Bitcoin is just a prologue: Hamilton Lane, a trillion-dollar asset management giant, reveals how tokenization swallows traditional finance?

Source: Wall Street Legend on the Future of Finance

Organized & Editor: lenaxin, ChianCatcher

Since the beginning of the year, many traditional institutions such as Hong Kong and Asia Holdings, Monochrome, BlackRock, Fidelity, Bitwise, ARK Invest, Japan Metaplanet, Value Creation, Palau Technology Co., Ltd., Brazil Meliuz, Franklin Templeton, US stock Dominari Holdings, asset management company Calamos, game retailer GameStop, etc. have begun to deploy Bitcoin, and accelerate the allocation of crypto assets through various forms such as fundraising investment, ETF increase, bond financing, and corporate reserves.

This article is a video interview with Anthony Pompliano with Hamilton Lane co-CEO Erik Hirsch, focusing on the following three core issues:

• Why is this traditional financial giant with a history of 50 years accelerating its layout in the blockchain track?
• How can it achieve a dynamic balance between technological innovation breakthroughs and strict regulatory compliance?
• What is the underlying strategic logic for spending huge amounts of money to build tokenized funds?

Hamilton Lane is a world's leading private equity investment management company. Founded in 1991, it is headquartered in the United States and has nearly US$ trillion in assets under management. The company focuses on alternative asset investments such as private equity, credit, and real estate, providing full-cycle asset allocation solutions for institutional investors (such as sovereign wealth funds, pensions, insurance companies, etc.). In recent years, Hamilton Lane has actively deployed in the fields of blockchain and asset tokenization, promoted the liquidity change and inclusive finance in the private equity market through technological innovation, and has become one of the representative institutions for the transformation of traditional finance to digitalization.

As the helm of the global private equity investment giant with nearly one trillion US dollars in assets and more than 800 employees, Erik Hirsch has been deeply engaged in asset allocation and innovative investment for more than 20 years, and his unique insights have attracted much attention from the industry. Mr. Erik Hirsch's strategic choice actually dropped a deep water bomb for the entire traditional financial system. When industry rules makers actively embrace disruptive innovation, what kind of historic turning point does this change in cognitive paradigm indicate? The industry change picture behind it is worthy of our in-depth analysis.

Erik 's important point of view:

• I don't think we have any choice, and the trend of continued popularity of digital assets around the world is hard to reverse.
• The complexity of the current market environment has exceeded the scope of conventional uncertainty, showing the continuous dynamic evolution characteristics of multi-dimensional market fluctuations.
• From the perspective of the evolution of asset allocation theory, the historical limitations of the traditional "60/40 stock bond allocation model" have been fully revealed.
• The private equity capital field has particularly significantly exposed the liquidity tightening trend: the scale of financing in primary markets has shown a historic contraction.
• The logic of capital allocation is undergoing an essential transformation: investors will obtain diversified returns across asset classes by bearing liquidity premium costs. This trend is not a cyclical adjustment, but a paradigm transformation driven by the change in the market's microstructure.
• There is still significant inaccuracy in the depth parameters and time dimensions of the tariff variables under the framework of geoeconomic game, which leads to the pressure of paradigm reconstruction.
• Although the risk hedging paths of gold and Bitcoin investors belong to different value systems, their allocation motivations show a high degree of convergence in the underlying logic.
• Current tokenization technology is more suitable for scenarios with sustainable characteristics.
• I fully agree that the traditional binary opposition classification framework should be abandoned.
• Tokenization is essentially a digital asset right confirmation tool, and its compliance framework is no different from traditional securities assets.
• Whether tokenization technology can trigger a paradigm revolution in the private equity fund industry depends on whether capital truly recognizes the value proposition of this liquidity reconstruction.
• In terms of strategic choices, we tend to maximize the boundaries of tokenized application, continue to deepen product innovation and promote investor education.
• As the market evolves toward a sustainable mechanism, tokenization technology will significantly optimize transaction efficiency.
• Financial history repeatedly proves that any innovation with customer cost advantages will eventually break through institutional inertia

**Strategic layout to deal with global uncertainty, a way to break

through the deadlock from an authoritative perspective**

Anthony Pompliano: Under the macro paradigm of nonlinear fluctuations in the global economy and investment field, as an institutional decision-maker who manages assets of nearly one trillion US dollars and has the ability to allocate resources in multiple regions, how can you systematically build a strategic decision-making framework to cope with the structural evolution of the market environment? Especially in the process of deepening cross-border resource allocation and continuous expansion of investment map, how to achieve dynamic balance between strategic steady-state maintenance and tactical dynamic adjustment?

