Let’s talk about STO again: What are the obstacles to the full implementation of the US stock market?

Host: Alex , Research Partner, Mint Ventures

Guest: Mindao , founder of dForce

Recording time: 2025.3.14

Statement: The content we discussed in this podcast does not represent the views of the institution where the guests are located, and the projects mentioned do not constitute any investment advice.

Hello everyone, welcome to WEB3 Mint To Be initiated by Mint Ventures. Here, we continue to ask questions and think deeply, clarify the facts, explore the reality, and find consensus in the WEB3 world. We will clarify the logic behind hot topics, provide insights into the incident itself, and introduce diverse thinking angles.

Alex: In this episode, let’s follow up with an crypto narrative that once attracted much attention a few years ago, but later gradually cooled down, but has recently become popular again: STO, or securities tokenization, especially the tokenization of US stocks. The guests invited today have rich experience in the fields of traditional finance and Defi, and are also old friends of our program - Teacher Mindao. Please say hello to everyone by Teacher Mindao.

Mindao: Hello everyone, I am very happy to come to Mint Ventures again to discuss the topic of STO and securities tokenization.

Coinbase The ins and outs of stock tokenization

Alex: The re-warming return of STO as an old narrative is mainly from a statement from Coinbase's CEO last week, including a CFO, who said they would restart the work of tokenizing Coinbase's stock. I believe you have also paid attention to this news. Based on the event information you have, can you sort out the ins and outs of Coinbase stock tokenization, including some key details.

Mindao: Actually, it wasn’t just raised this year that Coinbase tokenization. I remember mentioning it in 2020, but because the entire regulatory environment is very bad for the currency circle, and Coinbase was later sued by the SEC, I remember that after 2020 it was Brian who mentioned this concept, but it has not been implemented further. When Coinbase was listed, there was still a debate in the community about whether to go public or issue coins. It was originally a Crypto exchange, and whether it should issue coins directly on the chain was due to these disputes. This topic was raised in January this year. The person in charge of Base was named Jesse. He proposed to consider deploying Coinbase tokens on the Base chain. Then in February, the SEC gave up the lawsuit against Coinbase. This is also a friendly attitude of the new US government towards Crypto. I think it is a concrete manifestation. This matter, including its CFO and CEO, mentioned that stock tokenization should be placed on Base and issued. From the whole point of time, I think it is very hardcore. After Trump came to power, the new administration's attitude towards Crypto, including Crypto Summit, and the CEO of Coinbase also participated. So we can see that when the entire regulatory environment changes, I think it is understandable to take such a move for the largest exchange in the United States, and it is very suitable in terms of time.

The value proposition of stock tokenization

Alex: In your opinion, STO or stock tokenization, if we say it is a product, what are its main value propositions? In your opinion, is it a relatively organic value proposition? If a large number of US stock assets are on the chain, what kind of chemical reactions may it have with current DeFi products?

Mindao: Yes, the topic of tokenization of stocks is not a new thing, and it has been mentioned in the past two cycles. At the beginning, I remember that there were STOs mentioned in 2017, so this was a very early term. I think there are several reasons for this cycle to be taken out again. On the one hand, we can see that when the currency circle is stagnant due to regulatory reasons, Crypto has actually made great progress in the application of blockchain systems in the interbank system at the level of traditional finance Wall Street. I think from the perspective of traditional finance, it also sees the benefits of tokenization itself to traditional financial institutions. For example, JP Morgan handles many of the interbank settlement systems through tokenization and tokenization. So this thing essentially saves a lot of settlement time for the bank. For example, even if it is the same bank, it may take several days or a week to settle across states or countries. But you can do settlement immediately with blockchain. The direct advantage is that your capital accumulation is less and the cost of funds is greatly reduced, so traditional financial institutions can see what its advantages lies. Then we see the tokenization of the entire stock. If we talk about it from a purely capital channel, it must have changed from a single market to a global market. There is a blend of non-licensed and licensed. But in fact, there are many conflicting things, because traditional securities regulation is based on territorial principles. The US market has a set of American regulations, and the Chinese market has Chinese regulations, and every place has a territorial principle. However, when we connect to the crypto public chain market we are talking about, how to deal with this territorial principle is a very big conflict. This is why it is said that after the stock is tokenized, it can be considered to be the Berlin Wall to some extent. There are many conflicts in how funds from the free world go to a stock market regulated by territorial principles. However, for STO companies and stock exchanges, at least turning this entire capital channel from a regional market to a global market is a very important point that most STO companies may consider.

