In the previous article "Deconstructing - The Fragile Balance of Ant Group's Digital Technology and Guotai Junan's RWA Experiment", we have conducted an in-depth analysis of the internal structure of Ant Group's Digital Technology and Guotai Junan International's cross-border financial RWA experiment, revealing the intricate yet fragile balance constructed within its business model, technical architecture, and structural risks. We explored how this collaboration attempts to build a bridge across the sovereign and legal fracture zones between regulatory realities and market demands.
However, the true significance of this experiment goes far beyond its own success or failure. It is more like a stone thrown into the lake of global finance, creating layers of profound ripples that not only question the future direction of the RWA industry but also pose profound challenges to the regulatory philosophy of global digital assets and the competitive landscape of geopolitical finance. This article will build on the previous text, exploring the historical status of this experiment from a more macro perspective, and looking ahead to its far-reaching implications for industry paradigms, regulatory environments, and the global competitive landscape.
Chapter One: Testing the Boundaries, Inquiring into History
In fact, the above issues are numerous and are no longer a novelty. It is precisely for this reason that they can cause a stir in the community and attract people's attention. This experiment is like a fragile sprout breaking through the soil; regardless of success or failure, it should leave a mark in history. Therefore, how to position its status has become a puzzle that troubles the crowd.
The author is excited to set a high coordinate for this attempt, going beyond simply likening it to a digital version of "Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect." The core of "Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect" is to utilize existing financial infrastructure to achieve limited interconnection of existing capital markets. The true ambition of this RWA experiment lies in a more fundamental exploration of financial infrastructure paradigms. Its significance lies not only in "connectivity," that is, opening up the channels for capital flow, but also in "creation" — attempting to create and validate a completely new set of asset generation, circulation, and settlement rules based on digital technology.
Therefore, this collaboration should be seen as a meticulously planned, comprehensive stress test that unfolds across multiple dimensions simultaneously. It not only tests the resilience of the Hong Kong regulatory framework but also launches a comprehensive inquiry into the inertia of global markets, the boundaries of underlying technologies, and the acceptance of international capital. This event is like a stone thrown into a calm body of water, with the ripples it creates quickly spreading in a clear causal chain.
Paradigm shift in the industry
This collaboration has cast the first ripple within the RWA industry, representing a profound paradigm shift. It marks the formal transition of China's RWA practices beyond the previous primary stage focused on physical assets such as renewable energy, successfully venturing into the realm of core financial assets that are more complex in structure, more sensitive to regulation, and have higher value density for the first time. However, the deeper implication of this successful asset category leap lies in its potential to establish the specific model of "alliance chain + public chain + licensed institutions" as the "de facto standard" for the future development of the industry, leveraging the strong market positions and compliance resources of both parties. This could result in a significant "Path Locking" effect. This effect acts like a double-edged sword, serving as an accelerator for industry development, but it may also become a "tightening spell" for more diversified innovative models in the future.
A high-difficulty asset class crossover
The core value proposition of RWA lies in injecting vitality into real-world assets that originally lack liquidity through tokenization technology. However, extending this value proposition from relatively standardized physical assets (such as charging piles and photovoltaic power stations) to financial assets presents exponentially increasing difficulty.
The tokenization of physical assets faces a core challenge in the credible on-chain representation of off-chain data, which can largely be addressed by the technological combination of "blockchain + Internet of Things (IoT)". However, financial assets, especially the "structured products" issued by Guotai Junan this time, derive their complexity from inherent financial engineering, multi-layered risk structures, and highly dynamic valuation models. This requires an unprecedented depth of integration between the technology provider (Ant Group) and the financial institution (Guotai Junan) in aspects such as product design, risk pricing, and legal rights confirmation, the difficulty of which far exceeds that of simple physical data mapping.
Moreover, the tokenization of financial assets directly touches the core area of securities regulation in various countries. Against the backdrop of an unclear macro attitude towards token issuance financing in mainland China, "domestic assets, overseas issuance" seems to be the only feasible compliance path. While Hong Kong holds an open attitude towards this, its regulatory principles, as well as the full set of financial licenses required for security tokens (such as Type 1, 4, 9 licenses and VASP licenses), together constitute a very high entry barrier.
It is precisely because the difficulty of this leap from the physical to the financial is extremely high that Guotai Junan International's special status as a "licensed financial institution" becomes crucial. Its compliance qualifications and professional ability as a "gatekeeper" of asset quality are necessary non-technical prerequisites for advancing this experiment. However, this also reveals the first limitation of the model: their successful experience is largely "non-replicable." For the vast majority of ordinary enterprises lacking similar license resources, strong capital, and cross-border operational capabilities, the entry cost of this path is astronomical, which lays the groundwork for subsequent "path dependence" effects.
"Path Locking": An industry template that combines acceleration and solidification effects.
It is precisely due to the aforementioned difficulties in crossovers that the successful practice of "Consortium Chain (Ant Chain) + Public Chain (Ethereum) + Licensed Institution (Guotai Junan)" is highly likely to be regarded by the market and subsequent participants as the only verified and feasible compliance and business template, thereby creating a strong "path dependency" effect. The RWA on-chain technical specifications formulated by Ant Group and the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology further strengthen this trend at the regulatory level, intending to elevate this model from "best practice" to "industry standard."
