你有没有发现，最近两年找到合适的理财产品越来越难？

银行利息持续走低，国债和货币基金的收益甚至跑不过通胀，保险理财也在悄悄“降档”。对于希望资产增值的用户来说，在理财App里一圈圈翻找，看到的都是1%上下的收益率，心里着实提不起劲。

我们好像生活在一个金融产品种类前所未有丰富的时代，但能“稳健赚钱”的理财方式却越来越难寻到。在这样的背景下，原本只属于加密圈的理财方式 — — 尤其是以稳定币为基础的链上理财，悄然走进了越来越多人的视野。

1、稳定币理财为什么值得关注？

作为一种锚定法币发行的数字资产，稳定币并不具备比特币那样的价格波动性，但却更多承担类似“数字现金”的功能。而稳定币理财，就是让用户将手中闲置的稳定币在链上或中心化平台进行借贷、质押或协议投资，以换取相应的年化收益回报。

这听起来或许陌生，但逻辑并不复杂 — — 就像银行把你的存款拿去放贷赚利差一样。只是在链上世界，这个“利差”更透明，收益更合理。目前常见的稳定币理财产品大致分为以下几类：

从今年上半年的数据来看，主流DeFi借贷协议中USDT/USDC的年化利率大多在2.5%~4%之间波动；部分DeFi平台通过流动性挖矿或奖励机制，提供的总年化收益可能突破8%，但伴随更高波动性与锁仓要求。相比之下，固定收益类产品尽管年化收益率不是最高，但整体稳中有升，最高能达到5%左右，加上收益稳定且门槛较低等优势，已经成为很多用户的链上理财首选。

更重要的是，这类产品的灵活性和使用体验正在快速优化。用户只需持有稳定币，然后选择平台和产品类型，即可一键申购，部分平台还支持随存随取、按天计息。这种操作方式像余额宝一样方便，却能拿到近似美国国债的利息；像定期存款一样稳定，却没有提前赎回的罚息。这种“稳中带灵”的体验，不正是用户所追求的理财状态？

以下是稳定币理财与传统金融市场的固收类产品的对比：

不难看出，稳定币理财的吸引力并不只在于收益率。除了收益率，稳定币理财产品的赎回灵活性也很高，大部分支持随存随取，按天计息，无需锁仓或设定收益期，真正实现了“资产不空转”；其次透明度方面，大多数平台会披露收益来源、风险说明和资金流向，有些甚至通过链上数据实时验证资金安全；更重要的是，它让用户的收益更合理：平台不再“吃利差”，而是把真实的借贷或撮合收益按比例分配给出资者，这是链上金融体系“价值回归用户”的直接体现。

2、稳定币理财的收益从哪来？

稳定币理财的收益结构主要有三类来源：一是链上借贷利息，平台将用户锁仓的稳定币出借给其他用户获取收益；二是质押奖励或节点收入，特别是在Staking类产品中；三是参与期权或收益分层策略的利润分配。对用户而言，只要平台产品结构公开透明、资产托管安全，便可以看作链上的“类固收产品”。

目前，稳定币的链上活跃地址持续增长，虽然并没有明确统计“稳定币理财参与用户人数”，但从链上活动量和资金流入量来看，其规模正在迅速扩大。尤其在东南亚、拉美、中东等本币不稳定、金融系统覆盖不足的地区，稳定币已成为居民规避本币贬值、获取美元资产收益的重要手段。

值得注意的是，机构资金也在持续入场。保险公司、家族办公室、基金等已将稳定币理财纳入流动性管理工具，作为美元资产池中的一环。这种趋势推动平台在风控、透明度与合规层面持续升级，为C端用户提供了更成熟的产品环境和服务体验。

站在普通用户视角，稳定币理财并不是一门“暴富”的生意，但却可能是你资产配置中最安静但稳定的收益来源。它更像是理财拼图中的一块“数字现金类资产”，比活期收益高，比股票波动低，适合在不确定环境中寻找确定性回报。随着香港、欧洲、东南亚等地区稳定币监管框架日趋清晰，用户将有更多安全、合规、收益透明的产品可以选择。

不过，稳定币理财仍属于新兴领域，风险识别始终不可忽视。部分稳定币可能因清算机制、锚定资产管理等问题出现脱锚风险，如TUSD、USDD等曾出现波动；智能合约审计、安全措施等也会影响资金安全。所以对普通用户而言，应选择头部平台或已纳入监管的机构产品，优先考虑收益结构清晰、支持灵活赎回的稳定币理财方式，并对“年化10%以上”等高收益产品保持审慎判断，切忌盲目追高。稳健、透明、合规，才是长期参与的前提。

在利率低企的今天，稳定币理财给了用户更多的稳健投资选择。你未必需要拥抱整个加密世界，但至少可以通过稳定币，拥有一个透明、安全、年化5%左右的“加密储蓄账户” — — 在不确定性中，找到确定的回报。

免责声明：本文内容仅为信息分享，不构成任何投资建议。链上理财存在一定风险，读者应根据自身风险承受能力进行判断和决策。如需参与相关产品，建议优先参考官方平台说明及合规披露信息。

汇款仍贵 — — 痛点催生“链上跳转”

世界银行最新数据显示，全球跨境汇款平均手续费 6.62 %，到账时间普遍 3–5 天 。在场外 OTC 或 P2P 市场使用稳定币完成同样流程，费用已被压到 1 % 以内、用时缩短至小时级，这一巨大价差正推动稳定币在新兴市场加速普及。

高通胀经济体的“链上活期”

• 阿根廷 — — 2023 Q3 至 2024 Q2 的加密流入约 910 亿美元，其中 62 % 为稳定币；工资到账即换 USDT/USDC 已成主流对冲方案 。
• 尼日利亚 — — 同一时期链上流入约 590 亿美元，位列全球加密采用指数第 2；本币贬值与外汇配额紧缩让居民对稳定币形成刚需 。

稳定币正在填补“现金稀缺 ↔ 硬通货需求”之间的结构性缺口。

基础设施升级，机构合流

• 支付网络 — — Visa 在 2025 投资者日披露，已用 USDC 结算 1 亿美元+ 规模的清算义务，且支持 7 × 24 多链处理 。
• 银行同盟 — — J.P. Morgan、花旗、富国等正讨论推出“100 % 法币储备”联盟稳定币，意在稳固约 千亿美元级汇款市场 。

当支付巨头和华尔街银行同时下注，借由稳定币重塑传统的跨境结算通道。

跨境贸易与供应链

Tether 近日斥资收购拉美农业与能源巨头 Adecoagro 70 % 股权，宣布将用 USDT 为稻米、乙醇等大宗商品提供链上结算。

稳定币第一次真正走进实物贸易，表明“可编程美元”已开始重塑信用证与贸易融资流程。

加密支付跃迁，日用加速

以Visa、Stripe、PayPal、OKX等金融科技企业，也在把稳定币嵌入人们的消费链路，在新兴市场与零售支付场景中快速推进稳定币的普及。

OKX Pay基于自研技术零 Gas 的 ZK-L2「X Layer」，让 USDT、USDC 零手续费秒级到账，并自动接入低风险协议赚取收益；私钥分片 + ZK 邮箱恢复避免记助记词之忧，内置 KYC、AML、Multisig 架起机构级安全防护；同时，进一步与 Mastercard合作，有望将链上资产与其全球 1.5 亿＋商户网络交互，同时保留自托管与实时清算优势。

稳定币由此完成从投资标的到随手可用支付工具的跃迁，为普惠金融的规模化落地提供了直接、可验证的样本。

当布宜诺斯艾利斯的咖啡师、拉各斯的自由职业者、圣保罗的农贸商都把稳定币当作活期存储与随手支付工具时，稳定币就不再只是加密圈的“数字筹码”，而是贯通街头钱包与全球清算的公共管道。眼下，关于稳定币的监管框架不同司法辖区都逐渐清晰，银行联盟正试水自有稳定币，支付网络已将链上结算设为默认选项，跨境贸易也开始用稳定币结算大宗货物 — — 这股合流的力量正在把稳定币铸成下一代普惠金融的基础设施。OKG 将继续以产品落地和数据研究双驱动，推动这座“链上桥梁”从概念走向全球日常。

This week, the U.S. Senate and the Hong Kong Legislative Council nearly simultaneously took major steps in stablecoin regulation: the former overwhelmingly passed a procedural motion on the GENIUS Act, clearing the way for the first federal stablecoin legislation in the United States; the latter passed the third reading of the “Stablecoin Ordinance Bill,” making Hong Kong the first jurisdiction in Asia-Pacific to establish a stablecoin licensing regime. The synchronicity of Eastern and Western legislative progress is no coincidence — it reflects a broader contest for influence over the future financial order.

Stablecoin Transaction Volume Could Surpass $100 Trillion Annually by 2030

According to preliminary statistics from OKG Research, the global stablecoin market capitalization is approaching $250 billion, having grown more than 22-fold over the past five years. Since the beginning of 2025, on-chain transaction volume has surpassed $3.7 trillion and is projected to reach nearly $10 trillion for the year. Stablecoins such as USDT and USDC are now widely used in emerging markets for trading and remittances, with usage volumes surpassing traditional payment systems in some regions. What was once considered a fringe asset has become a core node in global payment networks and a tool for sovereign competition. The near-simultaneous legislative efforts in the U.S. and Hong Kong signify that the global stablecoin market has entered a period of accelerated regulatory alignment.

Based on this, OKG Research — drawing on Standard Chartered’s earlier projection model and factoring in the pace of current regulatory signals and institutional sentiment — has developed the following estimates under an optimistic scenario where global regulatory frameworks are adopted and stablecoins gain widespread use by individuals and institutions:

• Global stablecoin supply could reach $3 trillion by around 2030.
• Monthly on-chain transaction volume could reach $9 trillion.
• Annual transaction volume may exceed $100 trillion.

