The crypto world is currently playing out a drama of mental schism, on one side is RWA (Real-World Assets) pursuing real-world value, and on the other side is meme coins turning attention into stakes. These two are not mutually exclusive but will push regulation into a dilemma. (Background: Cryptocurrency Analysis: Church, Amusement Park, and Casino - A Triple Perspective on the Public Chain Ecosystem in 2025) (Background Supplement: Nobel Prize-winning economist Simon Johnson: A cryptocurrency crisis is imminent) The financial market is being pulled by two forces, including a solid belief in tangible value and a frenzied chase for intangible expectations. At this moment, the crypto world is vividly depicting this tug-of-war. On one hand, the wave of tokenization of Real-World Assets (RWA) attempts to create an anchor in this digital realm, previously known as a 'chain casino', tying it to the large ship of the real economy. On the other hand, the 'entertainment equals trading' model represented by pump.fun simplifies trading into a game of capturing attention and dopamine, creating millions of fleeting meme casinos that absorb massive capital. These two seemingly contradictory trends raise a core question: Are they fundamentally contradictory in terms of regulation? The answer may be more complex than it appears on the surface. This is not a zero-sum game but rather two races with different purposes playing out on the same technical underlayer. How to govern two vastly different financial universes with a unified legal framework? Attention Casino: When Friction Disappears, Trading Becomes Instinct The core of 'entertainment equals trading' is not about creating value but about eliminating friction. From one-click ordering with Telegram bots to creating and trading a new token within seconds on pump.fun, to the doomscrolling immersive information flow (infinitely scrolling down), the ultimate goal of all this design is to detach thinking from trading decisions, making it an instinctive reaction. Kyle Samani of Multicoin Capital is right in his analysis; it's like a deep rehearsal of 'software equals finance', where the criteria are no longer traditional value assessments but whether users 'want to come back and see if there's something new'. In the world of entertainment trading, traditional financial logic is completely overturned. Analysts are surprised to find: 'The most profitable players often accept a 10% slippage just to get in three seconds earlier.' This statement precisely captures the essence of the attention market: time value outweighs price value, speed, and community consensus replace fundamental analysis. The rise of memecoins and User-Generated Assets (UGA) is the ultimate embodiment of this logic. Their value comes from the shared beliefs of the community and the power of narrative, rather than any quantifiable cash flow or physical assets. This is an attention black hole that perfectly financializes human FOMO, social competition, and entertainment needs. When everyone becomes a chip, dealer, and gambler in the casino, the trinity best explains this situation. Everything can be RWA, but regulation is not that simple At the same time, the narrative of RWA seems as calm as a 50-year-old man sipping from a thermos cup. The RWA Industry Development Research Report released by Hong Kong emphasizes that not everything can be RWA. Successful tokenized assets must meet stringent thresholds such as value stability, clear legal rights, and verifiable off-chain data. From U.S. Treasury bonds and commercial real estate to carbon credits and artworks, RWA aims to liberate high-quality assets that are illiquid and have high transaction costs in the traditional financial system onto the blockchain. This pathway seeks trust, stability, and efficiency. It attempts to solve the long-standing dilemmas of 'trading air' and 'tokens lacking fundamentals' in the crypto world, transforming it from a purely speculative stage into a value internet that serves the real economy. The entry of traditional financial giants like Citigroup and Standard Chartered, along with dedicated blockchain platforms designed for RWA trading, indicates that RWA will be led by institutions, with compliance as a prerequisite, aiming to upgrade rather than disrupt the existing financial order (which is becoming common knowledge). The core of RWA is prudent policy and long-term trust building, contrasting sharply with the short-cycle high volatility of the attention casino. Regulatory Dilemma: The Difficulty in Regulating Two Worlds On the surface, these two trends seem to be able to develop peacefully on their respective tracks. But contradictions arise in the regulator's office. When the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or any country's financial regulatory body tries to apply existing financial regulations to these two worlds, a profound 'regulatory schizophrenia' is always ready to escape the hospital. RWA, despite its complicated process, has a relatively clear regulatory path. Whether it is tokenized funds or real estate interests, their economic substance is highly similar to traditional securities and cannot escape the jurisdiction of the ancient Howey Test. Inevitably, the regulatory core must revolve around how to pair the requirements of registration, disclosure, and investor protection in securities law with the architecture of blockchain finance. The SEC's recent promotion of 'Project Crypto' and attention to compliant token standards like ERC-3643 indicate that regulators are trying to lay a track for RWA to follow. However, this logic comes to a halt when applied to the endlessly launching memecoins. Tokens that are born from community memes, lack centralized management teams, and whose value completely relies on community sentiment, do they constitute 'securities'? Is it accurate to define their users as 'investors' expecting profit? What they purchase may resemble digital consumer goods, a 'ticket' for participating in community games. Let the chain stay on the chain, and Caesar's return to Caesar. The U.S. states that DeFi and memecoins are not illegal, and they won’t intervene. But what if RWA tokens quietly 'run' onto the chain, fragmented and re-packaged under new standards for trading? Can it be regulated? Different Games, Different Rules This seemingly irreconcilable contradiction must acknowledge that they are not even in the same game. Viewing 'entertainment equals trading' and 'RWA tokenization' as conflicting is itself a misreading. They are two games with different rules, objectives, and participants taking place on the same technical venue (blockchain). The RWA game is essentially TradFi 2.0, an upgraded version of traditional finance. Its players are institutions, high-net-worth clients, and risk-averse investors whose goal is to enhance asset liquidity, reduce transaction costs, and obtain 'stable returns' within a compliant framework, at least expecting some stability. In contrast, the 'entertainment equals trading' game consists of Web3 native groups, pure digital cultural residents, where the players are retail investors and community participants seeking high-risk speculative returns, social recognition, and entertainment experiences. Although regulation is reluctant to intervene and it’s too difficult to manage, operators looking to cultivate in this space will continue to run more stimulating casinos. As for touching the regulatory bottom line of RWA, that is the casino's business. We also know that casinos are legal in some countries and regions while illegal in others, but regardless of their appearance, they are always there. Gambling is about trading for entertainment, which is one of the essences of financial transactions.

#SEC #RWA