The Coinbase thing we are talking about is still very different from other general stock tokenizations. Because Coinbase itself is an exchange. In fact, Coinbase's stock can be compared with Binance's BNB. BNB is actually a very good stocking token, and then Coinbase is a pure exchange stock. But we can see that BNB has much more value than Coinbase in terms of usage. Coinbase The perspective of traditional stocks is a shareholder's equity and shareholder certificate. But we see that in its trading market, BNB can deduct handling fees and can also go to airspace, which has various functions. So I think the biggest significance of Coinbase’s is that it does not mean that it only puts a stock tokenization on the chain, but empowers traditional stocks. I think it is a power expansion movement. That is to say, it used to be a shareholder voucher. Now let’s give a simple example. If Coinbase tokenize your stock and put it on the Base chain, then Base assumes that Coinbase’s stock can be used as pledge, node verification, or gas payment in the future, so that the stock will no longer be a pure shareholder voucher, but a thing with the function of using it. We expand the Coinbase case to other things. For example, expand to Disney and Netflix. If you hold its stock tokens, you can buy tickets with discounts. Why can't tradition be done? Because doing this in traditional finance is too complicated and there is no tokenization, it is very difficult to connect these systems. But we can imagine that if Disney tokenize its stock, and users have its stock in the future, tokens can buy tickets directly and offer discounts, and even have some preferences. Or Netflix, its subscription can also be based on your stock stake, or how much stock you stake, I can give you a subscription. For example, tokenize a coal mine enterprise, there is really no practical value. However, companies like Coinbase, Netflix, and Disney have a lot of interactions with users at the level of their company products. I think the tokenization of their stocks is very likely to expand their power, from a pure shareholder voucher to a use voucher, and become a utility thing. This is the very important point in my opinion that STO is natively combined with the currency circle, rather than just turning it into a stock and putting it on the chain. Let’s go back to what I said earlier, it may be to expand the market of the capital pool and to transform from a regional to a global market. But we now know that the United States has actually accounted for a very large financing market in the world. How much does it mean to add such a market on the chain? It may not make much sense. This is why you see many STO tokens trading on the chain, but there is actually no trading volume in the past few cycles, because the traditional market has met the investment needs of most people with capital needs.

Alex: I think the concept of stock expansion just now is very novel and reasonable. Let’s extend it along this topic. You just talked about JP Morgan’s adoption of blockchain settlement system, which has improved the efficiency of funds. I have a technical question, that is, JP Morgan should use a system similar to a system like Alliance Chain. Which specific technical designs can improve its capital efficiency or system operation efficiency? I've always been quite curious about this.

Mindao: Everyone knows that banks are dinosaur-type in the technology world. Many traditional backend systems of banks are technology from decades ago. Of course, I think it makes sense to maintain this conservative technology as a financial institution. The first one it involves money, so older, more tried and tested technologies may be more important to the banking system in terms of security, far more important than improving capital efficiency. Even if it is the same bank, settlement and clearing between different systems will actually involve many issues, and cross-border is even more troublesome. For example, JP Morgan, in the United States and the United Kingdom, each country involves different fund supervision, and it needs to be done with Swift or other external settlement systems, not just within the bank. A bank settles between branches in different countries, because different regulatory issues involve different times, there will also be delays in settlement time. For example, JP Morgan is just an interbank settlement. When it was expanded to the alliance chain, in China, like in the Pearl River Delta Greater Bay Area, a few years ago, China Merchants Bank and several core banks in that region formed a supply chain alliance, which was also to use the blockchain system for settlement. Different banks are more complex, and each bank’s design system is different. The advantage of blockchain is to use an ledger, which is consistent in all states and does not require a different backend system of each bank to match it. Why do finance see such good applications? Because traditional finance can tell at a glance that blockchain design can basically completely replace existing bank infrastructure. This is why stablecoins can be used so quickly as soon as they come out. Of course, this starts with wild growth, and in the end, the most focused thing banks and US regulators are on stablecoins. Traditional finance can tell at a glance that it has obvious advantages over traditional banking systems.

