report.

• Digital wallet solution: Determine the wallet solution for the issuer to mint and operate (suggested multi-sign wallet), and the wallet options for investors to hold tokens (depository account or self-managed wallet).

• System setup: Build the issuance subscription platform/interface to support online signing, payment, and query of token distribution; build the back-end management system to monitor the investor list and transaction status.

• Deployment of blockchain nodes: Deploy nodes if using a consortium chain; prepare API nodes or third-party services for interaction with the chain if using a public chain, ensuring the real-time monitoring capability of chain events.

• Online testing: Conduct a full-process simulation test - invite a small number of white-list users to try subscription, token issuance, transfer, dividend, etc., to check the normal operation of each link.

• Security measures: Implement server and wallet security configurations, including private key encryption storage, access control, firewalls, and DDoS protection, and prepare emergency plans (such as suspending the contract in case of vulnerabilities).

• Technical documentation: Compile technical solution documents, including architecture diagrams, contract function descriptions, operation manuals, etc., for internal teams and necessary external audits.

Operational and Risk Control Checklist:

• KYC/AML Process: Develop investor account opening and anti-money laundering procedures, collect identification documents and asset proof, and use compliant databases to screen sanction lists and PEP high-risk clients.

• Investor Communication: Prepare investor promotion materials (PPT, key points of white papers), common question answer (FAQ) documents, arrange roadshows or one-on-one communication, and train the sales team to maintain a unified stance.

• Information Disclosure Arrangements: Determine the content and frequency of information disclosure, set up a column on the official website or a regular communication mechanism for release; prepare common question answers to facilitate investors' understanding of the project.

• Risk Management System: Establish a project risk monitoring team and clearly define responsible persons. Set indicators to be monitored (price fluctuations, abnormal fund flow, etc.) and establish reporting mechanisms.

• Investor Suitability Confirmation: Establish a verification list to ensure that each investor signs a professional investor statement and risk disclosure, and retain records for regulatory verification.

• Trading Monitoring Plan: If there are secondary market transactions, assign personnel or use a system to monitor trading situations, and formulate an abnormal trading disposal process (such as how to suspend trading if manipulation is detected, notify holders, etc.).

• Investor Support: Establish a customer service or investor relations team, provide consultation channels, and respond promptly to investors' questions and complaints during the issuance and ongoing period.

• Dispute Resolution Mechanism: In the contract, clearly specify dispute resolution clauses (arbitration or court jurisdiction), and also prepare handling plans internally. If investors raise objections to token rights， designate a legal advisor to respond.

• Regulatory Reporting: If regular reports need to be submitted to the regulatory body during project operation (such as sandbox requirements), then establish a reporting schedule and a responsible person, and submit operational data, risk reports, etc., on time.

Regulatory Communication Checklist:

• Feedback: During project preparation, regularly report progress and encountered issues to the regulatory body, seek guidance or confirmation (especially when encountering legal gray areas, promptly seek regulatory opinions).

• License Application: Submit the required license application forms and materials, and actively communicate with the regulatory body about the application status, supplement explanations of project innovation significance, and strive for understanding and support.

• Compliance Check: Before issuance, an internal compliance check can be invited from the regulatory body or hired a third party for a compliance review from the regulatory perspective, to review the entire project process and promptly rectify problems.

• Registration and Filing: After token issuance, perform necessary filings (such as filing with the CSRC for private issuance, reporting sandbox test results to the Monetary Authority, etc.) in accordance with regulatory requirements.

• Continuous Communication: During the project's ongoing period, maintain contact with regulatory officials， communicate and report major matters in advance, and listen to regulatory suggestions. For example, when planning to expand retail or cross-border promotion, discuss the feasibility with the regulatory body in advance.

Although the above checklist is extensive, implementing each item will significantly increase the project's success rate and compliance. As the saying goes, "preparing well before starting the task is better than starting with a rough plan." By making thorough preparations and internal control, the subsequent issuance and operation process will be much smoother, and it will be easier to gain the trust of investors and the regulatory body. This checklist can serve as a guide for the project team and be checked at different stages to ensure no key links are missed.

BenFen "One-Click RWA Issuance"

BenFen, a next-generation high-performance stablecoin public chain, has announced the launch of its "One-Click RWA Issuance" feature, enabling seamless issuance and on-chain representation of Real World Assets (RWA). Through standardized workflows and advanced technical infrastructure, BenFen simplifies the tokenization process of real-world assets, building a secure and efficient bridge between traditional assets and the blockchain world.

• Standardized Process: Issuers only need to submit asset information and compliance materials following prescribed guidelines. Real-world assets (e.g., real estate, bonds, equities) can then be mapped into on-chain tokens in one click. The system integrates custody, auditing, and KYC processes to ensure the secure and reliable mapping between off-chain assets and on-chain tokens.

• Technical Infrastructure: BenFen optimizes its underlying Move virtual machine and cross-chain engine to maintain tens of thousands of TPS throughput and sub-second confirmation speeds, while providing foundational support for asset tokenization and regulatory-compliant custody. It features a core built-in module called coin, which defines the standard structure and behavior for all fungible tokens, unifying issuance standards across asset types.

Tokenization of RWAs is one of the most promising applications of blockchain, but its core challenge lies in ensuring that on-chain tokens correspond to the legal rights of off-chain assets and meet real-world regulatory requirements. BenFen follows a compliance-first principle and builds a trustworthy ecosystem through the following measures:

1. Legal and Documentation Completeness: RWA issuers must provide comprehensive legal documentation, including asset descriptions, third-party valuation reports, ownership certificates, and investment terms, clearly defining the legal rights of token holders (e.g., ownership, entitlement to income).

2. Custody and Audit: Issuers must engage licensed and regulated third-party institutions to provide custody and regular audits of the underlying assets. BenFen actively collaborates with licensed trust companies, asset managers, and other regulated entities to ensure the authenticity, integrity, and clarity of ownership of off-chain assets.

3. Investor Identity Verification: To comply with global AML/KYC regulations, all RWA issuers and investors must complete identity verification via protocols such as BenFen KYC. Only verified and compliant users are permitted to participate in the issuance and trading of RWA tokens.

In addition, BenFen is committed to building a "Stablecoin Financial Operating System." Its one-click RWA issuance and one-click stablecoin issuance share the same underlying infrastructure. On the user experience side, BenFen further optimizes transaction costs, allowing users to pay gas fees directly for stablecoins and supporting a gas sponsorship mechanism. Under this model, issuers or platforms can cover gas costs on behalf of users in specific scenarios, effectively reducing the economic burden of on-chain activity and lowering barriers to adoption.

Overall, through its native and purpose-built infrastructure, BenFen addresses the core challenges of RWA tokenization while exploring feasible pathways in legal compliance, asset anchoring, and investor access. This introduces a new layer of trust and transparency to the RWA market, drives deeper integration of decentralized finance (DeFi) and real-world assets, and offers global investors more convenient, secure, and flexible investment opportunities — paving the way for seamless connectivity between traditional assets and blockchain, and toward a more open and innovative financial future.

Cases and Best Practices

Government Tokenized Green Bonds: (High Credit Entity Pilot) As an international financial center, Hong Kong has actively conducted several tokenization capital market product pilots in the past two years, accumulating valuable experience. In February 2023, the Hong Kong government, with the support of the HKMA and the BIS Innovation Center, successfully issued the world's first batch of government tokenized green bonds (one-year Hong Kong dollar bonds, with a scale of 800 million Hong Kong dollars). Legally, they still fall under the definition of bonds under the "Loan Securities Ordinance" and are subject to the same regulations as traditional bonds. In early 2024, the government issued a second batch of multi-currency tokenized green bonds (Hong Kong dollars, US dollars, euros, and RMB-denominated, with a total of approximately 6 billion Hong Kong dollars), attracting global investors to participate. These pilot projects indicate that with the endorsement of high-credit entities and the support of a well-developed infrastructure, tokenized bonds can gain market recognition and operate smoothly. Investors have experienced advantages such as faster settlement (T+1 or even T+0) and 24/7 operations, and the regulatory authorities have verified how to handle the registration, transfer, and interest payment of tokenized bonds within the current legal framework. Local large financial institutions participating in projects (such as HSBC and Standard Chartered) have also accumulated practical experience. Best Practices include: choosing low-risk assets like the government as the first batch of pilot targets to reduce investors' concerns; fully utilizing the existing central settlement system and blockchain connection, while minimizing changes to the operational habits of market participants; and providing detailed disclosure of technical implementation details to enhance market confidence.

Tokenized Fund Products: (Legal Vehicle Innovation) In the public fund sector, Hong Kong has also seen tokenization explorations. Some private funds and investment products have achieved tokenization through the Hong Kong structure. For example, an asset management company has tokenized the private real estate fund shares, issuing them in Hong Kong to professional investors, enabling investors to participate in large-scale real estate projects with smaller funds and transfer the shares. Such cases usually utilize Hong Kong's limited partnership funds (Limited Partnership Fund, LPF) or offshore fund structures, introducing blockchain registration mechanisms within the fund. Another example is in August 2024, the first charging-pole asset tokenization private fund was issued in Hong Kong by the mainland's Langxin Group in collaboration with Ant Group and UBS. This project packages the future charging revenue and asset income rights of approximately 9,000 electric vehicle charging piles in China and issues tokenized fund shares denominated in Hong Kong dollars by a Hong Kong SPV, raising offshore RMB funds. Best Practices involve conducting tokenization within the legal framework of the fund, enabling token holders to become beneficiaries of the fund through legal agreements, thus clarifying rights and complying with regulatory requirements. At the same time, the fund manager itself holds the 9th license, ensuring that investment management activities are subject to regulation. Technologically, this project adopts a "dual-chain architecture" of consortium chains for off-chain rights confirmation and public chains for on-chain issuance, balancing privacy and openness. These fund-related cases demonstrate that even in the absence of fully covered public fund legislation, tokenization can be achieved through the private fund channel, with the key being the selection of an appropriate legal vehicle and cooperation with licensed managers.

Green Notes and Credit Assets: (Entity Corporate Financing) Besides government bonds, Hong Kong market entities have also begun to explore the tokenization of corporate notes and credit assets. The aforementioned case of Shanggao Holdings in August 2025 is emblematic: it issued Hong Kong's first corporate tokenized notes, totaling 40 million US dollars. The underlying assets include the company's future revenue and asset income rights, and investors actually hold the company's accounts payable debts to the SPV. This issuance was conducted by Guangfa Securities (Hong Kong) as the sole placement broker and completed the chain deployment and issuance on the HashKey platform. It is reported that Shan Gao Holdings is a newly established listed company that is involved in the "electricity + computing power" business. Through this tokenized bond financing, it has demonstrated its strategy of embracing new fintech and expanding financing channels. Its stock price also responded before and after the issuance announcement, being interpreted by the market as positive (the company has opened new overseas financing channels and ventured into popular AI computing power and digital finance fields). Another example of a green bond is a carbon neutrality bond token issued by a renewable energy enterprise in Hong Kong, which uses future carbon emission reduction benefits as support for issuing digital bonds, attracting ESG-themed investors to subscribe. In terms of best practices, these projects fully utilized the dual advantages of Hong Kong: first, policy support - Hong Kong regards green finance and digital assets as key development directions, providing certain policy facilitation for such pilot projects; second, market connection - through the Hong Kong platform, assets with environmental protection and value in the mainland are connected to international investors (such as US dollar funds). This achieved mutual benefit: the project party obtained foreign currency financing, and investors obtained innovative green finance products. Regulatory authorities accumulated experience in these pilot projects and laid the foundation for formulating more universal rules in the future.

Fosun Stock Tokenization (Securities-based RWA) Case: In September 2025, Fosun International's Fosun Wealth launched its first stock tokenization project in Hong Kong, where it entrusted the shares of its listed Hong Kong company Sisram Medical (an Israeli medical technology company, with the stock code 1696) and issued tokens on the blockchain after holding onto these shares. This was the first case in Asia to adopt the model of real share custody and on-chain issuance. Through Vaulta's bank-level operating system, it utilized the Solana and Ethereum public chains for dual-chain issuance and settlement. Global qualified investors could purchase and trade these tokens 24/7, thereby indirectly holding the equity income of Sisram Company. The highlights of this case lie in: As a traditional large enterprise group, Fosun digitized the equity of listed companies, opening up a new channel for all-day and fragmented trading in the capital market; The project achieved a compliance loop, with the stocks held by licensed custody institutions, and token transactions only open to qualified investors, strictly adhering to Hong Kong securities regulations; From the effect perspective, this move demonstrated the "future direction of the capital market" - traditional stocks can also be tokenized and held and traded in real time through blockchain. In terms of market response, Sisram Medical's stock rose significantly after the news was released. Investors believe that this move is expected to enhance the liquidity premium of the stock. Best practice: Select listed companies with decent liquidity and stable fundamentals as the target, issue equivalent tokens based on market prices, and ensure that the token prices are linked to the stock prices. At the same time, a "dual-track" system of technology and compliance is established, which not only enhances efficiency through innovative technologies but also strictly adheres to securities regulations to gain regulatory recognition.

Mainland-to-Hong Kong RWA Case and Market Value Linkage: Some mainland enterprises, after issuing RWA products in Hong Kong, have witnessed interesting linkage effects in their domestic and overseas market values. The overall trend is: The market tends to give positive evaluations to companies that are willing to innovate in RWA. For example, after announcing the issuance of tokenized notes, the stock price of Shan Gao Holdings rose for several consecutive days. On a certain day in early September, it rose by more than 5% intraday and closed up by approximately 8%, with a significant increase in trading volume. Investors interpreted this as a positive sign for the company to open new financing channels and embrace digital financial technology. The stock price changes of companies such as New City Development, Cool Pack Group, Guofu Quantum Innovation, and Huade Medical also reflected the true sentiment of the market.

Experience Insights: RWA projects often not only bring the returns of the financing itself, but may also have a positive impact on the issuer's stock price and market value (reflecting the market's recognition of the company's innovation and forward-looking layout). Of course, this impact should be viewed rationally in combination with the company's fundamentals, but at least it indicates that the capital market is paying attention to and rewarding such compliant innovation attempts.

Conclusion

The tokenization of assets in Hong Kong (RWA) has evolved from conceptual exploration to practical implementation, serving as an innovative bridge between the real economy and digital finance. It delivers three core values to asset owners: flexible financing, access to global capital, and enhanced operational efficiency. Leveraging its robust regulatory framework, internationalized financial market, and innovation-friendly policies, Hong Kong has emerged as an ideal testing ground for this trend.

This guide has systematically outlined the executable pathway for RWA projects across key dimensions, including regulatory compliance, asset selection, issuance structure, legal design, technological implementation, risk management, and disclosure. Through BenFen's "one-click issuance" solution, the barriers to entry are significantly lowered, ensuring a balance of compliance, security, and efficiency.

Practice shows that success lies in combining compliance-first principles with technology enablement: building cross-border bridges via SPVs/trusts to ensure lawful transfer of assets and funds; leveraging blockchain for transparent, programmable asset management and trading; and adopting rigorous due diligence, disclosure, and risk control to win the confidence of both regulators and investors. Cases such as the Hong Kong Government's tokenized green bonds, Shango Holdings' tokenized notes, and Fosun's tokenized equities validate the potential of RWA in enhancing liquidity, reducing transaction frictions, and expanding the global investor base, while also generating positive market valuation feedback for Mainland enterprises.

Looking ahead, as Hong Kong's regulatory framework for stablecoins matures, regulatory sandboxes deepen, and platforms such as BenFen continue to iterate, RWA tokenization will achieve large-scale adoption across a broader range of asset classes and scenarios. Mainland asset owners should seize this opportunity, leveraging Hong Kong's unique advantages to efficiently connect quality assets with global capital, driving deeper integration between the real economy and digital finance, and advancing toward a more open, transparent, and innovative financial future.

Source: Bixin Ventures

在利率下行与全球资金再配置的大背景下，把境内真实资产在香港做合规代币化（RWA），已从“概念试点”变成“可执行方案”。对内地资产拥有者而言，这条路径有三大价值：

1. 融资与变现更灵活：把应收、票据、能源收益、算力租赁、股权/REITs 等资产变成可分割、可流通的数字凭证；

2. 连接全球资金：利用香港的法制与持牌中介，直达离岸资金与新型投资者；

3. 降低运营摩擦：发行、登记、分配、披露上链可编程，提升透明度与信任。 本指南以 “监管—资产—发行—结构—角色—技术—风险”等各个维度的顺序展开，并给出可直接落地的做法与清单，助力首单最小可行产品（MVP）最快在8至12周内完成落地。

1. 香港监管全景与最新动态

首先需要理清 “代币化不改变资产本质”这一基本原则，后续所有发行、销售、托管与交易才能“对号入座”，找到正确合规的路径。

代币化不改变资产本质： 香港证监会（SFC）明确表示，对现实资产进行代币化并不改变其法律属性。如果底层资产属于证券，那么代币化后仍视作证券，必须遵守现行证券法律规定。换言之，“代币化证券”本质就是传统受规管证券加上数字技术外壳：底层资产按照证券法接受

监管，而链上的代币壳层则需要满足额外的技术风险合规要求。监管采取“实质重于形式”（same business, same risks, same rules）的原则，防止发行人借代币化之名逃避既有法律框架。

2019–2025 关键监管文件： 早在2019年3月，SFC发布《证券型代币发行声明》（STO声明），强调证券型代币大概率属于《证券及期货条例》下的“证券”。除非符合豁免，否则任何人在香港市场推广发行此类代币需取得第1类证券交易牌照。该声明还提醒中介机构，若分销代币须确保遵守现有法律法规，且此类代币应仅向专业投资者发行。2023年11月2日，SFC向持牌中介发出通函，更新并取代了2019年的STO声明。新通函明确界定代币化证券是指在发行、交易或结算任一环节利用了分布式账本技术（DLT）的证券，这类代币仍需遵守现行证券发行和投资要约规定，不因技术形式而放松要求。值得注意的是，SFC在最新指引中不再一刀切地将代币化证券视为“复杂产品”，如果通过监管授权，此类产品未来不局限于只能对专业投资者发行。

稳定币立法时间表： 香港金融管理局（HKMA）在2023年底就稳定币监管展开咨询，并于2024年积极起草法规和开展沙盒测试。2025年5月，香港立法会通过《稳定币条例草案》，建立针对法定货币挂钩稳定币发行人的发牌监管制度，并于2025年8月1日正式生效。香港由此成为全球首批构建全面稳定币监管框架的司法管辖区之一。该条例要求发行锚定法定货币价值的稳定币须取得牌照；在过渡期内，未持牌的稳定币发行人仅可向专业投资者提供其代币。同期，HKMA于2024年推出稳定币发行人沙盒，允许合资格机构在正式规管前试点运营，积累监管经验。

监管沙盒与创新试点： 香港监管机构近年对代币化创新持积极但审慎的态度。2022–2023年间，香港政府率先在债券代币化方面试点：2023年2月，香港金管局协助政府成功发行全球首批政府代币化绿色债券（一年期，规模8亿港元），采用区块链技术记录债券。2024年1月，又发行了多币种计价的数字绿色债券，总募集约60亿港元。上述试点验证了香港法律和金融基础设施与代币化兼容的可行性，为后续零售级别的代币化产品奠定基础。投资者通过这些项目体验到更快的结算（T+1甚至T+0）和24小时交易操作，监管机构则验证了在现有法律框架下如何登记、过户和支付链上债券利息的流程。最佳实践包括：选择政府这类高信用、低风险资产作为首批试点标的降低市场顾虑；利用**中央结算系统(CMU)**与区块链对接，减少市场参与者的操作改变；充分披露技术细节以增强市场信心。

VATP 持牌框架对 RWA 二级交易的影响： 自2023年6月起，香港实施新的虚拟资产交易平台（Virtual Asset Trading Platform, VATP）发牌制度（也称VASP牌照），将虚拟资产交易纳入反洗钱条例监管。依据该框架，非证券类代币（如纯数字商品、实物资产代币等）的二级市场交易平台须申请并持有VASP牌照；而证券类代币（本质是证券交易）的交易平台或中介则需要取得相应的证券业务牌照（如第1类证券经纪牌照，或第7类自动化交易服务牌照）。这意味着RWA项目寻求二级市场流动性时，必须根据代币属性选择合适的持牌平台：证券型 RWA 通常只能通过持牌券商的内部ATS系统或其他受SFC监管的场所进行私密交易；非证券型 RWA 则可在持牌虚拟资产交易所挂牌（目前亦仅向专业投资者开放）。需要注意的是，代币属性可能并非一成不变——某些最初设计为非证券的代币，若后续赋予持有人额外权益，可能转变为证券。监管建议发行人进行动态评估，在属性存疑时预先申请全面牌照以确保业务连续合规。

在明确监管边界后，下一步是选择合适的资产并匹配目标投资者，这将直接决定项目的推进速度和规模。

2. 可代币化资产与投资者适配

资产选择是项目成功的基石，投资者适当性则是合规与效率的保障。 可代币化资产范围： 现实世界资产（Real-World Assets, RWA）的范畴极广，几乎涵盖所有具有稳定价值或现金流的实体及金融资产。目前适合代币化的典型资产类别包括：

• 应收账款与票据： 企业应收账款、供应链金融票据、商业票据等。这类短期债权通过代币化可以提升流动性，将未来现金流转化为可交易的数字凭证。例如，2025年8月山高控股在港发行了首单企业应收账款票据的代币化产品，规模4000万美元。投资者持有该代币即相当于持有对应票据债权，到期获取票据本息。

• 债券及贷款： 包括公司债、政府债、贷款资产等固定收益产品。债券代币化可缩短结算周期、扩大投资者基础。香港金管局曾与国际组织合作测试代币化绿色债券的概念验证，并成功发行政府代币化绿色债券验证市场反应（见上文）。此外，不良贷款等信用资产的代币化也有释放流动性的潜力，可将原本缺乏流动性的债权通过链上交易盘活。

• 房地产与不动产权益： 商业地产、住宅物业、土地使用权、基础设施项目等不动产通过代币化可以按份额出售，降低单一投资门槛。投资者通过持有不动产代币获得对应产权或收益权。这类资产需特别关注产权确权、估值及跨境法律问题——例如境内房地产权益跨境转让须符合外汇和对外投资规定。香港已有房地产信托基金（REIT）探索代币化交易的可能，但目前主要仍处于概念验证或私募阶段。

• 基金份额与金融产品： 证券投资基金、私募股权基金、结构化产品等也可代币化，即将基金份额在链上登记流通。国际上已有大型资管机构试水：例如富兰克林邓普顿在美国将其货币市场基金份额代币化并在公链上交易，让投资者通过代币持有传统基金份额。这类基金代币若面向香港公众发行，需要取得证监会认可（即产品授权）后才可公开发售，因此目前多以私募形式针对专业投资者推出试点产品。

• 绿色资产（碳信用、绿色能源凭证）： 碳排放配额、可再生能源证书等绿色金融资产通过代币化，可提高市场透明度和交易效率。碳信用本身具有准公共品属性，代币化需遵守碳交易相关监管。拥有大量新能源资产的企业（如光伏电站、风电场）也可将未来碳减排收益通过香港市场代币化，实现变现融资。需注意不同司法管辖区对碳资产属性界定不一（商品、证券或合约），发行时要提示潜在法律不确定性。

• 能源与算力租赁： 新兴类别，包括跨境新能源项目的发电收益权，以及数据中心机柜/算力租赁等数字基础设施资产。市场将这些视为下一代RWA的核心“硬通货”，如AI算力和绿色能源权益。例如，有内地企业在港发行代币化票据融资，将数万个IDC机柜租赁权和可再生能源电力证书打包代币化，实现实体产业与数字金融结合。这类资产代币化要评估技术可行性（如链上如何监测算力使用）和法律合规性（如电力/算力租赁合同的跨境执行问题）。

投资者适当性：专业投资者 vs. 零售公众 – 基于监管对投资者保护的要求，RWA代币项目在选择目标受众时需要考虑投资者分类：

• 专业投资者路径： 目前绝大多数境内资产赴港代币化项目仅限向专业投资者发行，以私募方式融资。香港法规提供了若干私募豁免，使针对专业投资者（个人资产≥800万港元，或机构投资者等）发行证券可免于招股章程登记。专业投资者通常具备更高风险承受能力，监管对这类发行的审核相对宽松。

• 公众零售路径： 面向公众的代币发行目前非常有限，仅能通过发行证监会授权的产品进行（例如将代币嵌套在公募基金或零售债券中）。零售投资者保护严格，发行人需要满足与传统公募产品同等的披露和风控要求，且监管对于任何面向散户的代币产品都格外审慎。目前除官方试点外，尚无纯RWA代币直接公募发行的先例。 锁定资产与人群后，进入发行与销售路径的选择与落地。

3. 发行与销售合规路径

现实做法以 PI 私募为主，零售路径适合“牌照齐、披露强、体量大”的成熟产品。

专业投资者私募发行（豁免框架）： 大多数 RWA 代币发行选择依托香港的私募豁免框架进行。根据《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》及《证券及期货条例》第IV部，如果证券发行仅面向专业投资者，或符合其他特定条件（如每笔投资不少于500万港元等），可豁免提前登记招股章程。这使发行人能够采用私募方式快速发行代币化资产，无需经历公开发行的漫长审批流程。典型做法是：设立香港SPV作为发行主体，准备投资协议或私募说明书，向少数合格投资者非公开推介。在此过程中，发行人仍需确保提供充分的风险披露、获取投资者的专业投资者资格确认，并遵守不得公开招揽的限制。私募发行的优点是速度快、灵活度高、成本较低；缺点是投资者范围受限，募集规模和二级流动性相对有限。

证监会授权产品的公开发行（零售路径）： 若希望面向公众发行RWA代币，必须将产品置于香港受监管产品范畴下运行。例如，可设立一个传统基金或信托，将RWA代币作为基金资产或受益权，让基金份额在取得SFC授权后公开发售（类似公募基金形式）。另一种是申请发行代币化债券，并在香港交易所或认可市场挂牌交易，需向公司注册处及证监会提交招股章程审批。这条路径要求发行人在法律、财务、风控方面达到传统公募产品的标准，包括委任持牌机构担任保荐人/受托人、提供底层资产的历史业绩及尽职报告等。以2023年香港政府代币化绿色债券为例：HKMA协助编制了详尽的发行通函，并通过中央结算系统(CMU)完成债券的交收。零售路径可显著扩大投资群体并提升品牌知名度，但准备周期长、成本高昂。而且由于目前大众对代币化产品认知有限，市场反应存在不确定性（监管也会更加谨慎）。总体而言，零售发行适合体量大、信誉高的发行人（如政府、金融机构），或待未来法规进一步明确某些RWA可公募后再考虑。

证券型代币相关牌照要求： 无论采取私募或公募路线，RWA发行都涉及受规管活动，需符合香港牌照制度要求。主要牌照包括：

• 第1类牌照（证券交易）： 若发行或销售代币涉及在香港买卖或招揽证券，相关机构或个人须持有1号牌照（或在持牌机构监督下行事）。例如，代币化证券的承销商、分销代理、二级市场做市商等都应取得1号牌照。在私募发行中，发行人通常会聘请持牌券商作为配售代理，负责联系投资者和安排交易，以满足这一要求。

• 第4类牌照（就证券提供意见）： 若项目涉及向投资者提供投资建议或理财建议（例如理财顾问向客户推荐某RWA代币项目），则提供意见的一方需持有4号牌照。在实践中，这意味着参与RWA项目的私人银行顾问、家族办公室等如果推荐客户投资代币化产品，也需注意相关牌照要求。

• 第7类牌照（提供自动化交易服务）： 如果项目搭建了交易平台撮合代币化证券的买卖，例如允许投资者在平台上自由挂牌交易代币份额，那么该平台属于自动化交易服务（ATS）范畴。根据法规，ATS营运者需持有7号牌照并受SFC监管。目前大多数RWA项目的二级交易以场外协议转让为主，尚无面向公众的代币证券交易所。但也有持牌券商开发内部系统供专业投资者交易代币化资产，这实际上属于ATS，需取得7号牌照。

• 第9类牌照（资产管理）： 如果发行结构涉及管理代币化资产组合（例如发行人代表投资者持有底层资产并负责运营管理，类似基金经理），则可能触发9号牌照要求。在RWA场景下，典型例子是发行代币化基金，或将代币募集资金用于特定项目并由发行人或其关联方负责管理投资。这种情况下，应确保管理人持有9号牌照，或委托持牌资产管理公司执行，以符合法规。

其他配套资质也可能需要考虑。例如提供资产托管服务的机构可能需具备信托公司牌照或TCSP信托/公司服务提供者牌照；涉及提供贷款的结构则可能需要放债人牌照等。监管层提醒，鉴于代币属性和业务模式可能演变，应提前规划牌照布局，确保所有相关活动均有适当牌照支撑。总之，RWA发行是一项跨界金融创新，但在香港“相同业务、相同风险、相同规则”的监管理念下，各参与方仍需各司其职、持有适当牌照才能合法开展业务。 确定发行路由后，“境内资产—境外发行”的结构与闭环要先打通。

4. 内地资产“出海香港”结构设计

SPV/信托是“桥”，跨境权利转移与回款闭环是“梁”。先把桥梁搭稳，资金才敢过河。

SPV/信托等跨境载体安排： 内地资产若要“出海”到香港进行代币化，通常需要通过设立特殊目的载体（SPV）实现资产权利的跨境转移和风险隔离。常见做法是：内地资产持有人先在香港（或其他离岸司法管辖区如开曼、BVI）设立一家SPV公司或信托，将拟代币化的资产或其收益权转让给该SPV，然后由SPV在香港发行代币。通过这一结构，底层资产从境内主体转移至境外载体名下，实现法律和地域隔离。关键步骤包括：办理资产出境的监管审批（如涉及外汇出境、境外投资备案等），签署资产出售或权益转让协议，将资产合法过户给SPV。例如，某公司欲将内地不良债权打包在港发行代币化产品，可能会在香港成立全资子公司作为SPV，并与境内原债权人签订转让协议，将债权收益权售予SPV，由SPV面向投资者发行代币代表该债权受益份额。

在这一过程中，跨境合规是结构设计核心：资产权益出境必须符合内地《企业境外投资管理办法》以及外汇管理等规定，不可私自转移大额资产出境。因此需通过合法途径，如商务部门或发改委的境外投资备案、外汇局的资金出境许可等。如果是贸易项下应收款，可考虑通过贸易合同转让；如果是股权，则考虑股权出售或境外SPV收购。每类资产都有对应的跨境合规要求，设计架构时须逐一评估，确保既服务商业目标又不触碰外汇和对外投资监管红线。

跨境权利转移与回款闭环： 成功将资产转入境外SPV后，发行人还需设计资金和收益在境内外流转的闭环。投资者购买代币的资金通常进入SPV账户，用于支付购买资产的价款或投入项目。此后，底层资产产生的现金流（如利息、租金、股息等）需从境内汇至SPV，再由SPV通过智能合约或线下途径分配给代币持有人。过程中要保证每一步资金流动均合规可控。例如，若底层资产为境内发放的贷款，则借款人还款时需按规定将款项汇给SPV，再由SPV按代币持仓比例向全球投资者派息。为防范汇兑风险，项目常采用双币种架构（如底层资产人民币计价、代币美元或港币计价），并通过银行或持牌机构办理结售汇；或者直接使用在港募集的离岸资金发放贷款以形成自然对冲。不论哪种方式，都需事先打通资金回流渠道，包括获取必要的外债额度、跨境结算通道，以及在智能合约层面设置资金收付节点，确保链上链下资金流对应。完善的闭环应做到：投资者资金 -> 境外SPV -> 境内项目 -> 项目收益 -> 汇回SPV -> 分配给投资者，每一步都有法律依据和记录支撑，避免出现资金滞留境内无法返还的风险。

不同资产类型的尽调与信息披露要点： 根据底层资产性质不同，SPV在发行前需开展有针对性的尽职调查并准备相应披露材料：

• 债权类资产（应收账款、贷款等）： 重点尽调债务人的信用状况、还款来源、合同合法性，以及是否有抵押担保等。披露文件应包含借款人基本面、债权金额、期限利率、违约处置机制等。如果有评估报告或信用评级也应提供。需说明该债权转让至SPV的法律有效性，是否已通知债务人并获得同意等。

• 不动产/物业： 核查产权证明、土地使用年限、历史租金收入、专业估值报告等。对于境内物业，若无法直接转让产权，通常以转让项目公司股权或收益权的方式替代，此时需说明该安排下代币持有人享有的具体权益。信息披露包含物业位置、面积、租户情况、评估价值、租金收益，以及影响物业价值的因素（税费、物业管理状况、抵押权设定等）。还应揭示境内不动产权益跨境转让可能面临的法律冲突（如物权登记、强制执行等管辖权问题）。

• 股权/股权收益类： 若底层资产为内地非上市企业股权或上市公司股票，需披露企业经营情况、财务报表、股东结构等。如果涉及上市公司股权代币化（如复星将Sisram Medical股票代币化的案例），要说明所占股份比例、市值规模、是否触发信息披露义务及禁售期安排等。由于股权类资产价格波动大，还应充分提示股价波动风险及发行人可能采取的市值管理措施。

• 基金份额/金融产品： 披露基金招募说明书中的关键信息，包括投资策略、底层资产组合、历史业绩、管理人资质、费率结构等。如果基金以私募形式运作，则需说明合格投资者人数上限、封闭期等限制。通常代币持有人是通过SPV持有基金份额的受益权，需要解释这种间接持有与直接持有基金份额在权利和义务上的差异。

• 绿色资产（碳信用/绿证）： 尽调关注资产的真实性和核证机制。例如碳额度应来自权威机构签发，绿电证书需可追溯至实际发电量。披露说明核证标准（如CDM、CCER等）、有效期、已使用情况，以及这些资产的市场定价方式。目前全球碳价差异较大，还需提示投资者面临的汇率和市场波动风险。此外，各司法辖区对碳资产属性界定不同（有的视为商品，有的视为证券或合约），需提示潜在法律不确定性。

• 算力/租赁类资产： 披露底层算力设备规格、运营状况、现有客户合同（如有长期租约则收益更稳定），以及每个代币对应的算力或租赁权指标（如多少算力时长或机柜空间）。说明预期收益如何计算。如果底层资产为数据中心项目，还应披露项目所在地的政策环境（供电、监管等）。技术上，建议提供第三方技术审计报告验证算力资源的存在及利用情况，增强投资者信心。

总的来说，不同资产在代币化前需要“量身定制”尽调清单，确保底层资产权属清晰、质量可靠。同时编制详尽的信息披露文件（白皮书或私募建议书），将资产详情、交易结构、风险因素等透明告知投资者。监管特别关注发行材料中对风险的揭示是否充分、真实：例如说明代币化安排下资产估值方法的可靠性（非上市资产估值存在不确定性）、跨境法律冲突的解决机制（遇纠纷适用何种法律及仲裁管辖），以及代币持有人与传统持有人的权利差异等。只有当尽调和披露工作做到位，才能最大程度降低法律和信用风险，赢得监管部门和投资者的认可。

桥搭好，还要请“对的工种”上场——看牌照与角色分工。

5. 牌照 & 角色映射

明确各参与方的职责与持牌要求，是项目“稳态运行”的保障。 RWA 项目的顺利运作涉及多方专业角色，各自承担相应职能并需持有相应资质。主要角色职责与合规要求如下：

• 发行载体（Issuer/SPV）： 由发行人设立的SPV公司或信托，作为代币法律发行主体。职责包括持有底层资产、发行代币、维护资产运营等。SPV需完成合法注册，具有独立法人资格以实现风险隔离。同时建立健全KYC/AML制度，履行投资者身份验证和反洗钱审查义务。若SPV自身从事受监管活动（如证券发行/管理），需申请相应牌照。在很多案例中，SPV本身不直接持牌，而是聘请持牌机构执行相关职能，以“穿透式合规”满足要求。例如SPV委托持牌券商分销代币，聘请持牌资产管理人管理资产等。

• 发行顾问/安排人： 协助设计交易架构、准备发行文件、协调监管沟通的中介机构。通常由熟悉跨境结构和香港法规的投行或律师事务所担任。法律顾问负责架构设计、起草法律文件、出具法律合规意见；财务顾问负责估值定价、投资者路演安排等。如果发行涉及公开市场，还需有持牌保荐人参与把关。发行顾问需确保项目方案符合监管要求且切实可行，在整个过程中充当“总协调人”。

• 分销与销售（Distributor）： 负责将代币产品出售给投资者的渠道。如果代币属证券范畴，分销行为即属于证券交易活动，必须由持牌券商或持牌银行证券部门执行（通常持有第1类牌照），履行向客户推介和安排认购的工作。分销机构需对产品进行尽职调查，充分了解产品结构和风险，并向客户提供适当性意见。如果代币面向专业投资者，分销商还需核实客户资格。典型情况下，会由一家大型券商担任发行协调人，组建分销团向多家机构投资者配售代币。

• 资产托管（Custodian）： 分为底层资产托管和数字代币托管两部分。底层资产托管是指对实体资产（资金、股权证书、不动产产权文件等）的保管，通常由独立第三方信托公司或银行担任，确保底层资产安全并独立于发行人控制，以保护投资者权益。数字代币托管则涉及投资者所持代币的保管服务，可由专业数字资产托管机构或交易平台提供。根据HKMA指引，从事代币化产品托管的机构需达到数字资产托管的安全标准，包括私钥安全管理、防黑客防盗、链上/链下记录一致性、以及应急赎回机制等要求。许多项目采用多重签名或托管钱包方案，降低单点故障和私钥丢失风险。若引入第三方托管，还应考虑其牌照要求（某些司法辖区托管业务需牌照）以及通过保险转移风险。托管人在RWA架构中扮演“资产守门人”角色，其独立性和稳健性对建立投资者信任非常关键。

• 估值与审计（Valuation & Audit）： 为确保代币对应资产的价值真实透明，需要引入独立的估值和审计机制。估值机构（会计师事务所或专业评估公司）应定期或在需要时对底层资产估值。例如房地产每年提供专业估价报告，贷款组合定期评估减值。估值方法须在发行文件中披露并保持一致性。审计师负责审计SPV财务报表及代币持有人权益变动情况，通常每年一次并出具审计报告。这在公募产品中尤为必要；即使是私募项目，存续期较长也建议每年向投资者提供经审计的财务报表。审计范围包括核查底层资产是否存在、现金流是否按约定分配、SPV有无未披露负债等。审计工作须由持牌会计师事务所执行。目前四大会计师等大型机构已开始涉足数字资产审计，为市场提供专业背书。