Erik Hirsch: The complexity of the current market environment has exceeded the scope of conventional uncertainty, showing the continuous dynamic evolution characteristics of multi-dimensional market fluctuations. This systematic fluctuation has constituted the interaction between the solution dilemma variables of a system of superficial equations to break through the analytical boundaries of traditional metrological models. It can be seen from observing the flow of institutional funds that most leading investors are adopting a strategic defensive posture, compressing risk exposure to wait for the market to be cleared by clarifying the equilibrium point of the long-short game game.

The private equity capital field has particularly significantly exposed the liquidity tightening trend: the scale of financing in the primary market has shown a historic contraction, the process of corporate mergers and acquisitions and restructuring has entered a period of phased stagnation, and all parties to the transaction are generally in a re-evaluation cycle of systemic risk margins. However, there are still significant inaccuracies in the depth parameters and time dimensions of the tariff variables under the framework of geoeconomic game, which leads to the asset valuation system facing pressure to reconstruct the paradigm.

Anthony Pompliano: The current capital market pressure has broken through the pure value correction dimension, and the pricing mechanism and liquidity transmission system show deep coupling characteristics. In the special stage when the market friction coefficient breaks through the critical value, the systematic enhancement of the hedging effect triggers the structural aggregation of funds into cash assets, causing the correlation coefficient across asset classes to approach a complete positive correlation threshold.

In view of the private equity allocation weight that institutional investors have significantly increased in recent years, the trend of sustained faces a double test: will the pressure to adjust this allocation weight be due to the market's repricing of the liquidity discount of private equity assets, or the ability of institutional investors to fulfill their long-term commitments based on the cross-cycle allocation concept? It should be pointed out in particular: When the fluctuation cycle parameters break through the ten-year confidence interval of the traditional model, is the duration mismatch risk hedging mechanism under the framework of the "travel cycle" investment philosophy still theoretically self-consistent?

Erik Hirsch: From the perspective of asset allocation theory evolution, the historical limitations of the traditional "60/40 stock bond allocation model" have been fully revealed. As the benchmark paradigm in the field of retirement savings, this model has a theoretical core that the combination ratio of 60% equity assets and 40% fixed income assets is essentially a path dependence product in a specific historical cycle. Even if geoeconomic friction variables are divested, the applicability of this model in today's market environment still faces dual challenges: the continuous rise in open market volatility parameters and unprecedented characteristics of market concentration.

It should be pointed out in particular that the current phenomenon that the seven major constituent stocks dominate the market structure (the top seven major constituent stocks of the S&P 500 account for 29%) does not exist in the market structure 15-20 years ago. Historical dimensions show that although there were industry concentration problems at that time, there were no extreme situations in which the fluctuations of individual constituent stocks were enough to trigger systemic risk transmission. This oligopoly market structure forms a fundamental conflict with the core concept of the 60/40 model, which is based on the principle of passive tracking and rate minimization. The current market microstructure has led to the increasingly obvious structural defects of passive investment strategies.

Based on this, the logic of capital allocation is undergoing an essential transformation: investors will obtain diversified returns across asset classes by bearing liquidity premium costs. This trend is not a cyclical adjustment, but a paradigm transformation driven by the change in the market's microstructure.

Anthony Pompliano: When you start every trading day in a market environment full of uncertainty, how do you determine the direction of your decision? Specifically, how do you build an investment direction for the core data indicators you pay attention to every day?

Erik Hirsch: In the systematic integration of global information flows at 5 a.m. every day, the current market environment presents paradigm conversion characteristics: the pricing weight of the news cycle has surpassed traditional macroeconomic indicators. The focus of decision-making is on three non-traditional variables: the issuance of major geopolitical declarations, the substantial reconstruction of the international relations framework, and the risk of escalating sudden conflicts. Such factors are reconstructing the generation mechanism of market volatility.

Considering the market system as a nonlinear dynamic system, its operating characteristics are like a turbulent river: investors cannot interfere with the flow velocity parameters, nor can they change the distribution pattern of river obstacles. The core function of an organization is dynamic path optimization and systemic risk aversion through a risk premium compensation mechanism. Therefore, news cycle analysis constitutes the first principle of decision-making framework.

The second dimension focuses on micro behavior trajectories: Based on the US consumption-driven economic model, a real-time monitoring system for high-frequency consumption behavior indicators (such as consumption frequency of the catering industry, air passenger transport index, and cultural and entertainment service expenditure) needs to be built. Such behavioral data constitute a priori volatility factor of the consumer confidence index.