Interaction between US stocks and Defi

Alex: I understand. If a large number of such US stock assets have appeared on the chain, what kind of interactions may arise with our existing DeFi projects? Are you optimistic about this, or do you think it is important for the development of the industry?

Mindao: I think the most critical point for DeFi infrastructure is that we see that DeFi is done in the entire crypto, such as dex, lending, and stablecoin projects. So far, most of the assets it carries on upstream are still native to the currency circle, such as ETH, BTC, and transaction-type and Meme-type assets are also native to crypto. So for the entire DeFi infrastructure, it is nothing more than what kind of upper-level assets I support. And for downstream DeFi infrastructure, this is definitely a benefit. For example, after stablecoins come in, we see not only stablecoins, but the largest scale of STO is now the tokenization of treasury bonds. And we see that the tokenization of Treasury bonds in this cycle is very obvious, including Makerdao, Ondo, etc., putting it all on the chain. We can see that the tokenization of Treasury bonds has brought a large number of so-called interest-generating assets to the DeFi protocol in DeFi, including many pools in Pendo and Uniswap, which are now pools of interest-generating assets. In the liquidity field, RWA-like stablecoins and RWA assets actually provide very important liquidity for the entire DeFi. So we can imagine that further tokenization of stocks is the same. The advantage is that the entire DeFi infrastructure is now perfect, whether it is AMM form, Order book form, or perpetual contract form, and all kinds of bridges have been set up. After DeFi summer, the infrastructure has basically been laid and has been tested. All bridge and DeFi protocols have undergone a lot of hacking incidents, so the entire infrastructure layer of DeFi has been solidified to some extent. What I am talking about is technical curing. The advantage of curing is that safety has been tested. From DeFi Summer to now, there has been about $100 billion in losses, which is the money that has been hacked. So the DeFi infrastructure in this area is already in a ready state. Therefore, if you access STO and stock assets, you don’t need to rebuild assets. This is a very critical issue because the distribution channels and infrastructure are already here, and only new assets are needed to come in. This is different from banks or traditional institutions. If they want to promote these assets, they need to rebuild the public chain and DeFi system, which is very difficult. So when we look at this cycle now, the entire crypto narrative, such as the tokenization of Bitcoin ETFs and Treasury bonds, has entered the traditional financial vision. If the stock comes in, the best thing is that the infrastructure can be taken directly for use. This will definitely be a benefit for DeFi to have more assets to trade and have better liquidity for all underlying DeFi protocols.

Is STO in the national interest of the United States

Alex: From a larger perspective, if things like STO are compliant and pushed aside, for those listed American companies, like some of the cases you just mentioned, such as Disney and Netflix, which have close relationships with consumers, they may gain a lot of incremental benefits through the expansion of equity in stocks. So for the overall US listed companies, do you think they are very interested in the concept of STO? And is this matter itself in the long-term national interests of the United States?

Mindao: I think if we look at it as a whole, we really need to look at different types of companies, because not every company is suitable for on-chain issuance, and it may not attract everyone's interest. For example, in the early days, many stock tokens were released, whether it was DeFi projects or CeFi projects. At that time, they chose technology stocks like Tesla because they knew that investors of this type of stock overlapped with investors in the currency circle. You won’t choose coal mines or industrial stocks because these do not overlap with the currency circle. So I think it is definitely beneficial for those that have overlap with users in the currency circle, such as AI companies, to expand their capital pool and audience.