As an accelerator, a clear, market-validated standardized path will undoubtedly greatly reduce the uncertainty and trial-and-error costs for subsequent participants. It provides a visible bridge for connecting China's vast physical assets with the liquidity of the global Web3 world, and is expected to accelerate the process of high-quality Chinese assets (especially in strategic areas such as new energy and advanced manufacturing) connecting with global capital through "on-chain going overseas."
However, as a "tightening spell", the premature solidification of this path also harbors far-reaching negative effects. Firstly, it may stifle the diversification and innovation of technology and business models. Other potential technological paths, such as compliance solutions based on pure public chains, or decentralized issuance models that do not rely on large financial intermediaries, may be marginalized for not meeting this "factual standard". Secondly, it will sharply raise the competitive barriers in the RWA track, exacerbating monopolies by giants. High licensing costs, technological investments, and compliance expenses will make the RWA market an exclusive territory for a few major players, limiting the competitive vitality and diversity of the market. This is not only a locking in of the technological route but also a locking in of the market structure, indicating that competition in the RWA field will, from the very beginning, be a "four-dimensional competition"—a comprehensive contest of technology, licensing, assets, and compliance capabilities.
Signals of the regulatory environment: a carefully designed "strategic ambiguity"
The second circle of more profound ripples should be quickly conveyed to the regulatory level.
The regulatory response to this is currently in a state of thoughtful, flexible "strategic ambiguity." This ambiguity is not a lack of regulation or ineptitude, but is often seen as a highly sophisticated policy tool, possibly aimed at encouraging innovative exploration within controllable limits, testing the boundaries of risk, while leaving the greatest possible room for maneuver for any future shift in policy direction.
We believe that to understand this signal, it is essential to decode the three major pillar strategies that support it.
The first pillar is to choose an experimental vehicle with a high degree of trust and controllability. Placing Guotai Junan International at the core of this experiment is the cornerstone for the implementation of the entire strategic ambiguity. Its strong state-owned background and indisputable licensed compliance record in the Hong Kong market make it an ideal "Trusted Proxy." The regulatory authorities conduct cutting-edge testing through such a proxy, with the primary goal of ensuring that the risk exposure of the entire experimental process is limited to an acceptable range from the very beginning. Guotai Junan’s mature corporate governance, internal risk control, and compliance practices in areas such as anti-money laundering provide a reliable safety net for this exploration in high-risk fields.
More importantly, Guotai Junan, as a top brokerage firm, possesses professionalism, especially in asset screening, risk pricing, and its experience as a "gatekeeper" of asset quality, which ensures that this experiment has a serious professional foundation. This conveys a subtle yet clear signal to the market: any similar financial innovations in the future will have extremely high entry barriers, and participants must possess an impeccable compliance background as well as deep financial expertise. Through a pilot program by a "trusted agent", the regulatory authorities are able to guide the industry in exploring a standardized compliance path without directly endorsing it.
The second pillar is to utilize Hong Kong as a "controlled offshore financial laboratory." The strategic value of choosing Hong Kong as an experimental location goes far beyond using it as a dock connecting international capital; it lies in its unique jurisdictional status, enabling it to serve as an "experimental field" that is isolated from the mainland financial system yet can be observed. Under the framework of "one country, two systems," Hong Kong has an independent legal and regulatory system. Its proactive embrace of virtual assets, along with a regulatory framework centered on "penetrating review" and licensing systems, provides an open yet regulated experimental environment for RWA innovation.
This offshore characteristic provides a critically important risk insulation layer for the mainland regulatory authorities. It allows China's technological and financial forces to conduct experiments abroad that cannot be carried out on the mainland due to policy restrictions, while effectively blocking potential financial risks—whether technical, market, or compliance-related—within the offshore market, thus avoiding direct impacts on the stability of the mainland financial system. This experiment, in a sense, is testing whether the RWA risks released in the offshore market will, and how they will, reverse transmit back to the mainland, thereby providing invaluable firsthand empirical data for the formulation of relevant policies in the mainland in the future.
The third and most fundamental pillar is the policy choice brought about by "strategic ambiguity." With a shorter timeline, the regulatory authorities have maintained public silence on this project. Since the project can be safely implemented and publicly promoted, this ambiguity should be understood as a form of policy choice.
This silence first embodies the essence of the "regulatory sandbox" concept: allowing the market to innovate within a limited and controllable scope before the final rules are set in stone, while regulators act as active observers and learners during this process. This avoids the possibility of stifling the diversity of technologies and business models in an emerging field due to the premature introduction of rigid rules.
The deeper consideration is that this "strategic ambiguity" opens the door to any possibility for future policies. If this experiment proves to be successful and the risks are controllable, the regulatory authorities can smoothly "legalize" it, gradually expand the pilot scope, and even establish this model as an officially recognized standard without having to bear the policy costs of making an early statement. Conversely, if the experiment exposes uncontrollable risks, the regulatory authorities can also quickly intervene, tighten policies, and limit it to an unsuccessful case without having to amend any officially published positions. During this period, China is actively participating in and attempting to lead the formulation of new rules in the global digital field. The ambiguity in regulation is precisely the valuable window period gained for the brewing, testing, and improvement of these Chinese solutions.
