CoinRank

CoinRank is recruiting independent writers worldwide 💥

What we’re looking for:
→ Deep research & trend analysis
→ Data-driven or on-chain insights
→ Web3 / Crypto / Market narratives
→ English content (self-pitched or guided topics)

What you get:
Global exposure via CoinRank website & media network
Promotion on Twitter, Telegram & partner channels
Official CoinRank contributor identity
Featured articles & social shoutouts
Dedicated author profile with your links

If you want your writing seen by real crypto readers, this is for you.
Apply now: https://forms.gle/j2U7zait2gWQdEAo7

#CoinRank #CryptoWriters #Web3Content #WriteToEarn

#Meta has acquired Butterfly Effect, the company behind the AI application Manus, in a deal reportedly worth tens of billions of dollars. This marks Meta’s third-largest acquisition to date, surpassed only by its purchases of #WhatsApp and Scale AI.

Sources say that prior to the acquisition, Manus was raising a new funding round at a valuation of $2 billion. Liu Yuan, a partner at ZhenFund and an angel investor in Butterfly Effect, revealed that the acquisition talks were completed in a very short time frame—just over ten days.

Both #Manus and Meta Platforms (META.O) released official statements on their respective websites announcing that Manus has joined Meta, though neither disclosed specific details of the transaction.

Six major crypto companies, including Kraken, Consensys, and BitGo, plan IPOs in 2026.

While gold and silver prices may face short-term profit-taking pressure, long-term macroeconomic factors will continue to support rising precious metal prices.

China’s State Council Tariff Commission Releases “2026 Tariff Adjustment Plan”

Copper may face a structural shortage in 2026, and prices are likely to remain strong.

Welcome to CoinRank Daily Data Report. In this column series, CoinRank will provide important daily cryptocurrency data news, allowing readers to quickly understand the latest developments in the cryptocurrency market.

Six major crypto companies, including Kraken, Consensys, and BitGo, plan IPOs in 2026

 

This year, crypto companies raised approximately $3.4 billion in IPOs, with Circle and Bullish both exceeding $1 billion.

 

Looking ahead to 2026: Kraken confidentially filed its S-1 application with the SEC in November 2025, aiming for a listing in the first half of the year; Consensys, along with JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, is pushing for a mid-year IPO, with its core products being MetaMask, Infura, and Linea; BitGo has updated its S-1A, targeting a Q1 listing with a valuation of approximately $1.75 billion; Animoca Brands plans a Nasdaq listing through a reverse merger with Currenc Group, targeting a valuation of approximately $6 billion; Ledger is preparing a large-scale financing round to strengthen its Ledger Live and self-custody businesses; Bithumb plans to list in South Korea by the end of 2025, regaining approximately 25% of the domestic market share.

 

While gold and silver prices may face short-term profit-taking pressure, long-term macroeconomic factors will continue to support rising precious metal prices

 

Gold and silver prices surged in 2025, becoming a “new stimulus check.” Gold prices rose from $2,400/ounce in 2024 to the current $4,500/ounce, an increase of 88%; silver prices rose from $29/ounce to $79/ounce, an increase of over 170%.

 

It is estimated that approximately 11% of Americans hold gold, and approximately 12% hold silver. American households saw their net worth increase by approximately $244.5 billion this year due to rising gold and silver prices. Globally, China and India purchased 700-900 tons of gold annually between 2022 and 2024, driving gold prices to double.

 

Furthermore, China plans to implement silver export restrictions starting January 1, 2026, further exacerbating market supply shortages.

 

Analysts believe that while short-term profit-taking pressure may arise, potentially leading to a rotation of funds to other assets such as stocks and cryptocurrencies, in the long run, factors such as inflation expectations, central bank interest rate cuts, and increased gold holdings by global central banks will continue to support rising precious metal prices.

 

China’s State Council Tariff Commission Releases “2026 Tariff Adjustment Plan”

 

The State Council Tariff Commission released the “2026 Tariff Adjustment Plan,” which will take effect on January 1, 2026. This adjustment aims to promote high-quality development, optimize tariff item settings, and continue to implement preferential tariff rates and agreement rates.

 

Copper may face a structural shortage in 2026, and prices are likely to remain strong

 

Copper prices rose more than 30% in 2025, breaking through a record high of $12,000 per ton in December, marking the largest annual increase since 2009.

 

Analysts predict that the global transition to renewable energy, electrification, and the AI ​​data center construction boom will continue to drive copper demand growth, and prices are likely to remain strong in 2026.

 

StoneX senior metals demand analyst Natalie Scott-Gray stated that high copper prices may lead manufacturers to switch to alternatives, potentially suppressing demand in some non-essential sectors.

 

Marex base metals strategist Alastair Munro pointed out that the market widely expects a structural copper shortage starting in 2026.

 

Furthermore, US tariffs have triggered a large influx of copper, causing Comex inventories to climb to a record high, while European LME inventories have fallen to less than 20,000 tons, creating regional supply and demand tensions.

 

Benchmark Mineral Intelligence analyst Albert Mackenzie believes that the surge in US inventories has ignited supply concerns. Macquarie Group strategist Alice Fox predicts that copper prices will remain high in 2026.

 

Read More:

Messari 2026 Crypto Theses: Why Speculation Is No Longer Enough (Part 1)

Crypto’s True Position in the Risk Asset Hierarchy

〈CoinRank Daily Data Report (12/29)｜ long-term macroeconomic factors will continue to support rising precious metal prices.〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Lighter reframes decentralization around verifiability, not execution.

Instead of attempting fully decentralized order matching, Lighter.xyz centralizes execution while enforcing strict, cryptographically verifiable rules. This shifts trust from operators to mathematics, a critical step for derivatives markets seeking institutional legitimacy.

 

Onchain derivatives are moving from experimentation to institutional standards.

As leverage, volume, and professional capital grow, informal trust assumptions become structural liabilities. Lighter’s architecture reflects a broader industry shift toward auditability, execution certainty, and long term reliability rather than narrative driven design.

 

Zero fees signal a structural redesign, not short term incentives.

Lighter’s zero fee model reallocates costs away from users and toward market makers, echoing proven structures from traditional finance. When combined with verifiable execution, this approach prioritizes execution quality and market efficiency over promotional growth tactics.

For several years, decentralized derivatives have been described as one of crypto’s most promising frontiers. Volumes grew fast. New platforms appeared in every cycle. Narratives evolved from experimentation to disruption to inevitability. Yet beneath the surface, the core structure of onchain derivatives remained fragile. Most systems were built to function, not to endure.

 

In early DeFi, that fragility was tolerated. Participation was dominated by speculative users. Risk was fragmented. Capital was small relative to traditional markets. But as perpetual contracts became the dominant onchain trading product, expectations began to change. Execution quality, liquidation fairness, and post trade verifiability stopped being optional features. They became structural requirements.

 

 

Lighter enters the market at this exact inflection point. It does not present itself as another decentralized exchange. It positions itself as an answer to a deeper question. What should a derivatives system look like once it is no longer experimental, once it must survive scrutiny from professional traders, institutions, and eventually regulators.

 

FROM TEMPORARY SOLUTIONS TO STRUCTURAL LIMITS IN ONCHAIN DERIVATIVES

 

The first wave of decentralized trading infrastructure was shaped by necessity rather than design purity. Automated market makers became the default solution not because they were optimal, but because they avoided the hardest problem in trading systems. They removed the need for matching engines entirely. Liquidity pools replaced order books. Mathematical curves replaced price discovery.