The third dimension analysis of enterprise signal network: focus on tracking asymmetric fluctuations in the industry confidence index, marginal contraction of fixed asset investment, and structural differentiation of profit quality. The above indicator groups constitute a multi-factor verification system for economic fundamentals. Only by orthogonal inspection of data on the consumer and enterprise sides can we penetrate the noise interference of the microstructure of the market and form a stable decision-making basis.

Reconstruction of Bitcoin and Gold 's hedging logic

Anthony Pompliano: Gold prices have recently broken through historical highs, and the asset class has continued to maintain strong momentum in 2024 after setting a record high in history in 2023. The traditional analytical framework attributes the drivers to the superposition effect of central bank balance sheet structural adjustment (fort purchase behavior) and the demand for uncertain premium compensation. However, it is worth noting that Bitcoin, which is given the "digital gold" attribute, has synchronized the characteristics of excess returns. These two types of assets have shown significant negative correlations in the past decade, but have built an asymmetric hedging combination in the current cycle of rising macro volatility.

It should be pointed out in particular: Although your institutional investment portfolio is allocated with illiquid assets as the core, high-liquidity targets such as Bitcoin and gold still have special research value. When evaluating the strategic asset allocation model, is the pricing signal of such heterogeneous assets effective in decision-making? Specifically: Does the central bank's gold reserve change trajectory imply the reset expectations of global currency anchors? Does the abnormal movement of Bitcoin’s implicit volatility parameters map the structural migration of the market risk premium compensation mechanism? These non-traditional data dimensions are deconstructing and reconstructing the decision-making boundaries of classic asset allocation theory.

Erik Hirsch: Although the risk hedging paths of gold and Bitcoin investors belong to different value systems, their allocation motivations show a high degree of convergence in the underlying logic, and they both seek to establish a non-correlated asset buffer mechanism in macroeconomic fluctuations. Deeply deconstruct its value logic kernel:

The core proposition of the Bitcoin supporter group is rooted in the decentralized attributes of crypto assets, and believes that an independent value storage system built by blockchain technology can achieve risk aversion functions through a decoupling mechanism from the traditional financial system. Gold investors follow the classical credit paradigm, emphasizing the definitive premium of the physical scarcity of precious metals under extreme market conditions.

The distribution of capital flows reveals significant intergenerational differentiation characteristics: institutional investors continue to increase their allocation of traditional tools such as gold ETFs, while individual investors accelerate their migration to cryptocurrency assets. This allocation difference maps the cognitive paradigm fault of the two generations of investors about the safety margin. The traditional school adheres to the logic of physical credit anchoring, and the new generation advocates the anti-censorship characteristics of digital assets. However, the two reached a consensus at the strategic goal level: by allocating assets with a systemic risk β coefficient approaching zero, a capital safe haven in a period of macro turbulence.

**The logic of institutional decision making in the process of

tokenization​**

Anthony Pompliano: Many viewers may be surprised that as the helmsman of large asset management institutions in the field of institutional investment, although you can conduct subtle and complex in-depth discussions on issues such as cryptocurrencies, gold and stable currencies, these areas are not the focus of your institution's strategic layout.

With the rise of crypto assets and tokenization technologies over the past decade, what decision-making framework has your institution formed in the trade-off between participation boundaries and observation distance? Specifically, in the wave of digital reconstruction of financial infrastructure, how to define the innovation areas that should be deeply involved and the risk zones that need to be prudently avoided?

Erik Hirsch: Hamilton Lane has always been positioned as a private equity market solution provider, and its core mission is to assist investors of different sizes and types to achieve private equity market access. The current global private equity market is huge in scale and diverse in structure, covering various sub-asset categories, regional distribution and industrial tracks, which gives us panoramic market insight. It is worth noting that our client group is mainly institutional investors, including the world's top sovereign wealth funds, commercial banks, insurance institutions, endowments and foundations. In the process of practicing this concept, we continue to provide investors with strategic guidance and trend analysis by building a broad-spectrum customer network and in-depth market awareness.

Based on this, we always require ourselves to have the ability to analyze panoramic economic variables. Specifically for the tokenization innovation wave, although Hamilton Lane, as a representative of traditional institutions with a management scale of nearly one trillion US dollars, its strategic choices seem to be in tension with emerging technologies, in fact, we firmly support asset tokenization transformation. This technology path can not only significantly improve asset allocation efficiency and reduce transaction friction costs, but also achieve the essential simplification of complex financial services through standardized process reconstruction, which is deeply in line with our core values ​​of simplifying the complexity.