In summary, the signals released by the regulatory authorities are not a single signal, but rather a complex signal system composed of "trustworthy agents," "offshore laboratories," and "strategic ambiguity," which is multi-layered and dynamically evolving. While cautiously embracing innovation, it also retains maximum control and initiative to maintain financial stability and national strategy.
Redefining "living space"
The paradigm shift within the industry, combined with the "strategic ambiguity" at the regulatory level, intertwines these two forces, ultimately creating a third wave that impacts the entire market landscape and is the most disruptive ripple. The collaboration between Ant Group and Guotai Junan is not just about introducing a new competitor; it fundamentally redefines the competitive dimensions of the RWA track. It elevates competition from a past singular focus on technology or business models to a dramatic escalation into a "four-dimensional competition"—that is, the comprehensive integration of technological infrastructure, licensed financial qualifications, high-quality asset acquisition capabilities, and cross-border compliance frameworks. This entirely new competitive paradigm poses a structural challenge to all other blockchain platforms—whether they are public chains like Conflux, which are committed to compliant innovation, or alliance chain networks represented by BSN—forcing them to conduct a painful reassessment of their "survival space."
This effect of dimensional elevation exposes the inherent structural shortcomings of different technological routes. In the previous market landscape, public chains and consortium chains could develop in parallel in their respective fields of expertise. However, the business of RWA, which requires a deep integration of the two worlds, has become the most stringent touchstone for testing their comprehensive capabilities. The benchmark set by Ant Group and Guotai Junan's collaboration reveals the core insight: in the field of RWA, any single-dimensional advantage is no longer sufficient.
For public chains like Conflux, the biggest structural shortcoming lies in the lack of licensed financial qualifications. Although it has demonstrated significant efforts in compliance and interoperability through its dual-chain structure, which connects to the global ecosystem via the Ethereum-compatible eSpace and meets domestic regulatory requirements through Core Space, it is essentially a technology platform rather than a regulated financial entity. In the RWA "on-chain investment banking" business, the issuance, underwriting, distribution, and management of assets must be carried out by financial institutions holding the appropriate licenses. This means that even with advanced technology, public chain platforms find it difficult to play a core role in asset issuance directly, which is precisely the indispensable core value provided by Guotai Junan in this collaboration.
However, for consortium blockchain networks represented by BSN, their shortcoming is exactly the opposite, which lies in the isolation of the global liquidity ecosystem. The advantages of permissioned and controllable features of consortium chains have been fully utilized in domestic B-end applications and government services. However, in cross-border RWA scenarios that require engagement with global capital, this "walled garden" model built for compliance has instead become the biggest obstacle to integrating into the global open financial ecosystem. Although regulatory pilots in Hong Kong allow the existence of permissioned chains, to truly achieve broad participation and efficient circulation of global capital, it is essential to resolve the seamless integration issue with the global investor ecosystem. This is precisely the inherent limitation of consortium blockchains in terms of design philosophy.
Faced with the high entry barriers brought about by this "four-dimensional competition", other market participants are confronted with a difficult strategic choice: to invest heavily in an attempt to replicate this "heavy asset" omnipotent model and engage in convergence competition; or to settle for a secondary option, seeking differentiated survival in the "niche markets" that the giants are momentarily unable to attend to. The latter path may mean focusing on certain specific asset classes that have relatively simple compliance requirements (such as artworks and intellectual property), or being content to play the role of an infrastructure provider in the ecosystem, such as focusing on providing cross-chain protocols, privacy computing, or pure technical services like on-chain IoT data. However, the business prospects of these differentiated paths will be limited by the overall scale of the RWA market dominated by the giants.
Ultimately, the regulatory exploration between Ant Group and Guotai Junan is likely to establish the future policy ceiling for the entire industry. The regulatory authorities' final stance on this project will become the core barometer that all domestic blockchain platforms must refer to when conducting similar businesses. Its success may open a policy window for more institutions to venture offshore on the blockchain; while its failure could lead to this window being locked again. Therefore, the significance of this collaboration has surpassed the two companies themselves, becoming a critical "agent experiment" for the entire Chinese digital finance sector in exploring globalization paths, the results of which will profoundly impact the strategic direction and innovation boundaries of China's blockchain industry in the coming years.
Chapter Two: On the Other Side of the Horizon
We believe that August 2025 should be regarded as a clear decision-making coordinate system for institutional investors, regulatory bodies, and all strategic decision-makers involved in this wave of digital financial transformation.
Practical samples revealing the future financial fracture zone
No need to repeat, we believe that the cooperation between Ant Group and Guotai Junan International is more of an experiment, and the value of this experiment lies not in its short-term trading volume or commercial profit, but in its role as an unavoidable real-world sample that, with unprecedented clarity, forcibly pulls all the core contradictions that the future global digital financial system must face from the theoretical debate level into the realm of real-world testing.
It exposes the irreconcilable intrinsic conflict between centralized compliance and the ideals of decentralized technology; it validates the structural issues that are difficult to bridge between national financial sovereignty and the globalization of capital flows. This cooperation is a bold attempt to reconcile these contradictions, but it does not provide a final answer; on the contrary, it materializes these profound contradictions into a series of specific business, technical, and legal challenges.
Therefore, the true fruit of this experiment is not a success model that can be easily replicated, but a precious and cautionary example. It reveals to all market participants where the most profound fractures are that will inevitably be encountered on the road to the next generation of financial infrastructure.