• 平台与二级市场营运方： 如果RWA代币在发行后计划提供交易流动性，则相应的平台运营方也须“持证上岗”。假如平台交易的是非证券型代币（如纯碳信用代币），则需取得虚拟资产交易平台牌照（VASP）；若交易证券型代币，则平台应取得SFC认可的ATS资格，或通过持牌券商的内部系统撮合交易。平台运营方需建立完善的交易规则、监控和合规体系。例如只允许完成KYC的白名单地址参与交易，设置单笔交易限额，监控异常交易和市场操纵行为等。同时要有做市安排提供基本买卖深度。通常发行人会与一家持牌交易平台战略合作，在代币发行后由该平台为投资者提供二级交易服务。平台方除了技术职责（维护撮合和钱包系统）外，还需确保交易符合反洗钱、反恐融资要求，履行可疑交易报告义务——这实际上与传统证券交易所/券商的合规要求类似，只是技术载体换成了区块链。

综上，RWA项目并非发行人单打独斗，而是一幅专业分工的拼图：发行人提供可靠资产和总体方案，持牌中介把关分销和交易合规，托管方保障资产安全，专业机构提供估值审计背书。每个角色都需明确自身职责和监管要求，做到“谁的职责谁负责，谁的牌照谁持有”，共同搭建可信的代币化生态体系。只有这样，投资者在接触新兴RWA产品时才能享受与传统金融相当的保护和服务水平。

人和牌照就位，开始把规则“写进系统”——进入技术与运营

6. 技术与运营要求

把“监管规则”翻译成“合约参数”，是代币化能否落地的关键。

• 白名单机制与可转让性限制： RWA代币通常不会像公众加密货币那样在链上自由流转，而是设置白名单或转让限制，以符合证券法和投资者适当性要求。具体而言，发行人在智能合约中嵌入控制逻辑：只有通过KYC认证且列入白名单的钱包地址才能持有和转移代币。若代币仅限专业投资者，则只有符合资格的投资者地址才会加入白名单。一旦持有人试图将代币转给非白名单地址，合约将拒绝交易。这确保代币不会在未受控环境下流转，避免违规公开传播。此外，合约可设置锁定期和转让次数限制，例如发行后6个月内禁止转让，或每笔转让需经发行人审批。在技术实现上，许多平台采用ERC-1404等受控代币标准或自研模块来管理链上转让权限。白名单机制需与线下登记机制配合，确保链上持有人身份清晰可追溯。这对监管很关键，一旦发生违规转让或纠纷，能够穿透识别实际持有人和交易路径。

• 托管与钱包安排： 数字代币的安全托管是运营管理的重中之重。一方面，发行人需选择合适的钱包方案存放项目代币和私钥，例如代币发行铸造钱包、多签托管钱包等。常见做法是使用多重签名钱包，由多方（如发行人、托管银行、律师）共管私钥碎片，任何代币转移需预设数量的签名授权，防止单点泄露。另一方面，对于投资者端，可采用托管式账户或自管钱包两种模式：托管式由平台或信托机构代为保管投资者代币，投资者看到的是账户余额；自托管则由投资者使用自己的链上钱包接收代币。两种模式各有利弊——托管式方便管理和找回遗失，但投资者不掌控私钥；自托管让投资者完全控制资产，但对其安全管理私钥要求更高。香港监管高度关注虚拟资产托管，HKMA要求托管机构采用冷热钱包分离、私钥备份、多重认证等严谨措施。运营方需制定钱包管理流程，如哪些代币存冷钱包（离线保存高安全）、哪些存热钱包（在线满足流动性需求）；明确私钥的授权和交接机制，防止任何单人可转移资产。为增强安全，不少项目为托管资产购买保险，或通过多签+时间锁实现私钥丢失后的可恢复权限。总之，完善的钱包和托管安排是保障RWA项目资产安全的关键底线。

• 二级流动性设计： 不同于上市证券，大部分RWA代币在发行初期的二级市场流动性有限，需要精心设计买卖渠道。首先，项目方通常会引入做市商或报价支持。在发行完成后，指定一家或多家做市商在场外提供双边报价，为代币提供基础流动性。这些做市商多为参与项目的券商或机构投资者，他们通过价差获利并承担库存风险。其次，如果代币在持牌交易平台上线，则平台可通过竞价撮合或定期拍卖机制发现价格。有些项目每周定期竞价交易，以避免连续波动。还有项目设计回购/赎回机制：例如允许持有人按季度末以一定折价向发行人回售代币，为代币价格提供下档支撑。香港近期的一个创新实践是股票代币化：2025年9月复星集团将旗下Sisram Medical上市股票权益代币化，投资者可7×24小时在链上交易该权益。这突破了传统股市的交易时段限制，让全球投资者全天候参与，被视为提升流动性的亮点。不过当前此类链上交易仍仅限受控环境（仅对合格投资者开放）。总体而言，RWA代币二级流动性需要在提供必要退出途径与防止过度炒作之间取得平衡。常见做法是在早期将市场参与限定在熟悉资产价值的专业投资者，让价格主要反映底层资产表现；待项目成熟、信息透明度提高后，再逐步扩大参与范围，最终实现更广泛的流动性。

• 数据合规与链上监控： RWA代币运营需满足数据管理和链上监控要求。一方面，平台要遵守香港个人资料隐私条例，安全保存投资者KYC信息，不得随意泄露身份。但同时又要满足监管“穿透式”审查需求，必要时能将链上地址与现实身份对应并提供给监管机构。很多平台采用链上标识+链下实名数据库结合：链上记录地址和代币数量，投资者实名信息保存在安全数据库，由合规部门掌管。另一方面，平台需实施类似传统金融的交易监控机制，例如设置异常交易警报（短时间内大量交易、价格异常波动等）和反洗钱模式识别（链上资金快速划转至可疑地址）。一旦发现疑似违法活动（如有人试图借代币转移大额资金），应及时展开调查并向有关部门报告。幸运的是，区块链透明可追溯的特性为监管提供了新工具——运营方可借助链上分析软件实时追踪大额地址动向，监测代币集中度和流向。这有助于及早发现市场操纵、内幕交易等迹象。例如若代币价格短期暴涨，运营方可分析链上数据判断是否由少数地址自买自卖抬高价格，并据此向投资者发布风险提示或限制交易。数据合规还涉及跨境数据传输：如果涉及内地投资者或资产数据上链，需要遵守内地的数据出境规定，可能需要对敏感数据匿名化处理后再上链，或者将核心数据留存在境内链下系统。最后，链上重要事件的披露也不可忽视——一旦发生智能合约漏洞、黑客攻击、代币合约升级等技术事件，运营方应及时通过官网、平台公告甚至区块链公告功能告知持有人，保持信息透明。技术运营团队需与合规部门配合，将传统风控措施与区块链特点结合，打造持续监测、及时响应的链上监控体系，确保RWA生态在可控环境中运行。

规则上线之后，风险与保护要前置固化，避免“上线即踩雷”。

7. 风险揭示与投资者保护

技术、法律、估值、流动性与跨境执行，五类风险逐一有“抓手”。

• 技术风险： RWA代币引入了区块链相关的一系列技术风险，需充分揭示并防范。其中最突出的是智能合约漏洞风险——发行管理依赖智能合约，黑客可能利用漏洞窃取资产或篡改账户。因此监管要求发行前必须经过独立的智能合约安全审计，并将结果提供投资者参考。其次是区块链网络故障风险：若底层所用链停机、分叉，将影响代币交易和结算。尤其采用公链时应提示不可逆交易风险——若发生误转或被盗，资产可能无法找回。还有私钥管理风险：投资者或托管方私钥遗失将导致相应代币永久不可用。技术风险揭示应以通俗语言说明可能情形和后果。为保护投资者，发行人和平台需采取多重防范措施，如前述合约审计、多签托管、冷热分离等，并建立应急预案（如遭黑客攻击时暂停合约、启用备用结算方案等）。

• 法律和合规风险： 跨境代币化安排涉及复杂法律关系，投资者可能面临权利无法有效执行的风险。例如投资者持有的代币能否获得底层资产所在司法区的法律承认？若底层资产在境内发生违约或纠纷，代币持有人作为境外权益人，能否顺利通过法律途径主张权利？这些都需要在风险揭示中说明。还包括不同司法管辖法律冲突的问题：代币交易在链上发生且参与者全球分布，但底层资产和发行人受特定司法管辖，万一出事，适用何地法律、在哪起诉都需预先说明。监管也关注传统法律与智能合约规则的冲突：例如智能合约自动执行可能与法院强制令相矛盾——如果某投资者破产法院要求冻结其资产，而链上又无法单方面冻结地址，这种矛盾需提前有解决方案。合规风险方面，应提示监管政策变化可能带来的影响。如未来法律重新定义某类代币为证券，投资者持有和交易将受新规约束，可能需要补办手续甚至影响代币合法性。尤其对于跨境发行，需要关注内地和香港监管动态：万一内地加强对居民参与海外代币投资的管制，投资者可能面临合规障碍。发行文件应披露当前架构下已有的法律意见，以及哪些事项存在不确定（监管灰色地带）需投资者自行评估。

• 估值与流动性风险： RWA代币往往缺乏活跃的公开市场，投资者面临估值不确定和流动性不足的风险。若底层资产是非上市资产，其公允价值难以实时定价，代币价格通常依赖定期评估或模型估值，资产净值存在误差空间。尤其在市场波动时，模型估值可能滞后或失准，导致代币二级市场价格大幅偏离基础价值。投资者应被告知，其持有代币的价值波动可能比底层资产更剧烈，因为流动性折价和市场情绪都会影响代币交易价。另外，退出渠道有限也是重大风险点——代币未必能随时卖出变现，尤其在没有二级市场做市支持时，投资者可能只能持有至项目结束获取收益或等待发行人回购。在极端情况下，代币账面价值即使很高也可能无人接盘而无法变现。项目方需在文件中明确流动性安排（是否计划上线交易所，是否提供回购机制等），并提示持有期间可能面临的流动性缺失。2019年SFC就曾强调，未经认可的代币化证券原则上不得向散户提供，部分原因正是担心散户误入流动性差的产品难以退出。因此目前限制参与者为专业投资者，也是对流动性风险的一种防护。

• 跨境执行与汇兑风险： 对于跨境RWA项目，投资者需了解跨境法律执行和汇率汇兑方面的风险。如果底层资产在内地，代币持有人作为境外债权人，未来在执行判决时可能面临两地互认的问题——内地法院未必承认链上代币持有人对资产的权益，可能需要通过繁琐法律程序。投资者必须接受这种权益实现的不确定性。另一方面，人民币资本管制意味着未来收益汇出的汇兑风险：若政策收紧，底层资产收益无法按时汇出香港，将直接影响代币投资回报。此外，币种错配也带来风险：例如底层资产收益以人民币计价但代币以美元计价，期间汇率波动可能导致投资回报偏离预期。项目方即使采取套期保值措施，也应提醒投资者汇率变动可能损及收益。总体而言，在当前内地与香港仍存在制度差异的情况下，RWA项目无法完全消除跨境方面的固有风险，投资者需根据自身情况考虑能否承受这些不确定性。

• 投资者保护机制与监管期望： 为尽量保障投资者利益，RWA项目和监管机构设置了一系列保护措施。首先是适当性管理，做到将合适的产品卖给合适的人——如前述，大部分项目限定专业投资者参与，就是为了确保参与者具备相应知识和风险承受力。对于少数允许零售参与的试点，也是在监管沙盒内进行，并配套强制投资者教育和限额控制。其次，项目文件通常包含投资者保护条款：如底层资产提前处置时如何清算分配；若资产管理人违约，信托结构下如何更换管理人；重大事项（资产出售、再融资等）是否需要代币持有人投票同意等等。这些条款赋予投资者一定决策和监督权。监管层也期望发行人建立顺畅的投资者沟通渠道，如指定投资者联络人、定期提供持有人报告或召开持有人会议，让投资者了解项目进展并提出疑问。此外，香港有成熟的投资者投诉和纠纷调解机制，RWA代币持有人在遇到问题时可寻求法律救济或向监管部门投诉。需要注意的是，投资者赔偿制度（如证监会投资者赔偿基金）目前尚不覆盖未经认可的代币产品，所以投资者不能指望政府兜底，这一点也应明确告知。总体而言，监管对于RWA的态度是鼓励创新但要求“底线稳健”：通过上述保护措施，让参与者充分知悉风险、自担风险，同时杜绝欺诈、健全信息披露，以维持市场长期健康发展。

风险说清楚，还要持续披露，让投资者“看得见、算得清”。

8. 信息披露与报告

发行前“讲明白”，存续期“讲持续”，技术事件“讲及时”。

• 要约文件与技术风险披露： 发行RWA代币需准备详尽的要约文件（私募说明书或招股书），其信息披露质量直接关系到投资者决策和合规。文件应包括：项目概述（代币对应资产及发行目的）、参与各方介绍（发行人/SPV架构、托管人、评估师、交易平台等）、底层资产详情、交易结构示意图、投资条款（代币权益设计、期限、收益分配、退出安排等）以及风险因素说明。尤其在风险披露部分，要针对代币化的特点作额外说明，如链上/链下交收的法律效力问题、代币转让限制条款、智能合约审计结论、网络安全措施和应急处理机制等。香港监管要求披露必须全面、准确、易懂，避免过多技术术语导致投资者无法理解。对于创新风险点（如使用公链可能带来的不可逆交易风险、监管政策可能变化），应予以特别提示。此外，在技术运营方面，有些发行文件会附加IT声明或技术白皮书，详细描述区块链架构、智能合约逻辑、安全测试结果等，供技术背景的投资者参考。这相当于将传统证券发行的募集章程与区块链项目白皮书相结合，既满足法规要求又提供必要的技术透明度。

• 定期/不定期信息披露： RWA项目在存续期内，应参照传统证券/基金的信息披露要求，向投资者提供定期报告和必要的临时报告。定期披露方面，通常包括年度和半年度报告，内容涵盖SPV财务报表、底层资产运营情况、本期收益分配，以及影响资产价值的重大事项更新。如果底层资产是经营性企业或项目，最好附上管理层讨论与分析（MD&A）。这些报告若经过审计或审阅更能提高可信度。对于封闭式私募项目，监管未强制定期披露，但高质量项目往往自愿参考公募基金要求，提供季度或半年报告，以维护投资者信心。不定期披露方面，当发生重大事件时须及时告知投资者。例如底层资产出现重大违约、诉讼、资产减值，或托管机构更换、监管环境重大变化等，都应尽快通过正式通知或公告披露。特别地，链上事件的披露值得关注：若智能合约进行了升级、发现漏洞修补、发生黑客攻击等技术事件，也应视作重大事项通知持有人。由于这些技术事件可能未在传统披露清单中，发行人需要制定制度识别哪些链上情况属于重大事项并披露。信息披露渠道可多样化——私募项目通常通过电子邮件/电话会议直接通知投资者，公开项目则可在交易所公告平台、官网专栏发布公告，甚至通过区块链浏览器上的公告功能发布（确保链上链下信息同步）。监管方面，对于零售产品，SFC会监督其持续信息披露是否到位；对于私募产品，虽无硬性规定，但良好的信息披露有助于减少纠纷并赢得市场口碑。

• 稳定币相关特别要求： 如果RWA项目涉及稳定币的使用或发行，需要注意香港针对稳定币的特别监管要求。首先，根据《稳定币条例》，在港发行锚定法定货币价值的稳定币属于受监管活动。项目方若计划发行锚定某法币价值的代币（例如锚定人民币的稳定值代币用于结算），必须取得牌照或豁免，否则不得面向公众提供。因此目前RWA项目一般不直接发行新的稳定币，而是使用现有合规稳定币作为交易媒介。若运行过程中使用USDT/USDC等稳定币来募集资金或分红，则须注意相关结算风险：包括稳定币价格波动或脱锚风险、发行机构信用风险等。监管机构在2025年联合声明中提醒市场注意稳定币潜在的市场波动和信用风险，项目方应向投资者披露所用稳定币种类、发行方背景、1:1储备保障，以及极端情况下（如稳定币崩盘或冻结）将采取的应对措施。另外，根据稳定币新规，在过渡期未持牌的稳定币发行人，其代币只能提供给专业投资者。所以如果RWA项目计划引入某未获牌稳定币作为支付手段，也需要限定投资者为专业群体，避免违规。最后，稳定币的反洗钱和链上监控也很重要——若项目接受稳定币出资，应使用符合Travel Rule（旅行规则）的钱包或交易所，记录资金来源去向，防范洗钱活动渗透。总之，稳定币可为RWA项目提供便捷的价值交换桥梁，但其自身风险和监管要求绝不能被忽视，应在项目设计和信息披露中充分覆盖。

信息透明后，才能稳步开放二级流动性。

9. 二级市场与做市

先做“可控的流动性”，再做“可持续的流动性”。

• VATP 持牌交易流程： 如果RWA代币在发行后计划通过香港持牌虚拟资产交易平台（VATP）进行二级交易，其流程将受到严格监管。首先，平台只允许完成实名KYC的合格用户交易（专业投资者需提供资产证明等）。平台在上线任何代币前，必须根据SFC指引对代币进行尽职审查，以确保其不属于禁限资产（如未经许可的证券型代币或算法稳定币等）且项目方可信。一旦代币获准上线，交易一般流程包括：投资者将法币或认可的虚拟资产充值到平台账户 -> 提交买/卖订单 -> 平台撮合成交 -> 代币和资金在平台账本中完成交收。需要注意，目前持牌VATP在允许散户参与方面仍有限制，只开放少数主流虚拟资产交易，大部分RWA代币即使上线平台也仅限专业投资者专区，以符合法规。交易过程中，平台需持续监控市场，防范操纵和内幕交易。如果发现异常（如突然的大额买单推高价格），平台有权暂停代币交易并展开调查。此外，平台负有信息披露义务，例如代币发行人发布了重要公告时应及时通知用户。整体而言，在VATP上交易RWA代币与在正规证券交易所交易股票有相似之处，只是资产类别不同但合规要求一脉相承 —— 投资者在交易前需被充分告知产品信息和风险，交易中受到交易所规则约束并得到监控保护。

• 流动性管理与价格发现机制： 由于RWA代币底层资产往往较独特、市场认知度低，其流动性管理是发行人和平台共同面临的挑战。为促进价格发现，一些项目在发行时引入锚定机制或参考指标价。例如代币锚定某上市股票，则股票市价可作为代币参考基准；锚定债券则以票息和市场利率模型估值为参考。有了基准价后，做市商可围绕基准价上下一定幅度报出买卖价，引导代币价格跟随基本面波动。做市商本身可能是发行人关联方或专业机构，通过持续报价提供流动性。部分项目也设置“价格笼子”：限定代币交易价格在某参考区间内（基准价上下多少%），超出则交易无效，以防止极端离谱价格出现。另一方面，随着DeFi发展，有项目尝试将RWA代币引入**去中心化交易所（DEX）**的流动性池，利用自动做市商(AMM)算法提供连续流动性。但出于监管考虑，香港发行的RWA代币目前极少直接上开放式DEX；监管更青睐受控的流动性提供方式，如在持牌平台由认可做市商交易，这样交易记录可审计、异常行为可追责。价格发现方面，若代币对应资产有公开市场价格（如上市股票、市价债券），理论上代币价格应与之紧密联动，否则会出现套利空间。例如前述复星代币化的Sisram Medical股票，其链上交易价应与港交所股价基本一致，跨市场套利者的参与将确保两者联动。但若底层资产没有现成市价（如未上市房地产），代币价格主要由参与各方对资产价值的判断决定，初期波动可能较大。为提高价格透明度，发行人通常会定期公布底层资产净值、收益数据等信息，帮助投资者调整报价。监管层希望看到真实的市场价格发现而非发行人控盘，因此对做市行为有要求：不得内幕操纵，不得自买自卖制造虚假成交。理想情况下，随着更多投资者参与和信息透明，RWA代币价格能充分反映底层资产的真实价值及市场预期，其走势与传统市值走势产生联动，从而发挥出真正的价值发现功能。

路线与机制明确后，进入排期与预算，把项目推上“进度表”。

10. 项目时间表与成本框架

把复杂事拆成里程碑，时间与成本就“有数可管”。

项目时间轴： 发行一个内地资产赴港的RWA项目，从筹备到落地通常需要数月时间，视资产复杂程度和监管流程而定。一个典型的计划时间表如下：

• 前期可行性研究（T - 6个月）： 发行人与法律顾问评估资产是否适合代币化，设计基本架构和商业方案，包括选择区块链平台、初步交易结构、目标投资者群体等。此阶段需获得公司内部立项批准，并与潜在合作伙伴（券商、平台方）达成初步意向。

• 架构搭建与监管沟通（T - 4个月）： 在香港设立SPV或信托载体，启动内地资产出境所需的审批流程（如发改委备案、外汇登记等）。同时在香港与监管机构预先沟通方案（私募项目可非正式咨询，公募项目应与SFC初步讨论可行性）。技术团队开始开发智能合约，法律团队起草发行文件初稿。此阶段需明确项目所需的牌照及取得方式（自行申请或与持牌机构合作）。

• 尽职调查与文件定稿（T - 2个月）： 对底层资产开展全面尽调，出具估值报告、法律意见书等。根据尽调结果完善发行白皮书/章程文件，包含所有必要信息披露。邀请审计师核查SPV财务和资产权属。文件基本定稿后，如需监管批准则正式提交审核（公募项目此时向SFC递交申请，私募项目则准备发送给潜在投资者）。智能合约开发和安全审计在此阶段完成。同时确定发行条款（发行规模、价格/利率、期限等），拟定投资者推介材料。

• 发行与分销（T = 0）： 按计划日期正式发行代币。若为私募发行，可在发行日前后安排投资者路演、一对一洽谈，投资者签署认购协议并支付资金，SPV向投资者地址交付代币。这个过程可持续几天至几周，直到募集金额达到预期。若为公募发行，则在招股书公开后的认购期内接受公众认购，中签者获得配售代币。发行完成后，发布成交公告或配售结果公告。

• 二级市场做市启动（T + 0.5个月）： 如项目计划提供二级市场交易，一般在发行交收完成后一两周内启动流动性支持。做市商开始上线为代币提供双边报价，或按协议约定的时间开放平台交易功能。运营团队密切监控初期市场表现，确保系统稳定、交易平稳，如有异常状况可及时处理。

• 项目存续管理（T + 后续）： 项目进入正常运营阶段。底层资产按期产生收益，SPV依据约定通过链上或线下渠道向代币持有人分配（如季度付息、收益分红等）。同时按既定频率发布定期报告和临时公告（参见信息披露章节）。项目到期时，按文件约定清算或赎回，回收底层资产价值并最后分配给代币持有人，销毁代币或使其失效，完成整个周期。一个项目从发行到结束可能短则半年，长则数年甚至更久，期间需要持续的运营和合规管理。

不同项目时间轴会有差异。 试点性质项目可能花更多时间在监管沟通和架构设计上；反之，资产简单的小额项目或许2–3个月内即可发行完毕。总体上需预留充分时间应对监管审批和各种不可控因素（如境内审批延迟）。提前规划关键里程碑和紧迫路径，对项目成功至关重要。

成本篮子及预算考量： RWA项目的成本可概括为几大“篮子”，发行人应做好预算评估项目经济可行性：

• 法律/合规及审计成本： 包括聘请律师事务所设计架构、起草文件、出具法律意见的费用；向监管申请牌照或产品批准的费用（官方收费及顾问费用）；以及审计师、评估师等专业服务费用。香港专业服务费用较高，具体视项目复杂程度而定。复杂项目的法律费用可能高达数百万港元，审计评估也需数十万港元。若需要信用评级机构参与亦需计入。

• 托管/信托及平台服务成本： 包括底层资产托管人或信托公司的服务费，以及代币发行技术平台或交易平台的服务费。托管人通常按年收取管理费（按资产规模一定比例或设最低收费）。数字发行平台可能收取上币费或技术接入费，以及二级市场交易佣金分成。若平台为项目提供做市支持，可能要求额外费用或利益安排。在香港，与持牌券商/交易所合作往往需要一定对价，例如交易佣金、顾问费等。

• IT 开发与系统监控成本： 发行人需要投入技术开发费用，包括智能合约编写与审计、安全测试，前端系统（投资者登记、报表查询等）开发。如果使用第三方链上发行平台，可能需要支付代币铸造费、合约部署费等。运营阶段还需配置区块链节点或监控系统来追踪代币交易、保障网络运行，这也有持续成本。此外，信息安全投入（防火墙、漏洞扫描等）不可或缺。对于大型项目，可能需要自建或采购链上监控工具进行合规分析，这属于RegTech合规科技成本。

• 行政及分销成本： 包括营销推介费用（例如面向专业投资者的路演活动、说明会等），投资者关系维护成本，项目管理团队的人力成本等。如果通过券商分销，还可能有承销/配售佣金，通常按募集金额的一定比例支付给分销渠道。项目若涉及跨境操作，人员差旅费、会议费也应计入。最后，若涉及外汇套保、利率掉期等金融操作，也会产生相应成本。

综合来看，RWA项目的固定成本投入不低，适合较大规模的融资需求，否则成本占比过高。行业经验表明，法律及牌照费用通常是前期最大开支，其次是技术开发和平台费用。举例来说，一单募集额数千万港元的代币化票据项目，其启动成本可能达数百万港元，占募集额约5–10%。项目规模越大，相对成本占比越低。发行人需权衡：通过代币化融资获得的增量资金或成本节约，能否覆盖前期投入。如果仅为概念尝试而投入巨额成本却募集不多，项目的经济性就值得怀疑。因此建议事先建立财务模型，测算不同募集规模下的成本占比，并探索降低成本的方法（如多个项目共用同一发行平台和SPV以摊薄成本，争取政府补贴如HKMA数码债券资助计划等）。在香港，政府和行业机构正推出激励措施以降低代币化试点成本。例如金管局曾提供代币化债券发行最高250万港元的补助。发行人应积极利用这些资源，优化成本结构，提高项目可行性。

11. 实操清单（Checklists）

法律合规清单：

• 明确底层资产性质及适用法律：确认资产是否属于证券或受监管产品，需遵守哪些法律法规（证券法、信托法等）。

• 架构设计法律审查：确定SPV设立地及形式，列出并办理境内资产出境所需审批事项（外汇、商务等）。

• 所需牌照识别及获取：根据业务活动清单，确定需取得的香港牌照种类（1号/4号/7号/9号/VASP等）以及由谁持有（自有或合作持牌）。

• 法律文件准备：起草SPV章程、资产转让协议、代币认购协议、托管协议等关键法律文件，确保条款完整清晰。

• 法律意见书：聘请律师事务所出具法律意见，确认发行架构合法合规、代币权益受法律保障，必要时提交监管审阅。

• 投资者协议与确认：准备专业投资者确认函、风险揭示书，确保募集时每位投资者签署适当性确认和风险自担承诺。

• 监管沟通：提前与香港证监会(SFC)/金管局(HKMA)等监管机构沟通项目方案，如需申请无异议函或进入沙盒试点则及时提交。

• 境内合规确认：寻求内地律师确认资产出境、境内参与人员操作不违反大陆法律红线（如不得构成非法发行证券、非法集资等）。

• 税务安排：咨询税务顾问，确保跨境架构的税务处理优化，避免双重征税，必要时申请预先裁定或利用税收协定优惠。

技术实现清单：

• 区块链平台选择：选定公链、联盟链或自研链，评估其性能、安全性、交易成本，以及是否满足监管可审查性要求。

• 智能合约开发：开发或配置代币智能合约，包含代币基本功能和管控逻辑（白名单、冻结、分红功能等）。

• 智能合约审核：聘请独立安全机构对合约代码进行审计，修复发现的问题，并取得审计报告。

• 数字钱包方案：确定发行人用于铸币和运营的钱包方案（建议多签钱包），以及投资者持有代币的钱包选项（托管账户或自管钱包）。

• 系统搭建：搭建发行认购平台/界面，支持投资者在线签约、付款、查询代币分发；搭建后台管理系统监控投资者名册和交易情况。

• 区块链节点部署：如使用联盟链则部署节点；使用公链则准备好与链交互的API节点或第三方服务，确保对链上事件的实时监控能力。

• 上线测试：进行全流程模拟测试——邀请少量白名单用户试认购、代币发行、转账、分红等操作，检查各环节功能正常。

• 安全措施：落实服务器和钱包安全配置，包括私钥加密存储、访问控制、防火墙和DDoS防护等，并准备应急预案（如出现漏洞时暂停合约等）。

• 技术文档：整理技术方案文档，包括架构图、合约功能说明、操作手册等，供内部团队和必要的外部审核使用。

运营及风控清单：

• KYC/AML 流程：制定投资者开户及反洗流程，收集身份证明和资产证明，使用合规数据库筛查制裁名单和PEP高风险客户。

• 投资者沟通：编制投资者推介材料（PPT、白皮书要点）、常见问题解答(FAQ)文档，安排路演或一对一沟通，并培训销售团队统一口径。

• 信息披露安排：确定信息披露内容和频率，在官网设专栏或定期通讯机制发布；准备常见问题解答，方便投资者了解项目。

• 风险管理制度：建立项目风险监控小组并明确责任人。设定需监控的指标（价格波动、资金流异常等）和报告机制。

• 投资者适当性确认：建立核对清单，确保每位投资者签署专业投资者声明及风险揭示，并留存记录以备监管查验。

• 交易监控方案：如有二级市场交易，安排专人或系统监控交易情况，制定异常交易处置流程（如发现操纵如何暂停交易、通知持有人等）。

• 投资者支持：设立客户服务或投资者关系团队，提供咨询渠道，在发行及存续期间及时回应投资者疑问和投诉。

• 争议解决机制：在合同中明确争议解决条款（仲裁或法院管辖），内部也准备好处理预案，一旦投资者对代币权益提出异议由指定法律顾问应对。

• 监管报告：若项目运行中需定期向监管提交报告（如沙盒要求），则制定报告时间表和责任人，按时提交运营数据、风险报告等。

监管沟通清单：

• 反馈：在项目筹备过程中，定期向监管机构报告进展和遇到的问题，寻求指导或确认（尤其当遇到法规模糊地带时，及时征询监管意见）。

• 牌照申报：提交所需牌照申请表及材料，并主动与监管机构沟通申请状态，补充说明项目创新意义，争取理解支持。

• 合规检查：在发行前夕，可邀请监管方或自聘第三方进行一次合规检查，从监管视角审核整个项目流程，发现问题及时整改。

• 备案登记：代币发行完成后，根据监管要求进行必要备案（如向证监会备案私募发行情况，向金管局报告沙盒测试结果等）。

• 持续沟通：项目存续期间，保持与监管专员的联系，重大事项提前沟通报备，听取监管建议。例如计划扩展零售或跨境推广时，事前与监管讨论可行性。

上述清单虽然繁杂，但逐项落实将极大提高项目的成功率和合规度。正所谓“磨刀不误砍柴工”，做好前期准备和内部控制，将使后续发行和运营过程顺畅许多，也更容易获得投资者和监管部门的信任。这份清单可作为项目团队的行动指南，在不同阶段对照检查，确保不遗漏任何关键环节。

12. BenFen“一键发行RWA”

本分（BenFen）作为新一代高性能稳定币公链，此前宣布推出“一键发行RWA”功能，支持RWA的一键发行和上链功能，通过标准化流程和先进的技术支撑，简化了现实资产上链的流程，为现实资产与区块链世界搭建安全、高效的桥梁。

• 标准化流程：发行方只需按照指引提交资产信息和合规材料，即可一键将现实资产（例如房地产、债券、股票等）映射为链上通证。系统自动结合托管、审计、KYC等环节，确保链下资产与链上代币的映射安全可靠。

• 技术支撑：BenFen 链优化了底层Move虚拟机和跨链引擎，在保持万级TPS吞吐和亚秒级确认速度的同时，为资产上链和合规托管提供底层支持；内置了名为 coin 的官方核心模块，为所有同质化代币提供了标准的结构与行为，统一了资产发行的标准。

RWA代币化是区块链最具潜力的应用方向，但其核心挑战在于如何确保链上代币与链下资产的权利对应，满足现实法律监管要求，BenFen以“合规优先”为原则，通过以下措施构建可信生态：

1. 法律与文件完备性： RWA发行方必须提供完善的法律文件，如资产描述、第三方评估报告、产权证明、投资条款等，清晰界定代币持有者的合法权利（如所有权、收益权等）。

2. 资产托管与审计： 发行方需聘请具备资质、受监管的第三方机构对RWA项目的标的资产进行托管和定期审计。BenFen积极与持牌信托公司、资产管理公司等合作，确保链下资产的真实性、完整性和所有权清晰。

3. 投资者身份认证： 为遵循全球 AML / KYC 法规，所有 RWA 的发行方与投资者，均需通过 BenFen KYC 等协议的身份验证流程。只有完成验证并合规的用户，才能参与 RWA 资产的发行和交易。

除此之外，BenFen 致力于打造“稳定币金融操作系统”，其一键RWA发行与一键稳定币发行共享同一套底层设施。在用户体验方面，BenFen 进一步优化了交易成本，支持用户直接用稳定币支付 Gas，且支持 Gas 赞助机制，即在特定场景下，发行人或平台方可以承担用户的 Gas 费用，进一步降低用户在链上操作时的经济负担，有效降低了用户的使用门槛。

总体而言，BenFen 通过一系列原生、专用的基础设施，致力于解决RWA代币化过程中所遇到的核心挑战，并在法律合规、资产锚定、投资者准入等关键环节探索可行的路径，为RWA市场注入了全新的信任机制和透明度，引领去中心化金融和现实世界资产的深度融合，为全球投资者提供更加便捷、安全、灵活的投资机会，推动传统资产与区块链的无缝对接，迈向更加开放和创新的金融未来。

案例与最佳实践

政府代币化绿色债券： （高信用主体试点） 香港作为国际金融中心，近两年积极进行了多项代币化资本市场产品试点，累积了宝贵经验。2023年2月，香港政府在HKMA和BIS创新中心支持下，成功发行全球首批政府代币化绿色债券（一年期港币债券，规模8亿港元），法律上仍属于《贷款证券条例》定义的债券，受与传统债券同等的监管。2024年初，政府又发行了第二批多币种代币化绿色债券（港币、美元、欧元、人民币计价，总额约60亿港元），吸引了全球投资者参与。这些试点表明：在高信用主体背书、完善基础设施支持下，代币化债券能够获得市场认可并顺利运作。投资者体验到结算提速（T+1甚至T+0）、全天候操作等优势，监管机构也验证了如何在现行法律框架下处理代币债券的登记、过户和付息。参与项目的本地大型金融机构（如汇丰、渣打等）也积累了实操经验。最佳实践包括：选择政府这类低风险资产作为首批试点标的降低投资者顾虑；充分利用现有中央结算系统与区块链连接，尽量不改变市场参与者操作习惯；以及详尽披露技术实现细节以增强市场信心。

代币化基金产品： （法律载体创新） 在公募基金领域，香港也出现了代币化探索。一些私募基金和投资产品通过香港架构实现代币化。例如，有资产管理公司将私募地产基金份额代币化，在港面向专业投资者发行，使投资者以较小资金参与大额地产项目并可转让份额。这类案例通常利用香港的有限合伙基金（Limited Partnership Fund, LPF）或离岸基金结构，在基金内部引入区块链登记机制。另一个例子是2024年8月，由内地朗新集团联合蚂蚁集团、瑞银集团在港发行首笔充电桩资产代币化私募基金。该项目将中国境内运营中的约9000台电动汽车充电桩未来收费收益打包，由香港SPV发行代币化基金份额，募集离岸人民币资金。最佳实践是在基金这一法律框架内进行代币化，使代币持有人通过法律协议成为基金受益人，从而权益明晰且符合监管要求。同时基金管理人本身持有9号牌照，确保投资管理活动受监管。在技术上，该项目采用联盟链进行链下确权、公链进行链上发行的“双链架构”，兼顾了隐私和开放性。这些基金类案例证明，即便在公募立法尚未完全覆盖的情况下，代币化依然可通过私募基金通道实现，关键在于选择合适法律载体并与持牌管理人合作。

绿色票据和信贷资产： （实体企业融资） 除政府债券外，香港市场主体也开始尝试代币化公司票据和信贷资产。前述2025年8月山高控股案例即具标志性：其发行了香港首个企业代币化票据，总额4000万美元。底层资产包括公司未来营收和资产收益权，投资者实质持有的是公司对SPV的应付票据债权。此次发行由广发证券（香港）担任独家配售经纪，并在HashKey平台上完成链上部署和发行。据悉，山高控股本身是一家涉足“电力+算力”业务的新锐上市公司，通过此次代币化票据融资展示了拥抱新金融科技、拓宽融资渠道的战略，其股价在发行公告前后也有所反应，被市场解读为利好（公司打开了海外融资新渠道、涉足热门的AI算力和数字金融领域）。另一个绿色票据例子是一家可再生能源企业在港发行的碳中和票据代币，将未来碳减排收益作为支撑发行数字票据，吸引了ESG主题投资者认购。最佳实践方面，这些项目充分利用了香港的双重优势：一是政策支持——香港将绿色金融和数字资产作为重点发展方向，对这类试点给予了一定政策便利；二是市场连接——通过香港平台，将内地具有环保和收益价值的资产连接到国际投资者（例如美元资金）。这实现了各取所需：项目方获得外币融资，投资者获得创新的绿色金融产品。监管机构在这些试点中积累经验，为未来制定更普适的规则打下基础。

复星股票代币化（证券类RWA）案例： 2025年9月，复星国际旗下复星财富在香港推出首单股票代币化项目，将其控股的港股上市公司Sisram Medical（一家以色列医美科技公司，港交所代码1696）的部分股票（价值约3.28亿美元）托管后在链上发行了代币。这是亚洲首例采用实股托管+链上发行模式的股票代币，通过Vaulta的银行级操作系统，利用Solana和以太坊公链进行双链发行与结算。全球合格投资者可以7×24小时购买、交易这些代币，从而间接持有Sisram公司的股权收益。案例亮点在于：复星作为传统大型企业集团，将上市公司股票权益数字化，为资本市场开辟了全天候、碎片化交易的新渠道；项目实现了合规闭环，股票由持牌托管机构托管，代币交易仅向合格投资者开放，严格遵守了香港证券法规；从效果看，此举展示了“资本市场的未来方向”——传统股票也可以通过区块链实现通证化持有和实时交易。市场反响方面，Sisram Medical股票在消息发布后出现显著上扬，投资者认为这种举措有望提升股票的流动性溢价。最佳实践：选择流动性尚可、基本面稳健的上市公司作为标的，以市价为锚发行等值代币，确保代币价格和股票价格联动；同时搭建技术和合规“双轨”，既用创新技术提升效率，又严格遵守证券监管以取得监管认同。

内地赴港 RWA 案例与市值联动： 一些内地企业通过香港发行RWA产品后，其境内外市值表现出现了有趣的联动效应。总体趋势是：市场倾向于对勇于尝试RWA创新的公司给予正面评价。例如上述山高控股在宣布发行代币化票据消息后，股价连续数日上涨，9月初某日盘中一度涨超5%，收盘涨约8%，成交放量。投资者将此解读为公司打开新融资渠道、拥抱数字金融科技的利好。新城发展，酷派集团，国富量子创新和华检医疗的股价变化也反应了市场真实的情绪。

经验启示： RWA项目往往不仅带来融资本身的收益，也可能对发行人股价和市值产生正向影响（反映市场对公司创新和前瞻布局的认可）。当然，这种影响需结合公司基本面理性看待，但至少说明资本市场正在关注并奖赏这类合规创新尝试。

总结

资产赴港代币化（RWA）作为连接实体经济与数字金融的创新桥梁，已从概念探索迈向成熟实践，为资产拥有者提供了灵活融资、全球资金对接和运营效率提升的三大核心价值。香港凭借其完善的监管框架、国际化金融市场和创新友好政策，成为这一趋势的理想试验场。本指南从监管合规、资产选择、发行路径、结构设计、技术实现、风险管理到信息披露等维度，系统梳理了RWA项目的可执行路径，并通过BenFen链的“一键发行”解决方案大幅降低了落地门槛，确保合规、安全与效率兼得。

实践表明，成功的关键在于“合规优先”与“技术赋能”的结合：通过SPV/信托搭建跨境桥梁，确保资产与资金流转的合法性；借助区块链技术实现透明、可编程的资产管理和交易；并通过严格的尽调、披露和风控措施，赢得监管与投资者的信任。案例如香港政府代币化绿色债券、山高控股票据代币化及复星股票代币化，均验证了RWA在提升流动性、降低交易摩擦及拓展全球投资者基础上的潜力，同时也为内地企业带来了市值正向反馈。

展望未来，随着香港稳定币监管框架的完善、监管沙盒的深化以及BenFen等技术平台的迭代，RWA代币化将在更多资产类别和场景中实现规模化应用。内地资产拥有者应抓住这一机遇，利用香港的独特优势，将优质资产与全球资本高效对接，推动实体经济与数字金融的深度融合，迈向更加开放、透明和创新的金融新时代。

Source: Bixin Ventures

Recently, RWAs (Real World Assets) have become the darlings of capital markets. Announcements from listed companies in real estate, renewable energy, and innovative pharmaceuticals have caused stock prices to surge, stirring investor sentiment. But what exactly is the magic of RWA, and what opportunities and challenges does it represent?