 

For spot trading, this compromise was acceptable. For derivatives, it never truly was. Leverage magnifies every inefficiency. Slippage compounds risk. Inaccurate pricing distorts liquidations. Over time, these issues became impossible to ignore. The more capital flowed into onchain derivatives, the clearer it became that AMM based structures were a ceiling rather than a foundation.

 

The industry responded by reintroducing order books. Some protocols moved matching offchain. Others built application specific chains. Performance improved. Latency dropped. User experience began to resemble centralized exchanges. But this progress came at a cost. Trust assumptions returned through the back door.

 

Once matching happens offchain, users can no longer independently verify execution fairness in real time. Order priority becomes opaque. Liquidation logic becomes difficult to audit. In effect, the system asks users to trust that the operator behaves correctly. This is precisely the tradeoff decentralized finance was supposed to avoid.

 

As long as onchain derivatives were niche, this contradiction remained manageable. As volumes increased and professional capital entered, it became structural. Markets that handle leverage cannot rely on informal trust. They require verifiable rules. This is where Lighter’s thesis begins.

 

CENTRALIZED EXECUTION WITHOUT UNCHECKED POWER

 

Lighter does not pretend that order book trading can be fully decentralized at the execution layer. This is a crucial distinction. Matching engines require speed, determinism, and low latency. Distributed consensus is fundamentally incompatible with these requirements at scale. Lighter accepts this reality instead of fighting it.

 

Execution on Lighter is centralized by design. A single sequencer processes orders and produces trade outcomes. What changes is not who executes, but how execution is constrained. Every batch of trades is accompanied by a zero knowledge proof that is settled on Ethereum. The proof does not merely confirm balance updates. It verifies that matching followed strict price priority and time priority rules. It verifies that liquidations only occurred when margin thresholds were breached.

 

This design reframes the trust model entirely. Users are no longer asked to trust the operator’s intentions. They are asked to trust mathematics. If execution deviates from the rules, the proof fails. There is no ambiguity. There is no hidden discretion.

 

By anchoring settlement on Ethereum, Lighter further reduces trust assumptions. Assets remain locked on the main chain. The layer two environment only updates state. There are no wrapped assets. There is no bridge dependency. In extreme scenarios, users retain the ability to exit using onchain data alone.

 

This approach does not eliminate centralization. It isolates it. Execution exists, but it cannot mutate rules without detection. Power exists, but it is constrained by cryptographic accountability. For derivatives markets, this distinction matters far more than ideological purity.

 

ZERO FEES AND THE REINTRODUCTION OF MARKET STRUCTURE

 

The most controversial aspect of Lighter is not technical. It is economic. Lighter offers zero trading fees for retail users. In crypto, this is often interpreted as subsidy or unsustainable competition. In reality, it reflects a different understanding of how trading systems generate value.

 

In traditional markets, retail order flow has long been monetized indirectly. Orders with low information content are valuable to market makers because they reduce adverse selection risk. Payment for order flow emerged from this logic. Execution became the product. Fees became secondary.

 

Lighter adapts this structure to an onchain environment. Instead of charging users directly, value is captured from market makers who benefit from predictable order flow. The key difference is transparency. Because execution is verifiable, the value exchange between protocol and liquidity providers operates within a defined and auditable framework.

 

This is not an attempt to disguise costs. It is a reallocation of where costs sit. For users, execution quality improves. For market makers, participation becomes a calculable business decision. For the protocol, revenue aligns with volume and liquidity depth rather than user friction.

 

This design choice signals something important. Lighter is not optimizing for short term growth through incentives. It is optimizing for structural efficiency. Zero fees are not a marketing tactic. They are a consequence of viewing derivatives trading as infrastructure rather than entertainment.

 

LIGHTER VERSUS ITS PEERS A QUESTION OF INSTITUTIONAL READINESS

 

Comparisons between Lighter and other leading derivatives platforms are inevitable. Some competitors prioritize raw performance by building independent chains. Others emphasize decentralization at the governance layer. These approaches are not wrong. They simply answer different questions.

 

Lighter’s focus is narrower and deeper. It asks what institutions will require before committing serious capital onchain. Speed alone is insufficient. Token incentives are insufficient. What matters is whether a system can withstand audits, disputes, and long term operation without relying on goodwill.

 

From this perspective, Lighter’s tradeoffs make sense. Centralized execution is tolerated because it is verifiable. Ethereum is used as a settlement anchor because it minimizes security assumptions. Economic design mirrors proven market structures rather than reinventing them.

 

This does not guarantee success. Centralized sequencers remain a single point of failure in early stages. Zero fee models depend on sustained market maker participation. Regulatory attitudes toward order flow based systems remain uncertain. These risks are real and structural.

 

But they are also the kinds of risks that emerge when a system leaves the experimental phase. Lighter does not behave like a project chasing narratives. It behaves like infrastructure preparing for scrutiny.

 

A SHIFT FROM IDEOLOGY TO ACCOUNTABILITY

 

What Lighter represents is not a technological breakthrough in isolation. It represents a shift in mindset. Early DeFi celebrated removal of intermediaries at any cost. The next phase demands something more sober. Accountability. Auditability. Predictability.

 

Derivatives markets cannot function on belief alone. They require rules that can be proven, not just promised. Lighter’s design reflects this reality. It accepts that some centralization is unavoidable. It refuses to allow that centralization to be unaccountable.

 

Whether Lighter ultimately becomes dominant is an open question. But its direction is clear. It treats onchain derivatives not as a rebellion against traditional finance, but as an evolution toward the same standards of trust, expressed through different tools.

 

When decentralized derivatives stop trying to look radical and start trying to look reliable, systems like Lighter are what emerge.

〈Lighter and the Moment When Onchain Derivatives Begin to Demand Institutional Trust〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

TokenFi reframes token issuance from a one time event into a repeatable capability, shifting the focus from speed and speculation to structure, safeguards, and long term asset survivability.

 

By embedding compliance and real world asset logic directly into its workflow, TokenFi positions itself away from meme driven launch platforms and closer to infrastructure that can support durable on chain assets.

 

TokenFi’s community driven origins create productive tension rather than weakness, forcing continuous execution while providing real early usage that many RWA focused platforms struggle to achieve.

THE PROBLEM WITH HOW CRYPTO LEARNED TO ISSUE TOKENS

 

For most of crypto’s history issuing a token has been treated as a moment rather than a system.

 

From ICOs to DeFi liquidity mining to the recent wave of meme launch platforms the industry focused on speed and access. Each cycle lowered barriers and shortened timelines. But none of them truly addressed a deeper issue. If tokens are meant to represent long lived assets or economic rights how should they actually be created and maintained.

 

 

This was never just a technical problem. It was a structural one.

 

As issuance became easier responsibility quietly disappeared. Contracts were deployed faster but rarely understood. Assets appeared overnight but vanished just as quickly. The industry learned how to create tokens but never learned how to sustain them.

 

This unresolved gap set the stage for a different kind of platform to emerge.

 

TOKENFI AND A DIFFERENT ASSUMPTION ABOUT TOKENIZATION

 

TokenFi enters this gap with a fundamentally different assumption.

 

Instead of treating token issuance as a one time action TokenFi approaches tokenization as an ongoing capability. Something that needs rules safeguards and repeatability. This single assumption places it outside the dominant launch culture of the previous cycle.