Dominance, Regulation and Geofinance
It should also be noted that this experiment has even opened up a series of larger games concerning the future. Its ultimate evolution path is not linear, but will unfold along several distinctly different trajectories under the intertwined influences of global macroeconomics, regulatory evolution, and technological maturity. What will determine its final direction are three unresolved fundamental issues.
One potential path is that this digital artery connecting Chinese assets to global capital is successfully activated, propelling Hong Kong to become the undisputed global offshore center for RWA, and making the "two chains and one bridge" model a limited benchmark for industry promotion. However, a more cautious trajectory may see this model confined to "club-style" transactions among a few giants due to its high compliance and technical costs, as well as the difficult-to-overcome market trust gap, ultimately becoming a powerful but non-scalable financial tool. The most pessimistic possibility is the occurrence of a major security incident or a decisive regulatory shift.
The first key factor in determining the future direction is about the ownership of dominance. In the long-term evolution of RWA, the core link of value capture will ultimately fall into whose hands? Is it the traditional financial institutions that master asset sources and structuring capabilities, the technology platforms that provide underlying technical protocols and data services, or the trading networks that control global liquidity access? The final ownership will fundamentally determine the economic foundation and commercial form of this model.
The second, and also the most decisive variable, lies in the evolution of regulation. This experiment has posed a new era proposition to the regulatory systems in Beijing and Hong Kong on how to build a new generation of "penetrative, cross-market, and tech-savvy" regulatory capabilities. In the future, whether regulatory technology can be effectively integrated to achieve real-time and automated monitoring of on-chain assets and cross-chain transactions will directly determine whether the regulatory authorities can find that dynamic and sustainable balance between encouraging innovation and preventing systemic risks. This is not only a technical issue but also a test of governance capability.
Ultimately, all these issues will converge into a larger framework of geopolitical financial games. How will China's RWA "going overseas" model promoted through Hong Kong, which anchors real assets and connects global capital, compete, coexist, or integrate with the current global crypto financial system dominated by dollar stablecoins?
Conclusion: From industry templates to geopolitical positioning
The RWA experiment between Ant Group and Guotai Junan, with its unique strategic intent and complex technical practices, is not only an innovation in financial products but also a profound inquiry into the existing digital financial order. It reshapes the competitive dimensions of the RWA track with unprecedented clarity, forcing all participants to reassess their "survival space"; it presents a proposition to regulators for building a new generation of "penetrative, cross-market, technology-aware" regulatory capabilities, and it has secured valuable space for future policy evolution through "strategic ambiguity."
The ultimate direction of this experiment depends on the allocation of power, the evolution of regulation, and the trajectory of geopolitical financial games. It is not just a question of whether the technology can be realized, but a fundamental choice about what kind of trust system the world needs to establish. The RWA "going abroad" model promoted by China through Hong Kong is opening up an asymmetric path anchored by real assets and using the renminbi as a potential unit of account, gradually enhancing China's financial influence in the global digital economy beyond the internationalization of the digital renminbi.
The true legacy of this experiment lies in the fact that it has irreversibly placed the foundational architecture of the future global financial order on the negotiation table. It reveals that the future competition in digital finance is no longer just a contest of technology or business model innovation, but has ascended to a higher dimension of building trust systems.
This is no longer just a question of whether technology can be realized, but rather a question of what kind of trust system the world needs to establish.
Author: Zhao Qirui Editorial Review: Zhao Yidan
About 【RWA Research Institute】
The RWA Research Institute was jointly initiated by several senior financiers, Web3 practitioners, industry innovators, and technical experts, and was officially launched on June 25, 2024, in Hong Kong with the full name: RWA Research Institute, abbreviated as RWARI(.
As one of the earliest established professional RWA research institutions in the world, the RWA Research Institute focuses on the field of Real World Assets ), abbreviated as RWA (, and is committed to promoting the integration of traditional financial assets with blockchain technology. Through in-depth research and practice, the institute provides innovative solutions for investors and enterprises, facilitating the digitization and tokenization of physical assets, and building a bridge between traditional finance and digital assets.
The core mission of the RWA Research Institute is to combine policy research, standard-setting, and ecological co-construction to assist enterprises in achieving digital transformation of assets, providing technological support and strategic synergy for global compliance development. In the future, the institute will continue to deepen the integration of digital technology and the real economy, collaborate with international organizations to hold global industry summits, explore multi-field application scenarios, and inject new momentum into high-quality globalization.
In May 2025, the RWA Research Institute, in collaboration with authoritative institutions such as China Search and the China Electric Power Digital Scene Technology Research Institute, initiated the establishment of the "China RWA Industry Think Tank", focusing on the global compliance development in the field of asset digitization. The think tank empowers the real economy through three core directions: first, leading the formulation of international cooperation norms such as the "RWA Project Evaluation Standards"; second, constructing a digital service chain for "asset on-chain, cross-border circulation, and global trading", integrating blockchain and artificial intelligence technologies; third, building cross-border compliance channels with Hong Kong and Shenzhen as hubs, promoting green finance and innovation in cross-border investment and financing. At the same time, the think tank relies on the "dual-chain integration framework" ) national-level alliance chain and cross-chain protocol coordination mechanism ( to strengthen technological autonomy and data security, deepening cross-border cooperation and compliance governance.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
Inspiration - Ant Group and Guotai Junan: From Industry Template to Geopolitical Deployment
In the previous article "Deconstructing - The Fragile Balance of Ant Group's Digital Technology and Guotai Junan's RWA Experiment", we have conducted an in-depth analysis of the internal structure of Ant Group's Digital Technology and Guotai Junan International's cross-border financial RWA experiment, revealing the intricate yet fragile balance constructed within its business model, technical architecture, and structural risks. We explored how this collaboration attempts to build a bridge across the sovereign and legal fracture zones between regulatory realities and market demands.