Development History of RWA

The concept of RWA can be traced back to 2017–2018, during the ICO boom, when some attempts at Security Token Offerings (STOs) emerged. For example, certain startups issued tokens representing company equity or fund shares. However, due to the lack of secondary markets and regulatory barriers, these early attempts had a limited impact. From 2019 to 2020, with the rise of DeFi, projects like MakerDAO began focusing on RWA. In 2020, Maker first accepted off-chain assets (such as commercial paper) as collateral, introducing them into its DAI stablecoin ecosystem, a key milestone for RWA. Around the same time, Centrifuge launched the Tinlake protocol, partnering with Maker to provide on-chain financing channels for SME accounts receivable. Entering 2021, the prosperity of the cryptocurrency market led to an increase in the demand for unsecured lending. Maple and TrueFi successively launched, providing credit loans to trading institutions and also investing some funds off-chain. (While these loans were primarily crypto-focused, they laid the foundation for future RWA lending.) Starting in 2022, rising global interest rates and declining native crypto yields intensified demand for stable on-chain returns, making RWA a hot narrative. Especially after the U.S. Federal Reserve raised rates, low-risk, high-yield assets like U.S. Treasuries regained appeal, and numerous projects began tokenizing Treasuries and other government bonds. 2023 was dubbed "RWA Year Zero," marked by the entry of traditional financial giants: major asset managers from the U.S. and Germany (e.g., BlackRock, Franklin Templeton) launched tokenized fund products; payment companies like Visa explored on-chain Treasuries for stablecoin settlements; and regulatory clarity around RWA gradually emerged. These factors propelled RWA from concept validation to expansion.

Concept and Asset Classification of RWA

Real World Assets (RWA) generally refer to the transformation of tangible or intangible assets in the real world into tradable digital tokens through blockchain technology, achieving the digitization and tokenization of assets. The coverage of RWA is extremely broad, ranging from traditional financial assets to various fields of the real economy. Specifically, it includes debt instruments such as government bonds and corporate bonds, equity assets such as stocks, physical assets such as real estate and gold, non-standardized rights and interests such as private equity, intellectual property, and supply chain receivables. Virtually any asset type with value or ownership rights is exploring the possibility of going on-chain.

It should be noted that narrow RWA typically does not include tokens pegged to fiat currencies such as stablecoins. Although the reserve mechanism of stablecoins is also supported by off-chain fiat currencies or bonds and falls within the broad category of RWA, they are generally classified separately as stablecoins. The RWA discussed in this article will mainly focus on the tokenization of real-world assets other than stablecoins, such as government bonds, real estate, private debt, private equity, accounts receivable, artwork, and other categories. According to asset nature, the current on-chain RWA can mainly be divided into the following categories:

• Government Bonds and Public Debt: Highly standardized bond assets are the preferred RWA targets, among which U.S. Treasuries are the most prominent. U.S. Treasuries carry virtually no default risk (in theory) and enjoy high liquidity. The tokenization legal structure is clear and mature, typically using an offshore fund + token wrapper model to meet regulatory requirements. In addition to Treasuries, sovereign bonds, and corporate bonds in Europe and Asia are also beginning to move on-chain, for example, through BVI funds or Luxembourg SICAV structures to issue tokenized notes.

• Private Credit (Private Debt): Includes SME loans, trade receivables financing, consumer finance debt, and real estate mortgages. Tokenization of these assets can provide real yield sources for DeFi capital, but due to the varied qualifications of underlying borrowers, the risks are relatively higher. Typically, SPVs are established to hold the underlying assets, while DeFi protocols provide liquidity, and investors earn on-chain interest income. Representative projects include Maple, Centrifuge, Goldfinch, Credix, and Clearpool, which aim to connect off-chain SME loans, mortgage loans, and other real assets, while introducing Chainlink oracle-based proof-of-asset mechanisms to enhance data reliability.

• Commodities and Bulk Assets: These primarily include gold, carbon credits, oil, and other commodities. Gold, due to its stable value and clear reserve logic, is the most common commodity RWA. Examples include Paxos Gold (PAXG) and Tether Gold (XAUT), issued 1:1 against physical gold reserves. Carbon credits, crude oil, and other energy-related assets face higher regulatory thresholds and are currently mostly at the pilot stage.

• Equity and Fund Shares: Includes private equity, publicly listed company stocks, and various private fund shares issued on-chain. Representative platforms include Securitize, ADDX, and Swarm, which compliantly convert corporate equity or fund participation certificates into on-chain tradable tokens. These assets are subject to heavy securities regulation, with secondary market transactions strictly requiring KYC whitelist checks. Some projects adopt permissioned chains to restrict circulation. Equity-based RWA is currently very small in scale (about $362 million as of end-June 2025, less than 2% of the total RWA market). It lacks liquidity, which is the result of both regulatory and market factors.

• Real Estate: Real estate is characterized by high value and low liquidity, with traditional transactions typically involving high thresholds and long cycles. RWA provides a new path for fractionalized real estate investment. For example, SPVs can hold properties and issue tokenized rights, allowing small investors to share in rental income or property appreciation proportionally. However, real estate tokenization faces complex property rights confirmation and legal synchronization challenges: how to align on-chain token transfers with off-chain property registrations remains unresolved. In one Singapore real estate project, an NFT became an "ownerless asset" because an offline title change was not reflected on-chain in time, exposing the risk of lagging off-chain information. As a result, most real estate RWAs currently focus on revenue-right tokens (e.g., rental income rights), where holders do not directly own the property itself but receive proportional income distributions.

• Alternative Collectibles and Art: Includes art, collectible cards, premium wines, watches, and other non-traditional assets. These assets typically lack active public market pricing. The main goals of tokenization are lowering investment thresholds and improving circulation efficiency. For example, some early platforms issued fractionalized NFTs of famous artworks, allowing multiple investors to co-own them. However, due to the subjectivity of art valuation and extremely low liquidity, this segment of RWA remains a niche experiment with limited scale and influence. That said, with platforms like BenFen introducing one-click issuance capabilities, the future tokenization threshold for art and collectibles may be significantly reduced.

Review of Mainstream RWA Projects

In recent years, multiple models of RWA projects have emerged. Below are the main representative projects categorized by asset type, with a brief description of each project’s core mechanism:

• Government Bond RWA Projects: Typical representatives include Ondo Finance, Superstate, Backed Finance, etc.

  • Ondo is a platform focused on bringing traditional financial assets on-chain. It pioneered the short-term U.S. Treasury ETF token OUSG, which is backed by real bond assets held by a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV). Ondo issues corresponding ERC-20 tokens pegged 1:1 to the underlying ETF value, with interest automatically settled daily.

  • Superstate, founded by the creator of Compound, takes a fully compliant fund route. Its product USTB directly invests in short-term U.S. Treasuries and issues on-chain shares via a registered fund structure. The management fee is only 0.15%. USTB is open only to accredited investors as defined by U.S. regulation, and investors can either self-custody their tokenized shares or store them with qualified custodians such as Anchorage or BitGo.

  • Backed Finance provides the xStocks framework to tokenize securities such as U.S. and European equities. For example, Backed's TSLAx token is pegged 1:1 to Tesla stock, with the real shares held by a regulated custodian and redeemable 1:1 at any time. These tokens support 24/7 trading, breaking traditional stock market time zone limits. Dividends are distributed to token holders through additional token airdrops. The only limitation is that its settlement model is semi-closed (similar to Synthetix), which means user profits cannot be fully settled on a 24/7 basis.

Overall, government bond and securities-based RWA projects share a common emphasis on compliance. They usually establish offshore SPVs or regulated funds to ensure that the legal relationship between tokens and underlying assets is solid and transparent.

• Credit Loan RWA Projects: This field has seen the rise of protocols such as Maple Finance, Goldfinch, TrueFi, Centrifuge, Credix, and Clearpool.

  • Maple Finance positions itself as a multi-chain, institutional-grade lending platform, serving borrowers such as hedge funds, trading firms, and DAOs. By incorporating off-chain due diligence and borrower credit scoring, Maple enables automated on-chain matching for unsecured/undercollateralized loans. Its product line has also expanded into tokenized U.S. Treasuries and trade receivables pools. As of June 2025, Maple’s assets under management (AUM) exceeded $2.4 billion.

  • Goldfinch focuses on credit lending in emerging markets, enabling crypto investors to provide loan capital to fintech institutions in developing countries in exchange for high-yield interest. Goldfinch adopts a dual-pool model: retail capital goes into the senior pool for stable returns (historical annual yields of ~7–10%), while a community-selected junior pool allocates a portion of capital to absorb higher risk in exchange for higher interest rates. This model leverages community consensus and token incentives for risk pricing, partially realizing unsecured lending.

  • TrueFi initially focused on unsecured lending to crypto-native institutions but has since been transitioning toward institutional-grade RWA services, gradually introducing on-chain financing channels for traditional assets.

  • Centrifuge positions itself as RWA infrastructure. Through its Tinlake protocol, real-world assets (e.g., receivables, mortgages) are tokenized into NFTs, which are then split into senior DROP and junior TIN tranches for investors to subscribe to. Centrifuge has become the leading platform for on-chain receivables financing.

Overall, credit-focused RWA projects use a hybrid structure of off-chain SPVs + on-chain liquidity pools to bring assets such as SME loans into DeFi. Investors on these platforms can earn relatively high yields (typically 8–18% APY), but they must bear higher credit risk and rely on off-chain audits and legal mechanisms to safeguard investments.

• Other Categories of RWA Projects: In the commodities sector, projects such as Paxos Gold (PAXG) and Tether Gold (XAUT) tokenize physical gold under custody.

  • PAXG represents one ounce of London Good Delivery gold per token, with custody provided by top-tier institutions such as Brink’s. Holders can redeem physical gold for a fee. Tokens like PAXG allow investors to gain gold exposure without bearing storage costs, while also enabling 24/7 on-chain trading or use as collateral in DeFi lending.

  • In institutional fund and equity tokenization, beyond platforms like Securitize and Backed, there are emerging projects such as Swarm Markets, which introduce European securities on-chain, and ADDX, which provides a private fund token subscription platform in Singapore. These platforms are generally constrained by regulation and are often limited to accredited investors.

Overall, the RWA projects that have achieved real adoption and scale remain concentrated in bonds and credit markets, while other categories are mostly still in early exploratory stages. It is also worth noting that beyond individual projects, the evolution of underlying blockchain infrastructure is equally critical. For example, in its 2025 upgrade, BenFen became the first to support one-click RWA issuance, providing a standardized framework for tokenizing various assets such as bonds, equities, and real estate, thereby forming a complementary relationship with application-layer projects.

Blue Ocean or Red Ocean: How Far Can RWA Go?

Although the scale of on-chain RWA has surged explosively in the past two years, how far can it go in the future? According to data from Binance Research and RWA.xyz, the total volume of on-chain RWA was less than $200 million in 2020. By the end of 2023, it had surpassed $1 billion; by mid-2024, it exceeded $12 billion (excluding stablecoins). Entering 2025, with institutional capital flowing in, the scale continued to skyrocket. In the first half of 2025, the global total value of on-chain RWA exceeded $23.3 billion, representing nearly 380% growth compared to early 2024.

As of August 2025, the RWA market capitalization stood at approximately $25.22 billion. Among these, tokenized U.S. Treasuries are the largest single category, with a market cap of around $6.8 billion, accounting for about 27% of the total RWA. If calculated more broadly to include stablecoins under the RWA umbrella, then there is an additional $256.8 billion represented by stablecoins. However, as noted earlier, our main focus here is on non-stablecoin RWAs. Beyond Treasuries, the second-largest segment within RWAs is private credit, including various on-chain lending pools, whose share is steadily increasing.

For example, lending pools managed by Maple, Goldfinch, and Centrifuge have collectively reached several hundred million dollars. However, given the longer maturities and lower liquidity of credit assets, their share of the overall RWA market cap remains relatively limited (around 10%). Other categories, such as tokenized equities and commodities, remain small in scale: tokenized equities amount to only about $360 million, while commodity tokens such as gold circulate at just a few hundred million dollars. Clearly, within the non-stablecoin RWA landscape, U.S. Treasuries and private credit serve as dual growth engines: Treasury RWAs provide a low-risk yield “base layer” for DeFi, while private credit RWAs attract risk-seeking capital with higher returns. Together, they have fueled the rapid expansion of on-chain RWAs over the past year.

Against this backdrop, breakthroughs at the infrastructure layer are particularly critical. Following a major upgrade, the stablecoin payment chain BenFen officially enabled one-click RWA issuance and tokenization, aligning this process with its unified framework for stablecoin issuance. With features such as one-click stablecoin issuance and gas fee sponsorship, BenFen is evolving into a one-stop hub for stablecoin and RWA issuance, as well as a global gateway for payments and asset circulation.

Looking ahead, as technology matures and regulation advances, RWA is poised to become another pillar sector in crypto after stablecoins. Conceptually, asset classes that were once considered "red oceans" can be repackaged via blockchain into a new "blue ocean." This tool is set to become a rising star of modern finance. Public chains like BenFen, which combine one-click issuance capabilities for both stablecoins and RWAs, will play a critical role in this transformation.(Source: blocktempo.com)

Regulatory Attitudes and Compliance Frameworks Across Key Jurisdictions

Since RWA involves bringing traditional financial assets on-chain, it inevitably faces the constraints of securities and financial regulations in different jurisdictions. Regulatory stances toward RWA and tokenization vary widely. In summary:

• United States: The U.S. adopts a cautious stance toward RWA, with its regulatory framework grounded in existing securities laws. Most projects operate through SPV isolation + private securities compliance structures. Token issuances must follow SEC oversight, often taking routes such as Reg D (private placement to accredited investors) or Reg S (offshore issuance), to avoid public registration requirements. This means that RWA tokens issued in the U.S. are largely limited to accredited investors, while retail investors cannot directly participate. Overall, regulators such as the SEC and CFTC take a conservative view, treating such tokens as securities that must comply with disclosure and investor protection rules. As a result, U.S. RWA innovation is mainly concentrated in institutional markets, with many projects choosing to pilot overseas before entering the U.S.

• European Union: The EU takes a more proactive approach. The MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation), passed in 2023, directly addresses RWA by defining tokens pegged to real-world assets as “asset-referenced tokens (ARTs)” and bringing them under regulation. In practice, EU-based RWA projects often use trust or EU-recognized SPV structures, such as establishing a variable capital investment company (SICAV) as the SPV to hold underlying assets and issue tokens. MiCA compliance requires issuers to disclose details such as asset custody and profit distribution rules. Overall, the EU’s approach is to integrate RWA into the existing financial regulatory framework, reducing legal uncertainty through harmonized rules.

• Singapore: The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) launched Project Guardian in 2022, partnering with financial institutions to test on-chain settlement and tokenization of government bonds and FX. Under MAS’s digital asset framework, stablecoins and security tokens fall within regulatory sandboxes, encouraging RWA experimentation in a controlled environment. Overall, Singapore’s regulatory stance is relatively accommodative, providing policy support such as tax incentives and regulatory sandbox opportunities.

• Hong Kong: Hong Kong has already allowed licensed brokerages to apply for pilot programs in tokenized securities issuance and trading, restricted to professional investors. In general, Hong Kong takes a highly supportive attitude toward RWA, leveraging government endorsement to attract projects while emphasizing compliance first, innovation second.

• United Arab Emirates (UAE): Dubai’s Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority (VARA) has introduced one of the world’s first comprehensive frameworks for RWA tokenization, covering issuance, custody, and trading, providing legal certainty for tokenized assets. While VARA rules do not yet cover all asset types, they reflect Dubai’s ambition to become a global RWA hub. Meanwhile, Abu Dhabi’s ADGM launched a tokenization pilot sandbox in 2023, inviting fintech firms to test RWA products such as debt and fund shares. On the application side, Dubai’s Land Department has announced plans to explore real estate tokenization, integrating property registration with blockchain, while the UAE’s carbon exchange is considering blockchain-based carbon credit trading. Overall, the UAE adopts a public-private collaboration + regulatory sandbox approach, encouraging both domestic and foreign institutions to develop RWA businesses locally. Its favorable tax regime and clear crypto regulations have attracted numerous project teams. As regulation matures, Dubai and Abu Dhabi are well-positioned to become the RWA issuance and trading hubs of the Middle East.

Cost and Yield Comparison of On-Chain Issuance in Different Countries and Asset Types

The economic model of RWA projects involves multiple layers of costs and returns, including the yield of underlying assets, custody and audit expenses, protocol fees, and investor-level returns. Regulatory environments in different countries and different asset classes will all have an impact on issuance costs and yield outcomes. Below, we compare major asset categories with supporting data and case studies:

• Treasury Bonds and Government Debt: The yield of the underlying assets of this type of RWA depends on the macro interest rate. Taking U.S. Treasury bonds as an example, the current one-year U.S. Treasury bond interest rate is approximately 5%. Therefore, tokenized U.S. Treasury bonds (such as Ondo's OUSG and Superstate's USTB) can provide an annualized risk-free rate of nearly 5%, becoming the "interest rate anchor" for the funds on the blockchain. The main cost of issuing such products lies in the fund management fee and compliance expenses. For example, Ondo's OUSG adopts an ETF cross-chain packaging structure and charges an annual management fee of approximately 0.15% - 0.3% to cover operational costs, including bank custody, legal compliance, and other expenses. Superstate's USTB is a registered fund and has a lower management fee of only 0.15%. In addition, a custody fee is paid to bank custodians such as Anchorage, but by directly holding Treasury bonds rather than nesting ETFs, it reduces the number of fee levels. In terms of compliance costs, the issuance of such products in the United States requires compliance with regulatory exemptions, and the legal service fees are relatively high; while issuing Treasury bond tokens in places like Switzerland and Singapore, due to high regulatory acceptance, the approval process is relatively simplified. Overall, the yield of Treasury RWA is relatively low but stable, and the management fee accounts for a relatively small proportion of the cost structure.

• Private Credit: The private loan assets on the blockchain usually offer higher returns than traditional rates to compensate for the higher credit and liquidity risks. Take Maple and Goldfinch as examples. Their lending pools target small and medium-sized enterprises or emerging markets, with historical annualized interest rates ranging from 8% to 15%. The specific returns vary depending on the borrower's qualifications: Quality borrowers (those with collateral or stable cash flow) may have loan interest rates of 8-10%, while riskier borrowers (such as startups without collateral loans) may have rates of 15% or higher. Investors in these loan pools can receive corresponding interest income, but they also need to bear the risk of default and a longer lock-up period. To enhance investment attractiveness, many platforms adopt a yield grading mechanism: For investors in the senior pool of Goldfinch, they receive a fixed interest rate, while secondary participants receive the remaining high returns but bear losses first. The cost of issuing such assets mainly lies in due diligence and risk management. Before issuing the loan projects, third-party auditors and lawyers need to conduct off-chain due diligence. The platform will also extract a certain percentage from the loan interest as protocol fees: Maple charges a 0.5% - 2% handling fee per loan. These fees are partially passed on to the borrowers and partially reflected in the discount of the investors' returns. Compared to traditional finance, on-chain credit has reduced matching and management costs (smart contracts automatically execute repayments and distribution). Still, it requires manual and legal intervention in credit assessment and collection, so the overall cost is not low. Additionally, the compliance requirements for on-chain lending in different jurisdictions have a significant impact: In the United States, this type of public lending is likely to be regarded as securities or investment products, requiring registration or exemption (with high compliance costs); while in places like Singapore, issuing tokenized debt with limited participation numbers through licensed legal entities can be conducted within a sandbox, with relatively simplified procedures. Therefore, some projects choose to establish funds in friendly regions such as Singapore and Switzerland to issue loan certificates, and then raise funds globally to reduce regulatory friction.

• Real Estate and Other Physical Assets: Real estate tokens typically correspond to rental income or real estate creditors' rights, and their yields are influenced by the local real estate rental and sale market. Generally, the rental returns of high-quality properties in developed markets range from 3% to 5%, while in developing markets, they may reach over 8%. If the property rights and interests are fragmented and listed on the blockchain, the basic income that investors obtain is the net income after deducting property management and taxes from the rent. This part of the income is relatively stable, but it is much lower than credit assets. However, considering the potential appreciation of real estate, the long-term total return will be higher. The main cost of issuing real estate rights and interests on the blockchain lies in the establishment of legal structures and continuous management. Various fees, such as appraisers, custodian banks, and notarized legal documents, need to be paid. In Hong Kong and Singapore, the government is exploring ways to reduce these costs: For example, in the digital green bond project supported by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, blockchain simplifies the settlement process and saves some intermediary fees. Similarly, the returns of RWA, such as artworks and collectibles, mainly come from the appreciation of the assets themselves rather than continuous income. The price discovery of such assets is difficult, and the lack of transparency in valuation leads to a large price difference in trading. The issuers usually charge custody, insurance, and transaction commissions. For instance, an art platform charges 2% of the token holder's custody fee annually. In contrast, although gold tokenized assets have no interest, their liquidity and trading activity are higher than those of other RWA categories because the gold market is globally connected and has high price transparency. According to statistics, the monthly transaction volume on the blockchain of PAXG and XAUT gold tokens is much higher than that of most credit or equity tokens. Therefore, different RWA assets show a trade-off between returns and liquidity: assets with high returns often have poor liquidity, while assets with good liquidity (such as gold) have low or even zero returns, and require DeFi compound strategies to increase returns.

• Geographic Differences and Cost Comparisons: Regional differences and cost comparison: From a national perspective, the regulatory environment directly affects the issuance cost and pricing of RWA. In the United States, strict compliance requirements have driven up legal and operational costs. Many projects can only be issued to high-net-worth clients, resulting in restricted liquidity and relatively higher financing costs (borrowers need to pay higher interest rates to attract limited funds). Conversely, in RWA-friendly jurisdictions such as Singapore and Switzerland, compliance costs are lower. Issuers can reach global investors at a lower cost, thus having room to finance at a lower interest rate or transfer more returns to investors. This is why some RWA products cannot be offered to retail investors in the United States but can be circumvented by being issued overseas and then purchased by American institutions.

Overall, the on-chain issuance cost of RWA consists of two major components: technical cost and compliance cost. At the technical level, blockchains are exerting a scale effect to reduce labor and time costs, while compliance costs depend on the regulatory friendliness of the jurisdiction.

Core Issues Currently Faced by the RWA Market

Although RWA is highly anticipated, it still encounters a series of challenges in practice and requires the joint efforts of the industry and regulation to solve:

• Legal Compliance Problems: The on-chain implementation of real assets involves complex legal relationships. The current legal framework lags behind technological development, and many key issues lack judicial precedents. For example, how can on-chain tokens correspond one-to-one with off-chain asset ownership? How can the rights of token holders be recognized in courts? As mentioned earlier, in the SPV structure, tokens are regarded as SPV equity certificates, but the legal gap that chain transfer does not equal offline transfer still exists. Different jurisdictions may have different characterizations of the same RWA token, resulting in a lack of legal protection for cross-border transactions. This legal uncertainty has always left compliance risks for RWA projects, as a lawyer pointed out that many RWA tokens are more like "self-proven legal digital IOUs".

• Authenticity and Credit Risk of Off-Chain Assets: The value basis of RWA lies off-chain, making the verification of the authenticity and credit status of off-chain assets extremely crucial. Currently, the industry mainly relies on third-party institutions (such as accounting firms and assessors) to issue certificates, which are then uploaded onto the chain through oracles. However, the intermediaries themselves may make mistakes or engage in fraud, and chain-based investors still need to "trust" them. For example, a certain RWA lending project once exposed the issue of false financial reports provided by the borrowing enterprises, and the due diligence party failed to detect it in time, causing losses to the investors. Additionally, assets such as real estate also involve difficulties in updating and synchronization: if the underlying asset conditions change (such as loss of collateral or transfer of property rights), how to quickly reflect this on the chain still lacks a perfect mechanism. Although Chainlink and others have launched Proof of Reserve schemes to verify asset reserves regularly, the credit risk of complex assets cannot be solely resolved by technology; it still requires off-chain legal means for protection, such as guarantees, insurance, and default disposal, etc., along with corresponding arrangements. All these will increase the operational difficulty and cost of the project.

• Insufficient market liquidity: RWA assets generally have the problem of liquidity shortage. The reasons are first that the investor scope is limited: many RWA tokens can only be sold to qualified investors or addresses on the whitelist, naturally shrinking the secondary market size. Secondly, there is a lack of active trading venues and market makers, and most tokens are traded coldly on decentralized exchanges, with large bid-ask spreads and low transaction frequencies. Research shows that most RWA tokens have a very long holding period and a very low turnover rate, and most investors adopt the strategy of "buy and hold for the long term". This not only reflects that RWA investments are biased towards the medium and long term, but also means that liquidity is insufficient to support active trading. When investors need to liquidate, they may face the problem of no one willing to take them over or having to sell at a significant discount. The lack of liquidity also brings pricing difficulties: due to the lack of continuous trading, the fair value of the assets is not transparent, further dampening the willingness to trade. To alleviate these problems, the market is beginning to explore the introduction of professional market makers and incentive mechanisms. For example, some platforms offer additional token incentives to LPs who provide liquidity or seek centralized brokers to match transactions for RWA tokens. However, overall, before RWA can attract a larger scale of investors (including ordinary individuals), the liquidity bottleneck will still exist in the short term.

• Valuation Pricing and Oracle Issues: Many traditional financial assets do not have real-time prices. For instance, unlisted equities and real estate valuations are often lagging and lack a unified standard. When these assets are put on the blockchain, pricing the tokens becomes a challenge. The current main approach is for the issuer to regularly announce the net asset value (NAV) or refer to the assessed price, and then have the oracle feed the price onto the blockchain. However, the data sources and frequencies of oracles are uncertain, making it difficult for investors to verify the accuracy of the prices. Some assets, due to their strong uniqueness and subjective valuation models, result in large price expectations differences between buyers and sellers, making transactions difficult to reach. Even assets like US bonds, which are transparent in the market, also have technical risks such as oracle delays or failures. If the oracle quote is inaccurate (for example, due to attacks or data source disconnection), it may cause market chaos or even liquidation risks. Moreover, the rise of derivatives and combinational play styles (such as collateralizing RWA tokens to borrow stablecoins and then participating in other DeFi) places higher requirements on price accuracy. If valuation deviations accumulate, it may lead to systemic risks.

Introduction to BenFen Chain's One-Click RWA Issuance Capability

As an exploration solution to address these challenges, BenFen Chain recently launched the "one-click RWA issuance" feature, aiming to simplify the process of listing real assets on the blockchain. BenFen Chain was originally positioned as a stablecoin payment public chain, emphasizing high performance and low-cost transactions. In the major version upgrade in August 2025, the official announced support for one-click issuance and listing of RWA (real-world assets), thereby upgrading its positioning to a "stablecoin + RWA infrastructure public chain". This function is consistent with the original one-click stablecoin issuance framework, enabling issuers to issue compliant RWA tokens through a standardized process.

In terms of technical path, BenFen Chain optimized the underlying Move virtual machine and cross-chain engine, maintaining a transaction processing speed of tens of thousands per second and sub-second confirmation time, while providing underlying support for asset listing and compliance custody. The chain is internally equipped with smart contract templates and standard business processes: the issuer only needs to submit asset information and compliance materials according to the guidelines to map real assets (such as real estate, bonds, stocks, etc.) into on-chain tokens. The system automatically integrates custody, auditing, KYC, and other security measures to ensure the reliability and security of the mapping between off-chain assets and on-chain tokens. For example, suppose a user wants to issue a commercial real estate bond token on BenFen Chain. In that case, they only need to upload property assessment reports, bank proof of custody, etc., and the smart contract will lock these file hashes and generate the token. Only qualified investor addresses that have passed KYC can subscribe and trade this token, thus strictly implementing regulatory requirements on the blockchain. The entire process is highly automated, significantly simplifying the previously months-long asset securitization process - the official claims that the previously high-barrier and cumbersome RWA listing can now be completed through simple operations. This means that issuers can significantly reduce technical difficulty and time cost, and quickly obtain on-chain liquidity and global settlement capabilities.

In terms of potential advantages, this blockchain is dedicated to creating a "stablecoin financial operating system", where the one-click RWA issuance and the one-click stablecoin issuance share the same underlying infrastructure. This chain supports the direct use of stablecoins for paying gas fees and even introduces a gas fee proxy payment sponsorship mechanism, further reducing the cost for users to use the public chain. For issuers, not only is the work of independently developing smart contracts and setting up KYC systems eliminated, but this blockchain also provides a compliant custody solution: it can be connected to licensed custody institutions to store the underlying assets and record the custody vouchers on the chain, enhancing regulatory transparency. At the same time, with high TPS and cross-chain capabilities, the RWA tokens on this blockchain can be easily bridged to other mainstream networks, expanding the potential investor base. These designs make the BenFen blockchain suitable for various asset types, including real estate, bonds, equity, commodities, etc., as long as legal and compliant asset proofs can be provided, they can be mapped to token issuance on the chain. For example, a real estate company can issue project income bonds through this blockchain, and global investors can easily subscribe after completing KYC; at the same time, the distribution of the funds and subsequent rental income is also automatically executed by the chain contract, reducing the risk of human operation.

Conclusion

The narrative of RWA is grand and inspiring, but its path is not without obstacles. It is at the crossroads of the "blue ocean" and the "red ocean", with both the vast expanse of a trillion-dollar market and numerous dark reefs of laws, risks, and liquidity ahead. The core issues currently faced by the RWA market lie in legal compliance, asset authenticity verification, and insufficient liquidity, among others.

The "one-click RWA issuance" function launched by BenFen Chain is an important exploration solution to address these challenges. Through standardized processes and features such as compliant custody, it provides practical and feasible solutions to these problems. As an important explorer of RWA infrastructure, BenFen Chain is laying a solid technical foundation for the blockchain of real assets, promoting RWA from a concept to a large-scale application. In the future, as technical solutions continue to mature and the regulatory environment gradually improves, infrastructure providers such as BenFen Chain will help RWA truly become an important bridge connecting traditional finance and the crypto world.

——Source: Bixin Ventures

近日，RWA成为了资本眼中的宠儿，房地产、新能源、创新药，各类上市公司发布公告，股价蹿升，搅动着投资者们的心弦。那RWA究竟有何魔力，背后又代表着怎样的机遇与挑战呢？

一、RWA的发展历程

RWA的概念可以追溯到2017-2018年，当时ICO热潮中出现了部分证券型代币发行（STO）的尝试，例如一些初创公司发行代币代表公司股权或基金份额。然而，由于缺乏二级市场和监管障碍，这些早期尝试影响有限。2019-2020年，DeFi兴起后，MakerDAO等项目开始关注RWA：Maker于2020年首次将链下资产（如商业票据）作为抵押品，引入其DAI稳定币体系，这被视为RWA的重要里程碑。同一时期，Centrifuge推出Tinlake协议，与Maker合作为中小企业应收账款融资提供链上渠道。进入2021年，加密市场繁荣带来了无抵押借贷需求，Maple和TrueFi相继推出，为交易机构发放信用贷款，也将部分资金投向链下。（尽管当时这些贷款多用于加密领域，但奠定了日后RWA信贷的基础。）2022年开始，全球宏观环境利率攀升，加密原生收益率下降，市场对链上稳定收益的渴求让RWA成为新的热点叙事。尤其是美联储加息后，美国国债等低风险高收益资产重获青睐，大量项目涌现将美债、国库券搬上链。2023年被业内称为“RWA元年”，这一年传统金融巨头入场：比如德美两国的大型资产管理公司（贝莱德、富兰克林邓普顿等）均推出了代币化基金产品；Visa等支付公司也开始研究链上国债用于稳定币清算；各国监管对RWA的态度逐渐明朗。这些因素推动RWA从概念验证进入扩张期。

二、RWA的概念及资产分类

现实世界资产（Real World Assets，RWA）通常指将现实世界中的有形或无形资产通过区块链技术转换为可交易的数字代币，实现资产的数字化和通证化。RWA覆盖范围极广，从传统金融资产一直延伸到实体经济各领域。具体来说，包括政府债券、公司债券等债务工具，股票等股权类资产，房产、黄金等实物资产，私募股权、知识产权、供应链应收账款等非标准化权益，几乎任何具有价值或权属的资产类型都在探索上链的可能。

需要注意的是，狭义RWA通常不包括稳定币等锚定法币的代币：尽管稳定币的储备机制也是由链下法币或债券支撑，在广义上属于RWA范畴，但一般单独归类为稳定币。本文讨论的RWA将主要聚焦于稳定币以外的现实资产代币化，如国债、房地产、私募债权、私募股权、应收账款、艺术品等类别。

按照资产性质，当前链上RWA主要可分为以下几类：

• 国债及公共债券：具有高度标准化特征的债券类资产是RWA的首选标的，其中又以美国国债最为突出。美债无违约风险（理论上）且流动性强，通证化的法律结构清晰成熟，如通过离岸基金+代币包装的形式满足监管要求。除了美债，欧洲和亚洲的主权债、公司债也开始尝试上链，如通过BVI基金或卢森堡SICAV等架构发行代币化票据。

• 私人信贷（私募债权）：包括中小企业贷款、贸易应收账款融资、消费金融债权、房地产抵押贷款等。这类资产上链可以为DeFi资金提供真实收益来源，但由于底层借款人资质多样，风险相对较高。通常通过设立SPV持有底层资产，并由DeFi协议提供资金流动性，投资者获取链上利息收益。代表性项目有Maple、Centrifuge、Goldfinch、Credix、Clearpool等，它们致力于对接链下中小企业贷款、房产贷款等真实资产，并引入Chainlink预言机的资产证明机制增强数据可信度。

• 商品与大宗资产：主要指黄金、碳排放额度、石油等大宗商品的代币化。其中黄金因价值稳定、储备逻辑清晰，是最常见的商品RWA，典型如**Paxos Gold（PAXG）、Tether Gold（XAUT）**等通过1:1实物黄金储备发行的代币。碳信用、原油等能源类资产受制于更高的监管门槛，目前多处于试点阶段。

• 股权与基金份额：包括未上市股权、上市公司股票及各类私募基金份额的链上发行。代表平台有Securitize、ADDX、Swarm等，合规地将企业股权或基金受益凭证转化为链上代币流通。这类资产受证券监管约束较多，二级交易需严格KYC白名单，部分项目选择许可链来限制流转范围。股权类RWA目前规模很小（截至2025年6月底市值约3.62亿美元，占RWA不到2%），且缺乏流动性，这是监管和市场因素共同作用的结果。

• 房地产：房产具有价值高、流动性差的特点，传统交易往往门槛高、周期长。RWA为房产投资提供了碎片化的新路径，例如通过SPV持有不动产并发行代币化权益，使小额投资者也能按比例分享房租收益或物业升值。然而房地产上链面临确权复杂和法律衔接难题：链上代币转让与线下产权过户如何同步仍无明确先例。曾有新加坡某房产项目因线下产权变更未及时反映到NFT代币，导致该NFT成为“无主资产”，暴露了链下信息滞后的风险。因此，目前房地产RWA多以收益权代币为主（如租金收益权），持有人并不直接拥有物业所有权，仅按持币比例获得收益分配。

• 另类收藏与艺术品：包括艺术品、收藏卡牌、名酒名表等非传统资产的代币化。此类资产通常缺乏活跃的公开市场定价，上链主要目的是降低投资门槛、提高流转效率。例如早期曾有平台将著名画作进行NFT碎片发行，让多人共享所有权。但由于艺术品估值主观性强、流动性极低，目前这方面RWA仍属小众尝试，规模和影响力有限。但随着 BenFen 等平台的一键发行能力普及，未来艺术品、收藏类资产的代币化门槛有望显著降低。

三、主流RWA项目盘点

RWA赛道近年来涌现出多种模式的项目，下面按资产类别列举主要的代表性项目，每个项目并简述其核心机制：

• 国债类RWA项目：典型代表包括Ondo Finance、Superstate、Backed Finance等。

  • Ondo是一家专注于传统金融资产上链的平台，率先推出了短期美债ETF代币OUSG，通过特殊目的载体（SPV）持有真实债券资产，并发行对应ERC-20代币1:1锚定底层ETF价值，每日自动结算利息