 

Rather than asking how fast an asset can be issued TokenFi asks whether it should exist at all and under what constraints. That shift reshapes the entire product philosophy. Security compliance and structure are not add ons. They are part of the default workflow.

 

TokenFi is not designed to maximize volume in a short window. It is designed to support assets that are expected to exist beyond their initial moment of attention.

 

WHEN SPEED CEASES TO BE A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

 

The explosion of launch platforms after 2024 revealed a hard truth. When creating tokens becomes frictionless tokens themselves lose meaning.

 

Platforms optimized for speed solved one problem. They made issuance accessible. But they also turned assets into disposable objects whose value depended almost entirely on short lived attention. Markets did not become more efficient. They simply eliminated projects faster.

 

 

TokenFi chose a deliberately slower path.

 

Configuration became more detailed. Security checks became visible. Compliance logic was introduced where others avoided it. These decisions made the platform less attractive to purely speculative behavior.

 

In the short term this limits growth. In the long term it acts as a filter.

 

As the market matures launch platforms are splitting into two categories. Those designed to maximize activity and those designed to support assets meant to persist. TokenFi clearly aligns with the second group.

 

REAL WORLD ASSETS AS A FORM OF SELF DISCIPLINE

 

Many projects treat real world assets as a growth narrative. TokenFi treats them as a constraint.

 

 

Tokenizing real assets forces uncomfortable realities into the open. Legal ownership matters. Identity matters. Jurisdiction matters. Transfers cannot always be permissionless. Mistakes have consequences outside the blockchain.

 

Most platforms avoid these frictions. TokenFi builds directly into them.

 

By supporting compliant token standards and identity aware transfer logic TokenFi limits what can be created on its platform. This is not an accident. It is a form of self regulation. Once real assets are involved the platform itself must be trusted.

 

This pushes TokenFi away from experimentation and toward infrastructure. It is no longer just a tool that deploys contracts. It becomes a system that intermediates responsibility.

 

COMMUNITY ORIGINS AND STRUCTURAL TENSION

 

TokenFi’s origins are often framed as a weakness. A project that emerged from a meme driven ecosystem is assumed to lack credibility.

 

In practice this creates tension rather than disqualification.

 

Starting from an existing community solves a problem many infrastructure projects never overcome. Early usage. Immediate feedback. Real users interacting with real tools. This does not guarantee success but it removes the illusion of adoption.

 

At the same time it forces discipline. Expectations are immediate. Market reactions are unforgiving. Delivery matters more than promises.

 

This tension prevents TokenFi from remaining theoretical. It must continually prove that structure and usability can coexist.

 

THE QUESTION THAT WILL DEFINE TOKENFI

 

TokenFi will not ultimately be judged by short term market performance.

 

The real question is simpler and more difficult. Will people continue to use it when issuance is no longer fashionable. When attention shifts elsewhere. When only durable systems remain relevant.

 

If token creation becomes a repeated workflow rather than a speculative event TokenFi’s role changes. It becomes quiet. Embedded. Easy to overlook.

 

That is what infrastructure looks like when it works.

 

Some systems only reveal their importance after the noise disappears.

〈TOKENFI and the Shift From Token Issuance to Tokenization Capability〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Data cited by CoinTelegraph, CertiK, and other independent analysts shows that total crypto losses exceeded $3.3 billion, even as the overall number of security incidents declined.

 

A small number of supply chain and infrastructure-level attacks accounted for a disproportionate share of losses, with just two incidents responsible for nearly half of the annual total.

 

The shift toward low-frequency, high-impact attacks highlights the growing importance of holistic security and operational resilience as institutional participation in crypto expands.

Despite fewer reported incidents, crypto security losses surged to over $3.3 billion as high-impact supply chain and infrastructure attacks reshaped the industry’s risk landscape, according to multiple authoritative reports.

 

MULTIPLE REPORTS CONFIRM A SHARP RISE IN TOTAL LOSSES

 

According to consolidated reporting by CoinTelegraph, CertiK, and independent coverage by Business Insider, total losses from cryptocurrency hacks, exploits, and scams reached approximately USD 3.3–3.35 billion over the year, despite a noticeable decline in the total number of security incidents.

 

This divergence highlights a structural change in the crypto threat landscape: while basic vulnerabilities and opportunistic attacks are becoming less frequent, the financial impact of successful breaches has increased sharply, driven by highly targeted and sophisticated attack vectors.

 

FEWER INCIDENTS, BUT A MUCH HIGHER AVERAGE LOSS

 

Data cited by CoinTelegraph from CertiK’s annual security review shows that the number of recorded crypto security incidents fell year over year, yet the average loss per incident increased by more than 60%, reaching roughly USD 5.3 million per event.

 

This trend is corroborated by analysis from Chainalysis, which has repeatedly noted that attackers are increasingly prioritizing high-value infrastructure targets over smaller, retail-focused exploits, amplifying the economic consequences of each successful attack.

 

 

SUPPLY CHAIN ATTACKS ACCOUNT FOR A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF LOSSES

 

One of the most significant findings emphasized across multiple reports is the role of supply chain vulnerabilities. CertiK data, cited by both CoinTelegraph and Business Insider, indicates that only two major supply chain incidents accounted for approximately USD 1.45 billion in losses, representing nearly half of total crypto-related losses during the year.

 

Unlike traditional smart contract exploits, supply chain attacks typically target third-party dependencies, developer environments, or infrastructure providers, allowing attackers to bypass conventional audit processes and inflict significantly larger damage.

 

THE BYBIT INCIDENT AS A CASE STUDY IN SYSTEMIC RISK

 

Among all reported incidents, the February Bybit security breach stands out as the most severe single event. According to CoinTelegraph and Business Insider, approximately USD 1.4 billion in digital assets were compromised, making it one of the largest crypto hacks ever recorded.

 

Post-incident reporting from CoinTelegraph confirmed that Bybit conducted extensive security remediation, including multiple external audits and operational upgrades, and subsequently restored platform liquidity within roughly 30 days, underscoring both the scale of the breach and the resilience required to recover from such systemic shocks.

 

 

A SHIFT IN THE NATURE OF CRYPTO SECURITY RISK

 

Taken together, insights from CoinTelegraph, CertiK, and Chainalysis point to a clear evolution in crypto security risk. While improvements in baseline smart contract security may be reducing the frequency of smaller exploits, infrastructure-level and dependency-driven attacks are becoming the dominant source of financial loss.

 

This shift has important implications for exchanges, protocols, and institutional participants, as traditional code audits alone are increasingly insufficient to address the most damaging threat vectors.

 

SECURITY AS A GATEWAY TO INSTITUTIONAL ADOPTION

 

As regulatory clarity improves and institutional participation in digital assets expands, security performance is emerging as a decisive factor in market trust. Analysis across multiple reports suggests that future adoption will depend not only on compliance and licensing, but also on demonstrable resilience against low-frequency, high-impact attacks.

 

In this context, the latest loss figures reflect more than isolated incidents; they represent a stress test for the industry’s operational maturity and its ability to function as part of a broader financial system.

 

Read More：

Binance Co-CEO Yi He’s Account Hack Exposes Critical Security Risks Behind Meme-Coin Manipulation

〈CRYPTO SECURITY LOSSES SURGE AS ATTACKS BECOME FEWER BUT FAR MORE DAMAGING〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

securities”, pointing out that regulators determine the nature of a product based on its business substance rather than its name.