This would position stablecoins not only alongside traditional electronic payment systems but as foundational assets in global clearing networks. In terms of asset scale, stablecoins would become the “fourth major base currency asset” after sovereign bonds, cash, and bank deposits — serving as a key medium for digital payments and asset circulation.

More notably, the reserve structure of stablecoins under such expansion could have macroeconomic implications. As OKG Research previously reported, current stablecoin holdings account for roughly 3% of maturing short-term U.S. Treasury bills — ranking 19th among overseas holders.

Considering the GENIUS Act mandates that 100% of reserves be held in highly liquid U.S. dollar assets — with short-term Treasuries as a primary component (over 80% of current USDT/USDC reserves are linked to short-term Treasuries) — a conservative 50% allocation of a $3 trillion market would create at least $1.5 trillion in structural demand for short-term U.S. debt. This volume is close to the current holdings of sovereign investors like China or Japan, suggesting stablecoins could soon become the U.S. Treasury’s largest “invisible creditor.”

Comparing the U.S. and Hong Kong Stablecoin Regulatory Frameworks: Divergences Amid Consensus

While the U.S. and Hong Kong differ in legislative paths and technical details, they share consensus on core principles: fiat-pegging, full reserve backing, and licensed issuance.

The GENIUS Act applies to “payment stablecoins,” defined as tokens pegged to legal tender (e.g., USD), redeemable at 1:1 value, and prohibited from offering interest — ensuring they are not treated as securities or investment vehicles. Hong Kong, while also requiring full backing, does not restrict interest payments or asset structures in the current draft, leaving room for future innovations in a dollar-dominated stablecoin landscape.

Both jurisdictions mandate full reserve backing with high-liquidity assets, though the GENIUS Act defines acceptable reserve assets (T-bills, cash, repos) and mandates monthly audits. Hong Kong similarly requires audits and segregated custody but leaves asset types more open.

In terms of regulatory structure, the GENIUS Act adopts a federal-state dual framework, offering three issuance pathways: (1) through a licensed bank or its subsidiary (regulated by the Fed, FDIC, etc.), (2) directly licensed by the OCC for non-bank entities, or (3) through qualified state licensing regimes. Hong Kong’s Monetary Authority (HKMA) handles all licensing and mandates that any issuer — whether based in Hong Kong or abroad — must apply for a license if issuing HKD-pegged stablecoins or marketing services to Hong Kong residents.

Regarding foreign issuers, the GENIUS Act prohibits unlicensed overseas stablecoins from circulating in the U.S., allowing the Treasury to designate “non-compliant stablecoins” and instructing digital asset service providers to block their flow. Hong Kong focuses primarily on HKD-pegged stablecoins and remains more open to foreign currencies.

These structural differences reflect divergent policy goals. The U.S. seeks to preserve dollar hegemony and address fiscal needs by extending dollar dominance onto the blockchain. In contrast, Hong Kong aims to attract global Web3 projects while maintaining local financial stability, crafting a “regulated sandbox” in Asia-Pacific that balances control with openness and interoperability.

How Will Stablecoin Regulation Reshape the Web3 Ecosystem?

The real significance of stablecoin regulation lies in providing foundational infrastructure for large-scale Web3 adoption.

In DeFi, while USDT and USDC are already key settlement assets, their uncertain legal status has hindered institutional participation. The enactment of frameworks like the GENIUS Act would allow compliant issuers to become the settlement backbone of “compliant DeFi,” incorporating KYC, AML, and asset recognition modules. Decentralized finance would evolve into “auditable on-chain financial networks.”

In Web3 payments, regulation will remove gray zones between assets and payment scenarios, transforming stablecoins from transaction intermediaries into payment channels. Since Visa announced over $225 million in stablecoin settlements, many fintech firms have integrated stablecoins into merchant flows. Web3 wallets use stablecoins as default assets for microtransactions like top-ups, tips, and subscriptions. The transition from “crypto-native transfers” to “enterprise-grade financial APIs” depends on regulatory clarity.

At a deeper level, this reshapes global clearing architecture. Stablecoins — pegged 1:1 to fiat currencies — bridge fiat and on-chain assets while bypassing traditional banking rails, enabling peer-to-peer clearing. This could allow stablecoins to replace traditional banks with cross-border payments, trade finance, and RWA (real-world asset) payouts.

Historically, discussions on Web3 adoption focused too much on tech and UX, neglecting the legitimacy of core financial assets. Compliant stablecoins offer the missing piece: legally recognized, programmable, fiat-linked digital assets that can be used across DeFi and NFT ecosystems.

In essence, stablecoins are not auxiliary to Web3 — they are a primary catalyst. With regulatory support, they will underpin everything from RWA tokenization to payroll, cross-border settlements, and Web3 payment rails — becoming the foundational infrastructure for global on-chain economies.

Why Stablecoin Regulation Is Speeding Up — From D.C. to Hong Kong was originally published in The Capital on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

美国参议院和香港立法会本周几乎“前后脚”就稳定币监管迈出关键步伐：前者以压倒性优势通过GENIUS法案的程序性动议，为美国首部联邦稳定币法案扫清障碍；后者则通过《稳定币条例草案》三读，使香港成为亚太地区首个确立稳定币牌照制度的司法辖区。东西方立法节奏的高度重合，不只是偶然时机的碰撞，更是对未来金融话语权的竞逐。

稳定币年交易量或在2030年突破100万亿美元

据OKG Research不完全统计，当前全球稳定币市值已接近2500亿美元，过去5年间增长超过22倍；2025年年初至今，链上交易量突破3.7万亿美元，全年预计将接近10万亿美元。以USDT、USDC为代表的美元稳定币已在新兴市场普遍用于交易汇款，部分地区规模甚至超过传统支付系统。稳定币已从边缘资产跃升为全球支付网络与主权竞争的关键节点，美港几乎同时加速立法，意味着全球稳定币市场已进入合规加速期。

基于此，OKG Research参考渣打银行此前的测算模型，并结合当前监管信号释放节奏与机构资金态度，在保持当前稳定币周转率基本不变的前提下，测算得出：

在全球合规框架逐步铺开、机构和个人广泛采用的乐观情境下，全球稳定币供应量在2030年前后将达到3万亿美元，月度链上交易量达9万亿美元，年交易总量或突破100万亿美元。这意味着稳定币不仅将与传统电子支付系统比肩，更将在全球清算网络中占据结构性基础地位。就市值体量而言，稳定币将成为继国债、现金、银行存款之后的“第四类基础货币资产”，成为数字支付与资产流通的重要媒介。

更值得关注的是，在这种增长趋势下，稳定币的储备结构也将对宏观经济产生反馈效应。OKG Research此前曾推出，稳定币的现有规模消化了约3%即将到期的短期美债，在海外美债持有者排行榜中位列第19名。

考虑到GENIUS法案明确要求100%以高流动美元资产作为储备，短期美债被视为主要选择（目前USDT/USDC储备资产中超过80%与美债相关。）若按50%配置比例估算，3万亿美元市值将对应至少1.5万亿美元的短期美债需求。这一规模已接近中国或日本的海外主权买家当前的美债持仓，稳定币有望成为美国财政的“最大隐形债权人”。

美港稳定币监管框架对比：分歧中的共识

尽管美国与香港在立法路径与部分细节上有所差异，但在“法币锚定、足额储备、持牌发行”等基本原则上形成高度共识。

GENIUS法案限定“支付型稳定币”，即锚定美元等法定货币、承诺1:1可兑回、不得附带利息收益的稳定币，强调其非证券属性，意在防止稳定币演变为具投资属性的金融产品。香港则在保障1:1足额锚定前提下，暂未限制利息收益与锚定结构，寻求在美元主导的稳定币市场中开辟新赛道，并为未来创新保留空间。

储备要求方面，美港均要求足额锚定高流动性资产，但Genius法案明确限定合格储备资产类型，包括T-Bills、现金及回购协议等，并要求每月审计；香港亦要求审计与隔离托管，但储备资产种类并未完全限定。

在制度架构上，Genius法案采用“联邦-州”双轨制，为稳定币发行提供三种路径：银行或其子公司申请发行稳定币，受美联储、FDIC等银行监管机构监管；非银行机构可向OCC申请成为联邦许可发行人，或通过州监管机构获取牌照。香港则由金管局统一发牌，且要求无论稳定币发行方是否设于香港，只要锚定港元或主动向香港公众提供服务就须申请许可。

境外发行人管理方面，GENIUS法案明确禁止未许可的海外稳定币在美国市场流通，授权财政部设立“非合规稳定币名单”，并通过美国数字资产服务商阻断其流通路径；香港则主要聚焦锚定港元的稳定币，对非港元稳定币保持开放。

这些制度差异背后，反映出两地在稳定币定位上的不同诉求。美国以维护美元主导地位、服务财政结构性融资需求为主，推动稳定币成为链上美元的延伸形态；而香港则希望在不损害本地金融稳定前提下吸引全球Web3项目落地，在很多细节方面留出了政策弹性空间，旨在打造一个受控但有开放性与兼容性的亚太合规创新试验场。

稳定币监管落地如何影响Web3生态？

稳定币监管落地的真正意义，在于为Web3的大规模采用提供了支付与结算根基。

在DeFi领域，尽管USDT、USDC等稳定币已是链上金融创新的重要结算资产，但缺乏明确法律地位与追责机制，导致机构难以直接参与。若Genius法案等稳定币监管框架相继落地，合规发行人提供的稳定币将成为“合规DeFi”的清算核心，协议将嵌入更多KYC、AML与资产识别模块，去中心化金融将逐步演变为“可审计的链上金融网络”。