  • Superstate则由Compound创始人发起，走的是完全合规的基金路径——其产品USTB直接投资于美国短期国债，通过注册基金方式发行链上份额，管理费仅0.15%。USTB仅开放给符合美国监管定义的合格投资者认购，并允许投资者自行保管代币份额或通过Anchorage、BitGo等托管银行保存。

  • Backed Finance提供xStocks框架将美股和欧股等证券代币化。例如Backed发行的TSLAx代币与特斯拉股票1:1锚定，由受监管托管机构持有真实股票并支持代币随时1:1赎回。Backed的代币支持7×24小时交易，打破传统股市时区限制，股息通过空投额外代币的方式分配给代币持有人，唯一的问题是其结算模型是半封闭的synthetix，用户的盈利无法做到7x24结算。

总体而言，国债和证券类RWA项目的共同特点是高度重视合规，通常通过设立离岸SPV或受监管基金，确保代币与底层资产的法律关系稳固清晰。

• 信用贷款类RWA项目：这一领域涌现了Maple Finance、Goldfinch、TrueFi、Centrifuge、Credix、Clearpool等协议。

  • Maple Finance定位为多链的机构级借贷平台，服务对象主要是对冲基金、交易公司、DAO等机构借款人。Maple通过引入链下尽职调查和借款人信用评分，实现了无抵押/低抵押贷款在链上的自动匹配，其产品线还扩展到代币化美债和贸易应收款池，2025年6月平台管理资产规模已突破24亿美元。

  • Goldfinch专注于新兴市场的信用借贷，通过让加密投资者为发展中国家的金融科技机构提供贷款资金，以获取高收益利息。Goldfinch采用双层池模式：散户资金进入高级池获得稳定收益（历史年化约7-10%），由社区选出的后备池提供部分资金承担更高风险、换取更高利率回报。该模式利用社区共识和代币激励来进行风险定价，部分实现了无抵押贷款。

  • TrueFi最初聚焦于面向加密机构的无抵押借贷，如今也在向机构级RWA服务过渡，逐步为传统资产引入链上融资渠道。

  • Centrifuge则定位为RWA基础设施提供者，通过其Tinlake协议将现实资产（应收账款、房贷等）铸成NFT，再拆分为优先级DROP和次级TIN两类代币供投资人认购，已经成为链上应收账款融资的龙头平台。

总体来看，信用类RWA项目通过链下SPV+链上资金池的结构，将中小企业贷款等资产引入DeFi。在这些平台上，出资人获得的利率相对较高（通常年化8%–18%不等），但需承担较高的信用风险，并依赖链下审计、法律手段来保障投资安全。

• 其它类别RWA项目：大宗商品领域的Paxos Gold（PAXG）和Tether Gold（XAUT）等将实物黄金托管后发行代币的项目。

  • PAXG每枚代币对应1盎司伦敦金，经Brink’s等顶级机构保管，并允许持有人按一定费用赎回实物黄金。PAXG等黄金代币让投资者无需承担实物保管成本即可获得黄金敞口，同时能在链上24/7交易或用于DeFi抵押借贷。

  • 在机构基金和股权代币化方向，除了前述的Securitize、Backed等，也有新兴项目如Swarm Markets引入欧洲证券上链，ADDX在新加坡提供私募基金代币认购平台等。这些平台受限于监管，多只针对合格投资者开放。

整体来看，目前真正落地并有一定规模的RWA项目仍以债券和信贷类为主流，其他类别大多处于起步探索阶段。值得注意的是，除具体项目外，底层公链基础设施的演进同样关键。例如 BenFen 在 2025 年的升级中已率先支持 RWA 一键发行功能，为债券、股权、房地产等多种资产的链上化提供了标准化框架，与这些应用层项目形成互补关系。

四、蓝海or红海，RWA能走多远？

虽然说RWA链上资产的规模近两年呈现爆发式增长，但具体未来能走多远呢？根据Binance Research和RWA.xyz等机构的数据，2020年时链上RWA总量不到2亿美元，而2023年底已超过10亿美元；到2024年年中则突破了120亿美元（不含稳定币）。进入2025年，随着机构资金涌入，规模继续飙升。2025年上半年全球链上RWA资产总值已超233亿美元，较2024年初增长近380%。

截至2025年8月，RWA市值约为252.2亿美元。其中，代币化美国国债是最大的单一类别，市值约68亿美元，占RWA总量的27%左右。如果按更广义计算，把稳定币计入RWA范畴，则链上RWA市值还有2568亿美元的稳定币部分；但正如前文所述，我们主要关注非稳定币资产。除了美债，RWA中第二大板块是私募信贷，包括各种链上贷款池，其规模占比在不断提高。

例如Maple、Goldfinch、Centrifuge等合计管理的贷款池规模已达数亿美元量级。不过由于信贷资产期限较长、流动性低，这部分在整体RWA市值中占比仍有限（约10%左右）。其余类别如代币化股票和商品目前体量很小：链上股票代币总值仅约3.6亿美元；黄金等商品类代币流通市值亦只是数亿美元水平。可以看出，稳定币之外的RWA版图中，美债与信贷是双引擎：美债RWA凭借低风险利率成为DeFi“收益底座”，而私募信贷RWA以更高回报吸引风险偏好资金。二者推动了过去一年链上RWA规模的迅猛攀升。

在这一背景下，基础设施层的突破显得尤为关键，稳定币支付公链 BenFen 宣布重大升级后，正式支持 RWA 一键发行与上链，并与一键稳定币发行保持统一框架，凭借一键稳定币发行、Gas 代付等机制，BenFen 正在升级为稳定币与 RWA 的一键发行中心，以及全球支付与资产流通的入口。

可以预见，随着技术成熟、监管完善，RWA有望成长为加密领域中继稳定币之后的又一支柱赛道，逻辑上是原本属于红海的资产品类通过区块链封装成新蓝海，该工具必成为金融新贵。而像 BenFen 这样兼具稳定币与 RWA 一键发行能力的公链，将在这一进程中扮演关键角色。（Source：blocktempo.com）。

五、各主要司法辖区的监管态度与合规框架

RWA涉及传统金融资产的上链，不可避免地面对各国证券和金融法规的约束。各司法辖区对RWA及其代币化的监管态度迥异，概括而言：

• 美国：美国对RWA总体持谨慎态度，监管框架以现有证券法为基础。项目方通常通过SPV隔离+证券私募合规的模式来操作。同时，代币发行需遵循SEC监管，例如走Reg D（面向合格投资者的私募发行）或Reg S（境外发行）等路径，以豁免公开注册要求。这意味着在美国发行RWA代币大多仅限合格投资者参与，普通零售投资者目前难以直接购买。总体上，美国监管机构（SEC、CFTC等）对RWA的态度偏保守，要求此类代币实质等同证券，必须遵循信息披露和投资者保护规则。这使得美国的RWA创新主要集中在机构市场，许多项目选择先在海外试点再引入美国。（毕竟川普搞币股联动，矿场这些已经吃饱了，没必要再给自己开新坑）

• 欧盟：欧盟在RWA监管上相对积极，2023年通过的MiCA法规（加密资产市场监管）对RWA有直接涉及，其中将锚定现实资产的代币定义为“资产参考代币（ART）”并纳入监管。在欧盟，RWA项目常采用信托或欧盟认可SPV架构，设立可变资本投资公司(SICAV)作为SPV，持有底层资产并发行代币。MiCA合规要求：发行方必须披露底层资产的托管方式、权益分配规则等。总体而言，欧盟倾向于将RWA纳入现有金融监管体系，通过统一规则降低法律不确定性。

• 新加坡：新加坡金融管理局（MAS）于2022年启动了Project Guardian计划，与多家金融机构合作测试公债、外汇交易的链上结算和代币化。MAS发布的数字资产框架中，将稳定币和证券型代币纳入监管沙盒，鼓励在合规环境下试验RWA应用。总体而言，新加坡政府在监管上相对宽松且提供政策支持（例如税收优惠、监管沙盒）。

• 中国香港：目前，香港已允许持牌券商申请开展代币化证券发行和交易的试点，只限专业投资者参与。总体来看，香港对RWA的态度非常积极，通过政府背书的方式吸引相关项目落地，强调合规先行、创新紧随。

• 阿联酋：迪拜设立的虚拟资产监管局（VARA）推出了全球首个针对RWA代币化较全面的监管框架，涵盖代币发行、托管、交易等环节，为代币化资产提供法律确定性。虽然VARA规则尚未覆盖所有资产类型，但彰显了迪拜希望成为RWA枢纽的决心。此外，阿布扎比的金融中心ADGM也在2023年启动代币化试点沙盒，邀请金融科技公司测试包括债权、基金份额在内的RWA产品。在应用方面，迪拜土地局宣布探索房地产代币化，欲将房产登记与区块链结合；阿联酋的碳交易所也考虑引入区块链以扩大碳信用的交易。总体而言，阿联酋采取官民合作、监管沙盒的路径，鼓励境内外机构在本地开展RWA业务，其宽松的税收和明确的加密法规吸引了不少项目团队进驻。可以预见，随着法律逐步完善，迪拜和阿布扎比有望成为中东的RWA发行与交易中心。

六、不同国家及资产类型的链上发行成本与收益比较

RWA项目的经济模型涉及多方成本与收益，包括底层资产收益率、托管和审计成本、协议收费以及投资者收益水平等。不同国家的监管环境和不同资产类别都会对发行成本和收益构成影响。下面我们从主要资产类别入手，结合数据和案例进行比较：

• 国债及政府债券：这类RWA底层资产收益率取决于宏观利率。以美国国债为例，当前一年期美债利率约在5%左右，因此代币化的美债（如Ondo的OUSG、Superstate的USTB）能提供接近5%年化的无风险利率，成为链上资金的“利率锚”。发行这类产品的成本主要在于基金管理费和合规开销。例如Ondo的OUSG采用ETF跨链包装结构，收取约0.15%–0.3%的年管理费用于覆盖运营成本，包括托管银行、律师合规等费用。Superstate的USTB属于注册基金，管理费更低，仅0.15%，另外还有托管费支付给Anchorage等银行托管人，但通过直接持有国债而非嵌套ETF，减少了双重费用层级。在合规成本上，美国发行此类产品需要符合法规豁免，法律服务费用较高；而在瑞士、新加坡等地发行国债代币，由于监管接受度高，审批流程相对简化。整体而言，国债RWA的收益中枢较低但稳健，费用结构中管理费占比较小。

• 私募信贷：链上的私人贷款资产通常提供高于传统利率的收益，以补偿更高的信用和流动性风险。以Maple和Goldfinch为例，其借贷池针对中小企业或新兴市场放款，历史年化利率范围约在8%–15%之间。具体收益因借款主体资质而异：优质借款人（如有抵押品或稳定现金流的企业）贷款利率可能在8–10%，风险较高的借款（如新创公司无抵押贷款）利率则达15%甚至更高。投资这些贷款池的出资人可以获得相应利息收益，但需承担违约风险和较长的锁定期。为了增强投资吸引力，不少平台采取收益分级机制：例如Goldfinch的高级池投资者拿固定利率，而次级参与者获得剩余高收益但先承担损失。发行此类资产的成本主要体现在尽职调查和风险管理上。借款项目前需聘请第三方审计、律师进行链下尽调。平台方还会从借款利息中抽取一定比例作为协议费：Maple每笔贷款收取0.5%–2%的手续费。这些费用部分转嫁给借款人，部分体现在投资人收益的折让。相比传统金融，链上信贷在撮合和管理成本上有所下降（智能合约自动执行还款、分润），但在信用评估和催收环节仍需人工和法律介入，因此整体成本不算低。此外，不同司法地区对链上放贷的合规要求影响也很大：在美国，这种面向公众的借贷很可能被视为证券或投资产品，需要注册或豁免（合规成本高）；而在新加坡等地，通过持牌法人发行参与笔数有限的代币化债权可以在沙盒内进行，手续相对简化。因此一些项目选择在新加坡、瑞士等友好地区设立基金发行贷款凭证，再在全球范围募资以降低监管摩擦。

• 房地产及其它实物资产：房地产代币通常对应租金收益或地产债权，其收益率受当地房地产租售市场影响。一般发达市场优质物业租金回报在3%–5%，发展中市场可能达到8%以上。如果将房产权益碎片化上链，投资者获取的基础收益即为租金减去物业管理、税费后的净收益。这部分收益相对稳健，但远低于信贷资产。不过考虑房产可能升值，长期总回报会更高。链上发行房产权益的主要成本在于法律结构搭建和持续管理。需要支付评估师、托管银行、公证法律文件等费用。在香港、新加坡等地，政府正探索降低这些成本：如香港金管局支持的数字绿色债券项目中，使用区块链简化了结算流程，节省了一部分中介费用。类似地，艺术品、收藏品等RWA的收益更多来自资产本身升值，而非持续收益。这类资产的价格发现困难，估值不透明导致买卖价差很大。发行方通常会收取保管、保险以及交易佣金。例如有艺术品平台每年向代币持有人收取2%的保管费。相比之下，黄金等商品代币虽然无利息，但其流动性和交易活跃度反而高于其他RWA类别，因为黄金市场全球通畅、价格透明度高。据统计，PAXG和XAUT等黄金代币每月链上交易额远高于多数信贷或股权代币。因此，不同RWA资产在收益-流动性两端呈现此消彼长：高收益资产往往流动性差，而流动性好的资产（如黄金）收益低甚至为零，需要通过DeFi复合策略提高回报。

• 地域差异与成本比较：从国家维度看，监管环境直接影响RWA发行成本与收益定价。在美国，高度合规要求推高了法律及运营成本，很多项目只能面向高净值客户发行，导致流动性受限、融资成本相对提高（借款人需支付更高利率吸引有限资金）。反之，在新加坡、瑞士等RWA友好司法区，合规成本较低，发行人可以以更低费用触达全球投资者，从而有余地以较低利率融资或将更多收益让渡给投资者。这也是为何一些RWA产品在美国本土无法面向散户，但通过在海外发行再供美国机构购买的方式曲线落地。

总的来说，RWA的链上发行成本包括技术成本+合规成本两大块：技术层面区块链正在发挥规模效应压降人力和时间成本，而合规成本则取决于管辖区的监管友好度。

七、当前RWA市场面临的核心问题

尽管RWA被寄予厚望，但在实践中仍面临一系列挑战，需要行业和监管共同努力解决：

• 法律合规难题：现实资产上链涉及复杂的法律关系。当前法律框架滞后于技术发展，许多关键问题缺乏判例支撑。例如，链上代币如何与链下资产所有权一一对应？代币持有人权利如何在法院中得到承认？正如前文提到的，SPV结构下代币被视为SPV股权凭证，但链上转让不等于线下过户这一法律断层依然存在。不同司法管辖区对同一RWA代币的定性可能相左，导致跨境交易缺乏法律保护。这种法律不确定性使RWA项目始终存在合规隐患，如有律师指出目前许多RWA代币更像“自我证明合法的数字欠条”。

• 链下资产真实性与信用风险：RWA的价值基础在链下，因而对链下资产真实性和信用状况的验证至关重要。当前行业主要依赖第三方机构（如会计师事务所、评估师）出具证明，再通过预言机上传链上。然而，中介机构本身可能出错或舞弊，链上投资者对其仍需“信任”。例如某RWA借贷项目曾暴露借款企业提供虚假财报的问题，尽调方未及时发现造成投资人损失。此外，不动产等资产还涉及更新同步难题：若底层资产状况改变（抵押物灭失、产权转移等），如何迅速反映到链上仍无完善机制。尽管有Chainlink等推出Proof of Reserve方案定期验证资产储备，但复杂资产的信用风险无法仅靠技术解决，仍需要链下法律手段保障，如担保、保险、违约处置等配套安排。这些都会增加项目运作难度和成本。

• 市场流动性不足：RWA资产普遍存在流动性匮乏的问题。原因首先在于投资者范围受限：许多RWA代币只能卖给合格投资者或白名单地址，天然缩小了二级市场规模。其次，缺少活跃的交易场所和做市商，大部分代币在去中心化交易所交易冷清，买卖价差大、成交频率低。研究显示，多数RWA代币的持有周期很长，转手率极低，大部分投资者采取“买入并长期持有”策略。这固然反映RWA投资偏中长期，但也意味着流动性不足以支持活跃交易。当投资者需要变现时，可能面临无人接盘或必须大幅折价的问题。流动性匮乏还带来定价困难：由于缺乏连续交易，资产公允价值不透明，进一步打击潜在交易意愿。为缓解这些问题，市场开始探索引入专业做市商和激励机制。例如某些平台对提供流动性的LP给予额外代币激励，或寻求中心化券商为RWA代币撮合交易。但总体而言，在RWA能吸引更大规模投资者（包括普通个人）入场前，流动性瓶颈短期内仍将存在。

• 估值定价及预言机问题：传统金融资产很多并无实时价格，例如非上市股权、房地产估值往往滞后且缺乏统一标准。当这些资产上链后，如何给代币定价成为难点。当前主要做法是定期由发行人公布净值（NAV）或参考评估价，然后由预言机喂价到链上。但预言机数据源和频率存在不确定性，投资者很难核实价格的准确性。一些资产由于独特性强，估值模型主观，导致买卖双方价格预期差异大，交易难以达成。即便像美债这样市场透明的资产，也存在预言机延迟或故障的技术风险。一旦预言机报价失准（例如受到攻击或数据源断链），可能引发市场混乱甚至清算风险。此外，衍生品和组合性玩法的兴起（如将RWA代币抵押借 stablecoin，再参与其他DeFi）对价格精准度提出更高要求。若估值偏差累积，可能造成系统性风险。

• 机构参与度仍有待提高：机构投资者被视为RWA市场的重要推动力量，但目前他们的参与度仍有待提高。哪怕如富兰克林邓普顿等先行者发行了链上基金，大多数主流资管公司仍在试验阶段，尚未将核心资产搬上链。另一方面，部分加密原生机构（如DAO、加密基金）对RWA也存顾虑：他们担心链下资产缺乏透明度、需要信任中介，不符合去中心化精神。即使MakerDAO等先吃螃蟹配置了大量美国国债作为储备，也经历了漫长的内部治理讨论和风控设计，以说服代币持有人同意引入RWA抵押。总体看，机构对RWA的兴趣在上升：2023年以来华尔街大行开始研发代币化平台，Visa等也发布了RWA报告，各国政府基金也尝试小额投资RWA项目。这表明机构已经认识到RWA潜力，但要转化为大规模部署，仍需要完善的基础设施和配套服务（如托管、清算、法律支持）以及成功的案例来增强信心。

八、本分链的一键发行RWA能力简介

作为应对上述挑战的一种探索方案，本分链（BenFen Chain）近期推出了“一键RWA发行”功能，以期简化现实资产上链的流程。BenFen链原本定位为稳定币支付公链，强调高性能和低成本交易。在2025年8月的重大版本升级中，官方宣布正式支持RWA（现实世界资产）的一键发行和上链，将其定位升级为“稳定币+RWA基础设施公链”。这一功能与原有的一键稳定币发行框架保持统一，使发行人能够通过标准化流程便捷地发行合规的RWA代币。

技术路径方面，本分链优化了底层Move虚拟机和跨链引擎，在保持万级TPS吞吐和亚秒级确认速度的同时，为资产上链和合规托管提供底层支持。链上内置了智能合约模板和标准业务流程：发行方只需按照指引提交资产信息和合规材料，即可一键将现实资产（例如房地产、债券、股票等）映射为链上通证。系统自动结合托管、审计、KYC等环节，确保链下资产与链上代币的映射安全可靠。例如，用户若要在本分链发行一笔商业地产债券代币，只需上传物业评估报告、托管银行证明等材料，智能合约会锁定这些文件哈希并生成代币，只有通过KYC的合格投资者地址才能认购和交易该代币，从而在链上严格执行监管要求。整个过程高度自动化，使过去需要数月的资产证券化流程大为简化——官方宣称此前高门槛、繁琐的RWA上链如今可通过简单操作完成。这意味着发行人能大幅降低技术难度和时间成本，快速获得链上流动性和全球结算能力。

潜在优势方面，本分链致力于打造“稳定币金融操作系统”，其一键RWA发行与一键稳定币发行共享同一套底层设施。该链支持直接使用稳定币支付Gas费用，甚至引入了Gas费代付赞助机制，进一步降低用户使用公链的成本。对于发行人来说，不仅免除了自行开发智能合约和搭建KYC系统的工作，本分链还提供合规托管方案：可以对接持牌托管机构来保管底层资产，并在链上记录托管凭证，提升监管透明度。同时，借助高TPS和跨链能力，本分链上的RWA代币可方便地桥接到其他主流网络，增加潜在投资者范围。这些设计使得BenFen链适配多种资产类型，包括不动产、债券、股权、商品等，只要能提供合法合规的资产证明，都可以映射为链上代币发行。举例来说，一家房地产公司可以通过本分链一键发行项目收益债券，全球投资者在完成KYC后都能便捷认购；同时所得款项和后续租金收益的分配也由链上合约自动执行，降低人为操作风险。

结语

RWA的叙事宏大而激动人心，但其道路并非一片坦途。它正处在"蓝海"与"红海"的十字路口，前方既有通往万亿级市场的星辰大海，也遍布法律、风险和流动性的暗礁。当前RWA市场面临的核心问题在于法律合规、资产真实性验证、流动性不足等诸多挑战。

而本分链推出的"一键RWA发行"功能，正是应对这些挑战的重要探索方案，**通过标准化流程和合规托管等特色功能，为这些挑战提供了切实可行的解决路径。作为RWA基础设施的重要探索者，本分链正在为现实资产上链奠定坚实的技术基石，推动RWA从概念走向大规模应用。未来，随着技术方案不断成熟和监管环境逐步完善，本分链等基础设施提供商将助力RWA真正成为连接传统金融与加密世界的重要桥梁。

                                                                                                                              **转自——Bixin Ventures**

自2009年比特币创世区块诞生以来，Web3公链领域历经了从单一价值结算到图灵完备智能合约，再到多链并存的爆发式演进。以太坊长期凭借其先发优势和强大的DeFi生态系统，稳坐总锁仓价值（TVL）的头把交椅。然而，自2023年下半年起，以Solana为代表的高性能公链凭借极致的用户体验，在交易活跃度维度上发起了强有力的挑战，形成了“资金在以太坊，流量在交替”的新格局。与此同时，以Tron为代表的专注于特定场景（稳定币结算）的公链，也在特定领域开辟了一个重要的细分市场。

本报告将通过回顾主流公链的成长路径，并结合TVL与链上交易量两大核心指标，剖析公链“主流位次”的变迁逻辑。我们认为，随着市场关注点从泛化的DeFi应用转向更具体的、与现实世界结合的稳定币支付和RWA（真实世界资产），传统公链在性能、互操作性、合规与隐私方面的不足逐渐暴露。这为新一代、专为这些场景设计的高性能公链（如BenFen）提供了结构性的发展机遇。

一、 主流公链概览

1.1 主流公链盘点：是谁、有什么“看家本领”、如何一路长大

要理解公链格局的未来，我们必须首先回顾那些定义了过去和现在的“巨头”们。它们各自凭借独特的“看家本领”，在不同时期抓住了市场机遇，共同塑造了今天的Web3世界。

Bitcoin (2009–)：数字黄金与最终结算层

作为所有加密资产的价值之源，比特币的核心定位始终是去中心化的价值储藏（SoV）和最终结算网络。其脚本能力（Script）的有限性是一种刻意的设计选择，旨在最大化网络的安全性和稳定性，这也决定了DeFi并非其主战场。尽管后续通过闪电网络和Taproot激活等方式拓展了其可编程性，但其主要的链上金融活动，更多的是通过wBTC等形式“外溢”到其他智能合约链上。行业对总锁仓价值（TVL）的统计也普遍不将其纳入主流DeFi竞争格局，各大智能合约链长期主导着TVL排行榜 [1]。

以太坊 Ethereum (2015–)：DeFi世界的绝对核心

以太坊是无可争议的通用智能合约平台之王和DeFi生态的“鼻祖”，被誉为“世界计算机”。从2017年的ICO狂潮，到2020年的“DeFi Summer”，再到2022年历史性的“The Merge”共识转换，以太坊始终是Web3世界创新和资金的聚集地。即便在2024-2025年面临L2生态分流和高性能L1的激烈竞争，其TVL份额依然长期保持全网第一 [2]，是加密世界的“资产定价中心”。

BNB Chain / BSC (2020–)：EVM兼容的普惠先锋

BNB Chain（原BSC）凭借其低廉的Gas费、完全的EVM兼容性以及与币安生态的紧密联系，在2021年春夏季迅速崛起。它极大地降低了新用户和项目的参与门槛，成为承接“羊毛党”和长尾资产的第一站，其TVL市占率在2021年5月一度接近20%的峰值 [3]。然而，随着Solana、Terra（崩盘前）、Avalanche等多链生态的繁荣，其流量和资金也逐渐被分流，市场份额趋于稳定。

Solana (2020–)：性能取胜的“交易热度王者”

Solana则走了另一条路——以极致性能取胜。其高吞吐量（TPS）和低廉的交易成本，使其对高频交易、DEX和Meme币等对性能要求极高的场景非常友好。这一优势在2023年下半年开始爆发，据研究机构Kaiko的数据，2024年期间，Solana链上DEX的日交易量多次短暂超越以太坊 [4]。Messari在其《State of Solana Q4 2024》报告中进一步证实了这一趋势，指出该季度Solana的TVL飙升486%，达到86亿美元 [5]。进入2025年，据CoinGecko报告，Solana在一月份的链上交易份额一度达到惊人的52%，尽管后续以太坊凭借深厚的流动性在三月份夺回月度桂冠，但Solana已稳固了其“交易热度王者”的地位 [6]。

Tron (2018–)：“稳定币结算王”

Tron在喧嚣的DeFi和Meme竞争之外，悄然占据了一个至关重要的生态位：稳定币，特别是USDT的全球零售与跨境结算网络。凭借其极低的转账费用，Tron成为了全球范围内小额稳定币支付和汇款的首选主阵地。据CoinDesk Data报告，至2025年上半年，Tron网络的月度稳定币转账额已稳定在6000亿美元以上，其中超过60%的交易额低于1000美元，充分体现了其在零售支付领域的统治力 [7]。

其他代表：新势力与L2生态

• 新一代公链：以Aptos、Sui、Sei等为代表，同样主打高性能叙事，在2025年其生态TVL也开始快速增长，进入“发芽期” [8]。

• 以太坊L2：Arbitrum、Optimism、Base等Layer2解决方案，作为以太坊扩容的核心战略，承担了大量的交易和TVL，与Solana在“交易活跃度”层面形成了持续的拉锯战 [6]。

1.2 公链“主流位次”怎么变：用 TVL + 交易量 的复合视角

单一的TVL指标已不足以全面衡量一个公链生态的健康度。尤其在2020年DeFi Summer之后，伴随着多链生态的爆发，TVL（总锁仓价值）作为“资金权重”的衡量标准，与链上交易量作为“使用热度”的衡量标准，共同构成了观察公链竞争格局的双轨视角。本节将聚焦于2020年后，通过这两大核心指标，客观反映公链主流位次的动态变迁。

A. 里程碑 (2017–2022)：奠定格局的数次浪潮

• 2017–2019：以太坊标准确立 以太坊凭借其图灵完备的智能合约功能，成为ICO和早期DeFi协议爆发的核心平台，事实上确立了智能合约公链的技术标准和生态范式。

• 2020：DeFi Summer 以太坊生态内的借贷（Compound, Aave）和交易（Uniswap）等核心应用迎来爆发式增长，TVL概念深入人心。据DappRadar数据，2021年全行业TVL达到1890亿美元，同比增长767%，其中以太坊长期占据绝对主导地位 [9]。

• 2021：多链元年与BSC的高光时刻 BNB Chain (BSC) 凭借其低费率和EVM兼容性，成功捕获了以太坊外溢的巨大长尾资产和用户需求，其TVL市占率在年中一度接近20%。同年底，Terra凭借其算法稳定币UST和Anchor协议近20%的储蓄年利率，TVL超越BSC，成为当时第二大公链，展示了强大资本叙事的吸金能力 [10]。

• 2022：格局重塑 以太坊成功完成“The Merge”共识转换，正式迈入PoS时代。而在Terra崩盘后留下的市场空白中，Tron凭借其庞大的稳定币结算量迅速崛起，据Messari报告，其价值结算量在该年度稳居全网第二 [11]。

B. 近期大势 (2023–2025)：双轨博弈与拉锯

进入2023年后，公链竞争的焦点愈发清晰：以太坊的TVL王座难以撼动，但“第二/第三名”的争夺异常激烈；同时，在代表“使用强度”的交易量维度上，Solana发起了强有力的挑战，削弱了以太坊的绝对优势。

• 2023 - 2024年中 (轮动期)：TVL方面，Tron和BNB Chain交替占据第二、三名的位置，而Solana在经历低谷后开始强劲复苏。交易量方面，Solana已多次在日/月维度上超越以太坊，例如在2024年5月10日，其单日DEX交易量达到13亿美元，略高于以太坊的12.9亿美元，实现了日级别的“反超” [4, 12]。

• 2024年Q4 (Solana爆发期)：这是格局变化最剧烈的时期。Messari指出，Solana的TVL在该季度跃升至约86亿美元，并在11月超越Tron成为全网第二大TVL公链 [5]。交易量方面更是惊人，据Binance Square引述数据，该季度Solana的日DEX交易量一度达到近39.8亿美元，超过了以太坊（17.1亿美元）和Base（12.1亿美元）的总和 [13]。

• 2025上半年 (拉锯现象)：Solana的交易热度持续，但以太坊展现出其生态韧性。据CoinGecko报告，虽然Solana在1月份占据了链上交易份额的52%，但以太坊在3月份凭借630亿美元的月度DEX交易量重夺领先地位——这是自2024年9月以来首次 [6, 15]。

• 并行趋势 (Tron)：在TVL和DEX交易量的激烈竞争之外，Tron作为“支付清算链”的地位持续巩固。至2025年上半年，其月度稳定币转账额稳定在6000亿美元以上，成为全球零售与跨境稳定币支付的事实标准链之一 [7, 8]。

要点总结：

• 资金权重（TVL）：ETH 几乎全程第一，2024 Q4–2025 的第二名更多由 Solana/Tron/BSC 轮换；

• 使用热度（交易量/DEX）：Solana 在多个时间窗超车，对“活跃度与可用性”的主导显著增强；

• 支付清算（稳定币）：Tron 在全球零售/跨境稳定币转账中占优，成为“支付导向”的基础设施。

关键数据与案例补充

• Solana 交易量爆发：2024年第四季度，Solana单日DEX交易量峰值达到约39.8亿美元，超过了以太坊（17.1亿美元）与Base（12.1亿美元）的总和[13]。从全年来看，据Coinspeaker报道，2024年Solana的月均DEX交易额达到了约2580亿美元，远超以太坊的860亿美元 [14]。

• 短时超越：早在2024年5月10日，Solana的单日DEX交易量就已达到13亿美元，略高于以太坊的12.9亿美元，实现了日级别的“反超” [12]。

• Tron 稳定币账本主场：至2025年上半年，Tron网络的月度稳定币转账额持续超过6000亿美元，坐实了其作为全球稳定币核心流转账本的地位 [8]。

背后驱动分析：为什么时段位次变化？

公链赛道的竞争，表面上是技术和数据的比拼，其背后则是用户体验、场景定位、资金叙事和生态活力的多维度综合博弈。

A. 用户体验驱动流量

网络性能和交易成本是用户最直观的感受，也是流量迁移最直接的驱动力。Solana之所以能在交易热度上挑战以太坊，其低至约$0.00025的交易费用是核心原因之一，这极大地满足了高频交易和Meme币周期用户的需求 [16]。同理，BSC的早期崛起和Tron在稳定币支付领域的成功，都离不开其低成本的交易体验。

B. 场景定位差异

随着市场成熟，通用型公链开始向特定优势领域分化，形成了差异化的用户心智：

• 以太坊: DeFi与NFT的“金融中心”和“文化层”，凭借L2生态系统扩展其全能型定位。

• Solana: 高频交易与Meme币周期的“性能引擎”，专攻对速度和成本要求极致的场景。

• Tron: 稳定币的“全球支付网络”，在小额、高频的跨境支付和零售结算领域构筑了深厚的护城河。

C. 资金导向与“爆点故事”

资本和用户总是追逐最具吸引力的故事。2021年，BSC凭借“人人都能参与”的长尾资产热潮，在高峰期占据了20%的TVL份额。同年，Terra则以Anchor协议20%的年化收益率为“爆点故事”，在短时间内吸纳巨额资金并登顶TVL第二，其后的崩盘也为市场留下了深刻教训。2024至2025年，Solana凭借“高性能承载Meme热点”的故事，成功拉动了其交易热度曲线。

D. 生态活力与头部吸附力

一个公链的长期价值，最终由其生态应用的质量和活力决定。以太坊的护城河由Uniswap, Aave, Lido等一系列经过多年考验的DeFi基础设施构成。Solana的流量则更多由Jupiter, Raydium等新兴的、体验更丝滑的DEX和聚合器推动。而Tron的生态虽不及前两者丰富，但其庞大的稳定币资金池本身就构成了最强的应用场景，吸引了所有与稳定币结算相关的需求。 E. 数据透明为竞争提供追溯 Messari、DeFiLlama、CoinGecko等第三方数据和研究平台的崛起，让公链间的竞争变得前所未有的透明。TVL、交易量、活跃地址等核心指标被实时量化和追踪，这不仅为社区和用户提供了判断各链优劣的决策工具，也反过来加剧了公链在数据表现上的“内卷”。

1.3 成功公链的“共性配方”

通过对上述主流公链的兴衰沉浮进行复盘，我们可以发现，尽管各自的“爆点故事”不尽相同，但那些能够在激烈竞争中脱颖而出、稳住主流位次的公链，其成功背后往往遵循着一套共通的“配方”。

1.低费用 + 高吞吐：交易活跃度的硬前提
在多链竞争时代，网络性能和交易成本是决定用户“用脚投票”的根本前提。 Solana在2024-2025年多个时间窗口中DEX交易量的惊人爆发，最直接地印证了这一点 [4, 6, 12]。当一个网络能够提供足够低廉（近乎零成本）且高效（秒级确认）的交易体验时，它就具备了承接市场最高频、最投机、也最具活力的交易需求（如Meme币交易）的硬性条件。

2.明确的“主战场”心智：差异化定位

随着市场成熟，试图“包罗万象”的通用型公链，若无绝对的先发优势，很难与高度专注的“专科型”公链竞争。成功的公链往往拥有一个极其清晰、深入人心的差异化定位。

• 以太坊：通用智能合约与L2生态的价值沉淀层。

• Solana：极致性能驱动的高频交易链 [4]。

• Tron：全球稳定币结算链 [7]。

3.强大的生态抓手：头部应用的高占比

一个公链的繁荣，离不开能够持续吸引和锁定用户的头部“抓手”应用。这些应用不仅贡献了大部分的链上活动，更构成了生态的护城河。

以太坊的Uniswap、Aave、Lido等“DeFi基本盘”是其庞大TVL的基石；而Solana的崛起，则高度依赖Jupiter这类DEX聚合器的高效整合与流量分发。Messari的报告指出，仅Jupiter一家就占据了Solana生态2024年第四季度现货DEX交易量的约38% [5]。

4. 叙事与资金的“共振时窗”

技术和生态的积累是基础，但引爆市场往往需要一个强大的“叙事”来在特定时间窗口内吸引资本和用户的共振。

5. 制度化研究与透明数据的背书

在当前的加密市场，公链的竞争已不再是单纯的社区声量比拼。以Messari、Kaiko、CoinGecko、DeFiLlama为代表的第三方研究机构和数据平台，通过持续更新的链级研究报告和开源数据面板，为市场提供了制度化的、可供追溯的竞争标尺。

这些平台的数据已成为项目、机构和深度用户判断链生态优劣、识别“位次变化”的核心决策工具，反过来也促使公链更加注重真实的链上数据表现。

二、火热的稳定币与RWA为何在传统公链上“缺席”

在第一部分，我们观察到主流公链的竞争主要围绕着DeFi的TVL和链上交易热度展开。然而，自2023年以来，Web3的叙事重心正悄然发生转移。稳定币的支付应用与RWA（真实世界资产）的代币化，正成为推动行业进入下一阶段的核心引擎。但当我们审视现有公链的基础设施时，会发现它们在设计之初，并未为承接这两大浪潮做好充分准备，导致了一个明显的“基础设施缺席”现象。

2.1 目前火热的稳定币和RWA简述及其大趋势与Web3推动作用

稳定币（以USDT、USDC为代表）与RWA（真实世界资产，如房地产、债券的代币化）并非全新概念，但它们在近期显示出前所未有的增长势头，其根本原因在于它们解决了Web3走向主流的关键问题：价值锚定与资产扩展。

为什么稳定币和RWA是大趋势？

• 稳定币作为加密世界的“美元”，为高度波动的市场提供了可靠的价值尺度和交易媒介。而RWA通过将规模庞大的传统资产引入链上，则从根本上拓宽了Web3的资产类别和市场深度。数据显示，2023年全球稳定币市值已超过1800亿美元，而据Consensys报告，同期RWA相关DeFi协议的锁仓量也已突破70亿美元 [17]。

对Web3的推动作用

• 这两大趋势的结合，正在推动Web3从纯粹的内生数字资产游戏，演变为一个能够与现实世界进行价值交互的、更广阔的金融生态。稳定币的普及极大地降低了跨境支付的成本和时间，而RWA则为资产证券化、去中心化贷款等更贴近传统金融的应用场景铺平了道路，共同加速了区块链技术的主流化进程和用户规模的扩大。

2.2 主流公链对稳定币和RWA的不足之处

尽管现有公链功能强大，但它们在设计上普遍是“通用型”的，并未针对稳定币支付和RWA这类高频、高合规性、高隐私性要求的场景进行原生优化。这导致它们在面对新浪潮时，暴露了以下五个层面的核心不足：

2.2.1 扩展性与性能瓶颈

大规模的支付和资产交易要求网络具备极高的处理能力和极低的成本。首先，以太坊主网等传统公链的平均交易确认时间约15秒，在网络拥堵时甚至会延长至数分钟，这无法满足支付场景的即时性需求。其次，高昂且不稳定的Gas费用是另一大障碍；在2021-2022年的市场高峰期，网络拥堵曾多次导致Gas费突破200 Gwei，使得单笔稳定币转账的成本超过50美元，这对于小额支付和高频交易场景是不可接受的 [18]。最后，根据Etherscan的数据，2023年以太坊的日均交易量已稳定在约120万笔，接近其理论TPS上限，这表明其网络容量已基本饱和，难以支撑未来由大规模稳定币和RWA应用带来的海量交易需求。