 

Drawing on two typical cases of DMM and Unicoin, it dissects the core elements that lead to RWA tokens being classified as securities, analyzes global regulatory trends, and puts forward viable models to circumvent traditional securities regulation, thus providing compliance guidance for RWA project parties.

securities”, pointing out that regulators determine the nature of a product based on its business substance rather than its name.

 

Drawing on two typical cases of DMM and Unicoin, it dissects the core elements that lead to RWA tokens being classified as securities, analyzes global regulatory trends, and puts forward viable models to circumvent traditional securities regulation, thus providing compliance guidance for RWA project parties.

 

Introduction

 

When many RWA projects consult lawyers for the first time, they all tend to say almost the same things:

 

“Ours is not a security; it’s just a utility RWA token.”

 

“We’re merely tokenizing real-world assets—there’s no financing feature involved.”

 

“We issue utility tokens, not security tokens.”

 

To be honest, I’ve grown numb to such claims.

 

But here’s the catch—regulators never classify a product based on what you call it, but rather on what you actually do.

 

What’s even more crucial is this:

 

The gray area surrounding “utility RWA tokens” has been gradually eroded by real regulatory precedents across major global jurisdictions.

 

In this article, I’m only going to do one thing:

 

Instead of citing abstract legal provisions or spouting vague theories, I will use real regulatory cases to show you exactly how “utility RWA tokens” are increasingly being reclassified as “security tokens”.

You Think You’re Building a “Utility RWA”—Here’s What Regulators See

 

Let’s cut to the chase. The actual structure of most so-called “utility RWA tokens” in the market boils down to this:

 

The Project Party: “We tokenize real-world assets such as mining machines, computing power, power stations, charging piles, real estate, and accounts receivable.”

The Users: “We buy your tokens.”

The Actual Economic Relationship

Funds flow into an asset pool controlled by the project party;

The project party purchases and operates RWA assets;

Profits are distributed proportionally to token holders;

Token holders are also granted nominal “governance rights”, “usage rights”, or “ecological benefits”.

 

What you market to the public focuses on:

 

Utility, governance, ecosystem, on-chain credential.

 

But what regulators see are the four classic characteristics of a security:

 

Investment of Money: Users pay to purchase tokens;

Common Enterprise: The RWA assets are managed centrally by the project party;

Expectation of Profit: Token holders expect returns through dividends, interest, or profit-sharing;

Profit Derived from the Efforts of Others: Returns depend on the project party’s operation of the assets, not the holders’ own efforts.

 

Once these four conditions are met, in all mature jurisdictions including the US, EU, Switzerland, and Hong Kong, the token will be immediately defined as an Investment Contract—which is legally equivalent to a security.

 

It doesn’t matter whether you call it an RWA, a Token, or an NFT—this legal classification remains unchanged.

Real Case 1:

 

“RWA + Governance Token” Directly Penalized by the SEC as an “Unregistered Securities Offering”

 

There’s one name you need to remember:

 

DeFi Money Market (DMM)

 

How the Project Positioned Itself

It claimed to be a “DeFi + real-world asset yield protocol”.

 

Its underlying assets were real-world claims such as auto loans (a textbook example of RWA).

 

It issued two types of tokens to users:

 

A “fixed-income token” (promising a 6.25% annual yield);

A governance token, DMG, marketed as a tool for “governance + ecosystem utility”.

 

The project insisted:

 

One token was a yield-generating instrument, and the other was a utility governance token.

What the SEC Said

In one sentence, the SEC made its ruling:

 

Both tokens are securities.

 

The reasoning was straightforward:

 

Funds were pooled into a centralized RWA asset pool;

Profits came from the project party’s operation of real-world assets;

Investors merely waited passively for distributions;

The so-called “governance rights” did nothing to alter the token’s fundamental investment nature.

The Final Outcome

The unregistered securities offering was deemed illegal;

The project party was fined;

A restitution process was launched for affected investors.

 

The harshest lesson from such cases is this:

 

Even if you truly tokenize real assets, generate actual profits, and put everything on-chain—as long as your structure follows the model of “you manage the assets, users collect the returns”, you cannot evade securities laws.

Real Case 2:

“Asset-Backed RWA Token” Directly Classified as a Security Plus Fraud

 

Let’s look at another case that’s much closer to the “asset-backed RWA” projects flooding the market today:

 

The Unicoin Case (SEC Lawsuit, 2025)

 

How the Project Positioned Itself

 

It issued so-called “right credentials” plus RWA tokens redeemable in the future.

 

It marketed itself aggressively with the following claims:

 

The tokens are backed by a combination of real estate and pre-IPO equities;

 

They are “safe, stable, crypto assets backed by real-world assets”.

 

Does this sound familiar?

 

Does it echo the language used in countless RWA whitepapers today?

 

What the SEC Said

 

The SEC’s ruling was concise and unambiguous:

 

This constitutes a classic case of unregistered securities offering plus fraudulent asset-backed promotion.

 

The core logic behind this ruling was incisive:

 

Investors are not buying “usage rights”;

 

They are buying the expectation of future returns from an asset pool.

 

Packaging this expectation into a token makes it a security, plain and simple.

Why “Utility Status” Is Particularly Unconvincing in the RWA Space

 

The reason is simple: there is an inherent contradiction between RWA and “utility tokens”.

 

 

If your RWA token has any one of the following features, regulators will not see it as a “utility token”. Instead, they will classify it as:

 

A profit-sharing right credential;

 

An asset-backed credential;

 

An investment contract;

 

A security token.

 

This is not abstract reasoning—it is a unified regulatory logic that has been put into practice globally.

An Unavoidable Reality:

 

Future RWA Tokens Will Be Regulated More and More Like Securities

This is not a trend prediction—it is a fact that has already unfolded:

 

United States: All RWA structures with yield components are automatically subject to scrutiny for unregistered securities offerings.

European Union (MiCA + Securities Law): Any token that is “transferable + yield-bearing + offered to the public” falls squarely under securities regulation.

Switzerland: Even a utility token will be treated as a security if it serves an investment purpose.

Hong Kong: Any structure that constitutes a “Collective Investment Scheme (CIS)” will be regulated by the securities authority—regardless of whether it is labeled a “token” or not.

 

In other words:

 

Regulators do understand RWA. They simply view it as an upgraded version of securities.

A Blunt, Brutal Conclusion

 

You may not like hearing this, but it applies to the vast majority of “utility RWA token projects”:

 

You know perfectly well that you are raising capital. You just refuse to admit that you are conducting a financing activity that should comply with securities laws.

 

Here’s the problem:

 

You can fool the market;

 

You can pitch utility, ecosystem, and narratives in online groups—but you cannot fool regulators when it comes to legal classification.

Does This Mean All RWAs “Have to Be Securities”?

 

Finally, let’s get to the honest, crucial point:

 

Not all RWAs must be structured as securities. However, if you intend to raise capital from the general public + offer profit expectations, you have no choice but to comply with securities regulations.

 

Based on global practices, there are currently only three viable models for RWAs to avoid the “traditional securities law path”:

 

Complete De-Yieldization: Launch “pure utility RWA credentials” that only retain on-chain usage and consumption functions, with no profit-sharing features;

Private Placement for Accredited Investors Only: Restrict RWA offerings strictly to qualified investors, keeping the structure closed to the general public;

“Securities-Logic-to-Virtual-Asset” Path (Exemplified by Dubai’s VARA): This approach does not evade securities regulation. Instead, it allows RWA tokens with security-like features to reach retail investors in compliance with a dedicated virtual asset regulatory framework.