在Web3支付体系中，稳定币监管落地将打破过去支付场景与资产流通之间的灰色界限，使得稳定币真正从“交易中介”走向“支付通道”。OKG Research观察到，自Visa宣布累计稳定币清算量突破2.25亿美元以来，已有多家支付科技公司陆续将稳定币嵌入其商户结算流程；Web3钱包则以稳定币为默认支付资产拓展充值、打赏、订阅等微支付场景。链上支付正由“加密圈内转账工具”向“企业级金融接口”转变，而合规化是这场转型的必要前提。

更深层次的变化在于全球清算结构的重塑：稳定币以1:1锚定法币的方式，打通了本币与链上资产之间的连接口，同时又不依赖银行账户体系，可“点对点”实现清算，这意味着未来跨境支付、链上贸易融资、RWA派息等场景中，稳定币可能取代传统银行作为资金流通中枢。

过去我们讨论Web3大规模普及，过于聚焦技术突破与用户体验，而忽视了基础资产合法性。如今合规稳定币提供了“最后一块拼图”：它既是制度认可的交易资产，又具备链上流转的可编程性。它既是美元、港元的数字镜像，又可以直接调用于DeFi协议与NFT交易中。

换言之，稳定币不是Web3的附属物，而是推动其迈向主流的原力之一。在合规稳定币的支持下，从RWA资产交易到链上工资发放，从跨境清算到Web3支付接口，稳定币将成为推动链上经济大规模普及的“基础设施资产”。

文 / Jason Jiang，OKG Research

2025年4月22日，Paul Atkins正式宣誓就任美国证券交易委员会（SEC）第34任主席。这位由特朗普总统提名、在参议院以52票对44票确认的“自由市场派”监管者，不同于其前任Gary Gensler在任期内以执法为主的监管方式，一上任便明确表示：建设清晰、开放的数字资产监管框架将是“首要任务”。

Gensler时代，美国SEC对加密行业展开大规模执法行动，几乎将所有代币视为证券，令创业者、投资机构和交易平台长期处于不确定与风险之中。在这种监管高压与政策模糊交织的背景下，Atkins的上任被业内视为美国加密监管的“重启时刻”。

从传统监管者到“加密老兵”

Paul Atkins是一位典型的“华盛顿-华尔街穿梭者”。他毕业于沃福德学院和范德堡大学法学院，早年曾任职于华尔街顶级律所Davis Polk，从事证券发行和并购等业务，并在巴黎工作积累国际经验。1990年代初进入SEC，先后担任两位前主席的高级顾问，主责公司治理与市场结构改革等议题。

2002年，Atkins被时任总统小布什任命为SEC专员。在2008年卸任前，他以推动透明化监管、反对官僚膨胀著称，是美国自由市场监管理念的代表人物之一。2009年，他创办了合规咨询机构Patomak Global Partners，为金融机构和加密企业提供合规战略服务。

在创办Patomak的过程中，Atkins与加密行业建立起深度联系。Atkins担任美国数字商会下属“Token Alliance”的联合主席，主导制定代币发行和加密平台的最佳实践。他还曾为Securitize、Anchorage Digital等知名加密公司提供战略咨询，并投资于加密资产基金Off The Chain Capital。财务披露显示，其家庭加密相关资产规模高达数百万美元。

这些经历使得Atkins成为传统监管者中为数不多、对加密行业既有理论认知又有实战经验的代表人物。不过，Atkins的加密背景也曾引发争议。在FTX崩盘前，Patomak曾为其提供合规建议服务，这段经历成为其提名过程中的争议点之一。尽管如此，参议院多数党最终仍给予支持，背后不仅是对其专业能力的认可，也反映出美国政治氛围中加密监管态度正在松动。

监管不应成为创新的敌人

与Gensler时期“诉讼治理行业”的监管路径不同，Atkins在听证会及就职首日均明确表态：SEC的使命应从“通过执法界定规则”转向“通过规则引导合规”。

他认为，监管不能以打压创新为代价，也不能让市场在法律灰色地带中长期彷徨。“监管不应成为创新的敌人”，而应提供“理性、明确、可执行的合规路径”，这是他对整个加密行业释放的首个关键信号。

Atkins批评前任“一刀切将加密货币视为证券”的做法，导致市场陷入“先被起诉、后找规则”的死循环。相比之下，他倾向于基于代币功能、去中心化程度等维度，构建更具弹性和适应性的监管分类体系，并指出“美国不应因监管不确定而丧失在Web3时代的竞争优势”。这与加密社区、开发者甚至部分机构投资者多年来的呼吁高度契合。

自4月9日参议院投票确认Atkins将担任主席后，SEC的一系列动作已经令加密行业明显感受到监管风向的变化，被一些业内人士戏称为监管机构变身“加密奶爸”：

1、启动与加密行业的对话。为了尽快填补监管空白、达成业界共识，SEC加密货币工作组计划在今年4月至6月举办四场公开圆桌会议，涵盖交易所监管、托管规范、DeFi合规以及资产代币化等关键议题，邀请业界代表、消费者组织与政策研究者共商监管路径。这是SEC历史上首次就加密议题设立系统性的政策协商机制，显示Atkins领导下的SEC 希望通过倾听行业声音，用“合作取代对抗”，及时调整政策优先事项。

4月11日的首场圆桌议题为“为加密交易量身定制监管”，探讨如何在现有证券法框架下调整规则以适应加密交易所。

2、密诉讼案件大面积和解或撤诉。Atkins履新后，SEC 对待存量加密诉讼案件的态度明显软化。4月11日，SEC与Ripple达成长期诉讼和解协议，罚款金额削减至5000万美元，且XRP未被明确定义为证券。与此同时，Nova Labs等多个项目的诉讼被直接撤销，业内称之为“监管特赦潮”。这种“纠偏”姿态释放出明确信号：SEC将对前任任内加密执法滥诉进行回溯性修正，希望通过谈判解决遗留争议，为行业提供政策喘息空间。

3、加密披露标准初步成型。同样在4月11日，SEC企业融资部发布了关于加密代币发行的非约束性信息披露指引，涵盖项目架构、代币功能、治理设计、发展进度等内容。这是SEC首次尝试为加密项目提供“预期内的披露清单”，标志其监管逻辑已从“事后执法”向“事前指引”转变。“加密妈妈”Hester Peirce评价称，这体现了新主席治下SEC愿意“下场指导”，而非让行业在危险边缘摸索前行。

这些转向性举措说明，Atkins所领导下的SEC正从过去“高压管控”走向“透明共治”。与其说这是监管宽松，不如说是监管理性回归，回到为市场服务、保护投资者与鼓励创新的原点。

三大焦点议题将成为Atkins加密新政的优先事项

在释放初步友好信号后，业界普遍关注Atkins主导下SEC接下来的重点政策走向。当前市场普遍聚焦于三大方向：

1、加速稳定币立法工作。特朗普多次公开支持推出规范的美元稳定币，以增加美国国债需求、巩固美元在数字时代的主导地位。Atkins已表态支持由参议员Bill Hagerty提出的《GENIUS法案》，为稳定币设立许可证、储备金、信息披露等基本框架，并建议对中小型项目提供州级豁免通道。SEC在其任内可能逐步退出对“非证券型稳定币”（如USDC）的直接干预，将其监管重心交由银行监管机构或立法机构统一归口。这将为稳定币合法合规大规模使用扫除关键障碍，也有助于推动美国数字美元生态建设。

2、合规交易所注册路径有望打通。过去两年，Coinbase等交易所面临SEC诉讼，原因在于“未注册运营证券交易平台”。Atkins主张为此类平台设定专门合规框架，例如允许注册为“替代交易系统”（ATS）或“加密专用券商”。

据《The Block》援引SEC内部人士披露，当前多个撤诉动作已在准备中，Coinbase案亦可能“非战而结”，为后续合规路径打开空间。更重要的是，SEC可能不再试图一统监管，而是与CFTC、FinCEN等机构协调，制定“责任分工明确”的多机构监管框架，为交易所及其用户提供更可预测的环境。

3、代币认定标准将被重塑。当前加密市场最棘手的议题之一，是何种代币属于证券，何种属于商品或非监管资产。过去SEC广泛适用Howey测试认定代币为证券，Atkins则更倾向结合代币功能（实用性 vs 投资性）与去中心化程度进行分类评估。他支持由专员Hester Peirce提出的“安全港提案”，即给予创业项目3年宽限期，在无需担心SEC采取法律行动的前提下完成分布式网络建设。这意味着“初创豁免 + 长期合规”的双轨制或将成形，推动项目发币与融资生态再度活跃。与此同时，Atkins支持“发行即披露”原则，即只要代币项目在发行时提供完整信息披露，具备透明治理结构，即可在合规框架内运营。这或将极大缓解项目方的合规压力，吸引新一波代币融资项目回流美国市场。

此外，SEC新成立的内部研究组正在对主流公链资产进行属性重评，其中XRP、SOL等具广泛应用基础的代币，若被排除在证券认定之外，将为加密ETF开放更多品种。事实上，Atkins就职首日（4月10日），SEC 已快速批准了以太坊现货ETF的期权交易，这为投资者提供了更多参与渠道，释放出对加密资产金融化的支持信号。

结语

Paul Atkins的上任，代表着加密行业在美国进入了一个新的监管周期。稳定币合规通道、交易所注册制度、代币法律认定，这些关键环节若能在其任期内破局，将重塑美国在全球加密治理体系中的地位。更重要的是，监管逻辑的变化将释放更强的制度信号：不是监管少了，而是监管更清晰、更协商、更具建设性。

对加密行业来说，这是一场来之不易的喘息，也是一场更需理性与自律的重启。但Atkins并非“放任主义者”，他在多次发言中重申，SEC将继续严厉打击欺诈、内幕交易、市场操纵等违法行为；真正的转变，在于让行业知道“合规之路在哪里”。

by Hedy Bi, OKG Research

When tariffs become the plot of a TV show, it’s newsworthy when there is “no new episode today.” From gold prices hitting new highs to Bitcoin surging past $80,000, risk-off sentiment is subtly returning. The world increasingly feels like a hastily built makeshift stage, where every update on inflation expectations, geopolitical tensions, or rising trade barriers could ignite market sentiment.