2.2.2 跨链互操作性不足

稳定币和RWA的价值流转必然涉及多链环境，但当前的跨链桥基础设施仍是安全风险的重灾区。2021年Poly Network跨链桥被黑客攻击，损失超6亿美元的事件，就暴露了跨链资产安全的脆弱性 [19]。同时，多链生态也导致了严重的资产碎片化问题，用户常常需要在至少3-5条不同的链之间进行繁琐操作，不仅体验不佳，也显著增加了用户流失的风险。根据Chainalysis的数据，2023年由跨链桥诈骗和安全事件所造成的损失，已占所有DeFi安全事件的50%以上，这严重动摇了用户进行大额资产跨链的信心 [20]。

2.2.3 合规和监管适配困难

稳定币和RWA与现实世界资产紧密相连，必然面临严格的金融监管。SEC等监管机构在2023年已加强对稳定币发行方的监管，要求其满足KYC/AML合规 [21]。然而，大多数现有公链缺少原生的链上身份认证模块，项目方需要依赖拼凑的、体验不佳的第三方解决方案来实现合规，导致合规成本高昂。正如国际货币基金组织（IMF）所指出的，RWA上链的合规性是制约其大规模应用的主要障碍之一。

2.2.4 数据隐私和安全性需求

传统公链的交易数据完全公开透明，这对于要求隐私保护的商业和金融场景是一个巨大的障碍，因为没有任何真实世界的企业愿意将其完整的供应链支付记录或涉及敏感信息的RWA资产组合细节公之于众。市场的需求正推动技术变革，据Gartner预测，未来3年内，75%的区块链应用都需要引入隐私保护技术以满足企业合规需求 [22]。尽管现有公链可以集成零知识证明（zk-SNARKs）等隐私技术，但这些通常作为独立的L2或应用层方案存在，不仅面临性能和易用性瓶颈，也加剧了生态的割裂。

2.2.5 资产上链流程与基础设施不完善

RWA的代币化，不仅仅是技术问题，更涉及到资产证明、信用背书、法律确权、托管和审计等一系列复杂的链下流程，而目前行业缺少统一、高效的标准和基础设施。以当前DeFi为例，RWA相关智能合约的占比不足5%，这清晰地显示出相关基础设施尚处于非常初期的萌芽阶段。ConsenSys的报告也明确指出，2024年RWA市场面临的最大挑战之一，便是链上资产托管与合规审计机制的建设不完善 [17]，现有公链作为纯粹的技术平台，并未提供解决这些“链下”挑战的原生工具或框架。

三、本分公链如何填补稳定币和RWA的基础设施缺失

在第二部分，我们分析了传统通用型公链在面对稳定币支付和RWA（真实世界资产）这一Web3新浪潮时，暴露出的性能、安全、合规及易用性等多重短板。这些短板并非简单的技术迭代可以弥补，而是源于其底层设计的“基因”并非为此类场景而生。

本章节将详细论述，BenFen作为新一代高性能稳定币公链，是如何通过一系列原生、专用的基础设施设计，系统性地填补这些缺失，旨在成为承接下一轮Web3价值增长的核心平台。

3.1 Move语言——安全与灵活的智能合约开发基础

对于高价值的稳定币和代表真实世界权利的RWA资产而言，智能合约的安全性是不可逾越的底线。传统公链（如以太坊）上因合约漏洞导致的天量资金损失，已反复证明了这一点。BenFen从第一天起就将安全置于最高优先级，其最核心的决策便是选择Move语言作为唯一的智能合约开发语言。

Move语言由Meta（原Facebook）团队为Diem项目设计，其核心的“资源类型（Resource Type）”系统将数字资产（如Token）视为一种特殊类型，在语言层面就禁止了资产的凭空复制（防止增发漏洞）或意外销毁（防止资产丢失）。这意味着，Move语言从根本上免疫了整数溢出、重入攻击等一系列在Solidity合约中常见的致命漏洞。此外，其模块化的智能合约设计，便于开发者构建和审计复杂的金融逻辑，非常适合稳定币和RWA的复杂业务需求。通过采用Move语言，BenFen极大地降低了开发者在发行和管理高价值资产时的安全风险和开发成本。

3.2 一键发行稳定币与RWA资产

传统公链上发行资产，尤其是结构复杂的RWA，流程繁琐且技术门槛高，这是阻碍其规模化发展的重要原因。为解决这一痛点，BenFen通过提供“一键发行”的标准化工具，将复杂的链上操作封装为简洁的前端界面。

该功能基于BenFen先进的面向对象（Object-centric）模型，将每一个代币都视为一个独立的“对象”，并通过内置的官方coin核心模块来统一资产发行的标准。项目方或机构无需进行复杂的智能合约编码，只需通过配置化界面填写资产的核心参数（如名称、符号、总量等），即可完成合规、透明的链上资产发行。这不仅极大地提高了资产上链的效率，更为资产的全生命周期管理（发行、转让、赎回等）提供了原生支持，为生态的快速扩展奠定了基础。

3.3 支持多种稳定币及多资产共存生态

为解决美元稳定币过度中心化和单一货币的局限性，BenFen在协议层原生支持多币种稳定币体系。该体系以核心稳定币BUSD（通过跨链桥1:1锚定主流美元稳定币）为储备和兑换媒介，通过链上原生的汇率预言机获取实时外汇价格，从而支持生态高效、低成本地发行和流通锚定不同国家法币的稳定币（如BJPY, BEUR等）。

这种多币种并存的机制，不仅满足了全球不同区域（如跨境电商、本地支付）的本地化支付和结算需求，也允许了更复杂的跨资产交互和交易，为消费支付、借贷、理财等多元化金融场景提供了必需的底层支持，有助于构建一个更具包容性的全球化金融网络。

3.4 稳定币直接支付Gas费，优化用户体验

传统公链要求用户必须持有其原生代币（如ETH）才能进行任何链上操作，这为新用户制造了巨大的摩擦和障碍。BenFen作为首个原生支持稳定币支付Gas费的公链，从根本上解决了这个问题。 用户在BenFen生态中进行任何交易，都可以直接使用BUSD等主流稳定币支付Gas费，无需预先购买和持有波动的原生代币BFC。该机制在协议层面将“交易发起者”与“Gas费用支付者”分离，甚至允许项目方通过赞助交易功能直接为用户代付Gas费。这使得用户的支付体验更贴近现实世界的习惯，极大地提升了稳定币在支付场景下的可用性，是推动Web3应用走向主流的关键一步。

3.5 本分公链的合规与隐私支持

BenFen通过原生集成的功能模块，直接回应了稳定币和RWA在合规与隐私方面的刚性需求。

• 原生合规框架：针对RWA等资产对KYC/AML的合规要求，BenFen生态内置了BenFen KYC链上身份认证体系。该体系采用W3C的DID和VC标准，允许项目方在协议层面对投资者身份进行验证，实现了合规流程的标准化和高效率，同时确保用户的KYC信息由用户自己主权控制。

• 原生隐私支持：针对RWA等资产的敏感信息保护需求，BenFen在虚拟机层面支持隐私账户和隐私支付。用户的资产在存入隐私账户后，其真实余额在链上便被隐藏。在两个隐私账户之间进行的支付，外界只能看到一笔加密的交互记录，而无法得知具体金额。这为大规模的合规商业应用上链提供了必需的隐私保护。

3.6 生态展望：连接传统金融与Web3的桥梁

综上所述，BenFen并非对现有公链的简单复制或性能迭代，而是通过一系列原生、专用的基础设施，系统性地解决了传统公链在承接稳定币与RWA业务时的核心短板。通过提供一个“更安全（Move语言）、更易用（稳定币Gas, 一键发行）、更合规（原生KYC/隐私）”的基础设施，BenFen致力于构建一个完整的、能够连接传统金融与Web3的稳定币和RWA生态体系。 其最终目标是打通链上与链下资产的流通渠道，助力数以万亿计的传统金融资产完成数字化和证券化，并引入优质的合作伙伴与机构，共同打造一个多方共赢的、真正服务于现实世界价值流转的金融生态。

四、结论

公链的发展正站在一个新的历史拐点。如果说上一轮周期的竞争核心在于“通用型”DeFi协议的乐高式组合，那么未来三年的流量将属于那些能够真正连接现实世界、承接大规模支付和合规资产的“专用型”基础设施。

本报告通过分析指出，以太坊等传统公链虽根基深厚，但在性能、成本、合规与隐私层面，均难以原生支持稳定币支付与RWA的核心需求，存在明显的“基础设施缺失”。

BenFen正是在这一结构性缺口中应运而生。它并非又一个试图在所有领域竞争的通用链，而是通过一系列专注的设计——如Move语言带来的资产安全、一键发行带来的低门槛、稳定币Gas带来的极致用户体验，以及原生的合规与隐私模块——为PayFi和RWA的爆发，量身打造了一套完整、高效且可信赖的底层基础设施。

我们认为，公链的下一章，将由那些能够真正服务于实体经济、降低价值流转摩擦的平台来书写。BenFen凭借其清晰的定位和专用的技术栈，已经为此做好了准备。

五、参考文献

1. DeFiLlama. (2025). Cryptocurrency Market Cap & DeFi TVL. Retrieved August 18, 2025, from https://defillama.com/

2. DeFiLlama. (2025). Ethereum Chain TVL. Retrieved August 18, 2025, from https://defillama.com/chain/Ethereum

3. Mint Ventures. (2021). Multi-angle Analysis of Pancake. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@mint-ventures/multi-angle-analysis-of-pancake-business-is-back-to-a-new-high-what-is-its-project-valuation-6a98dfb213c8

4. Kaiko Research. (2025). Kaiko's Top 10 Charts of 2024. Retrieved from https://research.kaiko.com/insights/kaikos-top-10-charts-of-2024

5. Messari. (2025). State of Solana Q4 2024. Retrieved from https://messari.io/report/state-of-solana-q4-2024

6. CoinGecko. (2025). 2025 Q1 Crypto Industry Report. Retrieved from https://assets.coingecko.com/reports/2025/CoinGecko-2025-Q1-Crypto-Industry-Report.pdf

7. CryptoSlate. (2025). CoinDesk data: Tron surpasses $600B in monthly stablecoin transfers. Retrieved from https://cryptoslate.com/coindesk-data-tron-surpasses-600b-in-monthly-stablecoin-transfers/

8. BlockchainReporter. (2025). Chains With Top TVL Growth. Retrieved from https://blockchainreporter.net/chains-with-top-tvl-growth-ethereum-dominates-defi-solana-bitcoin-bsc-tron-and-others-among-top-10/

9. DappRadar. (2022). 2021 Dapp Industry Report. Retrieved from https://dappradar.com/blog/2021-dapp-industry-report

10. TabInsights. (2021). Ethereum dominates DeFi market while Terra overtakes BSC. Retrieved from https://tabinsights.com/article/ethereum-dominates-defi-market-while-terra-overtakes-bsc-as-the-second-largest-defi-blockchain

11. Messari. (2023). State of Tron Q4 2022. Retrieved from https://messari.io/report/state-of-tron-q4-2022

12. DailyCoin. (2024). Solana Overtakes Ethereum in DEX Volume. Retrieved from https://dailycoin.com/solana-overtakes-ethereum-dex-volume-is-ethereum-slipping/

13. Binance Square. (2025). Solana's DEX Trading Volume Surpasses Ethereum and Base Combined. Retrieved from https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/01-07-2025-solana-s-dex-trading-volume-surpasses-ethereum-and-base-combined-18594004884034

14. Coinspeaker. (2025). Solana Outshines Ethereum Again as DEX Volume Surges. Retrieved from https://www.coinspeaker.com/solana-outshines-ethereum-again-as-dex-volume-surges/

15. The Defiant. (2025). Ethereum Surpasses Solana to Lead DEX Volume. Retrieved from https://thedefiant.io/news/defi/ethereum-surpasses-solana-to-lead-dex-volume-63-billion-march-2025-despite-8-18-eca38b52

16. The Currency Analytics. (2024). Solana DEX Volume Overtakes Ethereum and BNB. Retrieved from https://thecurrencyanalytics.com/altcoins/solana-dex-volume-overtakes-ethereum-and-bnb-in-major-defi-shift-186094

17. ConsenSys. (2023). The State of Web3 perception around the world. Retrieved from https://consensys.io/insight-report/web3-and-crypto-global-survey-2023

18. YCharts. Average Ethereum Gas Price Data. Retrieved from https://ycharts.com/indicators/ethereum_average_gas_price

19. CNBC. (2021). Suspected hacker behind $600 million Poly Network crypto heist did it ‘for fun’. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/poly-network-hacker-behind-600-million-crypto-heist-did-it-for-fun.html?qsearchterm=Poly Network

20. Chainalysis. (2024). The 2024 Crypto Crime Report. Retrieved from https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/2024-crypto-crime-report-introduction/

21. Solidus Labs. (2023). 2023 Crypto Enforcement Trends. Retrieved from https://www.soliduslabs.com/research/2023-crypto-enforcement-trends

22. Gartner. (2024). Gartner Identifies the Top Cybersecurity Trends for 2024. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-02-22-gartner-identifies-top-cybersecurity-trends-for-2024

免责声明

本报告仅供参考，不构成任何投资、法律、会计或税务建议，亦不构成出售或购买任何代币或证券的要约或邀请。

本报告中的信息均来源于已公开的资料及访谈，Bixin Ventures及BenFen团队虽力求内容准确、可靠，但不对这些信息的准确性及完整性作任何保证。报告中的观点、分析及预测仅代表作者在报告发布当日的判断，并可在不发出通知的情况下做出更改。

本报告包含部分前瞻性陈述，这些陈述受风险、不确定性和假设的影响，最终可能被证明是不正确的。加密资产市场具有高度波动性和风险，过去的表现不应作为未来结果的依据。

在任何情况下，本报告的作者或发布机构均不对任何人因使用本报告中的任何内容所引致的任何损失负任何责任。投资者在做出任何投资决策前，应进行独立的尽职调查，并咨询专业的财务顾问。

——转自BixinVentures

Since the birth of Bitcoin's genesis block in 2009, the field of Web3 public blockchains has evolved explosively — from single-value settlement, to Turing-complete smart contracts, and eventually to a multi-chain landscape. Ethereum, with its first-mover advantage and strong DeFi ecosystem, has long held the crown for total value locked (TVL). However, since the second half of 2023, high-performance blockchains such as Solana have launched a strong challenge with their superior user experience, leading to a new dynamic: "capital on Ethereum, traffic rotating elsewhere." At the same time, blockchains like Tron, which specialize in specific use cases (e.g., stablecoin settlement), have carved out important niche markets.

This report reviews the growth trajectories of mainstream blockchains and analyzes the evolution of their "mainstream rankings" through the dual lenses of TVL and on-chain transaction volume. We argue that as market attention shifts from generalized DeFi applications toward more concrete, real-world use cases—namely stablecoin payments and real-world assets (RWA)—the shortcomings of traditional blockchains in performance, interoperability, compliance, and privacy are becoming increasingly apparent. This opens structural opportunities for a new generation of high-performance blockchains (e.g., BenFen) purpose-built for these scenarios.

I. Overview of Mainstream Public Chains

1.1 Who the Main Players Are: Their "Core Skills" and Growth Paths

To understand the future of the blockchain landscape, we must first look back at the "giants" that shaped the past and present. Each leveraged unique "core skills" to capture market opportunities at different times, together defining today's Web3 world.

Bitcoin (2009–): Digital Gold and Final Settlement Layer

As the origin of all crypto assets, Bitcoin has always been positioned as a decentralized store of value (SoV) and final settlement network. Its intentionally limited scripting language (Script) maximizes security and stability, but also makes DeFi not its primary battleground. While extensions like the Lightning Network and Taproot activation enhanced programmability, most financial activity "spills over" into other smart contract blockchains via wrapped Bitcoin (wBTC). Accordingly, industry TVL metrics rarely count Bitcoin as part of the DeFi race, with smart contract chains dominating the TVL leaderboard [1].

Ethereum (2015–): The Undisputed Core of DeFi

Ethereum is the king of general-purpose smart contract platforms and the "origin" of DeFi, often called the "world computer." From the 2017 ICO boom to the 2020 "DeFi Summer," and then the historic 2022 "Merge," Ethereum has remained the hub of innovation and capital on Web3. Even amid fierce competition from L2 ecosystems and high-performance L1s in 2024–2025, Ethereum continues to hold the 1 spot in TVL [2], serving as the crypto world’s "asset pricing center."

BNB Chain / BSC (2020–): The Affordable EVM-Compatible Pioneer

BNB Chain (formerly BSC) rose rapidly in 2021 with cheap gas fees, full EVM compatibility, and close ties to the Binance ecosystem. It lowered barriers for users and projects, becoming the entry point for "airdrop hunters" and long-tail assets, with TVL market share peaking at nearly 20% in May 2021 [3]. However, as Solana, Terra (pre-collapse), Avalanche, and others flourished, its traffic and funds gradually dispersed, leading to a stable market share.

Solana (2020–): Winning on Performance, "King of Transaction Activity"

Solana, on the other hand, has taken a different path - winning with its ultimate performance. With ultra-high throughput (TPS) and extremely low fees, it is ideal for high-frequency trading, DEXs, and meme coins. This advantage exploded in late 2023: according to Kaiko, Solana's DEX daily volumes occasionally surpassed Ethereum's in 2024 [4]. Messari's State of Solana Q4 2024 confirmed this, noting TVL surged 486% to $8.6B [5]. In 2025, CoinGecko reported Solana briefly reached 52% market share in on-chain transactions in January, before Ethereum reclaimed leadership in March thanks to deep liquidity [6]. Solana has firmly cemented itself as the "transaction activity leader."

Tron (2018–): "King of Stablecoin Settlement"

Beyond noisy DeFi and meme competition, Tron has quietly dominated a crucial niche: stablecoins, particularly USDT for global retail and cross-border settlement. With ultra-low transfer costs, Tron has become the leading network for small-scale stablecoin payments and remittances. By 1H 2025, Tron processed over $600B in monthly stablecoin transfers, with more than 60% of transactions under $1,000, underscoring its retail payments dominance [7].

Other Players: Newcomers and Ethereum L2s

• New-generation public chains such as Aptos, Sui, and Sei are also pushing performance narratives, with TVL beginning to rise rapidly in 2025 and entering the "germination period" [8].

• Ethereum L2s like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base play key roles in scaling Ethereum, handling large transaction and TVL volumes, while competing with Solana in "transaction activity" [6].

1.2 How the "Mainstream Rankings" Change: A Composite Lens of TVL + Transaction Volume

A single metric, such as TVL, is no longer sufficient to assess the health of a public blockchain ecosystem comprehensively. Especially after the DeFi Summer of 2020 and the subsequent boom of multi-chain ecosystems, TVL (Total Value Locked) as a measure of "capital weight" and on-chain transaction volume as a measure of "usage activity" together form a dual-track perspective for observing the competitive landscape of public blockchains. This section will focus on the post-2020 period and, through these two core indicators, objectively reflect the dynamic shifts in the mainstream rankings of public blockchains.

A. Milestones (2017–2022): Waves That Shaped the Landscape

• 2017–2019: Ethereum Sets the Standard With its Turing-complete smart contract functionality, Ethereum became the core platform for ICOs and the early DeFi boom, effectively establishing the technical standard and ecosystem paradigm for smart contract blockchains.

• 2020: The DeFi Summer Core applications within the Ethereum ecosystem—lending (Compound, Aave) and trading (Uniswap)—experienced explosive growth, while the concept of TVL (Total Value Locked) gained widespread recognition. According to DappRadar, industry-wide TVL reached USD 189 billion in 2021, up 767% year-on-year, with Ethereum maintaining a dominant market share [9].

• 2021: The Year of Multichain and BSC's Peak BNB Chain (BSC), with its low fees and EVM compatibility, successfully captured the massive long-tail demand spilling over from Ethereum. Its share of TVL once reached nearly 20% mid-year. By year-end, Terra, powered by its algorithmic stablecoin UST and Anchor Protocol’s nearly 20% savings yield, surpassed BSC in TVL to become the second-largest blockchain at the time, showcasing the capital-attracting power of strong narratives [10].

• 2022: Reshaping the Landscape Ethereum successfully completed "The Merge", transitioning to Proof-of-Stake (PoS). In the market vacuum left by Terra’s collapse, Tron rapidly rose on the back of massive stablecoin settlement volumes. According to Messari, its settlement volume ranked second globally that year [11].

B. Recent Trends (2023–2025): Dual-Track Game and Tug of War

Since 2023, the focus of competition among public blockchains has become increasingly clear: Ethereum's dominance in TVL remains unshaken, but the battle for "second and third place" has been fierce. Meanwhile, in the transaction volume dimension—reflecting "usage intensity"—Solana has mounted a strong challenge, eroding Ethereum’s absolute advantage.

• 2023 to mid-2024 (Rotation Phase): In terms of TVL, Tron and BNB Chain alternated between the 2 and 3 positions, while Solana rebounded strongly after a downturn. On transaction volume, Solana repeatedly surpassed Ethereum on a daily and monthly basis. For example, on May 10, 2024, Solana's daily DEX trading volume reached USD 1.3 billion, slightly higher than Ethereum's USD 1.29 billion, marking a day-level "flippening" [4, 12].

• Q4 2024 (Solana Breakout Phase): This was the period of most dramatic shifts. Messari noted that Solana's TVL jumped to around USD 8.6 billion in Q4, surpassing Tron in November to become the second-largest blockchain by TVL [5]. On the transaction side, the surge was even more striking: according to Binance Square, Solana's daily DEX volume at one point reached nearly USD 3.98 billion—exceeding the combined volumes of Ethereum (USD 1.71 billion) and Base (USD 1.21 billion) [13].

• H1 2025 (The Tug-of-War): Solana's trading activity remained strong, but Ethereum demonstrated its ecosystem resilience. According to CoinGecko, while Solana accounted for 52% of on-chain trading share in January, Ethereum reclaimed the lead in March with USD 63 billion in monthly DEX volume—the first time since September 2024 [6, 15].

Parallel Trend (Tron): Beyond the fierce competition in TVL and DEX volumes, Tron has steadily consolidated its position as the "settlement chain." By H1 2025, its monthly stablecoin transfer volume remained above USD 600 billion, cementing its role as the de facto global standard chain for retail and cross-border stablecoin payments [7, 8].

Key Takeaways:

• Capital Weight (TVL): Ethereum held the 1st position almost throughout; from Q4 2024 to 2025, the 2nd spot rotated among Solana, Tron, and BSC.

• Usage Intensity (Trading Volume / DEX): Solana frequently overtook Ethereum in specific periods, significantly strengthening its leadership in "activity and usability."

• Settlement (Stablecoins): Tron has become the backbone of global retail and cross-border stablecoin payments, solidifying its position as "payment-oriented" infrastructure.

Key Data and Case Highlights

• Solana's Trading Surge: In Q4 2024, Solana's peak daily DEX trading volume reached about USD 3.98 billion, exceeding the combined total of Ethereum (USD 1.71 billion) and Base (USD 1.21 billion)[13]. Across the year, Solana's average monthly DEX volume hit ~USD 258 billion, far surpassing Ethereum's USD 86 billion, according to Coinspeaker [14].

• Short-Term Flippening: As early as May 10, 2024, Solana's daily DEX volume reached USD 1.3 billion, slightly higher than Ethereum's USD 1.29 billion, achieving a daily "overtaking" [12].

• Tron’s Stablecoin Ledger: By H1 2025, Tron's monthly stablecoin transfer volume consistently exceeded USD 600 billion, solidifying its role as the core ledger for global stablecoin circulation [8].

Behind the Shifts: Why Did Rankings Change Over Time?

Competition among public chains may appear to be a battle with technology and data. Still, beneath the surface, it is a multidimensional contest of user experience, market positioning, capital narratives, and ecosystem vitality.

A. User Experience as a Traffic Driver

Network performance and transaction costs are the most direct user touchpoints and the strongest drivers of traffic migration. Solana's ability to challenge Ethereum in transaction activity is mainly due to its ultra-low fees (around USD 0.00025 per transaction), which cater perfectly to high-frequency traders and meme coin users [16]. Similarly, BSC's early rise and Tron’s success in stablecoin payments were also rooted in low-cost transactions.

B. Differentiated Market Positioning

As the market matures, general-purpose blockchains are increasingly specializing, shaping distinct user perceptions:

• Ethereum: The "financial hub" for DeFi and the "cultural layer" for NFTs, extending its universal positioning via the L2 ecosystem.

• Solana: The "performance engine" for high-frequency trading and meme coin cycles, excelling in speed- and cost-sensitive scenarios.

• Tron: The "global payment network" for stablecoins, with a strong moat in small, high-frequency cross-border and retail payments.

C. Capital Narratives and "Flashpoint Stories"

Capital and users flock to the most compelling stories. In 2021, BSC rode on the "everyone can participate" long-tail asset craze and occupied a 20% TVL share at its peak. In the same year, Terra drew massive inflows with Anchor Protocol's 20% APY as its "blockbuster story", attracting a considerable amount of funds in a short period of time and topping 2nd place in TVL. The subsequent collapse also left a profound lesson for the market. In 2024–2025, Solana's narrative of being the "high-performance chain powering meme cycles" successfully drove its trading volume surge.

D. Ecosystem Vitality and Flagship Applications

The long-term value of a blockchain ultimately depends on the quality and dynamism of its ecosystem. Ethereum's moat is built on enduring DeFi infrastructure such as Uniswap, Aave, and Lido. Solana's traffic, meanwhile, has been powered by newer, smoother DEXs and aggregators such as Jupiter and Raydium. Tron's ecosystem is less diverse, but its massive stablecoin pool itself constitutes a core use case, drawing all payment-related demand.

E. Data Transparency Reinforcing Competition

The rise of third-party platforms like Messari, DeFiLlama, and CoinGecko has made blockchain competition more transparent than ever. Core indicators such as TVL, trading volume, and active addresses are tracked in real time. This not only provides the community and users with decision-making tools to judge the strengths and weaknesses of each chain, but also, in turn, intensifies the "intra-industry competition" in data performance among public chains.

1.3 The "Common Recipe" for Successful Public Chains

By reviewing the rise and fall of the above-mentioned mainstream public chains, we can find that although their "breakthrough stories" are not the same, those public chains that can stand out in fierce competition and maintain their mainstream positions often follow a common "formula" behind their success.

1.Low Fees + High Throughput: The Hard Prerequisite for Trading Activity In the era of multi-chain competition, network performance and transaction costs are the fundamental determinants of users 'voting with their feet.' Solana’s astonishing DEX transaction volume spikes across multiple periods in 2024–2025 directly validate this principle [4, 6, 12]. When a network can offer sufficiently low-cost (near-zero) and efficient (second-level confirmation) transactions, it inherently meets the hard requirements to capture the highest-frequency, most speculative, and most vibrant trading demand (e.g., Meme coin trading).

2.Clear "Main Battlefield" Mindset: Differentiated Positioning

As the market matures, general-purpose chains attempting to "cover everything" struggle to compete without an absolute first-mover advantage against highly focused, specialized chains. Successful chains usually have a crystal-clear, deeply ingrained differentiation:

• Ethereum: The value-accumulation layer of general-purpose smart contracts and the L2 ecosystem.

• Solana: A high-frequency trading chain driven by ultimate performance [4].

• Tron: The global stablecoin settlement chain [7].

3.Strong Ecosystem Hooks: High Concentration of Leading Applications

A thriving public chain relies on "hook" applications that consistently attract and retain users. These applications not only contribute to the bulk of on-chain activity but also constitute the moat of the ecosystem.


Ethereum's "DeFi backbone" applications, such as Uniswap, Aave, and Lido, form the foundation of its massive TVL. Solana's rise, however, heavily relies on DEX aggregators like Jupiter for efficient integration and traffic distribution. Messari reports that Jupiter alone accounted for approximately 38% of Solana's spot DEX volume in Q4 2024 [5].

4.Narrative & Capital "Resonance Windows"

Technological and ecosystem accumulation form the base, but market breakthroughs often require a strong "narrative" to attract capital and user resonance in a specific time window.


In 2021, BSC leveraged the narrative of "low fees + long-tail assets" to rapidly grow its market share to nearly 20% [3]. By the end of the same year, Terra capitalized on the extreme narrative of "Anchor 20% yield" to attract massive funds in a short period. Still, the overheated narrative led to a swift collapse, exposing risk [10]. In 2024–2025, Solana successfully captured the “high-performance trading + Meme” narrative window, while Ethereum demonstrated stronger resilience amid shifting market hotspots through its stable narrative of deep liquidity and diversified applications [6, 15].

5.Institutional Research & Transparent Data Endorsement

In today‘s crypto market, public chain competition is no longer merely a battle of community voice. Third-party research institutions and data platforms such as Messari, Kaiko, CoinGecko, and DeFiLlama provide continuously updated on-chain research reports and open-source dashboards, offering the market institutionalized and traceable benchmarks for competition.


These platforms' data have become core decision-making tools for projects, institutions, and sophisticated users to evaluate chain ecosystems and identify ranking changes, which in turn pushes chains to pay more attention to actual on-chain data performance.

II. Why Popular Stablecoins and RWAs Are "Absent" on Traditional Public Chains

In the first part, we observed that mainstream public chain competition has mainly revolved around DeFi TVL and on-chain transaction activity. However, since 2023, the narrative focus of Web3 has been quietly shifting. The payment applications of stablecoins and the tokenization of RWAs (Real-World Assets) are becoming the core engines driving the industry into its next phase. Yet, when we examine existing public chain infrastructures, it becomes clear that they were not originally designed to accommodate these two major trends, resulting in a notable phenomenon of "infrastructure absence."

2.1 A Brief Introduction to the Currently Popular Stablecoins and RWA, Their Major Trends and the Driving Force of Web3

Stablecoins (e.g., USDT, USDC) and RWAs (tokenized real-world assets such as real estate or bonds) are not entirely new concepts, but they have recently demonstrated unprecedented growth momentum. This is fundamentally because they address key issues for Web3's mainstream adoption: value anchoring and asset expansion.

Why are stablecoins and RWAs a major trend?

• Stablecoins serve as the "dollar" of the crypto world, providing a reliable unit of value and medium of exchange in highly volatile markets. RWAs introduce large-scale traditional assets onto-chain, fundamentally broadening Web3’s asset classes and market depth. Data shows that as of 2023, the global stablecoin market cap exceeded $180 billion, while RWA-related DeFi protocol TVL surpassed $7 billion according to Consensys [17].



The Driving Force of Web3

• The combination of these trends is pushing Web3 from a purely endogenous digital asset ecosystem to a broader financial system that interacts with the real world. Stablecoins' popularity reduces cross-border payment costs and delays, while RWAs pave the way for applications like asset securitization and decentralized lending, accelerating blockchain mainstream adoption and user growth.

2.2 Limitations of Mainstream Public Chains for Stablecoins and RWAs

Although existing public chains are powerful, they are generally designed as "general-purpose" platforms and lack native optimization for high-frequency, high-compliance, and privacy-sensitive scenarios such as stablecoin payments and RWA applications. This exposes five core shortcomings when faced with these new waves:

2.2.1 Scalability and Performance Bottlenecks

Large-scale payments and asset transactions require high throughput and minimal cost. Ethereum and other traditional public chains have an average transaction confirmation time of about 15 seconds, which can extend to several minutes during congestion, failing to meet instant payment requirements. High and volatile gas fees present another major barrier. During the 2021–2022 market peak, network congestion repeatedly drove gas fees above 200 Gwei, making single stablecoin transfers cost over $50—unacceptable for small or high-frequency payments [18]. Finally, according to Etherscan, in 2023, Ethereum's daily transaction volume stabilized around 1.2 million, approaching its theoretical TPS limit, indicating network saturation that cannot support the expected surge in stablecoin and RWA transactions.

2.2.2 Insufficient Cross-Chain Interoperability

The value flow of stablecoins and RWAs inevitably involves multi-chain environments, yet cross-chain bridges remain a high-risk area. The 2021 Poly Network hack, which resulted in over $600 million in losses, highlighted the vulnerability of cross-chain assets [19]. At the same time, multi-chain ecosystems also cause severe asset fragmentation, requiring users to operate across 3–5 chains, leading to poor experience and increased user churn. Chainalysis reports that in 2023, losses due to cross-chain scams and security incidents accounted for over 50% of all DeFi security incidents, undermining confidence in large-scale cross-chain asset transfers [20].

2.2.3 Compliance and Regulatory Challenges

Stablecoins and RWAs are tightly connected to real-world assets and face strict regulatory scrutiny. In 2023, regulators such as the SEC strengthened oversight of stablecoin issuers, requiring KYC/AML compliance [21]. However, most existing chains lack native on-chain identity verification modules, forcing projects to rely on patchwork third-party solutions with poor user experience, raising compliance costs. As the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has pointed out, the compliance of RWA on the chain is one of the main obstacles restricting its large-scale application.


2.2.4 Data Privacy and Security Requirements

Traditional public chains are fully transparent, which poses a challenge for privacy-sensitive commercial and financial scenarios. No enterprise wants to expose complete supply chain payments or sensitive RWA asset portfolios. Gartner predicts that within the next three years, 75% of blockchain applications will require privacy-enhancing technologies for enterprise compliance [22]. While existing chains can integrate privacy solutions like zk-SNARKs, these are usually separate L2 or application-layer implementations, facing performance and usability bottlenecks and further fragmenting the ecosystem.

2.2.5 Incomplete Asset-Onboarding Processes and Infrastructure

The tokenization of RWA is not merely a technical issue; it also involves a series of complex off-chain processes such as asset proof, credit endorsement, legal rights confirmation, custody, and auditing. Currently, the industry lacks unified and efficient standards and infrastructure. Take the current DeFi as an example. The proportion of RWA-related smart contracts is less than 5%, indicating that the related infrastructure is still in a very early and nascent stage. ConsenSys's report also clearly points out that one of the biggest challenges facing the RWA market in 2024 is the incomplete construction of on-chain asset custody and compliance audit mechanisms [17]. Existing public chains, as pure technical platforms, do not provide native tools or frameworks to address these "off-chain" challenges.

III. How BenFen Public Chain Fills the Infrastructure Gap for Stablecoins and RWAs

In the second part, we analyzed the multiple shortcomings of traditional general-purpose public chains when dealing with stablecoin payments and RWA (Real-World Assets) in the new wave of Web3. These shortcomings cannot be simply remedied through technical iterations; instead, they stem from the "genetic" nature of their underlying design, which was not specifically tailored for such scenarios.

This section will elaborate in detail on how BenFen, as a new generation of high-performance stablecoin public chain, systematically fills these gaps through a series of native and specialized infrastructure designs, aiming to become the core platform for the next round of value growth on Web3.

3.1 Move Language—A Secure and Flexible Foundation for Smart Contract Development

For high-value stablecoins and RWA assets representing real-world rights, the security of smart contracts is an unbreakable bottom line. Massive losses of funds due to contract vulnerabilities on traditional public chains (such as Ethereum) have repeatedly proven this point. BenFen prioritized security from the very beginning and its core decision was to choose the Move language as the sole smart contract development language.

The Move language was designed by the Meta (formerly Facebook) team for the Diem project. Its core "Resource Type" system treats digital assets (such as Tokens) as a special type, prohibiting the accidental duplication of assets (to prevent the issue of excessive issuance) or accidental destruction (to prevent asset loss) at the language level. This means that the Move language fundamentally immunizes itself from a series of fatal vulnerabilities commonly found in Solidity contracts, such as integer overflow, re-entry attacks, etc. Additionally, its modular smart contract design makes it convenient for developers to build and audit complex financial logic, making it highly suitable for the complex business requirements of stablecoins and RWA. By adopting the Move language, BenFen significantly reduces the security risks and development costs for developers when issuing and managing high-value assets.

3.2 One-Click Issuance of Stablecoins and RWA Assets

Issuing assets on traditional public blockchains, especially complex RWA, involves cumbersome processes and high technical requirements, which are significant obstacles to their large-scale development. To address this issue, BenFen provides a standardized tool called "one-click issuance", which encapsulates complex off-chain operations into a simple front-end interface.

This feature is based on BenFen's advanced object-centric model, treating each token as an independent "object", and using the built-in official coin core module to unify the standards for asset issuance. Projectors or institutions do not need to perform complex smart contract coding. They only need to fill in the core parameters (such as name, symbol, total amount, etc.) of the asset through the configuration interface to complete compliant and transparent on-chain asset issuance. This not only significantly improves the efficiency of asset listing but also provides native support for the entire lifecycle management of assets (issuance, transfer, redemption, etc.), laying the foundation for the rapid expansion of the ecosystem.


3.3 Support for Multi-Stablecoin and Multi-Asset Coexistence Ecosystems

To address the excessive centralization and limitations of a single currency in stablecoins, BenFen has implemented a native multi-currency stablecoin system at the protocol level. This system uses the core stablecoin BUSD (which is 1:1 pegged to mainstream dollar stablecoins through a cross-chain bridge) as the reserve and exchange medium. It obtains real-time foreign exchange prices through the native exchange rate oracle on the blockchain, thereby enabling the efficient and low-cost issuance and circulation of stablecoins denominated in different national currencies (such as BJPY, BEUR, etc.) in the ecosystem.

This multi-currency coexistence mechanism not only meets the localized payment and settlement needs in different regions around the world (such as cross-border e-commerce, local payments), but also allows for more complex cross-asset interactions and transactions, providing necessary underlying support for diversified financial scenarios such as consumer payments, lending, and wealth management, and helping to build a more inclusive global financial network.


3.4 Paying Gas Fees Directly with Stablecoins for Improved UX

Traditional public blockchains require users to hold their native tokens (such as ETH) to perform any on-chain operations, which creates significant friction and obstacles for new users. BenFen, as the first public chain to natively support stablecoins for paying gas fees, has fundamentally solved this problem.

In the BenFen ecosystem, users can directly use mainstream stablecoins like BUSD to pay gas fees for any transactions, without having to pre-purchase and hold the volatile native token BFC. This mechanism separates the "transaction initiator" from the "gas fee payer" at the protocol level. It even allows project developers to directly pay gas fees for users through the sponsored transaction function. This makes the payment experience of users closer to real-world habits, significantly enhancing the usability of stablecoins in payment scenarios, and is a crucial step in promoting Web3 applications to become mainstream.

3.5 Compliance and Privacy Support on BenFen

Through its native integrated functional modules, BenFen directly addressed the rigid requirements for stablecoins and RWA in terms of compliance and privacy.

• Native compliance framework: For the compliance requirements of assets like RWA regarding KYC/AML, the BenFen ecosystem has built a BenFen KYC on-chain identity authentication system. This system adopts the W3C's DID and VC standards, allowing project owners to verify the identities of investors at the protocol level, achieving standardization and high efficiency in the compliance process, while ensuring that the users themselves sovereignly control their KYC information.

