It presents both opportunities and a breeding ground for fraud.

Every Thursday at 7:30 p.m., the Crypto Bistro opens on schedule! From investment jargon and startup stories to the dramatic rises and falls of projects, as well as commentary on hot topics, airdrop strategies, and sector forecasts... we use an AMA format to discuss what you want to hear, featuring a gathering of industry experts! Topics are unlimited for a relaxed conversation.Web3Facing changes in regulatory policies and sudden shifts in compliance trends—do not panic! Senior lawyers from Mankun Law Firm will interpret hot regulatory events for you and help you gain insight into emerging trends!

This is the 10th episode of the Crypto Bistro, coinciding with its two-month anniversary! We focus onRWAIn conjunction with stablecoins, we explore the fraud pitfalls in these two trending sectors. With Circle’s listing and the implementation of Hong Kong’s stablecoin regulatory framework on August 1, 2025, interest in real-world assets (RWA) and stablecoins has surged. Is this a new opportunity in Web3 or a new fraud scheme? We have invited four guests to share practical insights from media, investment, laboratory, and compliance perspectives to help you avoid these risks!

 

The bistro is open; please introduce yourselves, guests!

Dongdong Robin:Welcome to the 10th episode of the Crypto Bistro! Every Thursday at 7:30 p.m., we host an AMA on Web3 hot topics, engaging in relaxed and diverse discussions to break stereotypes about law firms. Tonight’s theme is “RWA + Stablecoins: What Are the Fraud Traps?” RWA and stablecoins are the hottest sectors in this cycle, but risks lurk behind the hype. We have invited four guests to help clear the fog! Please introduce yourselves!

Sam：Hello everyone, I am Sam, COO of Techub News. We are a crypto media platform based in Hong Kong, focusing on Web3 news, with particular attention to local policy developments and industry trends in Hong Kong. I am a regular at the bistro, having attended many times and gained much from each visit. I look forward to sharing tonight!

Teacher Rang Rong:Hello everyone, I am Rang Rong, making my first appearance at the bistro! I am a domestic self-media operator, running the video account “Rang Rong, the RWA Waiter,” which has considerable influence and focuses on popularizing RWA knowledge. With a background in the Finance and Investment Association at CEIBS, I manage funds for classmates and engage in primary market investments, while also serving as an anti-fraud advocate in the RWA field. I am honored to be invited and look forward to discussing experiences in avoiding pitfalls in RWA and stablecoins!

Wang Lei:Hello everyone, I am Wang Lei, a partner at Mankun Law Firm. I have long heard Meg speak highly of The Pub, noting the incisive viewpoints of its guests and the intense clash of ideas, and I have been eagerly anticipating this session. As a newcomer to The Pub, I typically host Mankun’s weekly Web3 entrepreneurship events every Wednesday, where I encounter numerous compliance cases. I look forward to a spirited exchange tonight!

Nick：Hello everyone, I am Nick, one of the founders of Chaoshi Labs. Previously, I was responsible for Greater China operations at Oxford Capital in London, with a focus on investment. Beginning in 2022–2023, I engaged in real-world assets (RWA) projects overseas, primarily targeting hotels, real estate, and computing-power-related assets. With nearly ten years of experience in the crypto industry and over ten years in traditional finance, I aim to integrate the crypto market with traditional finance through Chaoshi Labs, with RWA as our core strategic direction. At offline events, we frequently receive corporate inquiries concerning fraud, and I look forward to sharing insights on risk avoidance tonight!

Meg:The Pub does not represent the formal position of the law firm; rather, it is a platform for Web3 builders to capture trending topics and exchange viewpoints in a relaxed and down-to-earth manner. Given the high level of interest in RWA and stablecoins, which can easily give rise to fraud, we hope to help clarify misconceptions. Having entered the industry in 2017, I consider myself an industry veteran and look forward to substantive discussions tonight!

Let us now proceed to the main topic.

 

Q1: Some argue that RWA and stablecoins share a “twin” relationship. What is your understanding of this?