In an era where macroeconomic uncertainty has become the norm, “certainty” is no longer a given condition, but rather a scarce asset. In a world cohabited by black swans and gray rhinos, investors are no longer just chasing returns but seeking assets that can withstand volatility and have structural support. On-chain financial assets in the crypto space, or “yield-bearing crypto assets,” may represent a new form of certainty.

These crypto assets, promising fixed or floating returns, are returning to the spotlight as investors look for steady returns in volatile market conditions. However, in the crypto world, “interest” is no longer just the time value of capital; it is often the product of protocol design and market expectations. High yields may stem from real asset income, or they may be masking complex incentive mechanisms or subsidy behaviors. To truly find “certainty” in the crypto market, investors need more than just interest rate tables — they need an in-depth understanding of the underlying mechanisms.

This article, the eighth in the “Trumponomics” series, will explore yield-bearing assets, analyzing their true sources and risk logic, and searching for certainty amidst uncertainty.

Since the Federal Reserve began its interest rate hike cycle in 2022, the concept of “on-chain interest rates” has gradually entered the mainstream. Faced with a risk-free rate of 4–5% in the real world, crypto investors have started reexamining the yield sources and risk structures of on-chain assets. A new narrative has quietly emerged — yield-bearing crypto assets — that seeks to create financial products on-chain to “compete with the macro interest rate environment.”

However, the yield sources of these assets vary widely. From cash flows generated by the protocol itself to yields based on external incentives, and even the incorporation of off-chain interest rate systems, the underlying structures reflect vastly different sustainability and risk pricing mechanisms. We can roughly categorize yield-bearing assets in decentralized applications (DApps) into three types: exogenous yields, endogenous yields, and those linked to real-world assets (RWA).

Exogenous Yields: Subsidy-Driven Illusions of Interest

The rise of exogenous yields is a reflection of the early growth logic of DeFi — where, in the absence of mature user demand and real cash flow, the market substituted with “incentive illusions.” Much like early shared ride platforms that used subsidies to attract users, after Compound introduced “liquidity mining,” ecosystems like SushiSwap, Balancer, Curve, Avalanche, and Arbitrum launched massive token incentives to buy user attention and locked assets.

However, these subsidies are essentially short-term operations where capital markets pay for growth metrics, rather than a sustainable revenue model. They became the standard for the cold startup of new protocols — whether Layer 2, modular blockchains, or LSDfi and SocialFi — the incentive logic is the same: relying on new funds or token inflation, resembling a “Ponzi” structure. Platforms use high returns to attract deposits, then delay payout through complex “unlocking rules.” Those annualized yields of hundreds or thousands of percent were often just tokens “printed” by the platform.

The Terra collapse in 2022 was a prime example: the ecosystem offered up to 20% annual returns on UST stablecoin deposits through the Anchor protocol, attracting many users. The returns were primarily dependent on external subsidies (Luna Foundation Reserve and token rewards), not real income from the ecosystem.

From historical experience, once external incentives diminish, large amounts of subsidized tokens are sold, damaging user confidence, often leading to a downward spiral in TVL (Total Value Locked) and token prices. According to Dune data, following the DeFi Summer of 2022, approximately 30% of DeFi projects saw their market value drop by over 90%, often due to excessive subsidies.

If investors are to find “stable cash flows,” they must be cautious about whether a real value creation mechanism exists behind the yields. Promising future inflation to pay today’s returns is ultimately not a sustainable business model.

Endogenous Yields: The Redistribution of Use Value

Simply put, protocols generate income through “real activities” and then redistribute that income to users. They do not rely on issuing tokens to attract users, nor do they depend on subsidies or external injections of capital. Instead, they earn revenue through actual business activities such as lending interest, transaction fees, or penalties from default liquidations. These income streams are somewhat similar to “dividends” in traditional finance, and are often referred to as “dividend-like” crypto cash flows.

The key feature of this type of yield is its closed-loop and sustainability: the logic of generating income is clear, and the structure is healthier. As long as the protocol is operational and has users, it will generate revenue without relying on market hot money or inflation incentives to maintain operations.

Therefore, understanding how a protocol “creates value” allows for a more accurate judgment of the certainty of its yields. We can categorize this type of income into three main archetypes:

1. Lending Spread Model: This is one of the most common and easily understood models in early DeFi. Users deposit funds into lending protocols like Aave or Compound, which match borrowers with lenders. The protocol earns the spread between borrowing and lending rates. This is essentially the same as the “deposit-loan” model in traditional banks — interest from borrowers is partially distributed to lenders as revenue. This mechanism is transparent and efficient, but its yield is closely tied to market sentiment. When overall risk appetite declines or market liquidity shrinks, interest rates and yields also tend to fall.
2. Fee-sharing Model: This yield mechanism is closer to a profit-sharing structure in traditional companies, where shareholders or specific partners receive returns based on revenue distribution. In this framework, the protocol shares part of its operating income (such as transaction fees) with users who provide resources to support the protocol, such as liquidity providers (LPs) or token stakers.

For example, decentralized exchanges like Uniswap distribute a portion of the transaction fees to users who provide liquidity. In 2024, Aave V3 on Ethereum’s mainnet provided an annualized return of 5%-8% for stablecoin liquidity pools, while AAVE stakers could earn over 10% annualized returns during certain periods. These revenues come entirely from the protocol’s internal economic activities, such as lending interest and transaction fees, without relying on external subsidies.

Compared to the “lending spread” model, the “fee-sharing” model is highly dependent on the protocol’s market activity. In other words, its returns are directly tied to the protocol’s business volume — the more trades, the higher the rewards; the fewer trades, the lower the income. Therefore, its stability and ability to withstand cyclical risks are often not as robust as the lending model.

3. Protocol Service Model: This is the most structurally innovative type of endogenous income in crypto finance, with logic similar to how traditional infrastructure service providers charge clients for key services.

For example, EigenLayer uses a “re-staking” mechanism to provide security support for other systems and receives compensation for doing so. This yield does not rely on lending interest or transaction fees but is derived from the market pricing of the protocol’s service capabilities. It reflects the market value of blockchain infrastructure as a “public good.” These returns are more diverse and may include token rewards, governance rights, and even future unrealized returns, showcasing strong structural innovation and long-term potential.

In traditional industries, this can be compared to cloud service providers (like AWS) charging enterprises for computing and security services, or financial infrastructure institutions (such as custodians, clearinghouses, and rating agencies) providing trust guarantees for systems and earning revenue. These services may not directly participate in end-user transactions but are essential to the overall system’s functioning.

On-Chain Real Interest Rates: The Rise of RWA and Interest-Bearing Stablecoins

More and more capital in the market is now seeking a more stable and predictable return mechanism: on-chain assets anchored to real-world interest rates. The core logic behind this is to link on-chain stablecoins or crypto assets to off-chain low-risk financial instruments, such as short-term government bonds, money market funds, or institutional credit, thus maintaining the flexibility of crypto assets while obtaining “certainty in interest rates from the traditional financial world.” Representative projects include MakerDAO’s allocation to T-Bills, Ondo Finance’s launch of OUSG (linked to BlackRock ETFs), Matrixdock’s SBTB, and Franklin Templeton’s tokenized money market fund FOBXX. These protocols attempt to “import” the Federal Reserve’s benchmark interest rates onto the blockchain as a foundational yield structure. This means that:

At the same time, interest-bearing stablecoins, as a derivative form of RWA, have also started to take center stage. Unlike traditional stablecoins, these assets are not passively pegged to the dollar but actively embed off-chain yields into the tokens themselves. Typical examples include Mountain Protocol’s USDM and Ondo Finance’s USDY, which provide daily interest and derive their yield from short-term government bonds. By investing in U.S. Treasury bills, USDY offers users a stable return, with an interest rate close to 4%, which is much higher than the 0.5% rate of traditional savings accounts.

These projects aim to reshape the logic of using the “digital dollar,” making it more like an on-chain “interest-bearing account.”

With the connectivity of RWA, RWA+PayFi is also a future scenario worth watching: directly embedding stable yield assets into payment tools, thus breaking the binary division between “assets” and “liquidity.” On the one hand, users can enjoy interest-bearing returns while holding cryptocurrencies, and on the other hand, payment scenarios do not need to sacrifice capital efficiency. Products like the USDC automatic yield account on Coinbase’s Base L2 (similar to a “USDC as a checking account”) not only increase the attractiveness of cryptocurrency in actual transactions but also open up new use cases for stablecoins — transforming them from “dollars in an account” to “capital in active circulation.”