However, the true significance of this experiment goes far beyond its own success or failure. It is more like a stone thrown into the lake of global finance, creating layers of profound ripples that not only question the future direction of the RWA industry but also pose profound challenges to the regulatory philosophy of global digital assets and the competitive landscape of geopolitical finance. This article will build on the previous text, exploring the historical status of this experiment from a more macro perspective, and looking ahead to its far-reaching implications for industry paradigms, regulatory environments, and the global competitive landscape.
Chapter One: Testing the Boundaries, Inquiring into History
In fact, the above issues are numerous and are no longer a novelty. It is precisely for this reason that they can cause a stir in the community and attract people's attention. This experiment is like a fragile sprout breaking through the soil; regardless of success or failure, it should leave a mark in history. Therefore, how to position its status has become a puzzle that troubles the crowd.
The author is excited to set a high coordinate for this attempt, going beyond simply likening it to a digital version of "Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect." The core of "Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect" is to utilize existing financial infrastructure to achieve limited interconnection of existing capital markets. The true ambition of this RWA experiment lies in a more fundamental exploration of financial infrastructure paradigms. Its significance lies not only in "connectivity," that is, opening up the channels for capital flow, but also in "creation" — attempting to create and validate a completely new set of asset generation, circulation, and settlement rules based on digital technology.
Therefore, this collaboration should be seen as a meticulously planned, comprehensive stress test that unfolds across multiple dimensions simultaneously. It not only tests the resilience of the Hong Kong regulatory framework but also launches a comprehensive inquiry into the inertia of global markets, the boundaries of underlying technologies, and the acceptance of international capital. This event is like a stone thrown into a calm body of water, with the ripples it creates quickly spreading in a clear causal chain.
Paradigm shift in the industry
This collaboration has cast the first ripple within the RWA industry, representing a profound paradigm shift. It marks the formal transition of China's RWA practices beyond the previous primary stage focused on physical assets such as renewable energy, successfully venturing into the realm of core financial assets that are more complex in structure, more sensitive to regulation, and have higher value density for the first time. However, the deeper implication of this successful asset category leap lies in its potential to establish the specific model of "alliance chain + public chain + licensed institutions" as the "de facto standard" for the future development of the industry, leveraging the strong market positions and compliance resources of both parties. This could result in a significant "Path Locking" effect. This effect acts like a double-edged sword, serving as an accelerator for industry development, but it may also become a "tightening spell" for more diversified innovative models in the future.
A high-difficulty asset class crossover
The core value proposition of RWA lies in injecting vitality into real-world assets that originally lack liquidity through tokenization technology. However, extending this value proposition from relatively standardized physical assets (such as charging piles and photovoltaic power stations) to financial assets presents exponentially increasing difficulty.
The tokenization of physical assets faces a core challenge in the credible on-chain representation of off-chain data, which can largely be addressed by the technological combination of "blockchain + Internet of Things (IoT)". However, financial assets, especially the "structured products" issued by Guotai Junan this time, derive their complexity from inherent financial engineering, multi-layered risk structures, and highly dynamic valuation models. This requires an unprecedented depth of integration between the technology provider (Ant Group) and the financial institution (Guotai Junan) in aspects such as product design, risk pricing, and legal rights confirmation, the difficulty of which far exceeds that of simple physical data mapping.
Moreover, the tokenization of financial assets directly touches the core area of securities regulation in various countries. Against the backdrop of an unclear macro attitude towards token issuance financing in mainland China, "domestic assets, overseas issuance" seems to be the only feasible compliance path. While Hong Kong holds an open attitude towards this, its regulatory principles, as well as the full set of financial licenses required for security tokens (such as Type 1, 4, 9 licenses and VASP licenses), together constitute a very high entry barrier.
It is precisely because the difficulty of this leap from the physical to the financial is extremely high that Guotai Junan International's special status as a "licensed financial institution" becomes crucial. Its compliance qualifications and professional ability as a "gatekeeper" of asset quality are necessary non-technical prerequisites for advancing this experiment. However, this also reveals the first limitation of the model: their successful experience is largely "non-replicable." For the vast majority of ordinary enterprises lacking similar license resources, strong capital, and cross-border operational capabilities, the entry cost of this path is astronomical, which lays the groundwork for subsequent "path dependence" effects.
"Path Locking": An industry template that combines acceleration and solidification effects.
It is precisely due to the aforementioned difficulties in crossovers that the successful practice of "Consortium Chain (Ant Chain) + Public Chain (Ethereum) + Licensed Institution (Guotai Junan)" is highly likely to be regarded by the market and subsequent participants as the only verified and feasible compliance and business template, thereby creating a strong "path dependency" effect. The RWA on-chain technical specifications formulated by Ant Group and the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology further strengthen this trend at the regulatory level, intending to elevate this model from "best practice" to "industry standard."