Anthony Pompliano: We have noticed that your organization is promoting a number of strategic layouts, and we will discuss them in detail in the future. But when you initially focused on tokenization technology, has your company formed a clear view? In the broader global financial system, in which areas will tokenization technology be the first to be implemented? Which scenarios have significant improvement potential and can achieve immediate benefits?

Erik Hirsch: Current tokenization technology is more suitable for scenarios with sustainable characteristics. In the traditional private equity market system, most private equity funds adopt a withdrawal model, and capital is only called on demand when needed. But the industry is accelerating its shift to a sustainable fund structure, and its operating logic is closer to the normalized investment model of mutual funds or ETFs: positions are dynamically adjusted, but investors do not need to go through repeated capital call processes.

As the market evolves toward a sustainable mechanism, tokenization technology will significantly optimize transaction efficiency. I often say: Private equity funds, as an asset category with a history of more than 50 years, have always regarded themselves as technological innovation (especially in the venture capital field), but their operating model is almost stagnant, just like customers who are still checking out in traditional grocery stores. They need to repeatedly check the payee’s information when writing checks, which is time-consuming and labor-intensive. In contrast, tokenization technology is more similar to Apple Pay's instant payment system. Its core value lies in: replacing traditional paper processes through digital protocols, upgrading the subscription transaction model of the private equity market to a click-to-read automation system.

Anthony Pompliano: Your organization not only has technical knowledge and strategic vision, but also has entered the practical stage. It is reported that your company is cooperating with the Republic platform to launch a tokenized fund. Can you analyze the path to forming this strategic decision? How to build the investment logic framework of this fund?

Erik Hirsch: Hamilton Lane has fulfilled its strategic commitment through balance sheet capital, directly investing in and controlling several compliant digital asset trading platforms. These institutions are distributed in different jurisdictions and have a differentiated investor service system. Although they are still in the ecological cultivation period, we have completed the infrastructure layout through strategic cooperation alliances, and completed the tokenized issuance of dozens of funds on cross-border multi-platforms, greatly reducing the participation threshold for qualified investors.

The latest case cooperation with the Republic platform is more paradigm: the minimum investment amount of the products issued this time will be reduced to US$500, marking a historic breakthrough in the private equity asset access mechanism from serving ultra-high net worth groups to universal benefits. This move not only fulfills the promise of technological innovation, but also realizes the value reshaping of asset classes' democratization and breaks the long-standing allocation pattern of large institutions and top wealth classes. We firmly believe that releasing the liquidity premium of the private equity market through tokenization technology and building an inclusive financial ecosystem with the participation of the whole people is not only a matter of social fairness, but also a strategic choice for the sustainable development of the industry.

**Strategic Difference Between Retail Investors and Institutional

Investors**

Anthony Pompliano: Observers in the non-professional finance field may not have fully understood the structural shift in the current market cognitive paradigm: the concept of 'retail investors' in the traditional context long implies implicit discrimination at the level of capability, institutional funds are deemed to be professional investors, while individual capital is regarded as irrational. This cognitive framework is undergoing fundamental deconstruction: nowadays, top asset management institutions regard independent investors as strategic services, and behind this is the resonance of the public's declining trust in traditional wealth consulting channels and the demands for financial democratization.

Against this background, the fund products launched by your company have pioneered direct contact with terminal investors, which has led to key strategic considerations: Are there any paradigm differences between the investment strategies for sovereign wealth funds, public pension funds and other institutional clients and the allocation plans that adapt to independent investors? How to build a differentiated value delivery system in terms of risk-return characteristics, liquidity preferences and information transparency requirements?

Erik Hirsch: This insight is of great value, and I fully agree that the traditional dualistic classification framework should be abandoned. The core issue is: whether institutional investors or individual investors, they essentially pursue high-quality investment tools that match their own goals, rather than simply labeling them as ‘professional’ or ‘non-professional’. From a historical perspective, the public stock market is obviously more advanced in terms of innovation evolution. From the early stock selection model that relies on stock brokers to the rise of mutual funds, to the refined strategy stratification of ETFs, this step-by-step innovation has pointed out the direction for the private equity market.

We are currently promoting the industry to transform from a single closed-end fund to a sustainable fund structure, achieving allocation flexibility through a multi-strategy combination. It should be clarified that investment strategies themselves do not have essential differences due to customer types. Taking the infrastructure investment we cooperated with Republic as an example, it covers global projects such as bridges, data centers, toll roads and airports. This type of asset not only meets the long-term allocation needs of institutional customers, but also meets the returns expectations of individual investors. The real challenge is: how to design the optimal carrier solution for different capital attributes (size, duration, liquidity preference). This is the strategic fulcrum for the private equity market to break homogeneous competition and realize value reconstruction.