Three Indicators for Evaluating the Sustainability of Yield-Bearing Assets

The evolution of crypto “yield-bearing assets” reflects the market’s gradual return to rationality and a redefinition of “sustainable returns.” Initially driven by high inflation incentives and governance token subsidies, many protocols now focus on self-sustaining mechanisms and integrating off-chain yield curves. The design is moving away from a “capital-chasing” phase, towards more transparent and refined risk pricing. Especially with macro interest rates remaining high, crypto systems aiming to compete in the global capital market must build stronger “return rationality” and “liquidity matching logic.” For investors seeking stable returns, the following three indicators can effectively assess the sustainability of yield-bearing assets:

1. Is the source of returns inherently sustainable?
   Truly competitive yield-bearing assets should generate returns from the protocol’s core activities, such as lending interest or transaction fees. If the returns rely mainly on short-term subsidies or incentives, it becomes like a “game of musical chairs”: as long as the subsidies continue, returns remain; once they stop, funds leave. This type of short-term “subsidy” behavior, if turned into long-term incentives, can deplete project funds and easily lead to a downward spiral of decreasing TVL (Total Value Locked) and token prices.
2. Is the structure transparent?
   On-chain trust comes from transparency. When investors move away from the familiar environment of traditional finance, backed by intermediaries such as banks, how can they assess the situation? Is the flow of funds on-chain clear? Are interest distributions verifiable? Is there a risk of concentrated custody? If these issues are not clarified, it results in a “black-box” operation, exposing the system’s vulnerabilities. A financial product with a clear structure, publicly visible on-chain, and traceable mechanisms is the true underlying guarantee.
3. Do the returns justify the real-world opportunity cost?
   With the Federal Reserve maintaining high interest rates, if the returns of on-chain products are lower than Treasury bill yields, it will be difficult to attract rational capital. By anchoring on-chain returns to real-world benchmarks like T-Bills, the returns become not only more stable but could also serve as an “interest rate reference” on-chain.

However, even “yield-bearing assets” are never truly risk-free. Despite their stable return structures, they still require caution regarding technical, regulatory, and liquidity risks within the on-chain framework. From whether the liquidation logic is sufficient, to whether protocol governance is centralized, to whether the asset custody arrangements behind RWA (Real-World Assets) are transparent and traceable, these factors determine whether so-called “certain returns” can be reliably realized.

Moreover, the market for yield-bearing assets may represent a restructuring of the on-chain “money market structure.” In traditional finance, the money market plays a central role in funding pricing through its interest rate anchoring mechanism. Today, the on-chain world is gradually establishing its own “interest rate benchmarks” and “risk-free returns,” creating a deeper and more structured financial order.

Introduction to Trumponomics:

At OKG Research, we recognize the growing significance of Donald Trump’s economic policies in 2025, particularly their impact on the crypto market. In this Trumpomics series, we examine how Trump’s second term — through tax reform, regulation, and trade policies — will shape Bitcoin and other crypto assets. As institutional adoption and regulatory frameworks evolve, Trump’s economic agenda will be a key driver for the future of cryptocurrencies. Through this series, OKG Research provides crucial insights into how these factors will influence market trends and investment strategies in the new economic era.

Other articles in the series include:

• Trumponomics #1:
  Trump Returns: Bitcoin, Oil, and Gold in the New Economic Era
  Exploring Bitcoin’s impact on the international financial landscape.
• Trumponomics #2:
  Trump Is Back: Stablecoins vs. Bitcoin — Who Can Solve the U.S. Debt Crisis?
  Examining how blockchain and crypto tools could address the challenges of a $36 trillion U.S. debt market while strengthening the dollar’s dominance.
• Trumponomics #3:
  Trump Takes Office, but Strategy Stops Buying Bitcoin?
  Analysing the challenges faced by MicroStrategy (formerly MicroStrategy Inc.) under the new policies during Trump’s presidency, and analyzes the impact of Bitcoin strategy on the industry.
• Trumponomics #4:
  A New Round of Liquidity Approaches: Can the Crypto Market Leverage It to Break New Highs?
  Decoding TGA: Not QE, But QE-Like — How it impacts the crypto market
• Trumponomics #5:
  From Tariffs to Crypto Reserves: What Game Is Trump Really Playing?
  The interpretation of the Trump administration’s interaction with the cryptocurrency market through tariff policies explores the relationship between the trade war and the crypto market, as well as how Trump’s policies have impacted global risk markets.
• Trumponomics #6:
  Selling Gold for Bitcoin: Must the U.S. Choose One Over the Other?https://medium.com/thecapital/trumponomics-6-selling-gold-for-bitcoin-must-the-u-s-choose-one-over-the-other-e17bced634b2
  If gold is still the undisputed store of value, why have no corporations throughout history aggressively accumulated it like MicroStrategy has with Bitcoin?
• Trumponomics #7:
  The Crypto Industry Under “Trump-Made”: Challenges and Opportunities in the Era of Tariffs
  https://medium.com/thecapital/the-crypto-industry-under-trump-made-challenges-and-opportunities-in-the-era-of-tariffs-08aab76ca4c7
  The analysis delves into how tariffs impact the entire crypto industry chain, exploring potential opportunities amidst the crisis.

Trumponomics #8: Finding On-Chain Certainty in the Chaos of “Trumponomics”: Analyzing Three Types… was originally published in The Capital on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

文/Hedy Bi, OKG Research

当关税成了美剧，“今天没出新剧情”反倒成了新闻本身。从金价屡创新高到比特币重返八万美元之上，避险情绪正在悄然回潮。世界愈发像一个临时搭建的草台班子，每一次通胀预期上修、地缘摩擦升级或贸易壁垒加剧的消息推送，都可能成为点燃市场情绪的导火索。

在宏观不确定性成为常态的今天，“确定性”不再是理所当然的条件，而是一种稀缺资产。黑天鹅与灰犀牛并存的时代，投资者所追求的不仅是收益，而是那些能够穿越波动、具备结构性支撑的资产。而链上金融系统中的“加密生息资产”，或许正代表了这一类确定性的新形态。

这些承诺固定或浮动收益金融结构的加密资产正重新回到投资者的视野中，成为他们在动荡市况中寻找稳健回报的锚点。但在加密世界，“利息”不再只是资本的时间价值；它往往是协议设计、市场预期共同作用的产物。高收益，可能源自真实的资产收入，也可能掩盖着复杂的激励机制或补贴行为。若想在加密市场中寻得真正的“确定性”，投资者需要的不只是利率表，而是对底层机制的深入拆解。

本文作为「特朗普经济学」系列第八篇，将从生息资产入手，分析加密生息资产的真实来源与风险逻辑，在不确定性中寻找确定性。

自 2022 年美联储开启加息周期以来，“链上利率”的概念逐步走入大众视野。面对现实世界长期维持在 4–5% 的无风险利率，Crypto 投资人开始重新审视链上资产的收益来源与风险结构。一个新的叙事悄然成型 — — 加密生息资产（Yield-bearing Crypto Assets），它试图在链上构建“与宏观利率环境竞争”的金融产品。

不过，生息资产的收益来源却天差地别。从协议本身“造血”的现金流，到依赖外部激励的收益幻象，再到链下利率体系的嫁接与移植，不同的结构背后，映射的是截然不同的可持续性与风险定价机制。我们可以将当下去中心化应用（DApp）的生息资产粗略分为三类，即外生性收益、内生性收益以及真实世界资产（RWA）挂钩。

外生性收益：补贴驱动的利息幻觉

外生性收益的兴起，是DeFi发展早期高速增长逻辑的一个缩影 — — 在没有成熟用户需求和真实现金流的前提下，市场便以“激励幻觉”取而代之。就像早期的共享打车平台用补贴换用户，Compound开启“流动性挖矿”后，SushiSwap、Balancer、Curve、Avalanche、Arbitrum 等生态也相继推出巨额代币激励，试图以“投放收益”的方式买下用户注意力和锁仓资产。

然而，这类补贴本质上更像是资本市场为增长指标“买单”的短期操作，而非可持续的收益模式。它一度成为新协议冷启动的标配 — — 无论是Layer2、模块化公链，还是LSDfi、SocialFi，激励逻辑如出一辙：依赖新资金流入或代币通胀，结构近似“庞氏”。平台用高收益吸引用户存钱，再通过复杂的“解锁规则”延迟兑现。那些年化几百、几千的收益，往往只是平台凭空“印”出的代币。

2022年的Terra暴雷便是如此：该生态通过 Anchor 协议提供高达 20%的UST稳定币存款年化收益，吸引了大量用户。收益主要靠外部补贴（Luna 基金会储备金和代币奖励）而非生态内部的真实收入。

从历史经验来看，一旦外部激励减弱，大量补贴代币将会被抛售，损害用户信心，这样就会造成TVL与token价格常出现死亡螺旋下降形式。根据Dune数据统计，2022年DeFi Summer热潮褪后，约 30% 的 DeFi 项目市值跌幅超 90%，多与补贴过高相关。

投资者若要从中寻找“稳定现金流”，需更加警惕收益背后是否存在真实的价值创造机制。用未来的通胀承诺今日的收益，终究不是一种可持续的商业模式。

内生性收益：使用价值的再分配

简单来说，协议自己靠“做实事”赚来的钱再给用户分配。它不靠发币拉人、也不依赖补贴或外部输血，而是通过真实的业务活动自然产生的收入，比如借贷利息、交易手续费，甚至是违约清算中的罚金。这些收入和传统金融里的“分红”有些类似，因此也被称为“类股息”的加密现金流。

这类收益的最大特点，就是它的闭环性和可持续性：赚钱的逻辑清晰，结构也更健康。只要协议在运作、有用户在用，就有收入进来，不需要依赖市场热钱或通胀激励去维持运行。

所以弄清它是靠什么“造血”的，我们才能更准确判断它的收益到底有多高的确定性。我们可以将这一类收入划分为三种原型：

第一类是“借贷利差型”。这是 DeFi 早期最常见、也最容易理解的一种模式。用户将资金存入 Aave、Compound 等借贷协议，由协议撮合借款人与出借人，协议从中赚取利差。其本质与传统银行的“存贷”模型相似 — — 资金池中的利息由借款人支付，出借人获得部分作为收益。这类机制结构透明、运行高效，但其收益水平与市场情绪密切相关，当整体风险偏好下降或市场流动性收缩时，利率和收益也会随之下滑。

