#资产代币化 Seeing major institutions like Galaxy and Animoca pushing asset tokenization on Solana, I have to be honest — this time, it might really be different.

But I want to pour cold water: asset tokenization itself is a good thing; the problem lies in how the subsequent players operate. I've seen too many projects claiming to be "revolutionary innovations" that ultimately become tools for harvesting retail investors. Galaxy going public on NASDAQ and tokenizing stocks on-chain—what does that indicate? It shows that traditional finance has recognized the value of this direction.

However, this is precisely where the risk lies. Institutional involvement can indeed improve liquidity and credibility, but it also means that this track will attract a large number of speculators and bad projects following the trend. Gold-backed tokens issued by Bhutan may seem high-end, but once tokenized and on-chain, they automatically detach from the original asset’s protective framework—so you need to ask: can it really be redeemed 1:1? Who supervises the audit mechanisms? Who is responsible for risk commitments?

From my experience, any project involving RWA (Real-World Asset Tokenization) focuses on three key aspects: the credibility backing of the issuer, the transparency of on-chain audits, and whether the exit mechanisms are truly smooth. Listed companies like Galaxy are at least subject to regulatory constraints, but what about small projects? They are very likely to become the next case of "unlimited promises and no trace of a scam."

I will follow this wave, but I will never chase blindly. Tokenization is a tool; what truly matters is the quality of the underlying assets and the issuer’s risk management capabilities.