 

Beyond these three models, any RWA structure that involves public fundraising + profit distribution + free tradability will almost certainly be pulled back into the securities regulatory framework in major global jurisdictions.

 

To put it plainly:

 

If your RWA targets retail investors, is tradable, generates yields, offers dividends, and operates with an asset pool—no matter how much you package it as a “utility token”, its fate in the eyes of regulators is highly predictable.

Final Words for All RWA Projects Grappling with the “Utility Token” Dilemma

You are not choosing between “utility token” and “security token”.

 

You are choosing between long-term compliance and short-term luck.

 

This is not a moral question—it is a question of survival.

 

Messari 2026 Crypto Theses: Why Speculation Is No Longer Enough (Part 1) 

Crypto’s True Position in the Risk Asset Hierarchy

〈Utility Tokens in RWA Projects: Stop Kid Yourselves〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Regulators across more than 30 jurisdictions have shifted from exploratory approaches to formal stablecoin rules, with over 70% identifying stablecoin oversight as a regulatory priority.

 

In the United States, new federal legislation and regulatory guidance have clarified reserve requirements and explicitly allowed banks to facilitate crypto transfers under defined compliance frameworks.

 

Together, these developments signal a structural transition toward clearer, enforceable regulation that positions stablecoins as regulated financial infrastructure rather than experimental digital assets.

Global crypto regulation is moving from fragmented discussion to enforceable frameworks, with stablecoin oversight emerging as a central pillar of financial stability and institutional participation.

 

CRYPTO REGULATION SHIFTS FROM DISCUSSION TO STRUCTURE

 

Over the course of 2025, the global cryptocurrency regulatory landscape underwent a significant transformation, moving away from a framework dominated by theoretical debate, isolated court rulings, and fragmented policy signals toward concrete legislation and supervisory structures implemented across multiple jurisdictions. Within this shift, stablecoin-specific regulation emerged as a central policy priority, reflecting regulators’ growing concern over liquidity risk, reserve management, and the potential systemic impact of digital assets.

 

One of the most consequential regulatory developments occurred in the United States. The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) came into force on July 18, 2025, establishing a federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. The legislation requires certain stablecoins to maintain 1:1 backing with U.S. dollars or other low-risk assets and introduces a dual federal–state supervisory structure aimed at improving transparency and consumer protection.

 

 

OVER 70% OF JURISDICTIONS ADVANCE STABLECOIN RULES

 

According to a global crypto policy review published by TRM Labs in 2025, covering 30 jurisdictions, more than 70% of jurisdictions identified stablecoin regulation as a priority during the year. This figure highlights the emergence of a broad international consensus around the regulation of digital cash and payment infrastructure.

 

At the same time, the report noted that approximately 80% of surveyed jurisdictions announced digital asset initiatives involving banks or regulated fintech institutions, indicating that regulatory progress is increasingly creating clearer institutional pathways for traditional financial actors to engage with crypto infrastructure.

 

 

OCC CLARIFIES BANK PARTICIPATION IN CRYPTO TRANSFERS

 

In the United States, regulatory clarity extended beyond legislation into operational guidance for banks. In early December 2025, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued an interpretative letter clarifying that national banks may conduct “riskless principal” cryptoasset transactions on behalf of customers. Under this model, banks act as intermediaries facilitating crypto transfers without taking balance-sheet exposure.

 

This clarification was significant, as many U.S. banks had previously been cautious about executing crypto transactions for clients due to uncertainty over which crypto-related activities were permissible. By analogizing riskless cryptoasset transfers to brokerage services in traditional securities and derivatives markets, the OCC provided a clear compliance pathway for banks to participate in crypto settlement activities.

 

In addition, on December 12, 2025, the OCC conditionally approved national trust bank charter applications for five digital-asset-related firms, including entities focused on custody and settlement services, a move that may further accelerate the integration of crypto assets into the federally regulated financial system.

 

U.S. POLICY SHIFTS ALIGN WITH GLOBAL REGULATORY MOMENTUM

 

Regulatory developments in the United States have closely aligned with broader global trends. Analyses by multiple independent policy trackers indicate that an increasing number of jurisdictions are proposing or implementing regulatory frameworks that cover both stablecoins and wider digital asset infrastructure.

 

Regulatory emphasis has shifted away from early-stage “sandbox” experimentation toward enforceable rules designed to protect wallet users and preserve financial stability. These frameworks typically focus on operational risk, liquidity management, reserve transparency, and the prevention of regulatory arbitrage, supported by enhanced disclosure requirements, reserve audits, and clearly defined supervisory responsibilities.

 

FROM UNCERTAINTY TO STRUCTURAL CLARITY

 

Taken together, these developments signal a structural shift in global digital asset policy. Regulatory approaches are moving away from fragmented and uncertain oversight toward more coherent and consistent frameworks, with particular focus on stablecoin integrity, the boundaries of bank participation, and consumer protection.

 

This transition reflects a growing consensus among policymakers that, in the absence of clear regulatory regimes, the expansion of stablecoins and other digital assets could introduce liquidity, reserve, and systemic risks similar to those present in traditional financial systems.

 

By establishing clearer regulatory expectations and legally enforceable frameworks, regulators are not only seeking to mitigate risk, but also to create conditions that support broader institutional participation—potentially laying the groundwork for deeper integration between digital assets and the mainstream financial system in the years ahead.

 

Read More：

USDe Market Cap Halved: A Test of Trust and Mechanism for Crypto-Native Stablecoins

Ethereum: The Pivotal Settlement Network for Global Stablecoin Liquidity

〈STABLECOIN OVERSIGHT GOES GLOBAL〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

Targeted at traditional entrepreneurs, this article deciphers crypto funds by illustrating their evolution from speculative instruments to institutional-grade asset classes.

It breaks down the profit logic, advantages, disadvantages and historical performance of six core strategies including Long Only and quantitative trading, analyzes the unique arbitrage and trend opportunities in the crypto market, and provides a selection guide based on capital nature and risk appetite, helping entrepreneurs allocate crypto funds in a rational manner.

Targeted at traditional entrepreneurs, this article deciphers crypto funds by illustrating their evolution from speculative instruments to institutional-grade asset classes.

It breaks down the profit logic, advantages, disadvantages and historical performance of six core strategies including Long Only and quantitative trading, analyzes the unique arbitrage and trend opportunities in the crypto market, and provides a selection guide based on capital nature and risk appetite, helping entrepreneurs allocate crypto funds in a rational manner.

 

Introduction

 

Disclaimer: This article is written from an international jurisdictional perspective and does not target or apply to the legal environment of Mainland China.

 

This year, I have increasingly heard traditional entrepreneurs ask the same question: “I don’t understand the crypto market, but I want to know what crypto funds are all about.”

 

Some seek asset diversification; others aim to hedge against exchange rate fluctuations; still others simply think, “If institutions are starting to invest, I can’t afford to ignore it.”

 

But as soon as they open a fund prospectus, these entrepreneurs are immediately overwhelmed by jargon:

 

Long Only?

Market Neutral?

Funding Rate?

Multi-Strategy?

Web3 VC?

CTA? Factor Models?

 

More importantly:

 

What exactly do these strategies do? Which ones are stable? Which have high drawdowns? Which have actually been profitable over the past five years?