第二类是“手续费返还型”。这类收益机制更接近传统公司中股东参与利润分红的模式，或特定合伙人按照营收比例获得回报的收益分享结构。在这一框架中，协议将部分运营收入（如交易手续费）返还给为其提供资源支持的参与者，例如流动性提供者（LP）或代币质押者。

以去中心化交易所 Uniswap 为例，协议会将交易所产生的一部分手续费，按比例分配给为其提供流动性的用户。2024 年，Aave V3 在以太坊主网上为稳定币流动性池提供了年化 5%-8% 的回报，而 AAVE 质押者在某些时期则可获得超过 10% 的年化收益。这些收入完全来自协议内生的经济活动，如借贷利息和手续费，不依赖于外部补贴。

相较于“借贷利差型”这一更接近银行模型的机制，“手续费返还型”收益则高度依赖于协议本身的市场活跃度。换句话说，它的回报与协议业务量直接挂钩 — — 交易越多，分红越高，交易减少时则收入随之波动。因此，其稳定性和抗周期性风险能力，往往不如借贷模型来得稳健。

第三类是“协议服务型”收益。这是加密金融中最具结构创新的一类内生收入，其逻辑接近传统商业中基础设施服务商向客户提供关键服务并收取费用的模式。

以 EigenLayer 为例，协议通过“再质押”机制，为其他系统提供安全性支持，并因此获得回报。这类收益不依赖借贷利息或交易手续费，而是来自协议本身服务能力的市场化定价。它体现的是链上基础设施作为“公共物品”的市场价值。这类回报形式更加多样，可能包括代币积分、治理权，甚至未来尚未兑现的预期收益，展现出强烈的结构创新和长期性。

在传统行业中，可类比于云服务商（如 AWS）为企业提供计算与安全服务并收取费用，或金融基础设施机构（如托管、清算、评级公司）为系统提供信任保障并获得收入。这些服务虽然不直接参与终端交易，但却是整个体系不可或缺的底层支撑。

链上的现实利率：RWA 与计息稳定币的兴起

目前市场上越来越多资本开始追求一种更稳定、更可预测的回报机制：链上资产锚定现实世界利率。这一逻辑的核心在于：将链上稳定币或加密资产对接至链下低风险金融工具，例如短期国债、货币市场基金或机构信贷，从而在保持加密资产灵活性的同时，获取“传统金融世界的确定性利率”。代表性的项目包括MakerDAO对T-Bills的配置、Ondo Finance推出的OUSG（与BlackRock ETF对接）、Matrixdock的 SBTB以及Franklin Templeton的代币化货币市场基金FOBXX 等。这些协议试图将美联储的基准利率“导入链上”，作为一种基础收益结构。这也就意味着

与此同时，计息稳定币作为RWA的衍生形态也开始走向前台。与传统稳定币不同，这类资产并非被动锚定美元，而是主动将链下收益嵌入代币本身。典型如Mountain Protocol的USDM和Ondo Finance的USDY，每日计息、收益来源为短期国债。通过投资美国国债以及，USDY为用户提供稳定收益，收益率接近4%，高于传统储蓄账户0.5%。

它们试图重塑“数字美元”的使用逻辑，使其更像一个链上的“利息账户”。

在RWA的联通作用下，RWA+PayFi也是未来可值得关注的场景：将稳定的收益资产直接嵌入支付工具之中，这样就打破“资产”和“流动性”之间的二元划分。一方面，用户在持有加密货币的同时，即可享受计息收益，另一方面，支付场景也无需牺牲资本效率。像 Coinbase 推出的 Base L2 上的 USDC 自动收益账户（类似“USDC as a checking account”） 这一类产品，不仅提升了加密货币在实际交易中的吸引力，更为稳定币打开了新的使用场景 — — 从“账户里的美元”转化为“活水中的资本”。

寻找可持续生息资产的三个指标

加密“生息资产”的逻辑演进，实则反映出市场逐步回归理性、重新定义“可持续收益”的过程。 从最初的高通胀激励、治理代币补贴，到现在越来越多协议强调自身造血能力乃至对接链下收益曲线，结构设计正在走出“内卷式吸金”的粗放阶段，转向更加透明、精细化的风险定价。尤其是在宏观利率维持高位的当下，加密系统想要参与全球资本竞争，必须构建起更强的“收益合理性”与“流动性匹配逻辑”。对于寻求稳健回报的投资者而言，以下三个指标可以对生息资产的可持续性进行有效评判：

1. 收益来源是否“内生”可持续？

真正有竞争力的生息资产，收益应该来自协议自身的业务，比如借贷利息、交易手续费等。如果回报主要靠短期的补贴和激励，那就像“击鼓传花”：补贴还在，收益还在；补贴一停，资金就走。这种短期的“补贴”行为一旦变成长期激励，就会耗尽项目资金，并且很容易进入TVL和币价下降的死亡双螺旋。

2. 结构是否透明？

链上的信任来自公开透明。当投资者离开了熟悉的投资环境即有着银行等中介作为背书的传统金融领域，应该如何判别？链上的资金的流向是否清晰？利息分配是否可验证？是否存在集中托管风险？若这些问题不弄清楚，都会属于黑箱操作，让系统暴露其脆弱性。而金融产品结构清晰且链上公开、可追溯的机制才是真正的底层保障。

3. 收益是否对得起现实的机会成本？

在美联储维持高利率的背景下，若链上产品的回报低于国债收益，无疑将难以吸引理性资金。如果能把链上收益锚定在像 T-Bill 这样的现实基准上，不仅更稳，还可能成为链上的“利率参考”。

然而，即使是“生息资产”也从来不是真正的无风险资产。它们的收益结构再稳健，仍需警惕链上结构中的技术性、合规性与流动性隐患。从清算逻辑是否充足，到协议治理是否中心化，再到RWA背后的资产托管安排是否透明可追踪，这些都决定了所谓“确定性收益”是否具备真实的可兑现能力。不仅如此，未来生息资产的市场可能是一次链上“货币市场结构”的重构。在传统金融中，货币市场以其利率锚定机制承担了资金定价的核心功能。而如今，链上世界正逐步建立自己的“利率基准”和“无风险收益”概念，一种更有厚度的金融秩序正在生成。

该篇为“特朗普经济学”系列专题的第八篇。

OKG Research特别策划推出“特朗普经济学”系列专题，深入分析随着特朗普2.0新政的不断推进，加密市场的未来趋势和核心逻辑。

第一篇《特朗普再任：新政经济时代的比特币、石油与黄金》聚焦比特币对国际金融格局的影响。

EN：https://medium.com/thecapital/trumps-second-term-bitcoin-oil-and-gold-in-the-new-economic-era-147adfbdc952

第二篇《特朗普归来：稳定币与比特币，谁才能解美债之困？》则从美债这一传统金融核心资产切入，深入剖析规模高达36万亿美元的美债市场，如何借助区块链技术和加密领域的工具，进一步巩固和扩展美元在全球金融体系中的主导地位。

EN: https://medium.com/thecapital/trump-returns-can-stablecoins-or-bitcoin-solve-the-u-s-national-debt-problem-1d98f2da7eb5

第三篇《特朗普上任了，微策略却不买了？》则是以策略（原微策略）公司为例，探求公司在特朗普上台后新政下面临的新挑战，以及分析比特币战略对行业的影响。

EN：https://medium.com/thecapital/trump-takes-office-but-strategy-stops-buying-bitcoin-7de522bc5743

第四篇 《新一轮流动性来袭，加密市场能否借势突破新高？》解读不是QE，胜似QE的TGA是如何影响加密市场的。

EN：https://medium.com/thecapital/trumponomics-4-a-new-round-of-liquidity-approaches-can-the-crypto-market-leverage-it-to-break-39137adf4d0b

第五篇《从关税到加密储备，特朗普到底在下怎样一盘棋？》解读特朗普政府通过关税政策和加密市场的互动，探讨了贸易战与加密市场之间的关系，以及特朗普政策如何影响全球风险市场。

EN: https://medium.com/thecapital/from-tariffs-to-crypto-reserves-what-game-is-trump-really-playing-7894d8e454b2

第六篇《用黄金换比特币，美国是否必须二选一？》黄金真的仍然是无可争议的避险资产吗？如果答案是肯定的，那从古希腊和罗马时期的金币时代，到如今已经数十个世纪，为什么没有任何公司采取类似Strategy（原微策略公司）在比特币市场中的激进模式来长期增持黄金？

EN：https://medium.com/thecapital/trumponomics-6-selling-gold-for-bitcoin-must-the-u-s-choose-one-over-the-other-e17bced634b2

第七篇《“特朗普制造”下的加密产业：关税时代的挑战与转机？》从危机中寻找生机，深入解析关税对加密行业整个产业链的影响。

EN：https://medium.com/thecapital/the-crypto-industry-under-trump-made-challenges-and-opportunities-in-the-era-of-tariffs-08aab76ca4c7

During the recent Hong Kong Web3 Festival, OKG Research was invited to participate in a closed-door seminar hosted by the *China Data Asset Management 50+ Forum*, where we shared insights on trends in Real World Asset (RWA) tokenization and the value of on-chain data.

A key observation emerged from the discussions: the RWA ecosystem exhibits a clear East-West divergence. While the U.S. prioritizes tokenizing traditional financial assets (e.g., Treasury bonds) to reinforce its existing financial hegemony, regions like Hong Kong are exploring ways to integrate non-standardized assets into RWA frameworks, thereby injecting blockchain-driven liquidity into the real economy.