• Native privacy support: For the protection of sensitive information of assets like RWA, BenFen supports private accounts and private payments at the virtual machine level. After users' assets are deposited into a private account, their actual balance is hidden on the chain. Payments between two private accounts only show an encrypted interaction record to the outside world, and the specific amount cannot be known. This provides the necessary privacy protection for large-scale compliance commercial applications on the blockchain.

3.6 Ecosystem Outlook: Building a Bridge Between Traditional Finance and Web3

In summary, BenFen is not a mere replication or performance upgrade of existing public chains, but rather a systematic solution to the core shortcomings traditional public chains face in supporting stablecoin and RWA businesses—achieved through a set of native, dedicated infrastructures. By providing infrastructure that is more secure (Move language), more user-friendly (stablecoin-as-gas, one-click issuance), and more compliant (native KYC/privacy), BenFen is committed to building a complete stablecoin and RWA ecosystem that bridges traditional finance and Web3.

Its ultimate goal is to unlock circulation channels between on-chain and off-chain assets, enabling the digitization and securitization of trillions of dollars in traditional financial assets, while bringing in high-quality partners and institutions to co-create a multi-party win-win financial ecosystem that truly serves real-world value exchange.

IV. Conclusion

The development of public blockchains now stands at a new historical inflection point. If the last cycle’s competition centered on the Lego-like composability of "general-purpose" DeFi protocols, then the next three years of user adoption will belong to "specialized" infrastructures—those capable of truly connecting to the real world and supporting large-scale payments and compliant assets.

This report highlights that while Ethereum and other traditional public chains have deep foundations, they face apparent "infrastructure gaps": their performance, costs, compliance readiness, and privacy guarantees remain insufficient to support the core requirements of stablecoin payments and RWA natively.

BenFen has emerged precisely to address this structural gap. It is not yet another general-purpose chain competing across all verticals, but rather a purpose-built infrastructure. Through a series of focused design choices—such as asset security enabled by the Move language, one-click issuance lowering adoption barriers, stablecoin-based gas payments for superior user experience, and native compliance and privacy modules—BenFen delivers a comprehensive, efficient, and trustworthy base layer for the coming wave of PayFi and RWA adoption.

We believe that the next chapter of public blockchains will be written by platforms that truly serve the real economy and reduce the frictions of value transfer. With its precise positioning and specialized tech stack, BenFen is well-prepared to lead in this new era.

V. References

1. DeFiLlama. (2025). Cryptocurrency Market Cap & DeFi TVL. Retrieved August 18, 2025, from https://defillama.com/

2. DeFiLlama. (2025). Ethereum Chain TVL. Retrieved August 18, 2025, from https://defillama.com/chain/Ethereum

3. Mint Ventures. (2021). Multi-angle Analysis of Pancake. Medium. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@mint-ventures/multi-angle-analysis-of-pancake-business-is-back-to-a-new-high-what-is-its-project-valuation-6a98dfb213c8

4. Kaiko Research. (2025). Kaiko's Top 10 Charts of 2024. Retrieved from https://research.kaiko.com/insights/kaikos-top-10-charts-of-2024

5. Messari. (2025). State of Solana Q4 2024. Retrieved from https://messari.io/report/state-of-solana-q4-2024

6. CoinGecko. (2025). 2025 Q1 Crypto Industry Report. Retrieved from https://assets.coingecko.com/reports/2025/CoinGecko-2025-Q1-Crypto-Industry-Report.pdf

7. CryptoSlate. (2025). CoinDesk data: Tron surpasses $600B in monthly stablecoin transfers. Retrieved from https://cryptoslate.com/coindesk-data-tron-surpasses-600b-in-monthly-stablecoin-transfers/

8. BlockchainReporter. (2025). Chains With Top TVL Growth. Retrieved from https://blockchainreporter.net/chains-with-top-tvl-growth-ethereum-dominates-defi-solana-bitcoin-bsc-tron-and-others-among-top-10/

9. DappRadar. (2022). 2021 Dapp Industry Report. Retrieved from https://dappradar.com/blog/2021-dapp-industry-report

10. TabInsights. (2021). Ethereum dominates DeFi market while Terra overtakes BSC. Retrieved from https://tabinsights.com/article/ethereum-dominates-defi-market-while-terra-overtakes-bsc-as-the-second-largest-defi-blockchain

11. Messari. (2023). State of Tron Q4 2022. Retrieved from https://messari.io/report/state-of-tron-q4-2022

12. DailyCoin. (2024). Solana Overtakes Ethereum in DEX Volume. Retrieved from https://dailycoin.com/solana-overtakes-ethereum-dex-volume-is-ethereum-slipping/

13. Binance Square. (2025). Solana's DEX Trading Volume Surpasses Ethereum and Base Combined. Retrieved from https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/01-07-2025-solana-s-dex-trading-volume-surpasses-ethereum-and-base-combined-18594004884034

14. Coinspeaker. (2025). Solana Outshines Ethereum Again as DEX Volume Surges. Retrieved from https://www.coinspeaker.com/solana-outshines-ethereum-again-as-dex-volume-surges/

15. The Defiant. (2025). Ethereum Surpasses Solana to Lead DEX Volume. Retrieved from https://thedefiant.io/news/defi/ethereum-surpasses-solana-to-lead-dex-volume-63-billion-march-2025-despite-8-18-eca38b52

16. The Currency Analytics. (2024). Solana DEX Volume Overtakes Ethereum and BNB. Retrieved from https://thecurrencyanalytics.com/altcoins/solana-dex-volume-overtakes-ethereum-and-bnb-in-major-defi-shift-186094

17. ConsenSys. (2023). The State of Web3 perception around the world. Retrieved from https://consensys.io/insight-report/web3-and-crypto-global-survey-2023

18. YCharts. Average Ethereum Gas Price Data. Retrieved from https://ycharts.com/indicators/ethereum_average_gas_price

19. CNBC. (2021). Suspected hacker behind $600 million Poly Network crypto heist did it ‘for fun’. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/poly-network-hacker-behind-600-million-crypto-heist-did-it-for-fun.html?qsearchterm=Poly Network

20. Chainalysis. (2024). The 2024 Crypto Crime Report. Retrieved from https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/2024-crypto-crime-report-introduction/

21. Solidus Labs. (2023). 2023 Crypto Enforcement Trends. Retrieved from https://www.soliduslabs.com/research/2023-crypto-enforcement-trends

22. Gartner. (2024). Gartner Identifies the Top Cybersecurity Trends for 2024. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-02-22-gartner-identifies-top-cybersecurity-trends-for-2024

Disclaimer

This report is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, legal, accounting, or tax advice, nor does it constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to purchase any tokens or securities.

The information contained herein has been obtained from publicly available sources and interviews. While Bixin Ventures and the BenFen team strive to ensure accuracy and reliability, no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. The views, analyses, and forecasts expressed in this report represent the author’s judgment as of the date of publication and are subject to change without notice.

This report may contain forward-looking statements, which are subject to risks, uncertainties, and assumptions that could cause actual outcomes to differ materially. The cryptocurrency market is highly volatile and risky, and past performance should not be relied upon as an indicator of future results.

Under no circumstances shall the authors or the publishing institutions of this report be liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of any content contained herein. Investors should conduct their own independent due diligence and consult with qualified financial advisors before making any investment decisions.

——Source: BixinVentures

过去十年里，稳定币从鲜为人知的发展实验一步步走向了全球金融的聚光灯。从2022年算法稳定币TerraUSD (UST)的崩溃导致约600亿美元市值一夜蒸发，到传统巨头Binance的BUSD稳定币因监管压力于2023年被迫停止新发行，再到2025年初连美国总统特朗普家族创立的USD1稳定币也高调登场——这些标志性事件无不说明：稳定币已成为Crypto世界与传统金融交汇的热点。无论是华尔街机构、互联网巨头，还是普通投资者，都在密切关注稳定币赛道。然而，稳定币虽热，入场的门槛却并不低，技术与合规挑战让许多人望而却步。

本文将从机构、散户与链上创新三大视角出发，深入剖析当前稳定币热潮背后的驱动力和阻碍因素，并探讨为何众多人盯上稳定币却迟迟难以入场。

目录

一、 稳定币为何如此火热？

• 市场规模飞速增长

• 政策推动行业主流化

• 大众热度与认知差距

• 支付巨头与金融机构积极入局

二、 全球机构如何布局稳定币？

• 京东集团：跨境支付驱动

• 摩根大通 (JPM Coin)：企业资金池结算

• PayPal (PYUSD)：消费级应用

• 金融科技公司 (Stripe, Revolut等)：支付桥接

• 跨境金融试点：公私合作

• 主流银行高管表态支持

三、 渴望入局却无从下手的人们：障碍与困境

• 技术门槛高，开发成本昂贵

• 经济模型设计与流动性难题

• 融资与流动性支持难上加难

• 合规压力与监管迷雾

• 信用背书不足，信任难以建立

• 用户体验壁垒，入门操作繁琐

四、 本分链 × 稳定币：一键发行 + 丝滑体验

• 原生一键发行

• 稳定币支付 Gas

• 极致用户体验 (UX)

• 安全与去中心化保障

五、 写在最后：Bixin Ventures 的观察

一、稳定币为何如此火热？

稳定币作为锚定法币等价值的加密资产，已成为连接传统金融与区块链经济的桥梁。近年来其火热程度体现在多个方面：

市场规模飞速增长

• 活跃地址增长：稳定币用户量和交易规模呈爆发式攀升。活跃稳定币钱包地址数量从 2024 年2月的 1,960 万增至 2025 年8月的4,100 万，年增幅逾 100%（source: Artemis）

• 供应量增长：同期全球稳定币总供应从约 1,380 亿美元攀升至 2,750 亿美元，实现了 99% 的同比增长

• 交易量超越支付巨头：2024 年9月起稳定币单日交易额持续超过VISA通道的交易量，甚至一度达到 5.1 万亿美元的峰值。

这一连串数据表明，无论在交易所、DeFi还是支付场景，稳定币的渗透率和影响力都在大幅提升。

政策推动行业主流化

各国监管的迅速跟进，为稳定币合法合规发展奠定基础

• 美国：2025 年 7 月正式签署了《指导并建立美国稳定币国家创新法案 (GENIUS Act)》，该法案明确只有受联邦保险的存款机构才能发行支付型稳定币，且必须保持100%储备、每月披露并接受年度审计，同时遵循严格的KYC/AML措施。

• 香港：立法会于 2025 年 5 月通过了《稳定币条例》，要求发行商须申请香港金融管理局牌照，并满足高质量资产1:1完全储备、健全的赎回机制和定期审计等要求。

• 欧洲：于 2024 年底正式施行了 MiCA（《欧盟加密资产市场监管》）法规，将稳定币纳入强监管范畴，要求发行方满足资本充足、流动性和透明披露等严苛标准。

全球主要金融中心对稳定币接连亮明态度，合规正推动稳定币从灰色地带走向主流金融。

大众热度与认知差距

搜索引擎趋势也揭示出公众对稳定币的浓厚兴趣。过去一年里，Google 上“如何购买稳定币”以及“稳定币收益”等关键词的搜索热度飙升数倍，但“如何发行稳定币”的查询几乎为零。这种反差表明，大众对于使用稳定币兴趣浓厚，但对创造稳定币仍一知半解，市场需求旺盛但供给端壁垒高，进一步刺激了业内对降低门槛、创新发行方式的呼声。

支付巨头与金融机构积极入局

面对稳定币展现出的高效低成本优势，传统支付网络和互联网金融平台争相投入测试，将其作为升级全球支付体系的机会。BIS（国际清算银行）研究表明，跨境支付若采用稳定币结算，速度可提升两个数量级，费用可降低 90%以上。这使得稳定币成为解决跨境汇款“慢、贵”痛点的潜力方案。近年来Visa、Mastercard均宣布了支持稳定币清算的计划：Visa 已经在其全球结算网络中试点接受 USDC 等稳定币用于清算部分发卡行资金，Mastercard 则推出了端到端稳定币支付解决方案，准备将合规稳定币纳入其商户网络。支付服务商 Stripe 从 2022 年起就为内容创作者提供 USDC 稳定币付款选项，以实现全球即时小额支付，而电商平台 Shopify 也通过合作支持用户使用稳定币结算商品货款。值得注意的是，PayPal 不仅发行了自有的美元稳定币 PYUSD，还在 2025 年宣布将为持有 PYUSD 的用户提供年化 3.7% 的收益激励，以鼓励其在 PayPal 和 Venmo 钱包中持有并使用稳定币。这些举措反映出传统支付巨头正将稳定币视为下一代支付通道的重要组成部分：一方面利用稳定币实现跨境资金秒级到账和手续费仅为 SWIFT 电汇的十分之一的成本，另一方面借助稳定币打开加密支付市场的新增量。总之，从互联网巨头到银行支付网络，稳定币正日益被视作数字时代的“金融基础设施”来对待，这极大推高了其行业热度。

综上，无论是迅猛扩张的用户规模和交易量、逐步明朗的监管环境，还是公众高涨的兴趣和主流机构的拥抱，多重因素叠加使稳定币成为当下加密领域最炙手可热的话题之一。稳定币炙热的背后，是其作为价值锚定的数字现金，在连接传统与创新方面展现出的巨大潜力。

二、全球机构如何布局稳定币？

稳定币前景广阔，各路头部机构早已摩拳擦掌，通过不同策略切入这一赛道。从科技巨头到华尔街银行，纷纷推出自有稳定币项目或合作计划，为的是在这一新型金融基础设施中占据领先地位。

以下是几类典型机构的布局：

京东集团-跨境支付驱动

京东科技子公司已进入香港金管局稳定币沙盒，计划发行锚定港元的“Jcoin”，用于跨境贸易和电商支付。目标是大幅降低跨境支付成本，提升结算效率，同时探索离岸人民币稳定币以推动人民币国际化。

摩根大通（JPM Coin）-企业资金池结算

JPM Coin 自 2019 年上线，主要用于机构客户之间的即时资金转移，基于 Quorum 联盟链。日均处理额约 10–20 亿美元，成为大型企业流动性管理和跨境清算的重要基础设施。

PayPal（PYUSD）-消费级应用

PayPal 于 2023 年推出 PYUSD，与 Paxos 合作发行美元稳定币，已整合至 PayPal 和 Venmo 钱包。2025 年起，提供 3.7% 的持币收益，主打中小商户和自由职业者支付、结算与资金管理场景。

金融科技公司（Stripe、Revolut 等）-支付桥接

Stripe 为创作者提供 USDC 收款服务，Revolut 正研发多币种稳定币以降低汇款和兑换成本。二者代表了新兴 Fintech 借助稳定币拓展全球支付市场的典型案例。

跨境金融试点-公私合作

BIS 主导的 mBridge、Project Agorá，以及由投行和科技公司组成的 Canton Network，正推动央行、商业银行与金融机构共建链上清算网络，探索稳定币在跨境支付和金融市场中的合规应用。

主流银行高管表态支持

大型金融机构对稳定币的态度也从观望转为行动。多家银行在财报电话会上透露了稳定币计划：花旗集团表示正研究发行“花旗稳定币”的可能；美国银行也被报道在内部孵化美元稳定币用于企业客户支付结算。摩根大通 CEO坦承客户需求驱动下银行将参与竞争。标准渣打银行不仅加入香港沙盒测试稳定币，还与新加坡 StraitsX 合作，为其发行的新币和美元稳定币提供托管和现金管理服务。甚至资管巨头贝莱德也通过参股 Circle、与 Coinbase 合作等方式间接涉足稳定币领域。可以说，从银行到支付，从电商到社交，各类机构正在形成合围之势进入稳定币赛道。它们的加入不但带来雄厚资金和用户基础，也在合规、安全和全球网络方面为稳定币生态赋能。这也是为何当前稳定币的发展速度如此之快——有了巨头的背书，稳定币正从草根创新走向主流采用的新阶段。

三、渴望入局却无从下手的人们：障碍与困境

尽管巨头们在稳定币领域高歌猛进，但另一面，大量中小玩家（个人开发者、初创团队、中小企业、甚至传统行业企业）却面临入局的重重困难。他们看到了稳定币的机会和潜力，却往往因为各种门槛而难以参与。

以下我们梳理出阻挡这类潜在参与者的几大共性障碍：

技术门槛高，开发成本昂贵

打造一个稳定币项目绝非易事。首先是区块链开发本身对普通团队就是不小门槛，需要精通智能合约、安全审计、多链交互等专业技能。据区块链开发咨询公司估算，从零开始开发并部署一个稳定币合约、配套钱包支持、网站后台等，费用少则 3-5 万美元，多则高达 50 万美元，具体取决于团队人力、功能复杂度和合规需求等。这对小型创业团队来说是一笔巨额投入。此外，安全审计也是无法省去的环节，每次审计费用通常在 1万 – 10 万美元之间；为防范黑客攻击，不少项目还需要购买智能合约保险，每年保费几千到几万美元。保守计算，审计和安全投入往往占到项目初始预算的 20%-30%。更别提后续运营中还需不断升级迭代代码以适应新的黑客手法。这些前期高昂的资金与技术投入，使许多想法停留在纸面——不少个人或小团队尽管有创意和热情，但望着预算表和技术栈，只能无奈放弃。

经济模型设计与流动性难题

稳定币项目的成功不仅关乎编程，更取决于背后的金融工程。发行一个锚定币，必须认真设计抵押品机制或算法调节机制，以确保币值稳定。一旦市场出现剧烈波动、用户大规模赎回，系统需要有预案避免死亡螺旋。这意味着小团队必须具有经济模型建模和压力测试能力，模拟各种极端场景下稳定币是否还能保持锚定。例如 Terra UST 的崩盘就是殷鉴：缺乏资产支撑的算法稳定币在信心危机时瞬间崩溃，短短几天市值蒸发数百亿美元。然而许多初创项目往往忽视了模型的重要性，只停留在“技术上实现1:1锚定”的表面，而没有深入研究规模化后的稳定性。有加密社区用户一语中的：“写代码发币技术上很简单……难的是如何扩展到数十亿美元规模、以及届时如何兑付回每一美元。”换言之，小团队也许能开发出一个运行的稳定币合约，但很可能扛不住真实市场的考验。另一方面，稳定币启动初期往往面临流动性陷阱：没有足够资金投入做市和提供深度，稳定币就难以维持流通价值和兑换稳定；可没有人愿意提供流动性，又谈何资金支持？这种鸡生蛋困境下，许多小项目的币价和锚定机制在缺乏交易量的情况下就形同虚设。一旦有人抛售，稳定币可能瞬间偏离锚定却无力调控，导致信用坍塌。

融资与流动性支持难上加难

稳定币项目在商业上也面临“拉投资”难题。与普通应用类创业不同，稳定币属于资金密集型：不仅研发期烧钱，运营中还需要大量备用金来提供流动性、应对赎回。因此，小团队往往希望寻求 VC 投资或 做市商借贷来扩大资金池。然而现实是残酷的——多数投资机构对稳定币初创并不感兴趣。正如分析师 Anthony DeMartino 所指出，小项目即便开出 40% 年化利率诱人的条件，也很难借到做市资金，因为风险投资更追求 10倍以上的回报，对区区几十个百分点的利息并不动心；做市商的资本成本同样高企，通常自有资金机会成本就在 20% 左右，再考虑风险溢价，很少有意愿以固定利率借给一个前途未卜的稳定币项目。他形容许多这样的初创团队是“拿着玩具刀就上了战场”，弹药严重不足却试图挑战资金雄厚的现有稳定币巨头，结果可想而知。不少创始人在融资路演时被反复追问：“你的流动池有多大？社区在哪？市场预算够吗？”最后往往因无法给出令人信服的数字而吃闭门羹。正如有创业者在论坛上感叹：“没有资金做市和营销，没有用户社群和强大团队，成功率非常低。”融资无门、造血不足，使得小稳定币项目很快陷入恶性循环：缺乏资金-缺乏用户-无法建立信用-更缺乏资金，最终不得不放弃。（Source：medium.com/@anthonydemartino）

合规压力与监管迷雾

前文提到，各主要司法管辖区对稳定币相继出台了明确法规。这对小团队而言，又是一座高山。美国要求稳定币发行主体必须是受监管金融机构，欧洲要求注册电子货币机构并满足资本要求，香港要求申请牌照并有法定审计……单单准备合规文件和流程，就足以难倒一批开发者。获取牌照不仅周期长、流程复杂，费用也十分高昂。例如在美国成立受监管信托公司动辄需要数百万美元资本金，以及专业律师团队处理申请。在香港申请稳定币牌照同样需满足严格的股东资质和风险管理要求。一些地区（如加拿大）甚至将稳定币直接视为证券，使项目方面临证券法繁琐的注册和披露义务。对于预算有限的小项目来说，要么选择打擦边球冒险上线（极易被叫停或处罚），要么索性因合规无门而放弃。地域监管差异也让团队无所适从——去美国吧，怕违反联邦法律；去东南亚吧，当地又缺乏明确定义；去欧洲吧，MiCA 下需要在EU设立实体、审计、白皮书，这些都非一般创业公司所能短期内办到。结果就是，很多想法停留在地下状态，不敢真正推向市场，生怕一上线就踩雷违规。合规的不确定性使得普通人感觉踏入稳定币领域“步步是坑”，无从着手。

信用背书不足，信任难以建立

稳定币作为价值锚定物，信用尤为重要。而小团队往往缺少让公众信任的背书。首先是团队背景：很多小项目团队匿名或半匿名，没有知名从业经历，更没有大型机构站台。用户难以把真金白银换成一个陌生团队发行的代币。在社区论坛上，常有人提醒：要考察项目方有没有公开的公司实体？负责人是谁？有没有接受审计？代码库是否活跃？很多小稳定币一查，团队成员没有介绍、GitHub 长期不更新、社交媒体三天打鱼两天晒网，自然让潜在用户心生疑虑。此外，透明度也是问题——主流稳定币如 USDC 会定期披露储备资产证明，而小项目往往难以负担审计费用，即便声称1:1有储备，用户也无从验证。这就导致一个信任黑箱：大家不知道你是不是“凭空印钞”在割韭菜。一旦质疑四起，没有可信第三方来证明清白，小稳定币很容易爆发挤兑危机。可以说，在信任为本的稳定币领域，新进入者天然处于劣势：没有品牌、没有监管、没有大资金托底，用户凭什么相信你的币能一直稳定兑付？这种信任赤字使许多潜在用户 “观望多过行动”。

用户体验壁垒，入门操作繁琐

即便技术和资金问题解决了，小团队还常常忽视了用户体验的重要性。当前多链生态下，用户使用稳定币往往要跨越重重障碍：比如要在以太坊上使用某稳定币，得先拥有以太坊原生币 ETH 作为 Gas；想在 BSC 上用，又得准备 BNB 支付手续费。新用户常常一头雾水：“我想发行或使用稳定币，结果还被要求先买另一种币付手续费。”再加上不同链之间切换网络、添加合约地址、计算滑点手续费等，对非专业用户来说极其不友好。社区中甚至出现了 “#GasInUSD” 的话题标签，反映的正是用户希望直接用美元稳定币支付链上 Gas 的强烈愿望。现实却是，大部分公链尚不支持这种体验。不少小团队发行了新稳定币，却没提供配套的钱包和易用工具，用户需要辗转多个交易所和桥才能获取并使用这些代币。这种割裂的体验导致第一次尝试的用户很可能因为出错或嫌麻烦而放弃。例如有团队反思，他们上线首日就流失了大批潜在用户，因为很多新人卡在不会切换 RPC 网络、或一笔兑换因为滑点过大失败，最终败兴而归。复杂的门槛操作无形中把许多对稳定币感兴趣的普通人挡在了门外。

综上，这些现实困境构成了当下许多渴望投入稳定币浪潮却迟迟找不到入口的群体画像：他们中有想创新的开发者、拥抱新金融的创业者、寻求降本增效的中小企业、以及期待数字资产支付的普通商户……他们看到了稳定币的机遇，却苦于缺资金、缺技术、缺合规路径、缺信任背书、缺好用工具，只能在岸边观望。他们的心声可能是：“稳定币前景很诱人，我不想错过，但我究竟该怎么参与？谁能帮我跨过那道道门槛？” 这些痛点也正是引出下一章节的关键——有没有一种解决方案，能够为这些踌躇不前的人铺平道路？

四、本分链 × 稳定币：一键发行 + 丝滑体验

从投资与基础设施发展的角度来看，降低稳定币发行和使用的门槛是未来市场扩容的关键。我们注意到，BenFen 链（本分链）在设计上尝试解决中小团队和新用户最常遇到的几类痛点：

原生一键发行

在 BenFen 链上，任何经过授权的用户都可以像填表单一样发行自己的稳定币。平台提供友好的 UI 界面：用户只需选择想锚定的抵押资产类型（例如 USD、黄金或其他合规资产），输入拟发行数量，点击“铸造 (Mint)”按钮，即可秒级生成对应的稳定币代币。整个过程无需编写智能合约代码、无需自行部署复杂协议，更不需要额外支付高昂审计费用——技术风险由 BenFen 底层的 Move 智能合约安全模型把关，合约模板经过严格审计和长期运行验证，发行者不必重复造轮子即可享受开箱即用的安全性。可以说，BenFen 将稳定币发行的技术门槛降至近乎零成本：开发投入从数万美元降至数十美元的 Gas 费，时间从数月缩短为几分钟。对于缺乏开发团队的项目方，BenFen 提供的一键发行工具无疑是颠覆性的。这意味着，不论是有跨境支付需求的商户，还是有创意的创业团队，都能轻松创造属于自己的稳定币，服务特定社区或业务场景，而不必苦恼于技术瓶颈。

稳定币支付 Gas

BenFen 深知困扰用户已久的 Gas 支付体验问题，遂在架构层面做出突破：允许直接使用稳定币支付链上手续费。在本分链上，稳定币不再只是交易媒介，本身也可用来支付链上操作费用。例如，用户在 BenFen 链转账或调用合约时，可直接用 BUSD、BJPY 等稳定币支付 Gas，无需持有本分链的原生治理币。这一设计彻底消除了新用户使用 dApp 时“还要先买一堆链币交Gas”的繁琐。更便利的是，BenFen 的平均手续费极低，仅约 0.05 美元，远低于以太坊/BSC 上 0.3–0.5 美元的 Gas 成本。为了优化新手体验，BenFen 甚至支持Gas 代付功能：项目方或第三方可以为用户的交易提供手续费赞助，用户在使用指定应用时无需自付 Gas。这一系列改进意味着，在 BenFen 生态中，无论是首次接触区块链的新人，还是跨链过来的老鸟，都能享受到**“稳定币即燃料”**的丝滑体验。在这里，稳定币真正成为链上的通用价值载体——既是交易本金，也是网络燃料。用户可以抛开繁杂兑换，像在互联网应用里花费美元一样，直接使用稳定币畅行链上各个场景。

极致用户体验（UX）

为了进一步降低 Web3 的使用门槛，BenFen 在钱包和支付体验上也下足功夫，努力做到“与传统应用一样简单”。首先，BenFen 支持 zkLogin 社交登录方案：用户可以直接用手机号、邮箱或社交账号一键注册区块链钱包账户，再也不必背诵复杂的助记词或私钥。这极大地方便了普通用户的上手，减少因私钥管理不善造成的资产损失。其次，围绕稳定币支付，BenFen 提供了完善的社交支付功能：例如通过 BenPay 应用 实现手机号转账、好友红包、二维码收款等。商家可以生成收款码接受顾客的稳定币付款，用户间也可像使用微信/Paypal 一样发红包、AA 收款，却实质是在链上完成了稳定币转移。另外，BenFen 集成了内置跨链桥，支持主流资产跨链交换，用户可以方便地将以太坊或波场上的 USDT/USDC 换成 BenFen 链上的 BUSD 等稳定币。整个操作流程经过精心打磨，力求简洁直观：用户不需要懂任何链上术语，几次点击就能完成钱包创建、充币、转账等操作。对于开发者，BenFen 也提供了丰富的 SDK，让他们可以轻松构建友好的前端应用。在 BenFen 看来，稳定币作为数字货币中的“稳定价值担当”，理应搭配媲美Web2的使用体验，才能真正走向大众。

安全与去中心化保障

在降低门槛的同时，BenFen 没有牺牲对安全和去中心化的坚持。底层采用 Move 智能合约语言，其资源类型和线性逻辑天然避免了一些常见漏洞（如重入攻击），为稳定币合约提供强类型安全保障。此外，BenFen 结合 DAG + BFT 共识机制构建高性能链，单链TPS达到万级且确认时间低于1秒。DAG 并行记账确保高吞吐，BFT共识则保障最终性和抗分叉，网络容错率达到业界领先水平。在实际运行中，本分链主网自上线以来可用率达 99.99%，未曾发生因共识问题导致的停机或回滚。这对于涉及资金的稳定币应用至关重要，用户可以放心系统的可靠性。同时，BenFen 考虑到不同场景的需求，支持灵活的身份模式：用户既可以选择匿名地址参与去中心化交易，也可以选择完成 KYC 后获取受监管权限，从而访问特定合规应用或法币出入金渠道。网络层面，由多家权威机构共同维护验证节点，防止单一方作恶，保障整个链的去中心化和抗审查属性。总而言之，BenFen 追求的是**“稳”——既体现在对稳定币价值的坚守，也体现在系统安全稳健的运行。通过底层技术架构的创新，BenFen 链为稳定币发行和使用营造了一个安全、高效、可信**的环境，使得门槛降低但信任不降。

通过上述四个方面的设计，本分链致力于打造一个 “人人可参与的稳定币基础设施”。在这里，项目方不需要精通编程，也不需要巨额资金，更无需担忧链上复杂操作——只要有合法合规的资产和清晰的应用场景，BenFen 就能帮助项目方一键发行稳定币，并提供友好的支付和管理工具。这无疑为无数原本被挡在门外的潜在参与者提供了新的机会窗口。正如BenFen的名字“本分”所寓意的：踏踏实实做事，回归金融服务的本质——让更多人平等地享受稳定币和区块链创新带来的红利。

五、写在最后：Bixin Ventures 的观察

作为长期关注区块链基础设施的投资机构，Bixin Ventures 在稳定币领域的核心判断是：合规与易用性将是推动下一波采用的关键变量。

今天，稳定币已经成为机构与散户共同瞩目的资产类别，但绝大多数潜在参与者仍面临合约开发、合规资质、资金流动性和用户体验的多重障碍。BenFen 这样的项目，试图通过技术与产品设计，把复杂环节封装在底层，以便更多中小团队和普通用户能够低门槛进入。

从我们的角度来看：

• 对于开发者，它意味着更快的试验和迭代；

• 对于中小企业，它提供了可行的跨境支付和清算工具；

• 对于投资人，它是稳定币生态“普及层”的一种早期探索。

——Source: Bixin Ventures

Over the past decade, stablecoins have grown from little-known experiments to a spotlight in global finance. From the 2022 collapse of algorithmic stablecoin TerraUSD (UST), which wiped out about $60 billion in market cap overnight, to the forced halt of Binance's BUSD issuance in 2023 due to regulatory pressure, and even the high-profile launch of USD1, which the U.S. President Trump's family created in early 2025—these landmark events all point to one fact: stablecoins have become a hot intersection between the crypto world and traditional finance. Whether it's Wall Street institutions, internet giants, or retail investors, everyone is watching the stablecoin track closely. Yet despite the hype, the barriers to entry remain high. Technical and compliance challenges prevent many from participating.

This article will analyze the driving forces and obstacles behind the current stablecoin boom from the perspectives of institutions, retail users, and on-chain innovation, exploring why many people have set their sights on stablecoins but have been slow to enter the market.

Table of Contents

I. Why Are Stablecoins So Popular?

• Explosive Market Growth

• Policy Driving Mainstream Adoption

• Public Enthusiasm & Knowledge Gap

• Payment Giants and Financial Institutions Are Rushing in

II. How Global Institutions Are Positioning in Stablecoins？

• JD Group: Cross-Border Payment Drivers

• JPMorgan (JPM Coin): Enterprise Liquidity Settlement

• PayPal (PYUSD): Consumer-Facing Applications

• Fintechs (Stripe, Revolut, etc.): Payment Bridges

• Cross-Border Pilots: Public-Private Collaboration

• Statements of Support from Executives of Major Banks

III. Those Who Want to Get Involved But Can't: Barriers and Dilemmas

• High Technical Barriers, Costly Development

• Economic Model and Liquidity Challenges

• Difficulty Securing Financing and Supporting Liquidity

• Regulatory Pressure and Compliance Uncertainty

• Lack of Credit Backing, Trust Is Hard to Build

• UX Barriers, Cumbersome Onboarding

IV. BenFen Blockchain × Stablecoins: One-Click Issuance + Smooth UX

• Native One-Click Issuance

• Stablecoin for Gas Fees

• Seamless User Experience (UX)

• Security and Decentralization Guarantees

V. Final Thoughts: Observations from Bixin Ventures

I. Why Are Stablecoins So Popular?

As crypto assets pegged to fiat currencies and other values, stablecoins have become the bridge between traditional finance and blockchain economies. Their rise in recent years is reflected in multiple dimensions:

Explosive Market Growth

• Active address growth: The number of stablecoin users and transaction volume has seen explosive growth. Active stablecoin wallet addresses climbed from 19.6 million in Feb 2024 to 41 million in Aug 2025, with an annual growth rate of over 100% (source: Artemis).

• Supply surge: In the same period, global stablecoin supply rose from about 138 billion US dollars to 275 billion US dollars, achieving a year-on-year growth of 99%.

• Transaction volume surpassing giants: Since Sep 2024, daily stablecoin transaction volume has consistently surpassed Visa’s channel volumes, even peaking at $5.1 trillion at one point.

These figures show that whether in exchanges, DeFi, or payments, stablecoins are gaining unprecedented penetration and influence.

Policy Driving Mainstream Adoption

The rapid follow-up of regulations in various countries has laid the foundation for the legal and compliant development of stablecoins.

• U.S.: In Jul 2025, the GENIUS Act was signed, mandating that only federally insured depository institutions can issue payment stablecoins. They must maintain 100% reserves, provide monthly disclosures, undergo annual audits, and adhere to strict KYC/AML compliance.

• Hong Kong: In May 2025, the Legislative Council passed the Stablecoin Ordinance, requiring HKMA licenses, 1:1 fully backed reserves in high-quality assets, robust redemption mechanisms, and periodic audits.

• EU: MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) came into effect in late 2024, imposing capital adequacy, liquidity, and disclosure requirements on issuers.

Major global financial centers have successively expressed their stance on stablecoins, and compliance is driving stablecoins from the gray area to mainstream finance.

Public Enthusiasm & Knowledge Gap

Google Trends shows a surge in searches like "how to buy stablecoins" and "stablecoin yields," but almost none for "how to issue a stablecoin" over the past year. This contrast highlights a strong demand for usage, but little understanding of creation, fuelling industry calls for lowering issuance barriers.

Payment Giants and Financial Institutions Are Rushing in

Faced with the high efficiency and low-cost advantages demonstrated by stablecoins, traditional payment networks and internet financial platforms have rushed to test them, viewing stablecoins as an opportunity to upgrade the global payment system. Research by the BIS (Bank for International Settlements) shows that if stablecoins are used for cross-border payments, speed can improve by two orders of magnitude and costs can be reduced by over 90%. This makes stablecoins a potential solution to the "slow and expensive" pain points of international remittances. In recent years, Visa and Mastercard have both announced plans to support stablecoin settlements: Visa has piloted accepting USDC and other stablecoins for settling funds of some issuing banks within its global settlement network. At the same time, Mastercard has launched an end-to-end stablecoin payment solution, preparing to integrate compliant stablecoins into its merchant network. Payment service provider Stripe has offered USDC payment options for content creators since 2022, enabling instant global micropayments, and e-commerce platform Shopify has cooperated to support users in settling goods payments with stablecoins. Notably, PayPal has not only issued its own USD stablecoin, PYUSD, but in 2025, it also announced it would provide an annualized 3.7% yield incentive for PYUSD holders, encouraging them to hold and use stablecoins in PayPal and Venmo wallets. These initiatives reflect that traditional payment giants increasingly regard stablecoins as a critical component of the next-generation payment rails: on the one hand, leveraging stablecoins to achieve cross-border fund transfers within seconds, and the cost of handling fees is only one-tenth of that of SWIFT wire transfers; on the other hand, using stablecoins to tap into additional growth in the crypto payment market. In conclusion, from Internet giants to bank payment networks, stablecoins are increasingly being treated as the "financial infrastructure" of the digital age, which has greatly boosted the industry's popularity.

In summary, whether it is the rapidly expanding user base and trading volume, the gradually clearer regulatory environment, or the public's high interest and the embrace of mainstream institutions, the combination of multiple factors has made stablecoins one of the hottest topics in the current crypto field. Behind the popularity of stablecoins lies the huge potential they have demonstrated as digital cash as a value anchor in connecting tradition with innovation.

II. How Global Institutions Are Positioning in Stablecoins？

Stablecoins have a promising future, and leading institutions have long been eager to enter this field through various strategies. From tech giants to Wall Street banks, they have all launched their own stablecoin projects or cooperative plans in an effort to take the lead in this new type of financial infrastructure.

The following are the layouts of several typical types of institutions:

JD Group: Cross-Border Payment Drivers

Subsidiary JD Technology entered HKMA’s sandbox with plans to issue Jcoin (HKD-pegged) for trade and e-commerce settlements to significantly reduce cross-border payment costs, enhance settlement efficiency, and, at the same time, explore offshore RMB stablecoins to promote the internationalization of the RMB.

JPMorgan (JPM Coin): Enterprise Liquidity Settlement

JPM Coin was launched in 2019 and is mainly used for instant fund transfers between institutional clients, based on the Quorum consortium chain. It processes an average of about 1 to 2 billion US dollars per day and has become an important infrastructure for large enterprises' liquidity management and cross-border clearing.

PayPal (PYUSD): Consumer-Facing Applications

PayPal launched PYUSD in 2023, collaborating with Paxos to issue US dollar stablecoins, which have been integrated into PayPal and Venmo wallets. Starting from 2025, it will offer a 3.7% holding return, focusing on payment, settlement, and fund management scenarios for small and medium-sized merchants and freelancers.

Fintechs (Stripe, Revolut, etc.): Payment Bridges

Stripe offers USDC collection services for creators, while Revolut is developing multi-currency stablecoins to reduce remittance and exchange costs. Both represent typical cases of emerging Fintech expanding the global payment market with stablecoins.