 

This article is written for you. It will:

 

Explain how crypto funds are categorized in plain language

Break down how each strategy actually makes money

Highlight the pros and cons of each approach

Analyze their performance trends over the past five years

Guide entrepreneurs on how to choose the right crypto fund

 

After reading, you will be able to clearly judge:

 

“Whether crypto funds are suitable for me, and if so, which type to choose.”

Why Are More Traditional Entrepreneurs Looking into Crypto Funds?

 

The reason is simple: Crypto funds have evolved from a “speculator’s playground” into an institutional-grade asset class. Three key trends are driving this shift:

 

Trend 1: Global Institutions Are Quietly Increasing Crypto Allocations

 

BlackRock and Fidelity have launched Bitcoin/Ethereum ETFs.

JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank, and other financial giants are expanding crypto-related custody services.

Sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, and insurance capital are starting to allocate to digital assets.

 

As institutions enter the market, the status of crypto assets has changed. They are no longer a fringe investment, but a legitimate part of alternative asset portfolios.

 

Trend 2: Crypto Funds Are Far More Professional Than Individual Trading

 

The crypto market is highly volatile, trades 24/7, features complex derivatives, and evolves at breakneck speed.

 

For professional teams, these characteristics are not obstacles—they are opportunities:

 

Clear trend signals → ideal for quantitative strategies

Fragmented exchanges → create arbitrage opportunities

Perpetual contract mechanism → generate funding rate yields

Short innovation cycles → deliver outsized VC-style returns

Transparent on-chain data → enable verifiable strategy backtesting

 

In short, crypto funds can execute far more sophisticated strategies than the average retail investor.

 

Trend 3: Entrepreneurs Need New Vehicles for Asset Allocation

 

Real estate cycles are weakening, A-shares have oscillated for years, Hong Kong stocks remain depressed, and while dollar assets offer high interest rates, their future outlook is uncertain.

 

Many business owners are asking:

 

“Where will the next five years of growth come from?”

 

Crypto funds provide a new solution with unique advantages:

 

Aggressive growth: Capture market trends

Defensive stability: Earn arbitrage profits

Innovation exposure: Bet on cutting-edge Web3 projects

Rapid institutionalization: With mature custody, auditing, and compliance frameworks

 

This is why crypto funds are emerging as a new option for entrepreneurs’ asset allocation.

Six Core Strategies of Crypto Funds

 

The following six categories represent the industry’s most widely accepted classification system, tailored for entrepreneurs to understand (based on data from Crypto Fund Research and Galaxy VisionTrack):

 

1. Long Only – Bet on Cycles, Capture Major Trends

 

How does it make money?

 

Buy mainstream crypto assets (BTC, ETH, top-tier altcoins) and hold them long-term, adding positions during market dips.

 

Core logic in one sentence:

 

“Believe in crypto’s long-term appreciation—and hold on tight.”

 

Pros:

 

Delivers the highest returns in bull markets

Simple, transparent, and low-cost to operate

 

Cons:

 

Suffers extreme drawdowns in bear markets

Requires very high risk tolerance

 

Suitable for: Investors willing to endure volatility for long-term gains.

 

2. Long/Short – Profit in Both Bull and Bear Markets; Trader Skill Is Critical

 

How does it make money?

 

Relies on the team’s market judgment:

 

Go long → increase positions when bullish

Hedge or short → reduce exposure when bearish

Event-driven → capitalize on news, airdrops, and protocol upgrades

 

Simplified explanation:

 

“Professional traders manage your portfolio dynamically.”

 

Pros:

 

Can hedge risks during market downturns

Lower volatility compared to Long Only strategies

 

Cons:

 

Success depends entirely on the trading team’s expertise

Identifying skilled managers is the key challenge

 

Suitable for: Investors who want exposure to market trends but are wary of unhedged risk.

 

3. Quantitative Directional – Models Rule, Emotions Are Irrelevant

 

How does it make money?

 

Execute trades using mathematical models:

 

Trend-following CTA

Momentum strategies

Multi-factor models

Statistical arbitrage signals

 

Simplified explanation:

 

“Algorithmic trading—no news watching, no emotional bets, just strict adherence to model signals.”

 

Pros:

 

High discipline and consistency

Strong performance when market trends are clear

Minimizes human error

 

Cons:

 

Models can suddenly fail during regime shifts

Sensitive to transaction costs and slippage

 

Suitable for: Investors seeking “smoother trend-driven returns.”

 

4. Market Neutral / Arbitrage – One of the Lowest Directional Risk Strategies

 

How does it make money?

 

Construct portfolios that are agnostic to market direction, profiting from price discrepancies and interest spreads.

 

Typical strategies include:

 

Funding rate arbitrage

Spot-perpetual basis arbitrage

Cross-exchange arbitrage

Market making

Low-risk on-chain yield strategies

 

Simplified explanation:

 

“Crypto’s version of money market funds + arbitrage funds.”

 

Pros:

 

Lowest volatility among all strategies

Minimal drawdowns

Stable cash flow generation

 

Cons:

 

Limited upside potential

Risks concentrated in counterparty (exchange) and on-chain technical failures

 

Suitable for: Entrepreneurs with idle corporate capital seeking steady returns.

 

5. Crypto VC (Venture / SAFT) – Bullets for Betting on Innovation

 

How does it make money?

 

Invest in early-stage Web3 projects, profiting from:

 

Equity appreciation as projects grow

Token Generation Events (TGEs)

Secondary market exits after token unlocks

 

Similar to traditional VC, but with shorter investment cycles and higher volatility.

 

Pros:

 

A single successful project can offset all losses

Gains insight into the future direction of the industry

 

Cons:

 

Low project survival rate

Long lock-up periods

Opaque valuation methodologies

 

Suitable for: Large capital pools looking to bet on high-growth tracks and innovation.

 

6. Multi-Strategy – Combine the Strengths of Multiple Approaches

 

Simultaneously deploys:

 

Long Only

Quantitative strategies

Arbitrage

VC investments

Event-driven trades

 

Core objective:

 

“Pursue balanced returns under controlled risk.”

 

Pros:

 

Lower drawdowns than Long Only strategies

Higher returns than pure arbitrage strategies

 

Cons:

 

Complex fund structure and operations

Requires top-tier fund management capabilities

 

Suitable for: Entrepreneurs new to crypto funds who want a stable entry point.

 

Summary: The pros and cons of the above strategies are summarized as follows:

 

The Real Profit Logic Behind Crypto Funds

 

Why is the crypto market particularly well-suited for fund strategies? Because it has three structural characteristics not found in traditional markets:

 

1. Perpetual Contract Mechanism → Funding Rate Arbitrage Opportunities

 

Perpetual contracts are a unique structure in crypto markets.

 

Every 8 hours, long positions pay funding fees to short positions (or vice versa), depending on market sentiment.

 

This means:

 

“When the market is bullish, longs pay shorts—shorts earn steady income.”

 

Funds can execute the following trade:

 

Buy spot assets

Short perpetual contracts

 

This “locks in the price” and earns a steady stream of funding rate income—one of the most stable profit sources in crypto arbitrage.

 

2. Multi-Exchange Structure → Inherent Arbitrage Opportunities

 

Due to:

 

A large number of exchanges

Fragmented liquidity

Divergent exchange preferences

Inconsistent stablecoin ecosystems

 

Price discrepancies for the same asset often arise across different exchanges.