Yet this divergence reflects a deeper ideological split: Should RWA primarily serve as a compliant Web3 asset system, or should it expand financial inclusivity through tokenization?

Tokenizing Mainstream Assets: The Necessary First Step for RWA

From BlackRock’s BUIDL Fund and Franklin Templeton’s FOBXX to tokenized Treasury products by Coinbase and Ondo Finance, RWA adoption is advancing along a “standardized assets first” trajectory. Data from Rwa.xyz shows that as of April 2024, the total market capitalization of tokenized RWAs (excluding stablecoins) has reached approximately $21 billion, with over 25% tied to U.S. Treasury assets.

Regulatory compatibility, risk tolerance, and market acceptance make standardized assets like Treasuries the ideal foundation for RWA. These assets combine low risk, high liquidity, and mature pricing mechanisms while seamlessly aligning with existing regulations — critical for institutional adoption. Amid today’s high-interest-rate environment, tokenized “money-market-like” products offer a rare balance of yield and safety, bridging Web3 and traditional finance while bolstering the credibility of stablecoins and DeFi protocols.

However, these assets already benefit from robust liquidity and financial infrastructure. Their tokenization primarily serves as a “digital wrapper” to broaden distribution channels, rather than fundamentally transforming their value proposition. Challenges like centralized issuance, high entry barriers, and fragmented liquidity persist, limiting participation from retail and long-tail users. In essence, this approach repackages traditional finance in blockchain veneer without redefining its core.

Moreover, tokenized versions of these assets fail to offer higher yields or enhanced liquidity compared to their off-chain counterparts, resulting in weak market demand. Token Terminal reports that over 65% of RWA tokens see daily trading volumes below $100,000 — practically illiquid. Most buyers are institutions or whales, with minimal retail engagement. Without stronger incentives, even aggressive tokenization risks creating a market of “dormant on-chain assets.”

Unlocking Undervalued Assets: Building RWA’s Second Growth Curve

The true breakthrough for RWA lies not in tokenizing more mainstream assets but in activating the vast pool of “silent assets” — those sidelined by traditional finance due to valuation complexity, illiquidity, or regulatory opacity. By enabling these assets to express and trade their value on-chain, RWA can catalyze entirely new market dynamics.

In this light, RWA should transcend its role as an asset allocation tool and evolve into a discovery platform for undervalued assets. Globally, over 90% of assets remain non-securitized, including SME receivables, revenue-sharing rights of pre-IPO firms, carbon credits, green energy certificates, and IP royalties. These assets inhabit the blind spots of traditional finance — precisely where RWA’s disruptive potential shines.

Their undervaluation stems not from inherent worthlessness but from the lack of suitable financial infrastructure. Blockchain’s innate properties — fractionalizability, traceability, and verifiability — make it the perfect medium for their expression. Coupled with tools like zero-knowledge proofs, oracles, and AI pricing models, these assets can be decomposed into standardized modules, then reassembled into tradable on-chain instruments.

Pioneering projects are already demonstrating this:
• DBS Bank & Helicap (Singapore): Tokenized SME loans in Southeast Asia reduced financing costs by 40% and slashed settlement from T+2 to T+0.

• Untangled Finance (Ethereum): Tokenized African agricultural loans, carbon credits, and telecom receivables attracted crossover interest from crypto and ESG funds.

These assets’ original illiquidity becomes their on-chain advantage — their “unattainability” creates scarcity premiums. By pricing and standardizing them, RWA unlocks risk-adjusted returns that appeal to new capital. The lesson is clear: Only by minting new asset classes can RWA attract fresh capital and users.

Hong Kong’s Strategic Opportunity

Hong Kong’s regulatory clarity positions it as a global hub for compliant RWA issuance. But to avoid becoming a mere “distribution relay,” it must innovate on the supply side. The city’s advantages are tangible:
• Policy Support: Tokenized bond pilots for Chinese enterprises and gold tokenization in the policy agenda.

• Regulatory Sandbox: HKMA’s flexible framework for testing novel assets.

• Infrastructure: Local blockchain firms and licensed exchanges with proven technical capabilities.

By scaling tokenized traditional assets while piloting non-standard RWAs — green energy royalties, Greater Bay Area SME receivables, or public utility rights — Hong Kong could fuse these efforts with its e-HKD and stablecoin initiatives to emerge as the global lab for *multi-asset structured RWA*.

Conclusion

RWA’s mission extends beyond democratizing access to Treasury bonds. It must illuminate, price, and mobilize assets traditionally excluded from finance.

Tokenizing mainstream assets builds the necessary infrastructure and trust anchors. But to drive systemic change, RWA must activate its second growth curve: granting undervalued assets the mechanisms for valuation, liquidity, and connectivity. Only then can it unlock new value pools, attract broader capital, and deliver genuine financial inclusivity.

This article is part of the “On-chain Wall Street” research series by OKG Research. For more insights, visit: https://medium.com/@OKGResearch/list/onchain-wall-street-1f23e60586b3

OKG Research: Revitalizing RWA — Unlocking the Value of Undervalued Assets |#06 was originally published in The Capital on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

文｜Lola Wang / Jason Jiang，OKG Research

从比特币现货 ETF 到代币化浪潮，以华尔街为代表的机构力量正深刻影响和改变加密市场走向，并且我们相信这种力量将在 2025 年愈加强大。OKG Research 为此推出「链上华尔街」系列研究，持续关注传统机构在 Web3 领域的创新与实践，看贝莱德、摩根大通等顶级机构如何拥抱创新？代币化资产、链上支付和去中心化金融又将如何塑造未来金融版图？

本篇为「链上华尔街」系列研究的第 5 篇。了解往期信息：

1、华尔街加速「上链」

2、RWA代币化留给香港的时间还有多久？

3、华尔街“上链”路线背后的权利游戏

4、BTC大跌，SEC放行YLDS开启稳定币收益时代

5、用RWA与DeFi融合，为华尔街注入可编程基因

在刚结束的香港Web3嘉年华期间，OKG Research 受邀参加中国数据资产管理50+论坛举办的闭门研讨会，就RWA（现实世界资产）代币化趋势与链上数据价值等议题进行分享。笔者在会上提出，当前RWA生态呈现明显的东西方分化趋势：美国更注重将传统金融资产上链，以增强现有金融体系话语权；而香港等地区则在积极探索将非标资产引入RWA体系，为实体经济注入链上活力。但通过与更多业内人士的交流，笔者意识到这种分化的背后，映射出的是对RWA核心价值的不同理解：究竟是构建一个更合规的Web3资产系统，还是通过代币化拓展金融服务的可及性？

主流资产上链是RWA的确定性起点

从贝莱德BUIDL基金到富兰克林邓普顿的FOBXX，再到Coinbase、Ondo Finance等平台相继推出美债类代币化产品，RWA正沿着“标准化资产优先”的路径稳步推进。Rwa.xyz数据显示，截至2025年4月，全球RWA代币化资产（除稳定币外）总市值已达到210亿美元左右，其中超过1/4与美债资产锚定。

从监管适配性、风险承受力和市场接受度来看，以美债为代表的标准化金融资产正构成RWA的确定性基座。这类资产不仅风险低、流动性强、定价机制成熟，还能快速适配现有监管框架，有效打消机构参与链上金融的合规顾虑。尤其在宏观高利率周期下，这类“类货币基金”的代币化产品提供了兼具收益性与安全性的资产配置选项，成为连接Web3与机构资金之间的重要桥梁，也为稳定币、DeFi协议等构建了更可靠的信用支持。

但我们也必须看到，这类资产本就已经具备较强的现实流动性与金融服务覆盖，上链的价值更多在于“数字化包装”和拓宽分销渠道，并未在本质上改变资产结构或价值发现能力。且上链后资产仍面临集中发行、高门槛准入、碎片化流通等问题，也难以有效吸引链外长尾用户参与。所以在某种程度上更像对传统金融产品的技术封装，而非价值重构。

此外，这类资产的链上版本并未提供更高收益空间，且流动性与本体相近，缺乏“稀缺效应”，导致现阶段RWA产品的市场购买意愿并不强。据 Token Terminal 统计，超过65%的RWA代币日均交易额低于10万美元，流动性几乎可以忽略。且市场中多数RWA产品的购买者以机构和巨鲸为主，散户和新用户群体参与热情相对有限。在市场购买意愿未被充分激发的情况下，即使有更多的标准化资产上链，也可能面临“上链即沉寂”的局面。

释放未被定价资产的价值，构建第二增长曲线

要想让RWA走出上述发展困境，突破口或许不在于持续增加那些标准化主流资产的代币化供给，而在于挖掘那些长期游离于传统金融体系之外、难以被估值、缺乏流动性的的“沉默资产”，让它们能通过上链实现价值表达与自由流通机会，进而创造出全新的市场参与动能。也就是说，只有当链上可以容纳更多“不被传统金融纳入服务范畴”的新资产，RWA才能充分发挥其突破性价值。

从这个角度看，RWA不应只是资产配置工具，更有潜力成为新兴资产的价值发现与表达体系。当前全球90%以上的资产尚未被证券化，其中包括大量来源于中小企业、发展中经济体、基层社区的“非标资产” — — 如、中小企业应收账款、未上市企业股权分成权、碳信用额度、绿色能源电力指标、各类文娱版权与IP收益等。这些资产因估值不清、流动性差或合规路径不明，长期游离于金融市场之外，也正是当前金融体系难以普惠的空白地带。

这些资产之所以未被定价，往往不是它们没有价值，而是缺乏一个适合其属性的表达载体。而链上结构天然具备“可拆分”“可追踪”“可验证”的特性，正适合承接这类资产的价值表达诉求。借助链上数据、零知识证明、链下预言机、AI定价模型等新兴技术与工具，这些“非标”资产可被逐步拆解成结构化和标准化金融模块，并在Web3系统中实现确权、交易和流通，进而构建出全新的数字化金融资产体系。