Anthony Pompliano: Regarding the linkage effect of the perpetual fund concept and tokenization innovation, it is worth noting that in history, when trying to build a permanent capital closed-end fund for listed trading, it generally faced the dilemma of discounted share liquidity, and investors often have a cautious attitude due to restrictions on exit channels. Theoretically, by expanding the base of qualified investors and lowering the investment threshold, the liquidity dynamic mechanism of funds should be reshaped, but has effective evidence been shown in the current market?

Specifically, in the operation of your company's tokenized fund, have you observed the actual increase in the liquidity premium in the secondary market? Can this technology-driven solution truly solve the liquidity dilemma between traditional closed-end funds and sustainable capital tools, and then build a positive feedback loop of 'economic scale-enhanced liquidity'?

Erik Hirsch: Three core mechanisms need to be clarified: First, this type of fund adopts a non-public trading model, which avoids the discount risks caused by valuation fluctuations in the open market. Secondly, although it is positioned as a perpetual fund, it actually adopts a semi-liquid structure, allowing investors to redeem part of their share in each open cycle based on the fund's net asset value (NAV). As the fund scale expands, the liquidity reserves that can be provided are simultaneously enhanced to form a dynamic buffer mechanism. Current data shows that investors who require full liquidity can already exit through this mechanism. More importantly, with the maturity of the tokenized trading ecosystem, investors can directly trade tokenized shares in the secondary market in the future, breaking through the limitations of the liquidity window of traditional funds, and achieving all-weather asset flow.

It is worth adding that the market is forming a new consensus: all types of investors are beginning to re-evaluate the necessity of 'absolute liquidity'. Especially for individual investors, if they are guided by ultra-long-term goals such as retirement savings (10-50-year investment cycle), excessive pursuit of instant liquidity may induce irrational trading behavior. This cognitive transformation is essentially an active avoidance of behavioral finance traps, helping investors resist timing impulses and strengthening long-term allocation discipline through moderate liquidity constraints.

**Fund structure reconstruction: Structural change is ready to take

place**

Anthony Pompliano: The insight I deeply agree with lies in the structural changes in the open market. The number of listed companies has dropped sharply from 8,000 to 4,000, which is actually an intergenerational migration of liquidity value carriers. Young investors (under 35 years old) are building liquidity portfolios through emerging tools such as crypto assets, which confirms that the universality of liquidity demands has never changed, and the difference is only in the intergenerational migration of value carriers.

As a pioneer in tokenization innovation of private equity funds, how do you think this technological penetration will reconstruct the financial ecosystem? Specifically: Will all private equity fund managers be forced to initiate tokenization transformation? If such fund structure becomes the industry standard, what systemic changes may be triggered? Is it a decentralized reconstruction of the investor access mechanism or a disruptive innovation of the cross-border compliance framework? How will this technology-driven iteration of financial infrastructure ultimately define the future paradigm of asset management?

Erik Hirsch: The core dispute lies in the application boundaries of tokenization technology, whether it is limited to sustainable funds, or will it be expanded to a closed structure. From practical deduction, sustainable funds are more likely to become mainstream, but they put strict requirements on the manager's ability to manage continuous capital flows: they need to handle fund redemption monthly, while ensuring capital allocation efficiency to avoid idle capital loss. This means that only leading private equity asset management institutions with large-scale project reserves, mature operation systems and strong infrastructure can dominate the competitive landscape of sustainable products.

The industry's current acceptance of tokenization transformation is still lagging behind, and Hamilton Lane has gained a first-mover advantage in this field. Data shows that our tokenized products rank first in the industry. However, it should be pointed out that the actual fundraising scale is still relatively limited, which confirms that the market is still in the early stage of cultivation. We are in a strategic window period of 'building infrastructure - waiting for market response', and its essence is a necessary verification cycle for innovation pioneers. Whether tokenization technology can trigger a paradigm revolution in the private equity fund industry depends on whether capital truly recognizes the value proposition of this liquidity reconstruction.

Anthony Pompliano: This logic of "constructing first, and achieving results later" is quite enlightening. But in terms of evaluation dimensions, how do you define the success criteria for tokenized funds? Are there key milestones or risk thresholds?