 

Funds use algorithmic trading to exploit these gaps through:

 

Cross-exchange arbitrage

Spot-futures arbitrage

Futures-perpetual arbitrage

 

These profits do not rely on “betting on direction”—they rely on mathematical precision and trading speed.

 

3. High Volatility → Trend Strategies Are More Effective

 

In highly volatile markets:

 

Trends are more pronounced and persistent

Trading signals are clearer

Quantitative models have more “data to feed on”

 

This is a key reason why crypto quantitative strategies have flourished.

Performance of Various Strategies Over the Past Five Years

 

According to data from the VisionTrack Crypto Hedge Fund Indices, the annual returns of four key strategies over the past five years are as follows:

 

 

Based on a summary of widely cited public index trends, we analyze the performance of all six strategies below:

 

Long Only: Highest upside, steepest downside

Bull markets (2017, 2020–2021, 2023): Top performer

Bear markets (2018, 2022): Worst performer with maximum drawdowns

Characteristics: High elasticity, high volatility, high returns, high risk.

Quantitative Directional: Moderate-to-high returns, controlled drawdowns

Bull markets: Captures trend gains effectively

Bear markets: Models automatically cut positions to reduce losses

Characteristics: Smoother return curve; ideal for investors seeking “stable trend returns.”

Market Neutral / Arbitrage: The most stable strategy type

Characteristics: Moderate but consistent annual returns, minimal drawdowns; suitable as a core portfolio holding or for corporate cash management.

Industry trend: Consistently “steady, steady, steady.”

Crypto VC: Extremely polarized returns

Top-tier funds: Deliver astronomical IRRs (driven by one or two blockbuster investments)

Median funds: Offer mediocre performance

Characteristics: Long investment cycles, high risk, high uncertainty; suitable only for long-term capital with no short-term return expectations.

Multi-Strategy: The most entrepreneur-friendly option

Characteristics: Stable, balanced, and risk-controlled; ideal as a beginner’s entry point to crypto funds.

How Should Traditional Entrepreneurs Choose a Crypto Fund?

 

Many business owners’ first question is: “Which fund should I pick?” But before choosing a fund, you need to ask yourself three key questions:

 

1. Is this capital “discretionary” or “needed soon”?

 

Discretionary capital (no near-term use): Market Neutral, Multi-Strategy

Capital for growth (willing to accept volatility): Quantitative Directional, Long Only

Capital for high-risk bets: Crypto VC

 

The nature of your capital should dictate your strategy—not the other way around.

 

2. How much volatility can you tolerate?

 

Can you stomach a maximum drawdown of -70% from a Long Only fund?

 

If not, this strategy is not for you.

 

3. Do you want stability, balance, or explosive growth?

 

Three clear paths:

 

Stability: Arbitrage / Market Neutral

Balance: Multi-Strategy / Quantitative Directional

Explosive growth: Long Only / Crypto VC

 

Clarify your goals first, then select the corresponding fund.

Crypto Funds Are Becoming the Next Generation of Hedge Funds

 

Today’s crypto market is no longer the “wild west” of 2018. It now has:

 

ETFs

Custody services

Auditing standards

Regulatory frameworks

Institutional participation

Real-world industry applications

Mature strategy systems

 

Crypto funds are not about speculation—they represent a “window of opportunity for next-generation asset management strategies.” Over the next five years, crypto funds will play an increasingly important role in entrepreneurs’ asset allocation. Not because they are mysterious, but because they have gone mainstream.

 

To understand the crypto industry, you don’t need to trade coins yourself. You just need to understand: Who is making money, using what strategies, and based on what logic.

Still Hesitant and Uncertain? Here’s What to Do

 

If you’ve read this far, you already have a basic understanding of crypto fund strategies. But the real challenge is not “understanding concepts”—it’s answering these critical questions:

 

Which funds are actually worth investing in?

Which strategies align with your capital’s risk profile?

Which “fine print” in fund documents, structures, and fee schedules could impact your future exits?

Which risks are controllable, and which are structural?

Which teams are truly institutional-grade, and which are just “retail traders in institutional clothing”?

 

These questions have no one-size-fits-all answers, but they directly impact the safety of your capital and the stability of your returns. I have advised many entrepreneurs navigating these dilemmas, and assisted numerous LPs with fund due diligence, structural analysis, clause negotiation, and risk assessment. I’ve discovered a clear pattern:

 

If you clarify three things before investing—strategy, structure, and terms—your experience with crypto funds will be vastly improved.

 

If you are considering investing in a crypto fund, comparing strategies across different institutions, or need a professional legal/compliance due diligence report, feel free to contact me. We can discuss your specific situation and needs in detail. Legal professionals can help you filter out “hidden risks” related to: compliance structures, strategy authenticity, operational transparency, fee terms, redemption mechanisms, and more.

 

You don’t need to struggle through thick PPMs, Supplements, or Subscription Agreements on your own. I can break down complex fund structures into key decision-making points, so you can invest with greater confidence and clarity. If you have relevant needs, please don’t hesitate to reach out.

 

Read More:
Messari 2026 Crypto Theses: Why Speculation Is No Longer Enough (Part 1)

Crypto’s True Position in the Risk Asset Hierarchy

〈How Can Traditional Entrepreneurs Understand Crypto Funds?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。

This article focuses on the employment and compensation characteristics of the Web3 industry. It sorts out three mainstream employment models—domestic labor contract employment, cross-border independent collaboration, and engagement via domestic flexible employment platforms—analyzes the risk points of three salary payment methods (fiat currency, stablecoins, and project tokens), and provides suggestions from two aspects: signing agreements and ensuring fund compliance, helping practitioners avoid risks and safeguard their rights and interests.

This article focuses on the employment and compensation characteristics of the Web3 industry.

 

Introduction

 

Nowadays, it is no longer news that more and more people are joining the Web3 industry. Professionals from various fields such as technology, product development, and operations have flocked to this emerging sector, infusing it with vitality.

 

Compared with traditional Internet, Web3 is often labeled with attractive tags like “high salary”, “global remote work”, and “flexibility and freedom”. Especially during market upswings, many practitioners have indeed reaped far greater returns than those in traditional industries, which has attracted a growing number of Web2 professionals to switch to the Web3 track.

 

However, once people truly step into this field, many will find that the “rules of the game” in Web3 are not quite as they imagined. As an industry still in rapid formation, unified standards have not been established in many aspects—whether it is organizational structure, collaboration methods, or salary systems, all demonstrate rich diversity.

 

In this space, you may no longer be simply called an “employee”, but more often a “contributor”; your income may no longer be a fixed monthly salary paid into your account, but a flexible mix of fiat currency, stablecoins, project tokens, and even future incentives with a vesting period.

 

This flexibility brings more possibilities, but also comes with many confusions:

 

What are the main employment models in Web3?

What are the differences between Web3 salary payment and traditional salary payment?

What precautions should early-stage workers take to prevent project parties from breaching contracts?

 

In response to these practical and specific questions, this article will sort out the common collaboration models and salary payment methods in Web3, clearly point out the potential risks involved, and provide feasible suggestions to help you embrace opportunities while moving forward more steadily and securely.