目前已有部分项目在进行相关探索：新加坡星展银行与Helicap合作，推出东南亚中小企业贷款的代币化产品，相较传统路径融资成本降度达40%，结算周期由T+2压缩至T+0，已成为区域中小企业融资的典型案例；以太坊网络中的Untangled Finance，则尝试将非洲农业贷款、碳信用和电信账单收益作为RWA底层资产进行再融资，兼具ESG价值与潜在收益空间，成果吸引了大量加密与传统绿色金融基金的关注。

这些资产原本缺乏流动性，但正是这种“不可得性”赋予其链上独特性：一旦通过技术手段完成定价与标准化，就能成为资金愿意“冒风险”投资的机会窗口。这也说明：只有创造出新的资产类别，才能引入新的资金和用户。若RWA能够打开资产表达权的底层逻辑，而不是简单复制已被充分定价的主流金融资产，而是让原本无法被定价的资产获得平等的定价与交易机会，将有希望吸引更多类型的资金上链，从而实现RWA生态从“资产端”到“资金端”的双重质变。

于香港而言，如今RWA产业政策环境趋于成熟，并正逐步成为全球RWA合规发行的重要支点。但若香港仅止步于发行平台角色，仍难摆脱成为RWA价值链中的“渠道中继”。笔者认为，香港可以也应当在RWA资产供给侧创新方面发挥更大作用。在这方面香港已具备先发优势：无论是债券资助计划支持多家中资企业完成Tokenized Bond发行试点，还是政府将黄金代币化写入施政议程，都为未来产业实践奠定了基础；香港金管局设立的监管沙盒则为新型资产试点提供灵活空间；而香港本地的区块链企业与合规交易所也已具备强大的技术落地能力。

香港若能在借助国际金融中心优势扩大标准化金融资产代币化规模的同时，继续推动以绿色能源收益权、湾区中小企业应收账款、公共设施使用权等为基础的更多非标资产的代币化试点，并结合数字港元与港元稳定币结算体系，则完全有潜力在未来成为“多资产结构型RWA”的全球试验场。

结语

RWA要解决的不仅是“能否让更多人买到美债”，更是“能否让更多资产被看见、被定价和被流通”。

当下的主流资产上链是RWA发展的必由之路，它为链上金融构建了基础设施与信用锚定体系。但要真正成为推动金融变革的引擎，RWA还需构建第二增长曲线 — — 赋予过去那些未被定价的资产以价值锚定、流通机制与金融连接，并通过这些资产释放全新价值空间，激发出更大规模的资金上链意愿，实现真正的金融可及性。

By Jason Jiang, Senior Researcher @OKG Research

Hong Kong has taken another significant step in advancing the regulated development of virtual asset financial products. On April 7, the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) issued a circular officially allowing virtual asset spot ETFs to engage in onchain staking activities under a prudential regulatory framework. Simultaneously, the SFC lifted restrictions on licensed virtual asset trading platforms (VATPs), permitting them to offer staking services to their clients. Following the approval of spot virtual asset ETFs in 2024, this marks another substantial milestone in Hong Kong’s pursuit of a compliant Web3 financial ecosystem. Not only does this move enhance the attractiveness of Hong Kong’s virtual asset landscape, it also represents the first instance of integrating traditional financial products with native onchain mechanisms — providing a model of regulatory innovation and financial integration for global markets.

1. Introducing Staking to Traditional Finance: A Compliant Path to Onchain Yield

Staking has become one of the most important onchain economic activities in the virtual asset ecosystem. Particularly for Proof-of-Stake (PoS) blockchains, staking is not only essential for maintaining network security and operations but also serves as a key channel through which institutions and users earn onchain rewards. According to estimates by OKG Research, as of early April 2025, more than 34 million ETH have been staked on the Ethereum network, representing 28.03% of total supply. For other networks such as Cardano and Solana, staking ratios have consistently remained above 70%. Clearly, staking enjoys strong market consensus and has become a widely accepted yield-generating mechanism within blockchain ecosystems.

Under the latest circular, Hong Kong spot virtual asset ETFs are permitted to stake the virtual assets they hold — such as ETH — under a prudential and well-controlled framework, thereby earning native rewards from participating blockchain networks. This regulatory move sends two important signals: First, the Hong Kong SFC recognizes staking as a core mechanism in PoS ecosystems with sound economic logic; second, it reflects the regulator’s growing sophistication in understanding and managing the technological and risk dimensions of virtual assets and Web3 ecosystems.

To ensure risk is appropriately managed, the circular mandates that ETF staking activities must be conducted through SFC-licensed VATPs , or authorised financial institutions(AIs) in compliance with Hong Kong Monetary Authority’s (HKMA) regulatory requirements. It also requires the imposition of staking caps to manage liquidity risk and safeguard asset segregation and security. Furthermore, ETF managers must fully disclose key information, including the operational structure of staking, the reward calculation methodology, potential risks, and the staking ratio cap — ensuring investor transparency and protection.

Notably, the SFC also issued a separate circular on the same day to revise the June 2023 “Guidelines for Virtual Asset Trading Platform Operators,” which previously prohibited licensed VATPs from engaging in arrangements that generate returns for clients using client-held virtual assets. The new circular now expressly permits licensed VATPs to offer staking services to clients. There are no restrictions on the types of virtual assets that may be staked, opening the door for compliant staking of PoS tokens such as Cardano and Solana in addition to ETH. This regulatory update not only expands the service scope of licensed VATPs — transforms them from pure trading venues into providers of value-added services, but also creates a trustworthy and compliant execution environment for spot ETFs to participate in staking.

For spot virtual asset ETFs, staking effectively enables the secondary use of underlying assets to generate additional income without altering the structure of ETF shareholdings. This development provides a compliant “onchain yield channel” for both retail and institutional investors. By integrating staking mechanisms, spot virtual asset ETFs are likely to become more attractive and scalable. Unlike traditional ETFs, which rely primarily on price appreciation or dividends, ETFs incorporating staking transform into “onchain yield-bearing instruments” with active return components. The additional 3%–6% annualized yield generated by staking is expected to be a key attraction for institutional investors and family offices with mid- to long-term investment horizons. Over the next 6 to 12 months, the implementation of staking is expected to drive structural growth in the AUM of spot virtual asset ETFs in Hong Kong.

In addition, the revenue-sharing model around staking yields will enrich the income structure of ETF managers and custodians, incentivizing more market participants to design innovative product structures within a compliant framework. Given that staking requires robust asset security and technical reliability, this new demand for compliant staking is also likely to accelerate infrastructure development, ultimately contributing to a more mature and comprehensive Web3 ecosystem in Hong Kong.

2. Building a Revenue Link Between Traditional Finance and Onchain Economies

The decision to permit staking is more than just a loosening of regulatory constraints; it reflects a deeper strategic intent: to promote the development of Hong Kong’s virtual asset market into a more mature and internationally competitive financial center, while safeguarding investor protection and maintaining effective risk control.

One primary motivation is to enhance the operational mechanism of the local ETF market. Since Hong Kong approved the first batch of spot virtual asset ETFs for listing in 2024, these products have demonstrated sound structures and rational investor behavior, yet trading activity and AUM have fallen short of expectations. The lack of endogenous yield mechanisms has rendered these ETFs less competitive compared to traditional income-generating funds. The introduction of staking offers not only an additional source of yield but also a tighter connection with blockchain ecosystems, helping attract a broader range of investors — particularly institutions focused on yield and asset allocation balance.

At a deeper level, permitting ETF staking represents a key step in completing the closed loop of Hong Kong’s Web3 financial ecosystem. While the launch of the VASP licensing regime and the opening of retail investor access have laid the foundation for a compliant market structure, the journey toward a resilient and sophisticated Web3 ecosystem requires further progress in onchain operations, yield generation, and regulatory assurance. Integrating staking — a core function of DeFi — into traditional financial products, is a pioneering attempt to build an institutionalized, sustainable revenue bridge between onchain finance and conventional capital markets.

Against the backdrop of global regulatory competition, Hong Kong’s policy move also serves as a forward-looking reference model. The United States has yet to approve any staking-enabled ETFs, with ongoing debates centering on asset ownership, securities law implications, and risk oversight. In contrast, Hong Kong has introduced a feasible prudential model through mechanisms such as asset segregation, staking caps, and comprehensive disclosures — offering a compelling case for other jurisdictions.

Looking ahead, whether the U.S. eventually approves staking functionality for Ethereum ETFs could once again reshape global virtual asset product design. As institutions like Coinbase and Grayscale continue to engage in regulatory dialogue, the SEC’s stance on staking may gradually evolve. According to recent media reports, some pilot applications involving staking features are now under final-stage review. If approved, such a move could reignite global interest in “staking ETFs” and potentially exert competitive pressure on Hong Kong’s current product offerings. However, Hong Kong’s first-mover advantage — characterized by policy clarity and swift implementation — positions it well to attract capital flows seeking onchain yield in the Asia-Pacific region and consolidate its leadership in the global virtual asset and digital finance arena.

Looking forward, as more ETF issuers submit staking plans and additional trading platforms launch compliant staking services, Hong Kong is poised to establish a virtual asset product ecosystem that is more diversified, better structured, and institutionally robust. This evolution will enable virtual assets to move beyond mere tradability toward becoming configurable and yield-generating assets — meeting the diverse needs of investors and supporting the sustained development of Hong Kong’s virtual asset ecosystem.

OKG Research: The Multi-dimensional Impact of Hong Kong’s Pioneering Move to Permit Virtual Asset… was originally published in The Capital on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.