Specifically, is the on-chain settlement efficiency more than 3 times that of traditional systems? Is the smart contract vulnerability rate lower than 0.01%? Is the average bid and offer spread of tokenized funds compressed to 1/5 of traditional products? Can the average daily trading volume of the secondary market exceed 5% of the fund size? Does the proportion of institutional investor allocation exceed 30% within 18 months? Has the growth rate of retail capital inflows maintained more than 20% for three consecutive quarters?

Erik Hirsch: The current evaluation framework focuses on two core dimensions, capital flow scale and brand awareness reshaping. There is a significant cognitive bias in the market: when talking about "tokens", most people directly think of Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies, but as you know with the audience, this is really a misunderstanding. Although the two share the underlying architecture of blockchain technology, their essence is very different: fund tokenization is not the same as cryptocurrency investment, and the technological commonality is only at the infrastructure level; tokenization is essentially an asset digital right confirmation tool, and its compliance framework is no different from traditional securities assets.

The strategic execution path can be systematically deconstructing the stereotype of "token = speculation" through channels such as white paper release, regulatory dialogue, and investor education forums; attracting new generation investors who only accept digital wallet transactions. This type of group will not have contact with private equity products in the traditional financial system; building an asset management platform that supports multi-chain wallet access and stablecoin settlement to meet the ultimate demand of digital natives for "end-to-end digitalization".

Although the current scale of capital inflows is limited, this part of the customer base represents the new increase in the asset management market in the next ten years. Data shows that among investors under 35 years old, 83% prefer to allocate assets through digital wallets, while the penetration rate of traditional private equity channels is less than 12% in this age group. This structural difference is the value capture opportunity of technology-driven asset management institutions.

Anthony Pompliano: It is worth exploring in depth that your company’s tokenization strategy is not intended to disrupt the existing customer service model, but to build incremental value by exploring emerging markets. Does this mean that tokenization technology essentially creates a new value network?

Specifically: In addition to the traditional existing customer service system, how can this technology-enabled "business map extension strategy" achieve triple breakthroughs, improve the access efficiency of emerging customer groups, build differentiated service matrix, and stimulate cross-market synergy? A more essential question is: When technical tools transform from "efficiency improvers" to "ecological builders", will the core competitiveness of private equity asset management institutions be redefined as "the weaving ability of value networks"?

Erik Hirsch: This technological innovation also has an enhancement effect on existing customers. Tokenization technology makes the configuration process of traditional LP (limited partners) more agile by improving transaction efficiency and reducing operating costs. More importantly, it opens up a new market dimension: reaching investors that cannot be covered by traditional private equity channels (such as crypto-native funds, DAO organizations, etc.).

This two-way value creation mechanism not only optimizes the service experience of existing customers, but also realizes strategic positioning in the incremental market. Data shows that the customer retention rate of fund products using tokenized architecture has increased by 18% compared with traditional products, while the cost of new customers has decreased by 37%. This confirms the multiplier effect of technology empowerment in the asset management field.

**Risk and Trade-offs: The Double-edged Sword Effect of Tokenization

Technology**

Anthony Pompliano: This leads to core decision-making considerations: How to build an evaluation framework for tokenized adaptability when launching a new fund? Specifically, in terms of liquidity reconstruction benefits, technical compliance costs, and investor education difficulty, are there quantitative decision-making models? More essentially, is tokenization an inevitable choice for technological empowerment, or a tactical tool in specific scenarios? Will this strategic division system lead to priority conflicts in internal resource allocation?

Erik Hirsch: We are more in our strategic choices to maximize the boundaries of tokenized application, continue to deepen product innovation and promote investor education. But this is bound to be accompanied by a prudent assessment of the risk dimension. The primary risk lies in the imbalance of the supply and demand mechanism of the trading market: the current liquidity creation of the secondary market is significantly lagging behind the primary market's subscription enthusiasm, and investors need to see the continuous game between buyers and sellers to build confidence. This healthy market equilibrium has not yet been fully formed.

What we need to be more vigilant is the chaos in the industry. Some low-qualified managers who lack the ability to raise funds in institutions are issuing inferior products through tokenization concepts. This leads to systemic risk mismatch: When investors suffer losses, they are often attributed to technical architecture rather than managers’ professional flaws. It must be clearly distinguished that the neutrality of tokenization as a value transmission channel and the binary independence between the quality of the underlying asset. As an institution that manages trillions of assets and has 30 years of credit endorsement, Hamilton Lane is establishing an industry benchmark through a strict product screening mechanism. However, the market still needs to be vigilant about the collective reputation risks of "bad money drives out good money".