From the perspective of the United States, the alignment of this alignment with American interests is now very obvious. For example, the most important thing for US regulation is the stablecoin bill, because it is consolidating the hegemony of the US dollar. For STO, as the world's largest stock market, after tokenization, on the one hand, the costs of these financial companies in the United States will be greatly saved. For example, various shareholder voting and dividends require a lot of backend support in traditional finance, which is very costly. So from a cost perspective, it can replace many old infrastructure. In addition, treating the US stock market as a US dollar stablecoin is actually expanding the influence of the US stock market globally. From this point of view, it is completely in the interests of the United States. Of course, this may not necessarily be in the interests of some American financial companies, such as stablecoins may kill many traditional banks' businesses. After the tokenization of US stocks, some companies that are now at the forefront may not be traditional companies. Traditional brokerage may be eliminated, because many intermediate links on the chain are not needed, and they can be operated directly after accessing DeFi. So, this may cause a very big change in the structure of the US stock market. That's why this matter itself is not easy to advance, as it affects many different players in the existing chain of interest.

Alex: This involves a question I thought of before. The impact of stablecoins on the United States you mentioned just now, the scope and application scenarios of the US dollar have actually been greatly supported. But it seems that Europe or other countries are not active in promoting stablecoins. For example, there seems to be no very positive action on promoting euro stablecoins and yen stablecoins. For example, the RMB has been making overseas, wanting to have more settlement scenarios, but it has not promoted RMB stablecoin. Don't they realize this? Why aren't it as active as the US dollar in this regard?

Mindao: I think the stablecoin of the US dollar, to be honest, if it weren't for Trump's coming to power, I wouldn't be so optimistic about this matter. And you will find that after Trump came to power, the United States did not want to promote the country's dollar tokens, and Trump also issued an executive order to prohibit the United States from issuing so-called dollar tokens. What the United States now promotes is actually private sector tokens. For example, banks can issue them in the future and exchanges can issue them, but the US federal government does not allow them to issue them. Of course, there are concerns about excessive government power. But we see that the EU should also launch their stablecoins this year. EU stablecoins are actually not the same as US dollar stablecoins. The main stablecoins currently being promoted by the US dollar are all from the private sector, from enterprises, banks, exchanges, rather than from the state sector. The EU should launch stablecoins from the government level. The big difference between the EU and the US is that the euro, US dollar and Japanese yen are all freely convertible. So from this perspective, for them, there are obvious benefits to promoting freely convertible stablecoins. But China is quite special because China is not freely convertible. So you will encounter conflicts, and make a freely flowable and non-licensed stablecoin. For example, USDT is largely unlicensed, but it will seriously conflict with currency control. This is also why China is embarrassing to promote this thing. If the stablecoins launched have various restrictions and return to the limitations of the fiat currency world, then there may not be many possibilities for application. In China, the digital RMB is actually not much different from the current wallets, so it is very slow in application. This has a lot to do with the country's own monetary system. For freely circulating currencies like the EU and the United States, the key is how to promote them. Is it mainly promoted by the private sector like the United States and the government does not interfere; or is it like the European Union, which directly issues digital euros as the main body. However, for China and other monetary control countries, this will have a very big conflict with foreign exchange control and monetary management goals, and this conflict is not easy to resolve. If a national currency that issues a number has strict KYC and circulation restrictions and can be checked, no one will choose this method, which is no different from traditional payment, so there is a big conflict between the targets.

The barriers to stock tokenization

Alex: I understand that after the domestic digital RMB is launched, there are not many people using it, and the speed of pushing it is relatively slow. Then let’s go back to the topic of STO. In fact, after Coinbase proposed to restart tokenization, a Swiss RWA service provider Backed was the first to issue a tokenized version of Coin it issued on Base. However, recent data shows that the transaction volume is not large, and there are serious decoupling problems. As you said, not all stocks are suitable for tokenization. In addition to the type of stock companies, what are the main factors that hinder this type of stock tokenization product?