Cross-Border Pilots: Public-Private Collaboration

mBridge, led by BIS, Project Agorá, and Canton Network, composed of investment banks and technology companies, promotes the joint construction of an on-chain clearing network by central banks, commercial banks, and financial institutions, and explores the compliant application of stablecoins in cross-border payments and financial markets.

Statements of Support from Executives of Major Banks

The attitude of large financial institutions towards stablecoins has also shifted from observation to action. Several banks disclosed their stablecoin plans during earnings calls: Citigroup said it is studying the possibility of issuing "Citigroup stablecoins"; Bank of America has also been reported to have internally incubated US dollar stablecoins for corporate customer payment settlements. The CEO of JPMorgan Chase admitted that banks will participate in the competition driven by customer demand. Standard Chartered Bank not only joined the sandbox test of stablecoins in Hong Kong, but also collaborated with Singapore's StraitsX to provide custody and cash management services for the new currency and US dollar stablecoins it issued. Even asset management giant BlackRock has indirectly entered the stablecoin field by taking a stake in Circle and cooperating with Coinbase. It can be said that, from banks to payment systems, from e-commerce to social media, various institutions are forming an encirclement to enter the stablecoin race. Their entry not only brings substantial capital and a solid user base but also empowers the stablecoin ecosystem in terms of compliance, security, and global networking. This is also the reason why stablecoins are developing at such a rapid pace at present. With the endorsement of giants, stablecoins are moving from grassroots innovation to a new stage of mainstream adoption.

III. Those Who Want to Get Involved But Can't: Barriers and Dilemmas

Although the giants are making rapid progress in the stablecoin field, on the other hand, a large number of small and medium-sized players (individual developers, start-up teams, small and medium-sized enterprises, and even traditional industry enterprises) are facing numerous difficulties in entering the market. They recognized the opportunities and potential of stablecoins, but often struggled to participate due to various thresholds.

Below, we have sorted out several common obstacles that prevent such potential participants:

High Technical Barriers, Costly Development

Launching a stablecoin project is by no means a simple endeavor. The inherent complexities of blockchain development present significant barriers to entry for most teams, requiring specialized expertise in smart contracts, security audits, cross-chain interoperability, and other technical domains. According to estimates from blockchain development consulting firms, the cost of developing and deploying a stablecoin contract from scratch—including supporting wallet infrastructure, backend systems, and web interfaces—ranges from $30,000 to $50,000 at minimum, with more sophisticated implementations reaching up to $500,000. These costs vary based on team composition, functional complexity, and compliance requirements, representing a substantial financial commitment for small-scale startups.

Moreover, security audits constitute an indispensable component of the process, with each audit typically costing between $10,000 and $100,000. To mitigate the risk of cyberattacks, many projects also invest in smart contract insurance, incurring annual premiums ranging from several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars. Conservatively estimated, security-related expenditures often account for 20%–30% of a project's initial budget. Beyond these upfront costs, ongoing operational demands necessitate continuous code upgrades and iterations to counter emerging hacking techniques.

These substantial financial and technical prerequisites frequently relegate promising ideas to the conceptual stage, where many individuals or small teams, despite possessing creativity and enthusiasm, thus abandon their initiatives after confronting the daunting budgetary and technological requirements.

Economic Model and Liquidity Challenges

The success of a stablecoin project is not only dependent on programming, but also on the underlying financial engineering. To issue an anchored currency, a careful design of the collateral mechanism or algorithmic adjustment mechanism is necessary to ensure the stability of the currency value. In the event of significant market fluctuations and large-scale redemptions by users, the system must have contingency plans to avoid a death spiral. This means that small teams must possess the ability to model economic models and conduct stress tests, simulating whether the stablecoin can maintain its anchoring in various extreme scenarios. For example, the collapse of Terra UST serves as a cautionary tale: algorithmic stablecoins lacking asset support can collapse instantly during a confidence crisis, with their market value evaporating by tens of billions of dollars in just a few days. However, many start-up projects often overlook the importance of models, merely achieving a "1:1 anchoring" on the technical level and not delving into the stability after scaling up. A user in the crypto community put it succinctly: "Writing code and issuing coins is technically simple... The hard part is how to expand to a billion-dollar scale and how to redeem each dollar back at that time." In other words, small teams may be able to develop a functioning stablecoin contract, but they are likely unable to withstand the tests of the real market. On the other hand, stablecoin projects often face a liquidity trap in their early stages: without sufficient funds for market-making and providing depth, stablecoins struggle to maintain their circulating value and exchange stability; yet no one is willing to provide liquidity, let alone financial support. This chicken-and-egg dilemma leaves the prices and anchoring mechanisms of many small projects ineffective without trading volume. Once someone sells, the stablecoin may suddenly deviate from its anchoring but be unable to regulate it, leading to a credit collapse.

Difficulty Securing Financing and Supporting Liquidity

Stablecoin projects also face the commercial challenge of attracting investment. Unlike typical application startups, stablecoins are capital-intensive: not only do they burn through funds during the R&D phase, but they also require substantial reserves during operations to provide liquidity and handle redemptions. Consequently, small teams often seek venture capital (VC) investment or loans from market makers to expand their funding pools. However, the harsh reality is that most investment institutions are not interested in stablecoin startups. As analyst Anthony DeMartino points out, even if small projects offer attractive annualized interest rates of 40%, it is difficult to obtain market-making funds. Venture capitalists, focused on returns exceeding 10x, are unimpressed by mere interest rates of a few tens of percentage points. Market makers also face high capital costs, often with an opportunity cost of around 20% for their own capital. Furthermore, considering the risk premium, few are willing to lend at a fixed rate to a stablecoin project with an uncertain future. He describes many such startups as "going into battle with toy knives," severely underequipped to challenge well-funded incumbent stablecoin giants. The results are predictable. Many founders are repeatedly asked during fundraising roadshows: "How big is your liquidity pool? Where is your community? Do you have enough marketing budget?" In the end, they often fail to provide convincing figures and are turned down. As one entrepreneur lamented at a forum: "Without capital for market making and marketing, without a user community and a strong team, the success rate is very low." Lack of financing and insufficient capital generation quickly leads small stablecoin projects into a vicious cycle: lack of funds, lack of users, inability to build credibility, and finally, more lack of funds, ultimately forcing them to abandon their projects.

(Source: medium.com/@anthonydemartino)

Regulatory Pressure and Compliance Uncertainty

The previous text mentioned that various major jurisdictions have successively issued clear regulations for stablecoins. This poses a significant challenge for small teams. In the United States, stablecoin issuers must be regulated financial institutions; in Europe, registered electronic money institutions must be registered and meet capital requirements; in Hong Kong, applications must be submitted, and there must be legal auditing... Just preparing compliance documents and procedures alone can overwhelm a group of developers. Obtaining a license is not only lengthy, complex, and costly. For example, setting up a regulated trust company in the United States often requires millions of dollars in capital and a professional legal team to handle the application. In Hong Kong, obtaining a stablecoin license also requires meeting strict shareholder qualifications and risk management requirements. Some regions (such as Canada) even treat stablecoins as securities, making the project face cumbersome registration and disclosure obligations under securities laws. For small projects with limited budgets, they either choose to take a risky path by circumventing regulations (which is prone to being halted or penalized) or simply give up due to the lack of compliance. The differences in regional regulations also leave teams at a loss - go to the United States, but fear violating federal laws; go to Southeast Asia, but there is a lack of clear definition; go to Europe, but MiCA requires setting up an entity in the EU, undergoing auditing, and producing a white paper, which is beyond the reach of most startups in a short period of time. As a result, many ideas remain underground and dare not be truly launched to the market, fearing that as soon as they go live, they will run into legal violations. The uncertainty of compliance makes ordinary people feel that entering the stablecoin field is "full of pitfalls", with no clear path to begin.

Lack of Credit Backing, Trust is Hard to Build

Stablecoins serve as value anchors, and credit is of utmost importance. However, small teams often lack the credibility needed to gain public trust. First, regarding the team background: Many small project teams are anonymous or semi-anonymous, lacking any well-known professional experience, let alone the backing of large institutions. Users struggle to convert their real money into tokens issued by an unfamiliar team. On community forums, it is common to see reminders: Check if the project team has an openly disclosed company entity? Who is the person in charge? Has it undergone auditing? Is the code repository active? Many small stablecoins, upon investigation, lack introductions of team members, GitHub is rarely updated for a long time, and social media is sporadic. This naturally raises doubts in potential users. Additionally, transparency is also an issue - mainstream stablecoins like USDC regularly disclose proof of reserve assets, while small projects often cannot afford auditing fees. Even if they claim a 1:1 reserve, users have no way to verify. This leads to a trust black box: People don't know if you are "printing money out of thin air" to fleece investors. Once doubts arise, without a credible third party to prove innocence, small stablecoins are prone to a run crisis. It can be said that in the trust-based stablecoin sector, new entrants are naturally at a disadvantage: they lack a brand, regulation, and large financial backing. Why should users trust your token to remain stable and payable? This trust deficit makes many potential users "wait and see rather than act".

UX Barriers, Cumbersome Onboarding

Even if technical and financial issues are resolved, small teams often overlook the importance of user experience. In the current multi-chain ecosystem, users often encounter numerous obstacles when using stablecoins: for instance, to use a certain stablecoin on Ethereum, one must first have the native Ethereum token ETH as gas; to use it on BSC, one needs to prepare BNB to pay the transaction fee. New users are often confused: "I want to issue or use stablecoins, but I'm also required to buy another currency to pay the transaction fee." In addition, switching networks between different chains, adding contract addresses, calculating slippage fees, etc., are extremely unfriendly for non-professional users. Even in the community, there is a topic tag "#GasInUSD", reflecting the strong desire of users to directly pay the gas on the chain with USD stablecoins. However, the reality is that most public chains do not support this experience. Many small teams have issued new stablecoins, but they have not provided corresponding wallets and user-friendly tools. Users need to navigate through multiple exchanges and bridges to obtain and use these tokens. This fragmented experience often leads to users giving up on their first attempt due to errors or finding it too troublesome. For example, one team reflected that on the first day of their launch, they lost a large number of potential users because many new users got stuck in not being able to switch RPC networks, or a single exchange rate conversion failed due to a large slippage, and ultimately left disappointed. The complex threshold operations have inadvertently kept many ordinary people interested in stablecoins out.

In conclusion, these real-world challenges constitute the profile of many groups who are eager to join the stablecoin trend but have been unable to find an entry point: there are developers who want to innovate, entrepreneurs who embrace new finance, small and medium-sized enterprises seeking cost reduction and efficiency improvement, as well as ordinary merchants expecting digital asset payments... They see opportunities in stablecoins, but are hindered by a lack of funds, technology, compliance paths, trust endorsements, and useful tools, leaving them to stand on the shore and wait. Their voices might be: "The prospects of stablecoins are very attractive. I don't want to miss out, but how exactly can I participate? Who can help me cross those thresholds?" These pain points are precisely what lead to the key point of the next section: Is there a solution that can pave the way for these hesitant people?

IV. BenFen Blockchain × Stablecoins: One-Click Issuance + Smooth UX

From the perspective of investment and infrastructure development, lowering the threshold for the issuance and use of stablecoins is the key to future market expansion. We have noticed that the BenFen blockchain attempts to address several types of pain points most commonly encountered by small and medium-sized teams and new users in its design:

Native One-Click Issuance

On the BenFen blockchain, any authorized user can issue their own stablecoins just like filling out a form. The platform offers a user-friendly interface: Users simply select the type of collateral asset they want to anchor (such as USD, gold, or other compliant assets), input the desired issuance quantity, and click the "Mint" button. In just a few seconds, the corresponding stablecoin tokens will be generated. The entire process does not require writing smart contract code, deploying complex protocols by oneself, or paying high auditing fees - the technical risks are guarded by the Move smart contract security model at BenFen's underlying layer. The contract templates have undergone strict auditing and long-term operation verification, allowing issuers to enjoy the security of "out of the box" without having to reinvent the wheel. It can be said that BenFen has reduced the technical threshold for stablecoin issuance to nearly zero cost: the development investment has decreased from tens of thousands of dollars to a few dollars of gas fees, and the time has been shortened from several months to a few minutes. For project owners without a development team, the one-click issuance tool provided by BenFen is undoubtedly revolutionary. This means that whether it is a merchant with cross-border payment needs or an innovative entrepreneurial team, they can easily create their own stablecoins to serve specific communities or business scenarios without worrying about technical bottlenecks.

Stablecoin for Gas Fees

BenFen is well aware of the long-standing gas payment experience issues that have plagued users. Therefore, it has made a breakthrough at the architectural level, allowing the direct use of stablecoins to pay for the on-chain transaction fees. On the BenFen public chain, stablecoins are no longer merely a medium of exchange; they can also be used to pay for the fees for operations on the chain. For example, when users transfer funds or invoke contracts on the BenFen chain, they can directly use stablecoins such as BUSD or BJPY to pay for the gas, without having to hold the native governance coins of the BenFen chain. This design completely eliminates the cumbersome process for new users when using dApps, where "they have to first buy a bunch of chain coins to pay for gas". What's more convenient is that the average transaction fee on BenFen is extremely low, approximately only 0.05 US dollars, much lower than the gas costs of 0.3-0.5 US dollars on Ethereum/BSC. To optimize the user experience for newcomers, BenFen even supports the gas proxy payment function: project owners or third parties can provide fee sponsorship for users' transactions, and users do not need to pay gas when using the designated application. This series of improvements means that in the BenFen ecosystem, whether it is new users who are first exposed to blockchain or veterans who have crossed over from other chains, they can enjoy the smooth experience of "stablecoins as fuel" on the chain. Here, stablecoins truly become the universal value carrier on the chain - both as the principal for transactions and as the fuel for the network. Users can ignore the complicated conversion process and use stablecoins directly to navigate various scenarios on the chain, just like spending US dollars on internet applications.

Seamless User Experience (UX)

In order to further lower the usage threshold of Web3, BenFen has also made great efforts in wallet and payment experience, striving to make it "as simple as traditional applications". First of all, BenFen supports the zkLogin social login solution: Users can directly register their blockchain wallet accounts with their mobile phone numbers, email addresses, or social accounts, and no longer need to memorize complex mnemonic phrases or private keys. This greatly simplifies the process for ordinary users and reduces the loss of assets due to poor management of private keys. Secondly, around stablecoin payments, BenFen provides a complete social payment function: for example, through the BenPay app, one can achieve mobile number transfers, friend red envelopes, QR code payments, etc. Merchants can generate payment receipts to accept stablecoin payments from customers, and users can also send red envelopes and AA payments as they do with WeChat/PayPal. Still, in essence, the stablecoin transfer is completed on the blockchain. Additionally, BenFen integrates an in-built cross-chain bridge, supporting cross-chain exchange of mainstream assets, and users can conveniently exchange USDT/USDC on Ethereum or TRON for BUSD and other stablecoins on the BenFen chain. The entire operation process has been meticulously refined to be simple and intuitive: users do not need to understand any on-chain terminology, and a few clicks can complete operations such as wallet creation, coin deposit, and transfer. For developers, BenFen also provides rich SDKs, allowing them to easily build friendly front-end applications. In BenFen's view, as a "stable value responsibility" in digital currencies, stablecoins should be accompanied by a usage experience comparable to Web2 in order to truly reach the general public.

Security and Decentralization Guarantees

While lowering the threshold, BenFen has not compromised on its commitment to security and decentralization. The underlying layer uses the Move smart contract language, and its resource types and linear logic naturally avoid some common vulnerabilities (such as re-entry attacks), providing strong type security guarantees for stablecoin contracts. Additionally, BenFen combines the DAG + BFT consensus mechanism to build a high-performance chain. The single-chain TPS achieves tens of thousands of confirmations, with a confirmation time of less than 1 second. The DAG parallel bookkeeping ensures high throughput, while the BFT consensus ensures finality and resistance to forks. The network fault tolerance rate reaches the industry-leading level. In actual operation, the BenFen mainnet has an availability rate of 99.99% since its launch, and no downtime or rollback due to consensus issues has occurred. This is crucial for stablecoin applications involving funds, as users can be assured of the reliability of the system. At the same time, BenFen takes into account the needs of different scenarios and supports flexible identity modes: users can either choose to participate in decentralized transactions with anonymous addresses or complete KYC to obtain regulated permissions to access specific compliant applications or fiat currency deposit and withdrawal channels. At the network level, multiple authoritative institutions jointly maintain verification nodes to prevent malicious actions by a single party and ensure the decentralization and anti-censorship attributes of the entire chain. In summary, BenFen pursues "stability" - both reflected in the commitment to the value of stablecoins and the safe and stable operation of the system. Through the innovation of underlying technical architecture, the BenFen chain creates a secure, efficient, and trustworthy environment for stablecoin issuance and use, lowering the threshold while maintaining trust.

Through the design of the above four aspects, BenFen chain aims to build a "stablecoin infrastructure accessible to everyone". Here, the project team does not need to be proficient in programming, nor does it require a large amount of capital, nor does it need to worry about complex operations on-chain. As long as there are legal and compliant assets and clear application scenarios, BenFen can help the project team issue stablecoins with one click and provide friendly payment and management tools. This undoubtedly provides new opportunity windows for countless potential participants who were previously excluded. Just as the name "BenFen" implies: doing things in a down-to-earth manner, returning to the essence of financial services - allowing more people to equally enjoy the benefits of stablecoins and blockchain innovation.

V. Final Thoughts: Observations from Bixin Ventures

As a long-term investment institution focusing on blockchain infrastructure, Bixin Ventures holds the core judgment in the stablecoin sector that compliance and usability will be the key variables driving the next wave of adoption.

Today, stablecoins have become an asset class that both institutions and retail investors are paying attention to. However, the vast majority of potential participants still face multiple obstacles, such as contract development, compliance qualifications, liquidity, and user experience. Projects like BenFen aim to encapsulate complex processes at the underlying layer through technology and product design, enabling more small and medium-sized teams, as well as ordinary users, to enter the stablecoin world with a low threshold.

From our perspective:

• For developers, it means faster experimentation and iteration.

• For small and medium-sized enterprises, it provides feasible cross-border payment and settlement tools.

• For investors, it is an early exploration of the "popularization layer" of the stablecoin ecosystem.

We understand that the future landscape of stablecoins will not be determined by a single project, but will be shaped by compliance policies, institutional participation, and infrastructure evolution. The current positioning of BenFen is more about filling the "neglected gaps" and helping those groups that originally lacked resources find the path to enter the stablecoin world.

Therefore, we believe that attempts like BenFen are worthy of attention and continuous observation. Whether it can become an important piece in the stablecoin ecosystem will need to be verified by the market and time.

                                                                                                                      **——Source: Bixin Ventures**

The trajectory of Web3’s development is undergoing a profound shift in rhythm.

In the early days, narrative-driven hype and speculative frenzy defined the crypto ecosystem. Bitcoin halving, DeFi Summer, and the NFT craze — these stories attracted massive capital and attention in short bursts, accelerating the buildout of infrastructure. Yet running too fast came with hidden risks: over-reliance on funding and neglect of long-term utility, leaving many projects as short-lived flashes in the pan.

The paradox of speed is that it did spark innovation, but also drained user and investor patience. As the industry cooled during 2022–2023, the speculative bubble faded and the market turned rational. This was not a retreat, but rather the beginning of true internalized growth.

According to CoinMarketCap, Bitcoin and Ethereum have reasserted dominance: Bitcoin’s market cap share fell to ~39% in 2022, recovered to 45.6% in 2023, rose further to 51.9% in 2024, and has reached nearly 59.3% in 2025. This indicates that after the last bear cycle, capital is increasingly flowing into top-tier assets, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum.

By contrast, although long-tail altcoins and Memecoin have made some waves in certain areas, their overall growth has been sluggish. For example, the Pepe memecoin boom in Q2 2023 pushed its market cap to $1.5 billion by late 2024, only to crash below $700 million soon after. At the end of 2024, meme launch platforms like Pumpfun once generated fee revenues rivaling Tier-2 exchanges, but as the market rationalized, fees fell to just 5% of their peak.

Memecoins without fundamentals are often "fireworks" that can’t hold long-term value. Meanwhile, crypto assets with network effects and ecosystems — Bitcoin, Ethereum — have proven more resilient, their market cap share rising far more than most long-tail projects.

The decline in investors' risk appetite and the return of value have accelerated the concentration of market funds towards top assets. The market signal is very clear: speculative projects are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain in the long term, and funds are concentrating and returning to top assets.

The investment logic of VC has also undergone a transformation. Crypto venture funding peaked in 2022, and then shrank sharply in 2023. By 2024–2025, capital returned but with a new focus: investors now prefer strong teams with working MVPs and cash-flow models over narrative-driven experiments.

Faced with the shrinking of investment opportunities in the primary market, industrial capital is now turning its attention to opportunities in the secondary market and the public market.

On the one hand, traditional VCs are becoming increasingly cautious about investing in early-stage crypto projects; on the other hand, large institutional funds are beginning to invest in publicly traded crypto assets. For example, crypto investment firm Pantera recently invested $300 million specifically in companies using the "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) model, betting that these publicly traded companies, which include crypto assets in their financial reports, can generate returns superior to those obtained through direct holdings or ETFs.

These DAT companies raise funds by issuing stock, then accumulate BTC/ETH and use staking/DeFi strategies to grow NAV per share. The model has quickly drawn Wall Street’s attention, with billions raised and legendary investors like Stan Druckenmiller, Bill Miller, and ARK joining in.

The valuation paradigm of traditional capital markets is thus influencing and reshaping the native Web3 rules. These firms may be branded as "crypto concepts," but operate like traditional businesses: priced on balance sheets and cash flows, emphasizing fundamentals such as net asset value per share and discounted earnings. MicroStrategy (now renamed as "Strategy") has been purchasing a large amount of Bitcoin since 2020. Its stock performance is linked to the price of Bitcoin, and it is regarded as a "quasi-Bitcoin ETF". The new generation of DAT model companies represented by BitMine Immersion has gone further, boldly obtaining Ethereum holdings through equity and convertible bond financing, and using staking and DeFi strategies to increase asset returns.

This marks a Maslow-like shift in Web3 priorities: from high-risk adventuring to basic needs of safety, payments, and trust.

In the past, Web3 was rife with speculation and speed, but now, as capital and narratives cool down, the industry is shifting towards a more robust build period. The increase in the market capitalization share of Bitcoin and Ethereum, the transformation of VC investment logic, the advancement of policy regulation, and the rise of new asset operation models such as "DAT" are all signals of the arrival of the "BenFen era".

Global Participants Are Becoming More "BenFen": A Sign of Industry Maturity

If "rhythm shift" is the external manifestation of the industry, then "BenFen-ization" is the deeper internal logic. The so-called BenFen means that different actors are returning to constructive and sustainable development paths.

The evolution of the policy environment is shaping new industry boundaries. The U.S. GENIUS Act, the EU’s MiCA, and Hong Kong’s stablecoin licensing system, though different in details, share a clear consensus: protect investors, strengthen transparency, and open channels for compliant capital to enter. For project teams, this means "grey-zone" businesses will become increasingly difficult, and compliance and transparency will become mandatory thresholds.

• United States: The Stablecoin Innovation and Protection Act (GENIUS Act) requires that stablecoin issuance must be 100% backed by highly liquid assets (U.S. dollars, short-term U.S. Treasuries, etc.), and mandates issuers to publicly disclose reserve composition on a monthly basis, ensuring that stablecoins truly "live up to their name."

• European Union: The Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) stipulates that crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) must obtain licenses and meet capital requirements, and they bear legal responsibility for customer asset losses; stablecoin issuers must maintain 1:1 reserves and make regular disclosures, while large-scale stablecoins will also be supervised by the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Banking Authority (EBA).

From search trends, if in 2021 the high-frequency keywords in the blockchain field on Google Trends were "DeFi," "NFT," and "yield farming," then, in 2024–2025, the protagonists of search popularity have quietly shifted to "stablecoins," "compliance," and "cross-border payment."

Especially at regulatory benefit nodes such as the implementation of the EU’s MiCA and the signing of the U.S. GENIUS Act, Google Trends also shows that global search popularity for "stablecoins" spiked to historical highs when regulatory benefits (such as MiCA taking effect and the signing of the GENIUS Act in the U.S.) occurred (see figure below).

These data indicate that although industry growth has not shown the explosive carnival of the early stage, it is steadily rebounding, with growth becoming sustainable. From the evolution of keywords, it is not difficult to see the trajectory of the industry shifting from speculative narratives to stability and application scenarios, with blockchain technology becoming the underlying infrastructure for payment scenarios.

Under this trend, the capital market is also looking for more stable entry approaches. ETFs are one pathway to introduce traditional funds into the crypto field, while the recent surge in BitMine’s stock price has proven the effectiveness of the DAT strategy: raising additional equity at a premium in exchange for crypto assets, using convertible bonds to cash out volatility gains, and earning staking and DeFi interest, ultimately feeding returns back into per-share assets.

Its successful demonstration shows that applying traditional DCF valuation models to crypto asset operations is feasible: the market has begun to price these companies based on their per-share asset appreciation capability, rather than merely on the conceptual premium of crypto assets. This trend has already been reflected in the finances of traditional enterprises and listed companies: more and more institutions are no longer merely observing, but directly incorporating Bitcoin and Ethereum into their balance sheets.

At present, the number of Bitcoin and Ethereum held in the balance sheets of listed companies and institutions is reaching new highs. As of the second quarter of 2025, there are more than 100 listed companies globally holding Bitcoin on their balance sheets, with a combined total of about 1 million BTC (approximately 4.7% of Bitcoin’s total supply, valued at around $110 billion). In terms of Ethereum, statistics show that 11 institutions together hold nearly 2.98 million ETH (about 2.5% of Ethereum’s supply, valued at around $13.8 billion). These data indicate that traditional capital is accelerating its entry into the crypto asset market through methods such as ETFs and listed company balance sheet allocations.

The advancement of legislation provides an umbrella of protection for investors, while also paving a broad avenue for the entry of long-term funds such as sovereign wealth funds and corporate treasury departments. When a large amount of compliant capital floods in, the rules of the crypto industry increasingly converge with those of the traditional capital market — transparency, compliance, and intrinsic value will become the focus of the market, and large-scale popularization and application will thus become more likely. As capital logic gradually institutionalizes, industry attention will correspondingly shift from speculation to construction.

The essence of this trend is that Web3 is entering the "Builder Era". The value of trust and order is replacing short-term profit-seeking as the core. Just as the guild rules of the Middle Ages once provided the trust foundation for commerce, today stablecoins and compliance frameworks have become the "rice, oil, and salt" of digital finance — and this "daily necessity" value is directly reflected in stablecoin data.

The Explosive Growth of Stablecoin Data Also Indicates a Reshaping Landscape

According to Artemis data, in December 2024, the global monthly settlement volume of stablecoins was about $5.1 trillion, which is three times that of the same period in 2023 and 22 times that of 2021; VanEck states that the current average daily settlement scale of stablecoins has reached around $100 billion, gradually approaching the size of traditional cross-border payment networks such as SWIFT.

The structure of on-chain transactions has also changed accordingly. According to Chainalysis data, stablecoin transaction volume accounts for 50%–75% of total on-chain transaction volume, making stablecoins the most important asset class on-chain.

This is why the public chain BenFen, which we invested in and incubated, we natively support stablecoin-as-gas, one-click token issuance, and on-chain merchant payment interfaces — because this is the most fundamental part of future demand.

Market Performance Shifts from "High Volatility" to "Steady Growth"

According to Bloomberg, in 2024–2025, the volatility of Bitcoin and Ethereum prices has significantly decreased, with Bitcoin’s two-year implied volatility falling to a biannual low; according to Coindesk, compliant stablecoin ecosystems such as Circle (USDC) rapidly expanded after policy benefits, with its stock price soaring more than tenfold after the announcement of new regulations. Capital flows have also become more rational: part of crypto capital is moving away from high-risk equities, shifting toward digital assets such as Bitcoin and stablecoins as a "safe-haven" allocation.

Further analysis by McKinsey shows that blockchain + stablecoin payments can shorten the traditional 2–3 day cross-border settlement cycle to seconds, greatly improving the payment experience. This change is reflected not only in market data but also in the shift of user demand.

In 2021, users were chasing wealth myths and excitement — a kind of almost "self-fulfilling" radical adventure: high-yield DeFi pools, the breakout myth of NFTs, and GameFi’s overnight riches. This stacked emotion shaped a crypto narrative colored by desire and speculation.

By 2025, however, such demand has quietly shifted toward "basic functions": payment convenience, asset security, and regulatory certainty. This shift coincides with the implementation of regulations, institutional entry, and the maturity of infrastructure. In McKinsey’s words, "The significance of blockchain + stablecoin payments is not speculation, but reducing 2–3 days of cross-border payments to just a few seconds."

This also raises a deeper question: against the backdrop of increasingly important risk control and stability, what is the true confidence behind digital currencies? Is it speculative enthusiasm, or that universally accepted sense of "order" that can be used in everyday life? Perhaps, when cryptocurrencies are re-understood as financial tools of "daily necessities" rather than tickets to overnight wealth, they will truly move toward maturity.

This resonates with the change in user demand: if in 2021 crypto users were chasing wealth myths and high-risk games, then in 2025, users value more the convenience of payments, asset hedging, and compliance safety. In other words, digital currencies are shifting from "radical adventure" back to "basic function," from satisfying curiosity to satisfying the need for security.

This shift may resemble an "industry coming-of-age ceremony": bidding farewell to barbaric growth and entering a construction cycle of institutionalization and steady growth.

The Way Forward for Projects: Returning to Product and Operations, with Rising Barriers to Success

Amid tightening regulation and shifting capital preferences, the greatest dilemma for projects is that old paths no longer work: it is becoming increasingly difficult to raise funds easily through "token issuance + narrative." The new path to survival is to benchmark traditional internet giants and return to product and operations. Success is no longer a matter of luck, but a contest of comprehensive strength.

First, track selection and alignment with user needs have become the key to success or failure. Just as Meituan focused on local lifestyle services and ByteDance dug deep into content and social, rising in their respective fields through outstanding execution, Web3 startups also need to identify the right niche market and consistently deliver excellent products.

For example, Ethereum, on the track of smart contract platforms, has continuously upgraded its network capabilities over the years (transitioning from PoW to PoS, advancing sharding, etc.), attracting a large number of developers and users, and ultimately consolidating its unshakable ecological position. In contrast, many so-called "Ethereum killers" once achieved high valuations, but quickly faded due to a lack of sustained technological breakthroughs and expansion of user scenarios.

Similarly, in the field of decentralized finance (DeFi), Uniswap was an early mover that satisfied the rigid demand for on-chain exchange, and by continuously improving its algorithms (upgrading to V3/V4 protocols, etc.), it maintained a competitive advantage and achieved far higher market share than its imitators. These cases show that projects without long-term product–market fit (PMF) will ultimately be eliminated by the market.

Second, user experience (UX) and infrastructure improvement have become crucial. Web3 products often involve complex concepts such as private key management and gas fees, which have been obstacles to mass adoption by ordinary users. Recently, however, the industry has seen numerous explorations to improve UX — such as smart contract wallets, account abstraction, and off-chain transaction acceleration — all aiming to make blockchain interaction as convenient as Web2 applications.

Teams that prioritize UX are undoubtedly more likely to capture mass users. For example, hyperliquid, which exploded in this bull cycle, benchmarked its UX against FTX’s trading-focused design, firmly grasping the needs of MM teams, asset management teams, and individual traders, thereby creating strong product stickiness. Therefore, project teams need to polish products with a user-centered approach, just like internet companies, in order to stand out in a crowded market.

Finally, and most importantly, the comprehensive threshold for Web3 entrepreneurship has risen significantly: capital, team, management, and strategic direction are all indispensable. In the past, perhaps a two- or three-person development group could raise hundreds of millions of dollars with just an idea and a token issuance. But now, investors are more rational, and users are more selective.

Entrepreneurial teams need sufficient capital reserves to survive the long R&D and customer acquisition cycle, since blockchain infrastructure and ecosystem development often burn slower and costlier than traditional internet ventures. They also need to attract top talent to build strong teams, not only in blockchain core development, but also in product design and market operations. At the same time, scientific management and governance structures are critical — many decentralized projects lack governance discipline, leading to inefficient internal decision-making and missed opportunities; conversely, some projects, through dual-layer governance (foundation + community) and by introducing experienced operations executives, have achieved more stable and efficient team operations.

Equally vital is a visionary leader to steer a clear strategic direction and adjust course in time with industry tides. As one accelerator mentor put it: "Fast-profit altcoin projects lack sustainable value. Entrepreneurs should focus on long-term vision, solving real problems, rather than chasing fleeting trends." Only by having the right direction, and continuously iterating and optimizing business based on market feedback, can projects expand their user base and revenue sources, and enter a virtuous growth cycle.

In summary, as the Web3 industry matures, entrepreneurship has returned to its commercial essence: there are no more shortcuts for "overtaking on curves." Success requires patiently refining products, continuously operating communities, adhering to compliance, and integrating resources.

In this process, the entrepreneurial teams that benchmark against traditional giants — combining innovative passion with pragmatic execution and business wisdom — are the ones most likely to win in increasingly fierce competition and capture meaningful market share. Today, the threshold for entrepreneurial success has risen sharply compared with a few years ago: this is both a challenge and a sign of the industry’s maturation.

The Web3 enterprises that truly stand out in the future will likely possess both the steady operational capabilities of traditional internet giants and the innovative tension brought by blockchain technology — writing their own legends in the new digital economy landscape.

Why the Project We Incubate Is Called BenFen

Amid the noisy and volatile industry cycles, Bixin Ventures has always been seeking infrastructure opportunities that can withstand cycles.

We clearly see that, as speculative narratives fade, stablecoin payments and compliant applications aligned with real-world usage scenarios are becoming the core incremental growth of Web3. What is truly lacking is not new tokens, but a foundational system that can accommodate all stablecoins and support real transactions.

In the Chinese context, BenFen (本分) means being steadfast, responsible, and long-term oriented. It is exactly the summary of our long-term investment logic in this industry: not chasing hot trends, but solidifying the foundation.

This is also the reason why we are incubating the BenFen public chain.

Why BenFen

As a long-term strategic project led by the Bixin team, BenFen is different from other chains on the market. Its mission has been very clear from day one: to build the next-generation stablecoin blockchain.

We chose to invest in and promote BenFen for three reasons:

Trend judgment: Stablecoins are transitioning from "exchange assets" to "payment and settlement assets," and the industry needs a public chain born specifically for stablecoins.

Team background: The core team has been deeply involved in blockchain for ten years, experiencing multiple bull and bear cycles, and possesses cross-disciplinary collaboration capabilities in technology, capital management, and compliance understanding.

Long-term path: BenFen does not chase short-term trends or token prices, but gradually builds an ecosystem around real scenarios such as payments, cross-border settlement, and RWAs.

Practical Directions of the "BenFen Way"

Concepts must be implemented in practice. The technology and product roadmap of the BenFen chain is designed around "long-term infrastructure capability," building a robust, universal, and sustainable on-chain financial foundation.

• High-performance execution environment: Sub-second confirmation speed and tens of thousands TPS to support high-frequency scenarios such as payments and trading.

• Stablecoins at the core: We believe stablecoins are the most sustainable interface between Web3 and the real world, serving as the foundational assets for rebuilding global payment and financial order.

• One-click issuance mechanism: Supports low-threshold smart contract issuance of regular tokens, stablecoins, and RWAs, lowering the barriers for entrepreneurs and builders.

• Stablecoin payment for Gas: Stablecoins can be used to pay Gas fees, reducing usage barriers and optimizing on-chain user experience.

• Native gas-free support (sponsored transaction mechanism): On-chain support for transaction fees sponsored by third parties allows users to complete transfers, swaps, and other operations without holding native tokens, significantly lowering the usage threshold for Web3 applications.

• Native cross-chain bridge + oracle + DEX: BenFen natively integrates cross-chain protocols, oracles, and a decentralized exchange (DEX), forming an integrated DeFi infrastructure. The cross-chain bridge supports multi-chain asset flows and liquidity between chains; the oracle provides verifiable off-chain data on-chain, ensuring reliable pricing for RWAs, exchange rates, and other critical scenarios; the DEX module (BenPay DEX) provides on-chain liquidity for stablecoins and mainstream assets, supporting real-world use cases like payments, lending, and asset allocation.

• Native privacy payment support: Exploring integration of zero-knowledge proofs and other privacy technologies to protect transaction amounts and recipient privacy on-chain, offering censorship resistance and financial anonymity while ensuring compliance.

• Social account one-click login system: Based on zkLogin, users can create wallets using Google/Apple accounts, achieving an "extension-free, mnemonic phrases-free" on-chain experience.

These capabilities collectively form BenFen’s core advantage: it is not about generating short-term growth, but gradually building long-term capabilities that can span cycles, continuously providing a stable and enduring foundation for the real-world adoption of stablecoins in lifestyle use cases.

The Choice of Bixin Ventures

As investors and incubators, we are fully aware that the noise in the industry has not yet completely subsided, but the future order is already clear: only by being steadfast and responsible (BenFen) can one achieve sustainability.

BenFen chooses to spend time on research, refinement, and construction, rather than chasing short-lived trends. This path may not be the fastest, but it will certainly go the furthest.

For Bixin Ventures, BenFen is not just a public chain — it is also our industry judgment and investment answer for the next decade.

Website: https://www.benfen.org

As the world’s leading stablecoin-native public blockchain, BenFen will showcase its forward-looking strategy for the next-generation stablecoin infrastructure at this summit. The Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) of BenFen will attend as a guest and deliver a keynote titled: "The Rise of Next-Generation Stablecoin Infrastructure: How BenFen is Building a New Foundation for Global Stablecoins."

The Current State of Global Stablecoins: Easy to Issue, Difficult to Use

In his speech, BenFen will provide an in-depth analysis of the latest trends in the global stablecoin ecosystem and the pain points experienced by users. Although the barriers to issuing stablecoins are lower, users still face multiple obstacles when it comes to using stablecoins:

• Fragmentation in issuance and circulation — Stablecoins issued on different chains lack unified payment and settlement channels.

• High gas costs and complex payments — Users often need to hold native tokens before they can use stablecoins.

• Compliance and user trust issues — There are still uncertainties in integrating cross-border payments with real-world financial systems.

Based on these challenges, BenFen has proposed a comprehensive set of innovative solutions, aiming to make stablecoins truly "usable," not just "issuable."

How BenFen is Building the Next-Generation Stablecoin Infrastructure

BenFen's speech will focus on showcasing the key innovations of its public blockchain in stablecoin infrastructure, including:

• One-click Stablecoin and RWA Issuance — Reducing issuance costs and technical barriers, enabling projects to issue stablecoins and directly circulate them on-chain quickly.