Sam：While the term “twin relationship” literally suggests simultaneous emergence, RWA and stablecoins did not appear during the same period. Stablecoins have a long history, having been introduced in 2014USDTinitially as exchange tools to address restrictions on fiat currency deposits. In the early days, domestic bank accounts in China were subject to restrictions, prompting users to deposit fiat currency into platforms such as Huobi and Binance in exchange for USDT. These platforms used U.S. dollars to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds, earning an interest rate spread of 4%–5%, while USDT was used to trade Bitcoin and Ethereum, thereby mitigating price volatility risks.

Real-world assets (RWA), referring to the tokenization of real-world assets, had early prototypes during the ICO and IDO eras but have been redefined in recent years amid the surge in tokenization of assets such as real estate and bonds, whereby rights to yields or ownership are recorded on-chain for circulation. The two emerged at different times and are not twins, but their functions are complementary. Stablecoins provide a price-stable medium of exchange for RWA, enhancing cross-border settlement efficiency and liquidity; RWA, in turn, expands application scenarios for stablecoins, such as trading rights to real estate yields.

The Hong Kong Stablecoin Ordinance (effective August 1, 2025) and the U.S. GENIUS Act have caused the popularity of the two to converge, but they are not twins. Stablecoins are on-chain payment instruments, whereas RWA represents on-chain assets; the two mutually support each other. RWA leverages the compliance profile and liquidity of stablecoins to strengthen its narrative, while stablecoins do not depend on RWA, given their established use cases (such as platform trading and cross-border remittances). In my view, the two engage in instrumental collaboration, with RWA being more reliant on the payment infrastructure provided by stablecoins.

Wang Lei:From a legal and structural perspective, RWA represents on-chain value anchored to real-world assets, such as real estate or equipment leasing yields; stablecoins serve as on-chain payment and clearing media, akin to “on-chain fiat currency.” The two are not in a relationship of dependency but rather operate in a collaborative model: RWA provides programmable assets, while stablecoins facilitate on-chain interactions, thereby enabling a Web3 ecosystem that integrates assets with circulation.

From a compliance perspective, the legality of real-world assets (RWA) depends on the clarity of ownership of the underlying assets and the transparency of the on-chain structure. Stablecoins must ensure reserve disclosure, clear redemption pathways, and compliance in cross-border payments. The Hong Kong Stablecoin Ordinance (effective August 1) and the U.S. GENIUS Act have made both topics prominent. While stablecoins are themselves a form of RWA (tokenization of fiat currency), their function is primarily oriented toward payments. Together, they build the on-chain economy, but they are not “twins”; rather, their functions are complementary.

Professor Rong stated:In simple terms, stablecoins act as “on-chain cash,” providing a value reference and facilitating transactions for RWA; RWA brings real-world assets on-chain, creating application scenarios for stablecoins, such as cross-border settlement and foreign trade payments. The two are mutually reinforcing and indispensable. However, the Hong Kong Stablecoin Ordinance is overly strict, cutting off application scenarios in mainland China and thereby restricting the development of RWA projects. This demonstrates their “twin” relationship: if stablecoins are not mature, it is difficult to scale RWA. For example, Hong Kong RWA projects have limited scale due to the lack of stablecoin support.

Nick：I disagree with the “twin” characterization. In 2022, we conducted a real estate RWA project in Scotland. Due to regulatory restrictions in the United Kingdom (rendering it non-compliant), USDT became a key payment instrument, enhancing user experience. Users invested in real estate yield rights via USDT, while the project sponsor converted fiat currency through a British Virgin Islands company in Singapore. This process was complex and entailed high compliance costs. Stablecoins serve as payment instruments, whereas RWA serves as a financing tool; their functions are distinct.

The Hong Kong Stablecoin Ordinance and the U.S. GENIUS Act provide compliance channels for RWA, addressing challenges related to asset transparency and settlement. In the future, compliant stablecoins (such as those issued by JD.com) may integrate with the digital renminbi, promoting the internationalization of the renminbi. However, for ordinary individuals, the impact of stablecoins is limited; they are primarily B2B settlement tools, while RWA serves enterprise financing. The two maintain a collaborative relationship, and stablecoins do not depend on RWA.