Mindao: I think there are still many factors. Building a stock is actually the same as doing other tokens or stablecoins. First of all, the issuer is very important. For example, if Coinbase's stock tokens are not issued by Backed finance, but are issued by JP Morgan and Bank of America, then it may be different. Because I think the biggest problem that issuers will encounter is that I buy your coin. Who is behind me when I cash it in the end? Can I cash it? In fact, FTX has also issued Tesla tokens in the past, and they have used a German brokerage firm. It is very important whether third-party institutions have sufficient commitment to the issuer to cash in on the underlying tokens. There is also the problem of deaning. If there are enough market makers to support them and market makers are allowed to exchange for underlying tokens, severe deaning is unlikely to occur. Just like why stablecoins can maintain a dollar, because there are a large number of coinmakers and market makers who have access to Coinbase and Tether to redeem it for a dollar. The reason for deaning may be that there are not enough market makers, poor liquidity or the redemption channel is not smooth, and the underlying stocks cannot be redeemed and sold in a short time. If Coinbase proposes tokenize its token, the credibility will be stronger. I just talked about the expansion of stock tokens. This thing can only be done by Coinbase, but others cannot do it. For example, allowing the Coin coin to be staking or gas on the Base chain, this is not something that Backed finance can handle. This must be a new attempt in the expansion of token power. In crypto, many players can buy US stocks through overseas accounts, which is not a very high threshold. Therefore, it is more difficult to attract users in the currency circle to buy it. This is also why there is little demand for different token attempts in the past few years, including synthetic stock tokens we have made ourselves. The reason is that if the currency circle users only use as a capital pool to buy US stocks, the demand will not be as large as expected.

Alex: I understand, then suppose Coinbase finally officially launched a product like STO, which institutions need to participate in the structure of this product? Except for Coinbase itself.

Mindao: I think the first team needs a market maker, but it does not necessarily require a market maker designated by Coinbase. As long as Coinbase provides a good channel in the stock and token exchange levels, there are naturally market makers willing to provide liquidity. Just like the coin and redemption channel for stablecoins, this must be available. In addition to this, there is also the problem of liquidity depth. Pools like Backed finance are made on aerodrome and may not be as efficient as order books, unless the pool depth is very deep. Therefore, different dex support is needed and official liquidity support is required. It is quite difficult to rely solely on a third party. I think Coinbase should be related to the Base chain. Most people go to Base to play in hopes of having token upside in the future. If it can be tied together, Coinbase will become the only exchange token that has both a listed company and a currency circle advantage. This will be a very interesting way to play, but this requires Coinbase to do other designs, not just simply putting stocks on.

Alex: Assuming his own stock issuance is successful, do you think he can attract other US listed companies, such as Strategy or Tesla, to issue their officially authorized STO on Base? Is this very likely?

Mindao: In theory, issuing stocks does not require the consent of these companies. Because this structure is actually a bit similar to a stablecoin, just like if you issue a US dollar stablecoin, you don’t need the Fed’s consent. As long as the bank has US dollar deposits, you can issue a certificate. So theoretically, as long as the US regulations meet, these so-called token issuances do not require the authorization and consent of the stock company itself. But product design may vary, whether it depends on whether your product can only be purchased by KYC users, or it can be fully shared and can be purchased by everyone else. Tokens like Coinbase should not have any KYC requirements and should be bought directly on the chain. If it can be purchased by users who do not need KYC at the non-licensing level, it will definitely attract many companies because it will create a new liquidity pool. But this also depends on the regulatory issues. I feel that this matter is not clear yet. Like those who issued T-bill tokens before, a pool was built on Curve, but only whitelisted users are allowed to purchase because it is completely a Security Token. So my understanding, tokens like stocks, on the chain, are themselves Security Tokens and should not be allowed to buy them. So there will be many specific problems when it is implemented. If only KYC users are allowed to purchase, the audience will be limited and may compete with those who use traditional channels such as Futu, which will become a stock competition, rather than an incremental market. This is the problem that stock tokens need to face in the go to market.

Alex: How are their purchasing permissions designed for Buidl tokens issued by BlackRock?

Mindao: It also needs to go through KYC. Buidl's distribution strategy is not for retail investors, but for Defi protocols. There can be an account that is KYC. After purchase, it can be passed to the user. Buidl itself is a company or institution market, targeting a business. For example, whether you are doing Defi protocols or other financial products on the chain, I will only distribute it to users like you. As for how you distribute it to other retail investors after you synthesize it, it is the problem of others. Actually, I think it is a bit like the current stablecoin minting model. It is aimed at coin vendors and has hierarchical distribution, rather than directly facing retail investors. This model is relatively reasonable.