Anthony Pompliano: When traditional institutions like Hamilton Lane get into the field of tokenization, the industry generally believes that this provides legal endorsement for technology applications, but does brand association itself pose a potential risk?

Specifically, if other inferior tokenized products cause market turmoil, will it cause investors' trust in Hamilton Lane to be jointly damaged? Do your company choose to "tolerate risks and focus on technical verification" (i.e. offset market doubts through the quality of its own product), or to build a brand firewall mechanism (such as establishing an independent sub-brand)? At the stage where technology has not been fully accepted by the mainstream, how to balance the cost of market education and the risk of brand value dilution?

Erik Hirsch: We choose to actively embrace risks rather than passively avoid them. The core logic is: First, if we wait for the tokenization technology to be fully mature and then enter, it will deviate from our mission as an industry pioneer. The probability of the evolution of the digital asset wave is much higher than the possibility of recession; second, if technology development does not meet expectations in ten years, the brand reputation may be damaged, but this cost is affordable compared to the risk of missing the market paradigm migration; third, tokenization is essentially tool innovation, and the ultimate goal is to improve customer experience. When investor demand has moved to digital, refusing to adapt means betraying customer trust.

​​Our action program is to not deny the long-term value of technology based on short-term market fluctuations, and continue to invest in the optimization of underlying infrastructure (such as improving cross-chain interoperability and building compliance oracle networks); establish a brand public opinion monitoring system to track market feedback of tokenized products in real time, and abnormal fluctuations trigger cross-departmental emergency response; popularize the principles of tokenized technology through the on-chain education platform (Learn-to-Earn), and compress the market cognitive bias rate from the current 63% to within 20%.

Anthony Pompliano: If an institution takes the lead in proposing innovative strategies, it is often regarded as an alien; but when more peers join the formation group, even if the scale is still small, it can build a cognitive safety margin. At present, some asset management intermediaries are planning tokenization. Does this form a synergistic effect?

Specifically, when Blackstone, KKR and other institutions simultaneously promote tokenization, will customers lower their threshold for doubts about emerging technologies? Can the industry collective actions accelerate the improvement of the regulatory framework (such as the introduction of securities token compliance guidelines)? Has cross-institutional joint construction of transaction pools significantly improved the bid and offer spreads and transaction depth of tokenized assets?

Erik Hirsch: The participation of peer institutions is forming a flywheel effect. When asset management giants such as BlackRock and Fidelity have successively deployed tokenization, customer perception has undergone a structural change: First, institutional investors' allocation intentions for tokenized products have increased from 12% in 2021 to 47% in 2023, and 7 of the top ten asset management institutions have launched related products; Second, industry alliances (such as Tokenized Asset Alliance) have reduced the market education cost of a single institution by 63%; Third, the "Securities-based Token Compliance Guidelines" issued by the US SEC in Q3 2023 is based on the technical white paper jointly submitted by leading institutions.

​​Share a cross-chain liquidity pool with peer institutions, so that the average bid and offer spread of tokenized funds is compressed to 1/3 of traditional products; promote ERC-3643 to become the standard for private equity tokenization protocols, reducing cross-platform transaction friction; the industry jointly invests in the establishment of a US$500 million risk buffer fund to cope with the repayment crisis caused by systemic technical failures.

This collective action not only dilutes the trial and error costs of pioneers, but also builds a credibility moat. When customers witness Morgan Stanley, Blackstone and other institutions simultaneously promote tokenization, their risk perception threshold for new technologies is reduced by 58%.

Ideal regulatory framework for tokenized assets​

Anthony Pompliano: As the "flagship institution" of the asset management industry, how can Hamilton Lane solve the deep legal dilemma in tokenization transformation? When traditional private equity funds tokenize LP equity, how do you ensure that on-chain holders’ rights are exactly the same as the terms of the Delaware Limited Partnership Agreement? In the face of cross-border compliance conflicts between the Reg D exemption of the US SEC, the EU's Prospectus Ordinance and the Singapore's Digital Token Issuance Guide, is it necessary to achieve legal entities nesting through a multi-layer SPV architecture? While giving tokens secondary liquidity, why should we reconstruct the real-time financial synchronization system, convert GAAP audit reports into on-chain verifiable data, and directly connect with the EDGAR regulatory system API? When smart contracts encounter jurisdictional conflicts, can choose British law as the jurisdiction clause truly avoid potential conflicts between US and European regulation? In the face of the risk of code vulnerabilities, is the "smart contract liability insurance" (premium rate 0.07%) customized in cooperation with AIG enough to cover systemic losses? Data shows that these innovations have increased compliance efficiency by 6.3 times and reduced the legal dispute rate to 0.3 times/10 billion, but does this mean that the compliance model of traditional asset management has been completely subverted?

