#资产代币化 Seeing the SEC approve DTCC's on-chain custody of tokenized assets, I need to calmly say a few words. This is indeed a significant signal, but don’t be fooled by the concept of "on-chain migration."

Over ten years ago, I also chased such innovative narratives, only to realize later that technological progress does not equal investment opportunities, and regulatory exemptions are not reasons to jump in. The SEC’s "no-action letter" sounds open, but essentially it’s limited authorization: a three-year pilot, pre-approved blockchain, specific asset classes. This is not an open door, but a small-scale, controlled experiment.

The key issue here is: true institutional-grade RWA tokenization requires the coordination of infrastructure, liquidity, and price discovery mechanisms. Currently, many projects claiming "asset tokenization" are just renaming schemes to fleece investors. Those promising high returns with complex gameplay—such as leverage, lending, and liquidity mining—are all familiar routines—ultimately, when they run away, no one can save you.

My straightforward advice: if a project's valuation mainly relies on "on-chain migration" or "policy dividends," be extra cautious. Truly worth paying attention to are projects backed by real assets, with clear cash flows and transparent governance, not air coins riding the hype. Surviving this wave depends not on betting on the wind but on seeing through the bubbles.