STO reheating factors and market performance expectations

Alex: I understand, we just talked about the concept of STO. In fact, there were projects in 2017, such as Polymath, which tried to push but did not push. Now many project parties and industry parties are paying attention to this track again. Apart from the shift in regulatory policies we mentioned after Trump took office, are there any other demand or new factors that have made this field regained attention recently? And are you optimistic about its market performance in the next one to three years?

Mindao: In fact, stock tokens were earlier than 2017. In 2017 and 2018, including the last Defi cycle, such as Synthetix's synthetic assets, Luna's project Mirror, and we also made them. We issued four or five tokens, but finally found that the transaction volume was not good. At that time, we analyzed that it might be a problem with the synthetic asset model, such as Synthetix, which has a very high super collateral rate and low capital efficiency. Later, FTX also bought some Tesla stocks, and the trading volume was average. I think the core problem is, for example, before Defi Summer 2022, we will see what kind of players are playing in the Crypto market structure. Most people have a slogan called "long crypto, short the world". I think many people enter Crypto because it is an industry with particularly obvious asymmetric returns. It was particularly obvious in the early stages, and the overall upside of the return was particularly high. Therefore, those who enter this market look down on people in the traditional market, real estate, commodities, and stocks. What is the concept of selling stocks in this group? It’s like selling ice in Antarctica. It’s not that there is little demand for stocks, but that the audience is wrong. However, several important turning points have occurred this year. One is that after the Bitcoin ETF was launched last year and after the Ethereum ETF was launched, a large amount of traditional financial funds entered Crypto to make allocations. In addition, on the chain, we look at the two large stablecoins now, which are about 230 billion US dollars or 240 billion US dollars. This fund is only 10 billion US dollars left in Defi, and most of them are not played in Defi. Most of the people here are friends around us. Many people have no idea about coins at all, so they simply regard stablecoins as US dollars. So I said that the market structure has actually changed a lot now. In the past, most of them were crypto native people, and now a large number of people come to the currency circle to hold stablecoins. But these people may have been transformed from traditional finance, and there is absolutely a demand for stocks. The traditional account opening channel is very smooth, but I think if you really have a US stock trading market on the chain, which is very convenient for everyone to buy with stablecoins, this demand will easily replace the traditional practices like IB, which range from RMB to US dollar, then US dollar to exchanges, and bank account opening problems. We have encountered those problems in reality. If there is such a US stock trading market on the chain, I think there is still demand, and why do you feel that this demand will be available in the next three to five years? I think the biggest reason is that the market structure has changed, which is different from the market structure five to six years ago. At that time, these people who were completely native to crypto now have more and more non-crypto users. He doesn't even care meme, btc or eth, he just treats stablecoins as US dollars. If you give him a traditional asset and these people are very familiar with traditional stock buying, there is still a need for this allocation. And it is indeed much more convenient on the chain than on the exchange. The only point now is that the infrastructure of the entire US stock market is not that perfect. For example, we don’t have so many token choices, and the slippage is so high. So I think the entire tokenization of US stocks may still be like Defi in the 2017 and 2018, and it was not yet time for Defi Summer. I am actually quite optimistic about this. I think there should be a relatively large market in three to five years. But the premise is that this asset can be issued. Now the question is whether the US stock asset can be issued in compliance, and everyone is still trying. Coinbase is still trying, so I think as long as there is a compliant framework that can be posted on the chain, this market can be gained.

Beneficiaries of STO Inspur

Alex: So in the long run, assuming that this market can be raised, there is also a compliance framework that allows them to issue. Taking this as a premise, which track projects or companies do you think can benefit from the STO wave? Is it DeFi, Layer1, Layer2, or some specific RWA projects?