As an accelerator, a clear, market-validated standardized path will undoubtedly greatly reduce the uncertainty and trial-and-error costs for subsequent participants. It provides a visible bridge for connecting China's vast physical assets with the liquidity of the global Web3 world, and is expected to accelerate the process of high-quality Chinese assets (especially in strategic areas such as new energy and advanced manufacturing) connecting with global capital through "on-chain going overseas."
However, as a "tightening spell", the premature solidification of this path also harbors far-reaching negative effects. Firstly, it may stifle the diversification and innovation of technology and business models. Other potential technological paths, such as compliance solutions based on pure public chains, or decentralized issuance models that do not rely on large financial intermediaries, may be marginalized for not meeting this "factual standard". Secondly, it will sharply raise the competitive barriers in the RWA track, exacerbating monopolies by giants. High licensing costs, technological investments, and compliance expenses will make the RWA market an exclusive territory for a few major players, limiting the competitive vitality and diversity of the market. This is not only a locking in of the technological route but also a locking in of the market structure, indicating that competition in the RWA field will, from the very beginning, be a "four-dimensional competition"—a comprehensive contest of technology, licensing, assets, and compliance capabilities.
Signals of the regulatory environment: a carefully designed "strategic ambiguity"
The second circle of more profound ripples should be quickly conveyed to the regulatory level.
The regulatory response to this is currently in a state of thoughtful, flexible "strategic ambiguity." This ambiguity is not a lack of regulation or ineptitude, but is often seen as a highly sophisticated policy tool, possibly aimed at encouraging innovative exploration within controllable limits, testing the boundaries of risk, while leaving the greatest possible room for maneuver for any future shift in policy direction.
We believe that to understand this signal, it is essential to decode the three major pillar strategies that support it.
The first pillar is to choose an experimental vehicle with a high degree of trust and controllability. Placing Guotai Junan International at the core of this experiment is the cornerstone for the implementation of the entire strategic ambiguity. Its strong state-owned background and indisputable licensed compliance record in the Hong Kong market make it an ideal "Trusted Proxy." The regulatory authorities conduct cutting-edge testing through such a proxy, with the primary goal of ensuring that the risk exposure of the entire experimental process is limited to an acceptable range from the very beginning. Guotai Junan’s mature corporate governance, internal risk control, and compliance practices in areas such as anti-money laundering provide a reliable safety net for this exploration in high-risk fields.
More importantly, Guotai Junan, as a top brokerage firm, possesses professionalism, especially in asset screening, risk pricing, and its experience as a "gatekeeper" of asset quality, which ensures that this experiment has a serious professional foundation. This conveys a subtle yet clear signal to the market: any similar financial innovations in the future will have extremely high entry barriers, and participants must possess an impeccable compliance background as well as deep financial expertise. Through a pilot program by a "trusted agent", the regulatory authorities are able to guide the industry in exploring a standardized compliance path without directly endorsing it.
The second pillar is to utilize Hong Kong as a "controlled offshore financial laboratory." The strategic value of choosing Hong Kong as an experimental location goes far beyond using it as a dock connecting international capital; it lies in its unique jurisdictional status, enabling it to serve as an "experimental field" that is isolated from the mainland financial system yet can be observed. Under the framework of "one country, two systems," Hong Kong has an independent legal and regulatory system. Its proactive embrace of virtual assets, along with a regulatory framework centered on "penetrating review" and licensing systems, provides an open yet regulated experimental environment for RWA innovation.
This offshore characteristic provides a critically important risk insulation layer for the mainland regulatory authorities. It allows China's technological and financial forces to conduct experiments abroad that cannot be carried out on the mainland due to policy restrictions, while effectively blocking potential financial risks—whether technical, market, or compliance-related—within the offshore market, thus avoiding direct impacts on the stability of the mainland financial system. This experiment, in a sense, is testing whether the RWA risks released in the offshore market will, and how they will, reverse transmit back to the mainland, thereby providing invaluable firsthand empirical data for the formulation of relevant policies in the mainland in the future.
The third and most fundamental pillar is the policy choice brought about by "strategic ambiguity." With a shorter timeline, the regulatory authorities have maintained public silence on this project. Since the project can be safely implemented and publicly promoted, this ambiguity should be understood as a form of policy choice.
This silence first embodies the essence of the "regulatory sandbox" concept: allowing the market to innovate within a limited and controllable scope before the final rules are set in stone, while regulators act as active observers and learners during this process. This avoids the possibility of stifling the diversity of technologies and business models in an emerging field due to the premature introduction of rigid rules.
The deeper consideration is that this "strategic ambiguity" opens the door to any possibility for future policies. If this experiment proves to be successful and the risks are controllable, the regulatory authorities can smoothly "legalize" it, gradually expand the pilot scope, and even establish this model as an officially recognized standard without having to bear the policy costs of making an early statement. Conversely, if the experiment exposes uncontrollable risks, the regulatory authorities can also quickly intervene, tighten policies, and limit it to an unsuccessful case without having to amend any officially published positions. During this period, China is actively participating in and attempting to lead the formulation of new rules in the global digital field. The ambiguity in regulation is precisely the valuable window period gained for the brewing, testing, and improvement of these Chinese solutions.