• Stablecoin Payment Gas — Users can complete on-chain operations without needing to hold native tokens, greatly improving usability.

• zkLogin One-Click Account Creation — One-click login using social media accounts, providing decentralized identity authentication solutions to ensure user privacy and security.

• Native Cross-Chain Circulation — Stablecoins can flow freely across different chains, resolving the fragmentation issue in liquidity. Through these features, BenFen not only solves the core issue of "easy to issue, hard to use" but also provides a truly practical and scalable foundational infrastructure for the global stablecoin ecosystem.

Through these features, BenFen not only solves the core issue of "easy to issue, hard to use" but also provides a truly practical and scalable foundational infrastructure for the global stablecoin ecosystem.

Bringing Together Global Wisdom to Discuss the Future of Stablecoins

This summit brings together representatives from global tech companies, financial institutions, and compliance projects. The speakers will jointly explore the path of stablecoin integration with the real-world financial system, including compliance strategies, technical implementation solutions, and innovative application scenarios. As a pioneer in stablecoin-native public blockchains, BenFen will use this opportunity to showcase its practices and vision in the stablecoin infrastructure space.

Want to dive deeper into BenFen's next-generation stablecoin infrastructure?
👉 Visit https://benfen.org .now and start your journey of on-chain innovation.

Why Participate

BenFen is a Layer 1 blockchain network focused on stablecoin issuance, circulation, and decentralized finance (DeFi). Its mission is to become the core infrastructure for global stablecoin circulation. Built on the MOVE language, BenFen achieves sub-second transaction confirmation and supports tens of thousands of TPS, significantly improving transaction efficiency.

BenFen natively supports one-click issuance of stablecoin and RWA (Real World Asset). It is compatible with mainstream Web2 identity systems, and through zkLogin technology, users can create on-chain wallets in one click using their Google or Apple accounts. This drastically lowers the entry barrier to blockchain, offering an accessible and secure experience for both everyday users and developers.

BenFen’s stablecoin mechanism centers around BUSD, adopting a cross-chain 1:1 rigid redemption model pegged to USDT/USDC. This ensures the stability and credibility of BUSD as the system’s core stablecoin. BUSD is widely used across scenarios such as gas fee payment, transactions, staking, swaps, and settlements, making it a reliable asset for on-chain economic activity.

Additionally, BenFen supports real-time conversion between BUSD and major fiat stablecoins of G20 countries. With a real-time FX mechanism, it delivers efficient and transparent currency pair trading to meet global users’ diverse financial needs, providing cost-efficient solutions for cross-border payments, e-commerce, and offline merchants.

BenFen’s native features include: one-click issuance of stablecoins and RWAs, stablecoin-as-gas , zero-cost transfers, privacy accounts and private transactions, as well as multi-chain, multi-currency payment and settlement. Users can issue tokens and RWAs with just one click without technical barriers, boosting issuance efficiency and security while lowering costs. The innovative stablecoin-as-gas model allows users to pay transaction fees directly with supported stablecoins (e.g., BUSD), without holding BenFen’s native token BFC. This greatly enhances convenience, cost-efficiency, and user-friendliness, providing efficient support for the popularization of decentralized applications. In certain scenarios, gas-free transfers offer a "zero-fee" experience, further reducing costs. The privacy mechanism allows users to hide address and balance information, ensuring transaction confidentiality. In addition, BenFen also provides a native cross-chain bridge that supports over 10 major public chains including ETH, BSC, Polygon, Optimism, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Base, Tron, and Solana. It enables fast, secure, and second-level cross-chain asset transfers, powering multi-chain interoperability.

BenPay, BenFen’s super app, serves as the BenFen ecosystem’s primary entry point, building a full closed-loop stablecoin economy. It integrates on-chain payments, stablecoin swaps, and lending. BenPay Card supports global payment scenarios and seamlessly connects with mainstream payment methods such as Apple Pay, Google Pay, and AliPay, covering consumption scenarios like Amazon, Netflix, Steam, ChatGPT, and X, delivering a smooth on-chain payment experience. BenPay DEX offers one-click swaps and aggregated order matching for stablecoins and cryptocurrencies, enhancing liquidity efficiency. BenPay C2C ensures the security and credibility of transactions through a decentralized escrow mechanism. BenPay Lending supports BTC collateralized borrowing and USDT lending, offering flexible assets management options. To expand on-chain financial services, BenPay will soon launch an on-chain asset management protocol. It will integrate multiple cross-chain yield products, supporting one-click transfers of mainstream stablecoins (such as USDC, USDT) into BenFen, where they are unified into BUSD. Users can then allocate BUSD into carefully curated high-yield protocols across various blockchains, enabling seamless cross-chain asset flow and stable growth with high APY returns. Leveraging its sub-second block production, low gas fees, and native stablecoin support, BenPay serves as a one-stop Web3 financial gateway for users worldwide—secure, efficient, and easy to use.

As a next-generation decentralized finance platform centered on stablecoins, BenFen reshapes on-chain payments and financial experiences. With high-performance architecture, multi-chain compatibility, diverse ecosystem applications, and developer-friendly tools, BenFen provides secure, low-cost, highly available, and blockchain services that drive deep integration of stablecoins into real-world use cases.

On August 18, 2025, BenFen announced the release of public chain version v1.24.1 had completed a significant upgrade. The update was deeply incubated and technically supported by Bixin, injecting strong momentum into BenFen’s development. Previously, Bixin had invested $10 million in BenFen, showcasing its strong confidence in BenFen’s technical potential and Web3 payments vision.

Tutorial for Participation

On August 22th, BenFen launched its Galxe campaign (link: https://app.galxe.com/quest/BenFen/GC2HDt6GzM), offering exclusive quests and point-based rewards for early users. Participants who complete tasks and accumulate points may qualify for future airdrop rewards. By joining the Galxe campaign and following project updates, users not only become early adopters of BenFen but also gain opportunities for generous token airdrops in the future.

The current Galxe quest is titled “Join the BenFen Community Early.” Most tasks are simple social interactions, with a maximum of 55 points available. The deadline is September 5th, so users are encouraged to complete tasks as soon as possible and stay tuned for new BenFen quests on Galxe.

👉 Official Website: https://www.benfen.org

👉 More Info: https://x.com/BenFen_Official

Industry Pain Points of RWA On-Chain

Real World Assets (RWA) have long been regarded as the bridge between traditional finance and crypto finance. However, their implementation has faced significant challenges across different stakeholders:

For Developers

• High issuance cost: Developers must write and deploy complex smart contracts.

• High security threshold: Multiple audits are required to ensure contract safety, which is time-consuming and expensive.

For Project Teams

• Complex compliance: Cross-border asset tokenization involves custody, auditing, and KYC, with lengthy processes.

• Lack of unified standards: Fragmented environments across chains make asset tokenization inconsistent.

For End Users

• High operational barriers: Gas fee volatility and the need to hold native tokens to pay for transactions.

• Limited liquidity: RWA tokens struggle to enter secondary markets quickly.

For Institutions

• Trust and compliance risks: Weak linkage between off-chain assets and on-chain tokens.

• Scalability constraints: Lack of standardized mechanisms limits large-scale adoption.

BenFen addresses these challenges by introducing a one-click RWA issuance solution.

BenFen’s Technology Upgrade: From Stablecoins to RWA

In this upgrade, BenFen optimized its Move virtual machine and cross-chain engine, maintaining:

• Tens of thousands of TPS (supporting high-throughput financial applications)

• Sub-second finality (low latency for payment and settlement use cases)

Based on this performance, BenFen introduced a standardized asset on-chain module:

• Built-in contract templates: No need for complex coding; issuers can call directly.

• Standardized processes: Covering token generation, asset mapping, and compliance verification.

• Compliance integration: Combining custody, auditing, and KYC to ensure secure correspondence between off-chain assets and on-chain tokens.

With these mechanisms, BenFen enables assets such as real estate, bonds, and equities to be tokenized at low cost, gaining on-chain liquidity and global settlement capability.

BenFen’s Three Key Usability Mechanisms

BenFen further lowers the barriers for stablecoin and RWA adoption by introducing three key mechanisms:

• The one-click stablecoin issuance — supports multi-currency settlements across G20 fiat currencies.

• Stablecoin-as-gas payments — removing dependency on native tokens.

• Sponsored transactions & Gas fee delegation — allowing institutions or applications to cover fees for users.

Through these mechanisms, BenFen ensures both issuers and users can participate in on-chain operations at low cost, greatly enhancing the usability of asset tokenization.

BenFen’s Strategic Positioning: The Stablecoin Financial Operating System

BenFen is rapidly evolving into a stablecoin financial operating system:

• Issuance Hub: Providing one-click issuance for both stablecoins and RWA.

• Global Payment Gateway: Supporting multi-currency settlement with G20 fiat currencies to drive cross-border payments.

• Asset Liquidity Platform: Enhancing tradability and liquidity of tokenized assets.

BenFen’s ultimate goal is to become the global infrastructure for compliant stablecoins and RWA, seamlessly connecting off-chain and on-chain worlds, and accelerating the digital transformation of finance.

📖 More Information:

👉 BenFen Official Website

👉 One-Click RWA Issuance Whitepaper

Key upgrades include:

• Single-chain tens of thousands of TPS throughput, sub-second transaction confirmation, tailored for high-frequency payment scenarios.

• Support cross-chain circulation of mainstream assets, including BTC, ETH, BSC, Polygon, Tron, Solana, Optimism, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Base, and more.

• Establish on-chain stablecoin reserve pools + DEX pricing to ensure payment stability.

• Introduce "Stablecoin-as-Gas" model to eliminate reliance on native tokens and enhance usability.

• Integrates the zkLogin one-click wallet creation mechanism to lower the participation threshold for new users.

This version marks BenFen’s official transition from a base chain to a "stablecoin financial operating system", laying a solid foundation for DeFi applications, one-click stablecoin/RWA issuance, and cross-border settlements.

BenFen was incubated and early-funded with $10M by Bixin Ventures. Bixin Ventures now serves as a strategic advisor and will continue to drive the technological evolution and ecological construction of BenFen.

BenFen is attracting an increasing number of project parties to collaborate, leveraging its one-click stablecoin issuance capability and underlying liquidity module to implement innovative scenarios.

Meanwhile, BenPay, an all-in-one decentralized finance platform built on the BenFen public chain, has integrated diverse features, including BenPay Card, BenPay C2C, BenPay DEX, BenPay Lending, and on-chain red envelopes. An on-chain assets management protocol integrating a variety of cross-chain interest-earning products will be launched, enabling users to transfer mainstream stablecoins (such as USDC and USDT) from major public chains into the BenFen chain in a single click, automatically convert them into BUSD, and then deploy BUSD into BenPay’s curated high-quality, high-yield assets management protocols across multiple blockchains. This seamless process allows for effortless cross-chain asset flow, steady asset growth, and high APY returns. BenPay is committed to creating a one-stop gateway for stablecoin payment and assets management, accelerating the global popularization and application of stablecoins.

👉 View website updates: https://benfen.org

👉 Follow the latest progress: https://x.com/BenFen_Official

这一框架大幅降低了发行成本并加快了部署速度，BenFen 定位为下一波数字资产普及的核心基础设施层，为成熟的金融机构与新兴 Web3 建设者降低了进入门槛。

一、技术核心与创新机制

1.高性能底层Move语言

此次发布进一步确立了 BenFen 作为“稳定币原生公链”的市场定——一个专为稳定币发行、支付处理与跨境结算而打造的网络。基于 Move 编程语言，BenFen 具有以下优势：

• 共识层：亚秒级交易确认，满足零售与批发支付场景

• 吞吐量：数万 TPS 吞吐量，支持高频交易、跨境结算

• 跨链互操作：兼容以太坊、BSC、Polygon、Tron、Solana 等，轻松实现跨链资产流动与统一结算

• 编程语言：基于 Move语言，资源模型天然防双花，安全性高

2.面向开发者的一键资产发行

零代码界面：只需填写 代币名称、符号、小数位数、初始发行量 等 3‑5 项参数，即可生成、审计、部署合约。

支持三类核心资产

• 同质化代币 —— 完全符合 BenFen Move Token 标准，内置铸造、销毁与转账功能。

• 稳定币 —— 与法币货币锚定，并由存放在USDT、USDC或其他主流稳定币中的跨链储备金支持，BenPay DEX 提供流动性以确保价格稳定与深度。

• RWA 代币 —— 代表链下资产，如房地产、债券、知识产权收益权、大宗商品与艺术品。该框架整合了资产托管、法律文件与合规检查，确保 RWA 代币可审计且具法律效力 。

效率提升：相对于传统资产发行模式周期需要数月，BenFen 通过“一键发行”将周期压缩至几分钟，并通过标准化模板降低智能合约漏洞风险。

3.稳定币生态优化

跨链储备 + DEX 兑换池

• 从其他链桥接过来的资产存入储备金，并与BenPay DEX上的流动性池配对，通过链上价格预言机进行维护。这有助于稳定币的锚定汇率并确保持续的市场深度。

稳定币支付 Gas

• BenFen允许包括稳定币在内的白名单项目代币用于支付Gas费。这消除了用户持有原生治理代币的需求，增强了代币的实用性并改善用户体验。

引入赞助交易机制

• 项目方可为用户代付交易所需的 Gas 费用，实现精准的用户激励与生态引导，优化新用户的链上交互体验。

4.支持zkLogin 登陆机制，降低 Web3 入门门槛

• 集成 zkLogin，用户可使用 Google、Apple 等主流账户一键创建链上钱包，无需私钥或助记词。

• 通过零知识证明保障隐私与合规，极大降低新用户的初次使用门槛。

二、BenPay：一站式 DeFi 与支付中心

BenPay建立在BenFen之上，是集多种金融服务于一体的一站式去中心化金融与支付平台：

BenPay Card —— Web3 稳定币支付，全球线上线下商户直接刷卡支付

BenPay DEX —— 原生去中心化交易所，用于交易与流动性提供

抵押借贷 —— 抵押 BTC 借出 BUSD，无需卖币即可获取流动性

理财 —— 为稳定币持有人提供多样化借贷、流动性与质押收益

链上 C2C —— 点对点稳定币交易，无需中介

链上红包 —— 适用于社交与社区活动的代币赠送与空投工具

通过将支付、交易、借贷、理财与社交工具整合到同一平台，BenPay 成为稳定币使用的通用聚合入口。

三、资本背书：Bixin Ventures战略支持

孵化与投资：BenFen 由 Bixin Ventures 孵化与投资，早期融资 1000 万美元。除资金外，Bixin 还作为长期战略顾问，持续在技术研发、合规策略与生态合作等方面提供支持。 这一战略协同确保 BenFen 的成长路径获得深厚行业经验与持续资本支撑。

四、市场背景：为何此刻至关重要

• 全球资产数字化加速：此次发布正值全球稳定币结算量（月度）在 2024 年 12 月达到 5.1 万亿美元（数据来源：Artemis），同比增长三倍，较 2021 年增长逾 22 倍。截至2025 年 8 月，稳定币市值已突破 2700 亿美元。

• RWA 需求爆发：房地产、商品、票据传统资产正快速上链，截至 2025 年 8 月，RWA规模已突破 255亿美元。波士顿咨询公司预计，代币化 RWA 市场到 2030 年将达到 16 万亿美元规模。

• 监管趋严：美国 GENIUS 法案、欧盟 MiCA、香港《稳定币条例》等多重监管框架正加速落地，合规发行成为项目的底线。

在此大环境下，通过提供从发行到支付的全链路基础设施，BenFen 同时瞄准这两个快速扩张的市场。凭借一键发行框架、符合合规要求的RWA工具以及集成的DeFi生态系统，BenFen 致力于成为稳定币部署、跨链流动性与 RWA 采用的首选基础设施。

BenFen旨在弥合区块链创新与主流金融应用之间的差距，通过为开发团队降低技术门槛、用户简化上手流程，为下一波Web3技术的普及奠定基础。

五、查看更多

• 阅读完整白皮书：https://static.benfen.org/whitepaper/BenFen-zh.pdf

• 访问官网：https://benfen.org

BenFen 公链 正以 安全、合规、低成本 的资产发行与支付基础设施，推动数字资产从实验室走向主流金融。我们诚邀行业伙伴、监管机构与社区共同构建下一代金融网络。

By dramatically reducing issuance costs and accelerating deployment speed, BenFen’s new framework lowers the entry barrier for both established financial institutions and emerging Web3 builders. It positions the blockchain as a core infrastructure layer for the next wave of digital asset adoption.

Cementing the “Stablecoin-Native Public Chain” Position
The release solidifies BenFen’s positioning as a “Stablecoin-Native Public Chain”—a network purpose-built for stablecoin issuance, payment processing, and cross-border settlement.
Built on the Move programming language, BenFen delivers:

• Sub-second block finality for real-time transaction confirmation.

• Tens of thousands of TPS throughput, supporting high-frequency retail and wholesale payments.

• Native cross-chain interoperability, enabling seamless asset flow between Ethereum, BSC, Polygon, Tron, Solana, and more. These capabilities make BenFen especially suitable for high-volume payment scenarios, from e-commerce to international trade settlements.

These capabilities make BenFen especially suitable for high-volume payment scenarios, from e-commerce to international trade settlements.

One-Click Asset Issuance for Developer Teams
The upgraded issuance module provides a no-code interface where developer teams can set basic parameters—token name, symbol, decimals, initial supply—and deploy their asset directly on-chain.
The one-click process supports three primary asset classes:

• Fungible Tokens – Fully compliant with the BenFen Move Token Standard, offering built-in mint, burn, and transfer capabilities.

• Stablecoins – Pegged to fiat currencies and backed by cross-chain reserves held in USDT, USDC, or other major stablecoins. Liquidity is maintained via the BenPay DEX to ensure price stability and depth.

• RWA Tokens – Representing off-chain assets such as real estate, debt securities, IP royalties, commodities, and fine art. The framework integrates asset custody, legal documentation, and regulatory compliance checks to ensure that RWA tokens are auditable and enforceable.

This automated workflow shortens what used to be a multi-month development process into minutes, while minimizing smart contract vulnerabilities through standardized templates.

Stablecoin Ecosystem Enhancements
The whitepaper introduces three mechanisms designed to optimize the stablecoin experience:
Cross-Chain Reserve + DEX Liquidity Pools – Assets bridged from other chains are deposited into reserves, paired with liquidity pools on BenPay DEX, and maintained via on-chain price oracles. This stabilizes pegs and ensures continuous market depth.
Stablecoin-as-Gas – BenFen allows whitelisted project tokens, including stablecoins, to be used for paying gas fees. This removes the need for users to hold native governance tokens, enhancing token utility and improving UX.
Sponsored Transactions – Developer teams can cover users’ transaction fees, enabling targeted onboarding campaigns and ecosystem incentives. This feature is particularly valuable for attracting first-time Web3 users.

Lowering Web3 Onboarding Barriers with zkLogin
BenFen integrates zkLogin, a privacy-preserving login mechanism that lets users create wallets using Google, Apple, or other mainstream accounts—without handling private keys or seed phrases.
For new users, this reduces the complexity of joining Web3 to something as familiar as signing into an email account, a critical step toward mainstream adoption.

BenPay: An All-in-One DeFi & Payment Hub
Built on BenFen, BenPay is the blockchain’s all-in-one decentralized finance and payment platform. It offers a self-custodial experience while integrating multiple financial services into a single interface:

• BenPay Card – Web3 stablecoin payment card for direct payments at global online and offline merchants.

• BenPay DEX – Native decentralized exchange for trading and liquidity provision.

• Benpay Lending – Borrow BUSD by locking BTC without selling.

• Asset Management – Cross-chain yield aggregation, enabling stablecoin holders to earn competitive returns through curated lending, liquidity, and staking protocols.

• On-Chain C2C – Peer-to-peer stablecoin exchange without intermediaries.

• On-Chain Red Envelopes – Token gifting and airdrop tools for social and community engagement.

By combining payments, trading, lending, yield generation, and social tools into one platform, BenPay acts as a universal aggregation gateway for stablecoin utility.

Strategic Backing By Bixin Ventures
BenFen was incubated and funded by Bixin Ventures, securing $10 million in early-stage investment. Beyond financial backing, Bixin continues as a long-term strategic advisor, guiding technical development, compliance strategies, and ecosystem partnerships.
This alignment ensures BenFen’s growth trajectory remains supported by both deep industry expertise and sustained capital resources.

Market Context: Why This Matters Now
The launch comes at a time when the global stablecoin settlement volume has reached $5.1 trillion per month (as of December 2024, according to Artemis), triple the previous year and over 22 times higher than in 2021.

Meanwhile, the tokenized RWA market is projected by Boston Consulting Group to reach $16 trillion by 2030. By offering a fully integrated issuance-to-payment infrastructure, BenFen is targeting both of these rapidly expanding markets.

With its one-click issuance framework, compliance-ready RWA tooling, and integrated DeFi ecosystem, BenFen is positioning itself as the go-to infrastructure for stablecoin deployment, cross-chain liquidity, and RWA adoption.

By reducing technical complexity for developer teams and simplifying user onboarding, BenFen aims to bridge the gap between blockchain innovation and mainstream financial utility—setting the stage for the next wave of Web3 adoption.

📄 Read the Full Whitepaper: https://static.benfen.org/whitepaper/BenFen-en.pdf
🌐 Visit Official Website: https://benfen.org

BenFen公链作为一个新兴的区块链平台，以其独特的技术架构和创新设计脱颖而出。

尤其是其核心技术 —Move语言的应用，为BenFen公链带来了显著的效率提升。

本文将深入探讨BenFen公链的技术核心，剖析Move语言如何通过资源导向的编程模型、结合DAG共识机制以及稳定币生态系统，推动区块链效率迈上新台阶。

Move语言

Move语言是效率与安全的基石，Move语言是BenFen公链的技术核心之一。

这是一种专为区块链设计的编程语言，最早由Facebook（现Meta）为Libra项目开发，其设计初衷是提升智能合约的安全性和执行效率。

与传统的Solidity等语言不同，Move语言引入了资源导向的编程模型，这一特性为BenFen公链的高效运行奠定了基础。

资源模型

Move语言的核心在于其模块资源（Resource）概念。资源是一种特殊的变量类型，具有唯一性和不可复制性。

这意味着在BenFen公链上，数字资产（如代币）被定义为资源后，无法被随意复制或销毁，只能通过明确定义的规则进行转移。这种机制天然契合区块链资产管理的需要，确保了资产的稀缺性和安全性。

在实际应用中，Move的资源模型显著提升了资产转移和交易处理的效率。

传统区块链中，资产转移可能需要复杂的验证逻辑以防止双重支付或数据不一致，而Move语言通过编译器的静态检查和运行时的资源管理，直接杜绝了此类问题。这不仅降低了智能合约的开发难度，还减少了运行时的计算开销，从而提升了交易执行的效率。

安全性驱动的效率提升

Move语言的另一个优势是其内置的安全特性，它能够有效防止重入攻击（Reentrancy Attack）和资源泄露等常见漏洞。

在传统区块链中，重入攻击可能导致智能合约被恶意调用，造成资金损失。

而Move通过资源模型和严格的类型系统，确保函数调用不会意外改变资源状态。

这种安全性不仅保护了用户资产，还减少了系统因安全检查而产生的性能损耗，使BenFen公链能够更自信地处理高并发交易。

DAG共识机制

除了Move语言，BenFen公链还采用了DAG（有向无环图）共识机制，这是一种区别于传统线性区块链的高性能算法。

DAG允许交易以并行方式处理，而非像比特币或以太坊那样按顺序打包区块。

这种设计与Move语言的高效执行能力相辅相成，进一步推动了BenFen公链的性能提升。

高吞吐量与低延迟

根据官方数据，BenFen公链的TPS（每秒交易数）可达240,000笔，远超许多现有公链。

同时，其交易确认时间能够实现亚秒级延迟。这一性能得益于DAG的并行处理能力：多个交易可以同时被验证和记录，而无需等待前一个区块的确认。

Move语言的高效编译和执行，进一步优化了交易验证的速度，使得BenFen公链在高负载场景下依然保持流畅运行。

增强型共识的创新

BenFen公链的DAG共识并非单纯依赖传统方法，而是结合了非共识方法的增强型设计。

这种混合机制在保证去中心化的同时，最大化了网络的吞吐量。通过减少节点间的冗余通信，Move语言和DAG共识共同协作，将BenFen公链的效率推向了极致。

生态亮点：BenPay与跨链桥

BenFen公链的效率提升不仅体现在技术层面，还通过生态系统的整合得以放大。

BenPay是一个集成支付生态，支持加密货币的直接支付、数字货币与法币的兑换以及链上托管支付。这些功能依托Move语言的快速执行和DAG的高吞吐量，为用户提供了流畅的支付体验。

此外，BenFen Bridge作为原生资产跨链桥的计划，将为BenFen公链引入更大的资产流动性。跨链操作的高效性同样依赖于Move语言的资源管理和DAG的并行处理能力，确保资产在不同链之间的转移既快速又安全。

BUSD与稳定币生态：用户效率的桥梁

BenFen公链将BUSD稳定币定位为链上的“第一公民”，这一设计不仅提升了系统的经济效率，还优化了用户体验。

BUSD的价格锚定美元（1:1），并可用于支付Gas费、质押以及日常消费。这种稳定币的广泛应用，与Move语言的资源管理特性紧密结合，简化了链上操作流程。

降低学习曲线

对于新用户而言，学习如何使用加密货币支付Gas费往往是一大障碍。

BenFen公链通过支持BUSD支付Gas费，消除了这一痛点。用户无需频繁兑换其他代币，只需持有BUSD即可参与网络活动。

这种设计降低了用户的操作成本，同时借助Move语言的高效执行，确保了Gas费计算的透明性和低延迟。

自动流动性管理

BenFen公链还引入了自动化的流动性管理机制。当BUSD价格偏离1美元时，系统会自动调整流动性，引导价格回归锚定值。

这一机制有效防止了市场剧烈波动引发的过度买卖行为，为价格稳定争取了时间。这种自动化的高效调节，不仅依赖于Move语言的智能合约支持，还体现了BenFen公链在经济模型上的创新。

跨场景应用

BenFen公链的生态系统进一步扩展了BUSD的应用场景。用户可以将BUSD充值到即将推出的BenPay Card中，用于购买海外服务或进行法币场外交易。

此外，BenFen公链支持多种国家法币的映射，如BJPY（日元稳定币），丰富了用户的选择。这种无缝的资金流动体验，得益于Move语言对资产转移的高效支持。

BenFen公链引领效率新纪元

BenFen公链通过将Move语言作为技术核心，结合DAG共识机制、稳定币生态和开发者支持，成功构建了一个高效、安全且用户友好的区块链基础设施。

Move语言的资源导向模型保障了资产管理和智能合约的安全性与高效性；DAG共识机制带来了高吞吐量和低延迟；BUSD的广泛应用则优化了用户体验和经济效率。

随着BenFen公链生态的不断完善，其在Web3领域的潜力将逐步显现。

无论是日常支付、DApp开发，还是跨链资产流动，Move语言都以其独特的设计为BenFen公链注入了强劲的动力。

可以预见，BenFen公链将在区块链技术的未来竞争中占据重要一席，而Move语言无疑是其效率提升的关键引擎。

探索更多关于Benfen的信息：https://www.benfen.org/

作为市场上首个真正实现公平发射的公链，BenFen **当前 SFT 挖矿收益率高达每日 5%，Stake 质押的年化收益率（APY）更是高达 1250%+。**这仅仅是官方测算数据，根据每个人投入不同，实际收益只会更高……

（coin VV独家出品，请勿盗图，谢谢）

对于早期参与者来说，这无疑是当下市场中难得一见的低投资、高回报、稳回本的项目机会。不预留大份额的代币给VC，无大户操控市场，真正做到社区用户一起开挖，共同享受高收益，所有参与者平等享有！

超强公平发射公链

BenFen 致力于构建一个由社区驱动的生态系统，这种方式不仅能够更公平地分配价值，还能回馈给普通用户和社区成员，推动项目的长期发展和稳定增长。BenFen 的早期没有引入风险投资（VC），而是将更多的代币分配给社区。

在代币分配方面便可一览BenFen 的透明度和公平性。10 亿枚代币（BFC）的发行计划如下：

• 5%（5000 万 BFC）用于质押奖励。

• 5%（5000 万 BFC）用于社区激励和 BenFen 基金会。

• 37.84%（3.78 亿 BFC）用于 SFT 挖矿。

• 2.16%（2159 万 BFC）归属开发团队。

• 50%（5 亿 BFC）用于稳定币国库，维持价格稳定性和流动性。

BenFen的代币分配方案体现了高度的激励相容性。从经济学公式来看:已知Ui = Bi — Ci。其中Ui为参与者i的效用，Bi为参与者i获得的收益，Ci为参与者i的成本。BenFen 将37.84%的代币用于SFT挖矿，大大提高了普通参与者的收益Bi，降低了他们的成本Ci，从而使得Ui更大，吸引了更多散户投资者的参与。

除了37.84%的代币由SFT挖矿产出外，BenFen 项目基金会仅占5%，早期没有引入VC，所以更不存在大型机构与 VC 操控与干预市场。从用户视角来看，**不管本金多少，所有参与者都能挖出头矿，平等体验挖矿高收益与质押的巨大回报率。**BenFen 这种“所有参与者平等享有”的发行模式，才真正叫做“超强公平发射”。

创新的“图币合一”SFT挖矿机制

BenFen 的 SFT 挖矿是一个融合了代币和NFT特点的创新性挖矿机制，可以为用户提供更高效的投资方式。用户可以用1个LONG代币铸造1个LONG SFT矿机，并始终保证固定的 1:1 兑换比例，每个矿机拥有固定的 100 BEP 算力。这种设计既提升了市场流动性，又降低了交易成本，目前，LONG SFT 矿机每天定量发售1000台，卖完即止。

1. 融合代币和NFT特点： 代币（Fungible Token, FT）是可以互换的，同类代币之间没有区别。 NFT（Non-Fungible Token）是独特的，每个NFT都有独特的属性和价值。 SFT（Semi-Fungible Token）结合了两者的优势：在某些方面是同质化的（比如计算单位和交易），在其他方面是非同质化的（比如所有权和使用）。

2. 固定算力的矿机： 用户可以用1个LONG代币铸造1个LONG SFT矿机，每个矿机都拥有固定的算力。这意味着每个矿机在挖矿时产出的收益是稳定和可预测的。

为了更好地理解这种机制，我们可以借用投资组合理论的概念，解释用户通过质押获得的挖矿收益。投资组合理论关注如何通过组合不同资产来最大化收益并最小化风险。

已知Rp = Σ wi * Ri（Rp 是投资组合的总收益率、wi 是资产 iii 在投资组合中的权重、Ri 是资产 iii 的收益率），通过这个公式，可以计算出用户在不同资产之间分配投资时的总收益率。在BenFen的SFT挖矿机制中，每个矿机的收益可以看作是一个独立的资产，用户通过质押多个矿机（资产）来实现收益的多样化。

SFT挖矿具体优势

1. 提高流动性：这种半同质化的矿机设计使得矿机可以像普通代币一样在市场上交易，提高了流动性。

2. 降低交易成本：由于SFT矿机的同质化特点，交易成本相对较低。

3. 稳定的挖矿收益：用户通过质押矿机获得BFC代币的挖矿收益，这些收益是基于固定算力的，因此是稳定和可预测的。

此外，通过一键质押矿机功能，用户还可以参与挖矿，自动获得 BFC 代币奖励。SFT 矿机的销售收入将全部用于增加 DEX 流动性，从而进一步巩固 BenFen 生态系统。

高收益挖矿回报与Stake质押收益

BenFen 的 SFT 挖矿机制带来了极高的收益率，头矿收益率可达到每日 5%。挖出的 BFC 代币可以继续投资 LONG 矿机，形成收益的循环增长。此外，挖出的 BFC 代币还可以用于质押，质押的年化收益率目前高达 1250%+，为用户提供了相当强势的投资增值机会，这种高收益的质押模式，将进一步降低用户的机会成本，增强其参与积极性。

这种“挖矿-质押”的循环增值复投模式，可以充分利用用户的时间偏好和风险偏好，创造高收益机会，更能够有效激励用户长期持有并参与生态建设。

从资产定价理论的角度分析，BenFen的高质押收益率也反映了市场对其长期价值的看好。这种挖矿-质押的循环增值机制，不仅为投资者创造了高额收益，也有助于提升BenFen原生代币BFC的内在价值。

怎么参与？

一、先安装安装 OpenBlock Bridge 钱包浏览器扩展程序、再注册一个 OpenBlock 钱包。记得去 OpenBlock 官网用邮箱注册，注册完成后，务必导出 MPC 单元并保存好，这是恢复钱包更换设备登录的安全保障。进入钱包后，BenFen公链就在左侧前列，这俩家达成战略合作了，所以 OpenBlock 钱包原生支持 BenFen 公链。

二、获取BF_USDC、BF_USDT 。这边的获取方式就是从以太坊把 USDC和 USDT 跨进 BenFen，兑换成对应的 BF_USDC 或 BF_USDT。官方都有教程，在这里就不赘述了，大家可以看帮助中心。友情链接：

https://support.benfen.org/hc/zh-cn/articles/29258367752084-%E5%A6%82%E4%BD%95%E4%BD%BF%E7%94%A8%E8%B7%A8%E9%93%BE%E6%A1%A5%E8%BF%9B%E8%A1%8C%E8%B5%84%E4%BA%A7%E8%B7%A8%E5%85%A5%E4%B8%8E%E8%B7%A8%E5%87%BA

三、用BF_USDC、BF_USDT兑换LONG币铸造矿机。先把BF_USDC或BF_USDT兑换LONG币，再用LONG币铸造矿机。每1LONG可铸造1个LONG SFT矿机。每个矿机拥有固定的100BEP算力，兑换好之后就可以参与BenFen的SFT挖矿了。

整体来说，BenFen的参与流程并不繁琐。必要条件只有3个：OpenBlock钱包、OpenBlock Bridge扩展和U本金。

用100U来投的话，日赚5U，两周内还有额外LONG激励，挖出来的BFC循环再去质押和挖矿，长期、短期都可冲。

毫无疑问，我们可以看到BenFen在代币发行、挖矿机制和质押模式等方面体现了创新性和公平性，可以说是**充分考虑了投资者的激励相容性和时间偏好。**从金融经济学的视角来看，BenFen的设计为参与者创造了可观的投资机会，值得密切关注。随着项目的不断发展，相信BenFen必将成为稳定币领域的新标杆。

现在还可以抓住最后一天时间，上车参与 BenFen 正在火热进行中的创世用户活动，成为 BenFen 的早期创世用户，不仅能享受高额的挖矿收益和质押回报，还能成为这个稳定币领域潜力之星的首批参与者，获得额外的活跃用户激励。

本文转载自BenFen社区大使 coinvv 版权 @coinvv_ 所有

SFT挖矿功能于8月2日推出，一推出就吸引了用户的热情参与，当前挖矿投资收益率更是高达37.8%。

自4月于币信香港大会上首次亮相以来，BenFen陆续推出了三轮公测**，获得了行业内50位KOL和社区的鼎力支持，吸引超过10000名用户参与**。BenFen的全局抵押叙事、公平的代币分配模型及创新的SFT挖矿模式赢得了广泛认可。

此前，BenFen得到知名区块链集团币信的热心支持，在4月币信香港大会上首次亮相。它是基于Move语言构建的安全、稳定、高性能、低成本的底层区块链，内置去中心化、锚定多币种的全局抵押稳定币，原生支持稳定币在质押及支付Gas等方面的应用。

目前，BenFen主网更已成功部署多项核心功能，包括:

1. SFT全新挖矿: BenFen首创“图币合一”的SFT挖矿机制，用户可用1个LONG代币铸造1个LONG SFT矿机且始终保证固定的 1:1 兑换比例，每个矿机拥有100BEP算力。这种将“半同质化”的矿机以同质化代币的方式在 BenFen Dex 进行发行，利用同质化代币性质增加二级市场流动性，利用NFT的特性进行确权、质押、挖矿生息，这种创新设计不仅提高了市场流动性，使矿机的整体发行与交易成本降低，还为用户提供了灵活高效的投资方式。此外，通过一键质押矿机功能，用户还可以参与挖矿，自动获得BFC代币奖励。这种机制极大地提高了市场流动性，同时，SFT矿机的销售收入将全部用于增加DEX流动性，从而进一步巩固BenFen生态系统。

2. BenFen Bridge: 作为生态系统的跨链桥，目前支持将Ethereum网络上的主流资产(如USDC)跨入BenFen，日限额100万美元。未来将增加资产跨出功能，进一步提升跨链操作体验。

3. BenFen Dex: 其是BenFen链原生的去中心化核心交易平台，支持BFC与BUSD等稳定币的等值兑换，并提供多种交易对。其创新的AMM模型为稳定币的动态管理提供关键支持。

4. 高收益Stake: 用户可将BFC代币质押给网络验证者，最高可享受高达1325%的年化收益率，在获得奖励的同时也为网络安全做出贡献。

本次创世活动在8月5日至12日期间举行，开放1000个创世用户名额。参与者需购买Long并质押挖矿两周，即可享受创世用户尊享权益，包括优先参与早期Long挖矿的超高收益，以及两周期间额外10%的Long激励，最高可达0.2 Long。

多位业内大咖将强力助阵本次活动，包括本末社区、知名KOL链上达人、星主、Ning Ning、雪球，陈小萌₿以及行业资深人士1783dao.eth和唐华斑竹等。这些体验过BenFen三次公测的行业领袖将为活动带来专业洞见和宝贵经验。

自8月2日开启SFT挖矿以来，仅五天时间，其表现就已相当亮眼。截至目前，全网算力已达99700 BEP，Long发行量为933枚，挖矿矿机总量达912台。尤其引人注目的是，BFC质押的年化收益率(APY)高达1325.2%，这一惊人的收益率无疑将吸引更多投资者的关注。这些数据充分展示了BenFen生态系统的强劲增长潜力和用户参与度。

BenFen主网上线后，现已面向市场与用户，全面推出SFT挖矿、BenFen Dex、Stake、跨链桥等核心功能。**未来，BenFen还将逐步落地支付、卡和BenFen ID等生态应用，不断扩展其生态版图。**随着这些功能的逐步实现，BenFen将为用户带来全新的稳定币使用体验。

本次创世活动不仅是对早期支持者的回馈，更是一个难得的机会，让用户亲身体验BenFen的创新功能。无论是SFT挖矿的高额收益，还是DEX的便捷交易，亦或是跨链桥的资产互通，参与者都将成为BenFen生态系统的先行者，共同见证新一代以全局抵押稳定币为核心的去中心化金融平台BenFen的市场与价值。