Mindao: I think the best reference is to look at stablecoins, because stablecoins are essentially the largest asset class in RWA, which tokenize US dollar vouchers. In this track, the biggest beneficiary must be the asset issuer. The asset issuer I am talking about does not refer to companies like Tesla or Disney, but to the party that really issues their stock tokens. Because whether it is a stock or a stablecoin, the most important thing is the network effect of liquidity, which makes it difficult to replace liquidity to achieve the Matthew effect. I think this is very important. So, if someone can really put the tokenization of the index with the largest trading volume such as QQQ and Nasdaq on the chain, and the token itself forms a liquid network effect, just like USDT, it will eventually become a must. In this case, they are certainly the biggest beneficiaries. Because at the bottom and stablecoins, there are many things to do in stock tokenization, such as margin financing and securities lending of the underlying tokens, and some fees from the sender and issuers. There are many business models that can be established, but I think the biggest beneficiaries should be those issuers, especially those that can quickly form scale. We can see that whether it is ETFs or some money funds, the market share is usually the first issuance. For example, Bitcoin ETFs, you see that they now have a large market share, and they will still be in three to five years. The cake continues to expand, the proportion will not change, and may be higher. The network effect is very obvious. Because after the stock token is issued on the chain, many companies will synthesize it again, just like DeFi. Just like USDT and USDC, there are a large number of Defi products on it. This will form a very solid moat. Therefore, I think the issuer of the token should benefit the most.

Alex: Assuming these issuers have many asset offerings, which chain they might prioritize? Is it a chain like Ethereum that has good credit and is so-called orthodox, or is it a chain like Solana or Base with stronger performance?

Mindao: I think Playbook already has it, just learn USDT, and send it no matter what chain it is. This is the most typical example. The USDT story is particularly interesting because it was first issued by Bitfinex, but it is particularly difficult for exchanges to issue stablecoins to be accepted by other exchanges. This is also why after DeFi Summer, Binance, OKX, and Huobi all issued their own stablecoins, but refused to recognize each other. However, USDT happened to exist when there were no other alternatives in the market, so the other parties accepted it and became a network effect. Stock tokenization is the same. I think any chain needs to be issued, just like the early USDT, as long as there is demand, it will be issued, and the company will allocate inventory uniformly. I don't think any chain has unique advantages at the RWA asset level. For example, Ethereum USDT is issued more because of the large demand, and that's all, not because Ethereum has any special advantages at the application level. For stablecoin issuers, the market is large enough, and the DeFi protocol is large enough, and it can accommodate more funds. I think this is an issue that asset issuers may need to consider. This market is big enough, just send it.

How to view the current policy environment of the crypto industry

Alex： 明白，前面我们大部分的篇幅在聊STO，我们也提到背后有一个大的政策转向是合规化的可能性越来越大这么一个背景。其实我们上一次节目谈到加密政策，已经过去了差不多三个月。在这期间发生了很多事情，比如川普发币，川普家族启动World Liberty 项目去购买各种加密资产，还有川普签署了所谓的BTC 战略储备行政令。一些不好的消息也传来，很多州的比特币储备方案都闯关失败了，大约四五个州都没能立法成功。有声音认为川普上任前承诺的大部分加密行业政策已兑现，后续利好可能不多。您怎么看待目前这个时点加密行业的政策环境？未来是否还有关键事件值得期待或密切关注？