In summary, the signals released by the regulatory authorities are not a single signal, but rather a complex signal system composed of "trustworthy agents," "offshore laboratories," and "strategic ambiguity," which is multi-layered and dynamically evolving. While cautiously embracing innovation, it also retains maximum control and initiative to maintain financial stability and national strategy.
Redefining "living space"
The paradigm shift within the industry, combined with the "strategic ambiguity" at the regulatory level, intertwines these two forces, ultimately creating a third wave that impacts the entire market landscape and is the most disruptive ripple. The collaboration between Ant Group and Guotai Junan is not just about introducing a new competitor; it fundamentally redefines the competitive dimensions of the RWA track. It elevates competition from a past singular focus on technology or business models to a dramatic escalation into a "four-dimensional competition"—that is, the comprehensive integration of technological infrastructure, licensed financial qualifications, high-quality asset acquisition capabilities, and cross-border compliance frameworks. This entirely new competitive paradigm poses a structural challenge to all other blockchain platforms—whether they are public chains like Conflux, which are committed to compliant innovation, or alliance chain networks represented by BSN—forcing them to conduct a painful reassessment of their "survival space."
This effect of dimensional elevation exposes the inherent structural shortcomings of different technological routes. In the previous market landscape, public chains and consortium chains could develop in parallel in their respective fields of expertise. However, the business of RWA, which requires a deep integration of the two worlds, has become the most stringent touchstone for testing their comprehensive capabilities. The benchmark set by Ant Group and Guotai Junan's collaboration reveals the core insight: in the field of RWA, any single-dimensional advantage is no longer sufficient.
For public chains like Conflux, the biggest structural shortcoming lies in the lack of licensed financial qualifications. Although it has demonstrated significant efforts in compliance and interoperability through its dual-chain structure, which connects to the global ecosystem via the Ethereum-compatible eSpace and meets domestic regulatory requirements through Core Space, it is essentially a technology platform rather than a regulated financial entity. In the RWA "on-chain investment banking" business, the issuance, underwriting, distribution, and management of assets must be carried out by financial institutions holding the appropriate licenses. This means that even with advanced technology, public chain platforms find it difficult to play a core role in asset issuance directly, which is precisely the indispensable core value provided by Guotai Junan in this collaboration.
However, for consortium blockchain networks represented by BSN, their shortcoming is exactly the opposite, which lies in the isolation of the global liquidity ecosystem. The advantages of permissioned and controllable features of consortium chains have been fully utilized in domestic B-end applications and government services. However, in cross-border RWA scenarios that require engagement with global capital, this "walled garden" model built for compliance has instead become the biggest obstacle to integrating into the global open financial ecosystem. Although regulatory pilots in Hong Kong allow the existence of permissioned chains, to truly achieve broad participation and efficient circulation of global capital, it is essential to resolve the seamless integration issue with the global investor ecosystem. This is precisely the inherent limitation of consortium blockchains in terms of design philosophy.
Faced with the high entry barriers brought about by this "four-dimensional competition", other market participants are confronted with a difficult strategic choice: to invest heavily in an attempt to replicate this "heavy asset" omnipotent model and engage in convergence competition; or to settle for a secondary option, seeking differentiated survival in the "niche markets" that the giants are momentarily unable to attend to. The latter path may mean focusing on certain specific asset classes that have relatively simple compliance requirements (such as artworks and intellectual property), or being content to play the role of an infrastructure provider in the ecosystem, such as focusing on providing cross-chain protocols, privacy computing, or pure technical services like on-chain IoT data. However, the business prospects of these differentiated paths will be limited by the overall scale of the RWA market dominated by the giants.
Ultimately, the regulatory exploration between Ant Group and Guotai Junan is likely to establish the future policy ceiling for the entire industry. The regulatory authorities' final stance on this project will become the core barometer that all domestic blockchain platforms must refer to when conducting similar businesses. Its success may open a policy window for more institutions to venture offshore on the blockchain; while its failure could lead to this window being locked again. Therefore, the significance of this collaboration has surpassed the two companies themselves, becoming a critical "agent experiment" for the entire Chinese digital finance sector in exploring globalization paths, the results of which will profoundly impact the strategic direction and innovation boundaries of China's blockchain industry in the coming years.
Chapter Two: On the Other Side of the Horizon
We believe that August 2025 should be regarded as a clear decision-making coordinate system for institutional investors, regulatory bodies, and all strategic decision-makers involved in this wave of digital financial transformation.
Practical samples revealing the future financial fracture zone
No need to repeat, we believe that the cooperation between Ant Group and Guotai Junan International is more of an experiment, and the value of this experiment lies not in its short-term trading volume or commercial profit, but in its role as an unavoidable real-world sample that, with unprecedented clarity, forcibly pulls all the core contradictions that the future global digital financial system must face from the theoretical debate level into the realm of real-world testing.
It exposes the irreconcilable intrinsic conflict between centralized compliance and the ideals of decentralized technology; it validates the structural issues that are difficult to bridge between national financial sovereignty and the globalization of capital flows. This cooperation is a bold attempt to reconcile these contradictions, but it does not provide a final answer; on the contrary, it materializes these profound contradictions into a series of specific business, technical, and legal challenges.
Therefore, the true fruit of this experiment is not a success model that can be easily replicated, but a precious and cautionary example. It reveals to all market participants where the most profound fractures are that will inevitably be encountered on the road to the next generation of financial infrastructure.