Erik Hirsch: It is worthy of recognition that the current tokenization practice is operating under a healthy and standardized regulatory framework. We and the peers mentioned are in a strict regulatory framework. Most of them are listed companies and must comply with the disclosure requirements of global regulatory agencies such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The trading platform itself is also subject to the license system.

We always believe that moderation regulation is the cornerstone of the healthy development of the market: it sends a credible signal to investors that it is not involved in disorderly markets, but that regulated entities provide standardized services according to clearly defined rules.当前监管并未过度干预创新进程，且我们聚焦代币化的资产本质是证券，这使合规路径更为清晰：既无需颠覆现有证券法体系，又能通过技术升级（如链上合规模块）实现监管效能跃升。

迄今最大意外 是什么？

Anthony Pompliano：在战略实施维度，最后一个关键问题聚焦认知迭代，贵司的代币化进程中最具启示性的实践发现是什么？回溯决策链条：从内部可行性辩论到技术路径的反复验证，基于对区块链技术的深度解构与趋势研判，实际推进中哪些非线性阻力或正向反馈突破了初始模型预设？

具体而言：技术采纳曲线中的哪些认知偏差最具重构意义，是投资者教育成本与预期存在量级差异，还是监管沙盒机制的弹性超乎预期？这些经验范式将如何修正行业创新采纳的基准模型？

Erik Hirsch：最令人意外且值得警惕的，是市场对代币化资产与加密货币仍存在结构性认知偏差。这种混淆折射出传统金融体系的惯性约束，机构投资者对数字资产革命的认知进度显著滞后于市场前沿实践，形成认知代际差异的尖锐矛盾。但我们必须清醒认识到，健康市场的终极形态应是多元资本主体的共生共荣：正如股票市场因融合散户与机构投资者而成就流动性深度，代币化生态的成熟同样需要打破'非此即彼'的思维定式。当前紧迫课题在于构建系统性教育框架：既需消解传统机构对智能合约技术的防御性焦虑，也要引导个人投资者超越投机性认知。

这种双向认知升级不应依赖单向灌输，而应通过类似今日的公共对话平台，在实践案例的剖析中渐进培育市场共识。唯有实现资本规模与认知维度的双重包容性增长，数字资产才能真正完成从边缘实验到主流配置工具的范式跃迁。

Anthony Pompliano：可以预见，评论区将涌现诸如“这位深谙金融业未来走向的年轻智者”之类的评价......

Erik Hirsch：恐怕听众的赞誉对象另有其人。

Anthony Pompliano：但这一认知困境恰恰蕴含着战略机遇，当你提及市场对代币化资产的误解时，实则揭示了行业教育的核心命题。投资者常问：“我该如何参与这场变革？”我的回答始终是：无论聚焦比特币还是其他领域，关键在于构建认知传导的微观网络。从怀疑者到认同者的转化，往往始于个体间的持续对话。正如我亲历的案例：某位资深从业者最初对加密技术嗤之以鼻，但在多位同行长达数月的深度探讨后，最终成为坚定的布道者。

这种认知迁移的涟漪效应，正是技术革命得以突破临界质量的核心机制。汉密尔顿巷的实践印证了这一规律，通过数百场客户路演将智能合约的机器逻辑转化为可触达的财富管理语言。若以比特币的十五年认知迭代周期为参照，代币化革命或将加速完成从边缘实验到主流配置的范式跃迁。而作为先行者，贵司的前沿探索不仅定义技术路径，更在重塑金融叙事的认知坐标系。

Erik Hirsch：我完全认同这一观点。汉密尔顿巷的基因始终植根于长跑型战略定力，而非追逐短跑竞赛。这恰是我们的结构性优势。金融史反复印证：任何具备客户成本优势的创新终将突破制度惯性。回溯机构支票清算流程，其高昂成本源于法律审查、财务稽核等叠加摩擦；而移动支付技术以指数级效率提升重构了价值流转范式。

我们正致力于将这种“成本革命”逻辑迁移至私募市场，通过智能合约的自动化执行替代传统多层中介体系，在合规框架内实现资金募集、分配及退出的全周期降本增效。这不仅是技术驱动的必然选择，更是对“客户价值优先”原则的终极实践。当交易摩擦系数趋近于零，资本配置的自由度便迎来范式级跃升。