Main Employment Models in Web3

 

In the Web3 world, it is important to know that the relationship with a project party is not limited to that of an “employee”. Currently, common collaboration models are mainly divided into three categories, each corresponding to different rights and risks:

 

(I) Domestic Labor Contract Employment

 

A small number of Web3 projects have registered companies in mainland China and will sign formal labor contracts with you to establish a standard labor relationship. This model is fully applicable to China’s Labor Law; the company will pay social security contributions and withhold personal income tax for you, which is no different from the traditional “9-to-5 job” you are familiar with.

 

It should be noted, however, that not many Web3 projects currently adopt this fully compliant domestic employment method.

 

(II) Cross-border Independent Collaboration

 

This is the most mainstream method in the industry at present. The project entity is usually registered overseas (such as Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.) and signs a “service agreement”, “consultancy contract”, or “independent contractor agreement” with you as an individual.

 

In this case:

 

You are legally regarded as a business collaborator, not in a labor relationship.

You are not fully protected by the Labor Contract Law (e.g., economic compensation, paid annual leave, etc.).

Salary payment methods are highly flexible, and payment in project tokens is very common under this model.

 

(III) Through Domestic Flexible Employment Platforms

 

Some projects establish cooperative relationships with you through third-party flexible employment platforms. The platform may sign a contract with you and pay you remuneration (usually in RMB).

 

Although this method can meet the demand of “receiving fiat currency”, the underlying legal relationship may be relatively complex:

 

You may form a labor relationship with the platform, or it may be just a civil cooperation.

It is prone to situations where the social security contributor, personal income tax filer, and actual employer are not the same entity.

The compliance of the platform itself will directly affect the protection of your rights and interests.

 

Understanding which model you fall under is the first step to clarifying your rights and assessing income risks.

Common Salary Payment Methods and Risk Points in Web3

 

Under the above different employment models, salary payment methods in the Web3 industry show obvious diversification characteristics. It should be noted that there is no one-to-one correspondence between employment models and salary payment methods; a single employment model may involve multiple salary payment methods.

 

(I) Fiat Currency Payment

 

Generally speaking, paying salaries via bank transfer in RMB is a method with relatively low legal risks. With clear contractual arrangements and tax handling, the overall compliance path is relatively clear.

 

Among the employment methods mentioned above, domestic labor relationship-based employment or salary disbursement through flexible employment platforms will involve fiat currency payment. However, it should be noted that in practice, it is also common for part of the salary to be paid in fiat currency, and the other part in the form of stablecoins or project tokens. For example, an employee’s actual monthly income is 30,000 yuan, of which 10,000 yuan is paid in fiat currency, and the remaining 20,000 yuan is paid in tokens equivalent to this amount.

 

In such cases, how to issue the offer, how to stipulate terms in the Labor Contract, and based on what amount social security and personal income tax should be declared have become difficult legal issues that must be addressed. When facing these problems, both individuals and enterprises are advised to consult professional legal personnel and fully consider them based on specific project or employment situations.

 

(II) Stablecoin Payment

 

Salary payment in stablecoins is one of the most common methods in the Web3 industry. However, since stablecoins are also a type of cryptocurrency, their payment feature—being linked to blockchain addresses—has led to some common legal questions: When a sum of stablecoins is paid, how to confirm that it is the practitioner who has received the payment, or how to prove that it is the employer making the salary payment? Is there any possibility of proxy receipt or disbursement?

 

For many Web3 practitioners, the challenges of stablecoin payment lie not only in legal compliance, but also in the additional risks encountered when they wish to convert stablecoins into fiat currency (i.e., withdrawal).

 

When providing legal consulting services to practitioners, the author of this article has handled multiple cases where, after receiving stablecoins as remuneration, practitioners suffered economic losses or even faced criminal risks due to lack of experience in the withdrawal process, resulting in receiving illegal funds or being involved in money laundering chains.

 

(III) Project Token Payment

 

In some Web3 projects, paying salaries in tokens is a relatively common practice. Since projects themselves hold large amounts of non-mainstream tokens, distributing tokens to employees or collaborators is often low-cost and easy to operate.

 

However, it should be noted that such salaries are essentially more like high-risk investments—if the token price fluctuates sharply, your actual income will also fluctuate accordingly.

 

At the same time, to achieve long-term incentives and token management, such projects usually do not issue all tokens at once, but set a “vesting period” and unlock them in batches based on working hours or performance achievements. This model is somewhat similar to equity incentives in traditional companies, allowing you to have certain expectations for future returns, but it also brings new problems: rules may be unilaterally changed by the project party, whether vesting conditions are reasonable, and whether the vesting process is transparent—these all require close attention.

 

In addition, whether salaries are paid in stablecoins or project tokens, there may be certain legal and operational risks in terms of legality, taxation, and fund transfer-out.

Mankun’s Suggestions

 

Salary payment in Web3 is indeed complex and prone to disputes. To avoid pitfalls, there are two key points: clear contractual terms and compliant fund flows.

 

(I) Sign a Clear and Comprehensive Written Agreement

 

The salary structure in the Web3 industry is different from that in traditional industries; a standard labor contract alone is often insufficient to cover all potential disputes. To clarify the rights and responsibilities of both parties, it is recommended that you must sign the following documents:

 

Clarify the nature of cooperation: Clearly define in the agreement whether the relationship between the two parties is a labor relationship, cooperative relationship, or other forms, to avoid ambiguous characterization later.

Specify salary structure and payment methods:

Clearly state the composition of salary (e.g., basic salary, performance pay, token incentives, etc.);

Agree on the payment cycle, currency type (fiat currency or cryptocurrency), and payment channel.

Token incentive clauses (if applicable):

Specify the type, quantity, and corresponding value of tokens;

Agree on details such as the issuance time, lock-up rules, and vesting schedule;

The Token Incentive Plan can be attached as an annex to the agreement.

 

Recommendation: Even if the domestic labor relationship model is adopted, a Salary Supplementary Agreement or special incentive document should be signed simultaneously to ensure that the salary terms are fully stipulated.

 

(II) Strictly Ensure Fund and Foreign Exchange Compliance

 

In cross-border payments or cryptocurrency settlements, it is essential to plan the compliance path in advance to avoid crossing legal red lines:

 

Comply with foreign exchange management regulations:

If cross-border fiat currency payment is involved, foreign exchange settlement should be handled through compliant channels, and private currency exchange or cross-border fund transfer should be avoided.

Compliance tips for cryptocurrency payment:

Pay attention to the current regulatory status of cryptocurrencies in China to avoid violating financial regulatory policies;

It is recommended to assess the legality and stability of the payment path in advance, and do not ignore compliance risks just because “this is common practice in the industry”.

Joint responsibilities of enterprises and individuals:

Both companies and recipients should take the initiative to understand relevant laws and regulations, and consult professional legal or tax advisors when necessary to ensure that fund transactions are legal and compliant.

 

Lawyer’s Reminder: Compliance is not a trivial matter. Do not ignore potential legal risks in different fields for the sake of convenience or industry practices.

Conclusion

 

What the Web3 industry represents is a more flexible and decentralized employment and incentive method, but legal risks do not disappear because of this. On the contrary, at a stage where rules are not yet fully clarified, compliance awareness is particularly important.

 

For enterprises, compliant salary arrangements help stabilize teams and reduce dispute costs; for practitioners, fully understanding the legal risks behind the salary structure is the most basic protection for their own rights and interests. Innovation in Web3 should not come at the cost of ignoring the law; rational and prudent participation may be the path to long-term win-win results.

〈What’s a Reliable Way to Pay Salaries to Web3 Workers?〉這篇文章最早發佈於《CoinRank》。