Dominance, Regulation and Geofinance
It should also be noted that this experiment has even opened up a series of larger games concerning the future. Its ultimate evolution path is not linear, but will unfold along several distinctly different trajectories under the intertwined influences of global macroeconomics, regulatory evolution, and technological maturity. What will determine its final direction are three unresolved fundamental issues.
One potential path is that this digital artery connecting Chinese assets to global capital is successfully activated, propelling Hong Kong to become the undisputed global offshore center for RWA, and making the "two chains and one bridge" model a limited benchmark for industry promotion. However, a more cautious trajectory may see this model confined to "club-style" transactions among a few giants due to its high compliance and technical costs, as well as the difficult-to-overcome market trust gap, ultimately becoming a powerful but non-scalable financial tool. The most pessimistic possibility is the occurrence of a major security incident or a decisive regulatory shift.
The first key factor in determining the future direction is about the ownership of dominance. In the long-term evolution of RWA, the core link of value capture will ultimately fall into whose hands? Is it the traditional financial institutions that master asset sources and structuring capabilities, the technology platforms that provide underlying technical protocols and data services, or the trading networks that control global liquidity access? The final ownership will fundamentally determine the economic foundation and commercial form of this model.
The second, and also the most decisive variable, lies in the evolution of regulation. This experiment has posed a new era proposition to the regulatory systems in Beijing and Hong Kong on how to build a new generation of "penetrative, cross-market, and tech-savvy" regulatory capabilities. In the future, whether regulatory technology can be effectively integrated to achieve real-time and automated monitoring of on-chain assets and cross-chain transactions will directly determine whether the regulatory authorities can find that dynamic and sustainable balance between encouraging innovation and preventing systemic risks. This is not only a technical issue but also a test of governance capability.
Ultimately, all these issues will converge into a larger framework of geopolitical financial games. How will China's RWA "going overseas" model promoted through Hong Kong, which anchors real assets and connects global capital, compete, coexist, or integrate with the current global crypto financial system dominated by dollar stablecoins?
Conclusion: From industry templates to geopolitical positioning
The RWA experiment between Ant Group and Guotai Junan, with its unique strategic intent and complex technical practices, is not only an innovation in financial products but also a profound inquiry into the existing digital financial order. It reshapes the competitive dimensions of the RWA track with unprecedented clarity, forcing all participants to reassess their "survival space"; it presents a proposition to regulators for building a new generation of "penetrative, cross-market, technology-aware" regulatory capabilities, and it has secured valuable space for future policy evolution through "strategic ambiguity."
The ultimate direction of this experiment depends on the allocation of power, the evolution of regulation, and the trajectory of geopolitical financial games. It is not just a question of whether the technology can be realized, but a fundamental choice about what kind of trust system the world needs to establish. The RWA "going abroad" model promoted by China through Hong Kong is opening up an asymmetric path anchored by real assets and using the renminbi as a potential unit of account, gradually enhancing China's financial influence in the global digital economy beyond the internationalization of the digital renminbi.
The true legacy of this experiment lies in the fact that it has irreversibly placed the foundational architecture of the future global financial order on the negotiation table. It reveals that the future competition in digital finance is no longer just a contest of technology or business model innovation, but has ascended to a higher dimension of building trust systems.
This is no longer just a question of whether technology can be realized, but rather a question of what kind of trust system the world needs to establish.
Author: Zhao Qirui Editorial Review: Zhao Yidan
About 【RWA Research Institute】
The RWA Research Institute was jointly initiated by several senior financiers, Web3 practitioners, industry innovators, and technical experts, and was officially launched on June 25, 2024, in Hong Kong with the full name: RWA Research Institute, abbreviated as RWARI(.
As one of the earliest established professional RWA research institutions in the world, the RWA Research Institute focuses on the field of Real World Assets ), abbreviated as RWA (, and is committed to promoting the integration of traditional financial assets with blockchain technology. Through in-depth research and practice, the institute provides innovative solutions for investors and enterprises, facilitating the digitization and tokenization of physical assets, and building a bridge between traditional finance and digital assets.
The core mission of the RWA Research Institute is to combine policy research, standard-setting, and ecological co-construction to assist enterprises in achieving digital transformation of assets, providing technological support and strategic synergy for global compliance development. In the future, the institute will continue to deepen the integration of digital technology and the real economy, collaborate with international organizations to hold global industry summits, explore multi-field application scenarios, and inject new momentum into high-quality globalization.
In May 2025, the RWA Research Institute, in collaboration with authoritative institutions such as China Search and the China Electric Power Digital Scene Technology Research Institute, initiated the establishment of the "China RWA Industry Think Tank", focusing on the global compliance development in the field of asset digitization. The think tank empowers the real economy through three core directions: first, leading the formulation of international cooperation norms such as the "RWA Project Evaluation Standards"; second, constructing a digital service chain for "asset on-chain, cross-border circulation, and global trading", integrating blockchain and artificial intelligence technologies; third, building cross-border compliance channels with Hong Kong and Shenzhen as hubs, promoting green finance and innovation in cross-border investment and financing. At the same time, the think tank relies on the "dual-chain integration framework" ) national-level alliance chain and cross-chain protocol coordination mechanism ( to strengthen technological autonomy and data security, deepening cross-border cooperation and compliance governance.