民道： 我对这个事情的感受比较混杂。确实从政策面来看，有很多利好因素浮现，包括利好的程度和执行速度都远超出我的预期。在政策层面上，比特币被视为美国的储备资产。我们知道美国的储备可以分为几类，一种是具有实用价值的大宗商品，还有金融类的像黄金。因此，将其提升到这样的级别，无论从执行速度还是定义的高度来看，我觉得都达到了一个很高的水平。而且很多其他资产也被纳入到所谓的stockpile 中。所以，政策面上确实有许多利好。但是另外不太好的地方在于像一些操作手法。比如，如果没有川普发币，没有World Liberty Finance 做的那些事，我可能总体会更加正面。由于川普发币，包括MELANIA 那个币，背后似乎是Meme 阴谋集团在操作。World Liberty Finance 最近在币圈中寻找合作，我了解到大的项目方都被联系进行换币交易，就是你买他的币，他买你的币。另外还在讨论要不要投交易所。这一系列事件关联起来，让我感觉不太好。因为Crypto 本身一直以来都是一个反脆弱的，是对政府或政权不屑的。Crypto 的崛起并非依靠任何政权扶持，这种野生生长就是其反脆弱性的核心。但是现在看起来，这一切被川普家族绑架了。想象一下4 年后怎么办？而且川普有些公器私用，跟他的家族绑太深了。如果民主党再上台，复仇会来得特别激烈。特别要注意，川普的大部分举措都是通过EO（行政指令）实现的，新的政府上台后都可以一纸废除。就像川普曾废除拜登时代的100 多个EO 一样。因此，未来4 年的关键是看有多少EO 类的政策能正式嵌入美国的立法框架。如果这些政策最终能够成为法律，经过国会和州议会批准，形成法律框架，那就不用担心被轻易废除。要看将来4 年这些东西有多少能够固化。当这些措施与川普的个人利益绑得太深，一旦民主党上台，Crypto 可能会成为非常负面的东西被压制，这是我非常担心的点。而且你想一下，所有这些东西看起来，谋私利和公权之间的界限非常模糊。如果你是个民主党，要攻击他就以他所有的交易为攻击点，这再方便不过了。他发币，又搞DeFi，又进行这些后续交易，这些都特别容易被攻击。在这种情况下，民主党上台，Crypto 可能会成为攻击川普或他的家族的重要武器。这样一来，还会有正面的立法吗？这就很难了。所以，我觉得市场也看出来了，政策层面确实很好，但这些都是浮在表面的，有多少能最终落到法律层面，固化为制度的一部分呢？这些与他的家族捆绑太深，已变成一种私器。比如，当时Crypto Summit 传言可以花100 万美金买门票，这不光在美国，放在发展中国家也是ridiculous 的。你发现最近币圈很多OG 也不发声了，就不想表达这种事情到底是好还是坏，真的说不清楚，要看最后有多少能落到法律层面。当然也有一些在币圈的人认为说我就迎合川普和他家族的需求，该干嘛就干嘛，但是你三五年后再看呢？现在已经开始有攻击出来，美国的民主党已经开始调查川普发币的事情，所以我觉得是一个很复杂的情绪。

Alex： 可能大家原来觉得川普推动这件事是一个大的利好，是一个政策层面的大利好。可是，当他开始发币，还提出把ada、SOL，包括xrp 纳入和比特币一样的国家储备时，这件事的严肃性就完全消解掉了。

民道： 对，完全消解了。我们一开始认为它是真正在国策层面，把美国变成所谓的Capital of Crypto 的一部分。然而突然间发现所有的操作都属于私器，变成了谋私利，这就变味了。我觉得市场最大的一个转折点就是川普和Melania 发币之后，还包括后续的Libra 发币，以及这个事件暴露出的所谓的阴谋集团操纵。你看整个市场开始往下走，那是一个转折点。大家开始对这件事产生了困惑，就它到底是被当作私器在用，还是变成一个真正的政策实打实落下去。市场的共识显然存在分歧。

Alex： 对，很多人曾期待联邦层面的比特币储备法案，但是在1 月份发生那么多混乱后，2 月份大部分州的储备法案很难通过。

民道： 川普发的meme token，包括World Liberty Finance，最近还传说收购交易所的代币。这些私人交易与公权力的冲突导致法案推行时出现了很多反对声音。这到底是给国家还是给个人服务？还有一个对照的案例就是特斯拉。特斯拉的股票从高点跌了大概50%，因为大家认为特斯拉与马斯克绑得太紧。特斯拉的波动性就是川普政策的波动性，特斯拉的股东肯定也是不愿意的。像有些人不满意川普在乌克兰的政策，就不愿意买特斯拉的股票。我觉得与政治人物过度挂钩是不好的，这也是很多人现在有负面情绪的原因，就是跟川普家捆绑太紧了。

Alex： 尤其是川普已经第二届，不会再干了，他最多也就再三年多。

民道： 之后哪怕共和党其他人上台，也不一定像他这样推行这些政策。说实在的，哪怕是我在Crypto 那么多年，我都很难辨别这些措施是为了私利还是公利，我觉得不像完全是公利。

Alex： 好的，今天我们聊了STO 以及很多政策相关的话题。感谢民道老师的参与，希望下次还能邀请到您。 Thanks.

民道： 没问题，谢谢。