Sam：To add one point, RWA requires liquidity support from stablecoins, but stablecoins do not necessarily require RWA. USDT and USDC already have established scenarios for trading and remittances. Hong Kong stablecoins (such as those issued by JD.com and HSBC) will not serve only RWA; their application scenarios are broader, offering greater potential.

 

Q2: The Hong Kong stablecoin draft formally came into effect on August 1. What are its highlights and drawbacks?

Wang Lei stated:The Hong Kong Stablecoin Ordinance represents a significant advancement for the industry, providing legal certainty by clarifying licensing regimes, audit requirements, reserve requirements, and clearing requirements, thereby establishing a compliance basis for issuers and upstream and downstream enterprises. Highlights include:  

1. Mandatory redemption: A minimum reserve of HK$25 million ensures stability and transparency, benefiting mainland enterprises in directly exchanging for Hong Kong dollars.  

2. Clearing pathways: Supports cross-border settlement, bypassingSwiftrestrictions and improving efficiency.  

3. Regulatory Framework: Clarifies KYC and AML requirements to enhance market confidence.

A key criticism is that the KYC and AML requirements are overly stringent, prohibit DeFi scenarios, and restrict innovation and retail participation. Online comments stating that “Hong Kong stablecoins are dead” reflect widespread disappointment.From a legal perspective, however, establishing regulation ahead of market development is preferable to unregulated growth, though the specifics of enforcement remain to be observed.

Sam：I am relatively pessimistic. The Ordinance treats stablecoins as heavily regulated assets (similar to the U.S. dollar) rather than as freely tradable instruments. Key criticisms include:  

1. High-Pressure KYC: Strict real-name registration requirements and prohibitions on DeFi stifle the permissionless ethos native to crypto assets.  

2. High Barriers to Entry: Licensing is restricted to large institutions (such as Standard Chartered and JD.com), leaving no room for small and medium-sized innovators to enter the market.  

3. Strict Enforcement: The Hong Kong Monetary Authority has issued warnings toOTCretail outlets; buying or selling unlicensed stablecoins may result in a maximum fine of HK$5 million and up to seven years’ imprisonment.

A notable benefit is the facilitation of B2B cross-border settlements, bypassing SWIFT’s weekend and time-zone restrictions, accelerating capital repatriation, and suiting enterprises involved in the Belt and Road Initiative. However, for retail investors and small and medium-sized innovators, the scope for innovation is constrained. While Hong Kong aims to preserve its status as a financial center, such strict regulation may prove counterproductive and fail to match Singapore’s flexibility.

Professor Rong stated:I published a WeChat Channels video titled “Hong Kong Stablecoins Become a Laughingstock,” which garnered over 400,000 views and received broad agreement from entrepreneurs at CEIBS. There are two main criticisms:  

1. Overly Strict Real-Name Requirements: Stringent KYC requirements increase usage costs and limit participation by retail investors and small and medium-sized enterprises.  

2. Severing Mainland China Scenarios: The Ordinance restricts applications within mainland China, causing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to lose out on the anticipated conveniences of cross-border settlement, rendering stablecoins akin to a “civil servant wallet.”

Strict regulation is linked to the prevalence of fraud in mainland China (such as the use of stablecoins by Ponzi schemes to transfer assets), reflecting the government’s choice of a “prudential” strategy. However, from the perspective of international competitiveness, if Hong Kong maintains high-pressure regulation, it risks losing its status as a Web3 hub. SMEs hold a pessimistic outlook, perceiving these developments as “irrelevant to them.”

Nick：I maintain an optimistic view. Strict regulatory requirements (such as KYC and AML) resolved the settlement challenges I encountered in my 2022 real-world assets (RWA) project in Scotland, where compliant fiat currency exchange was difficult. Key highlights include:  

1. B-side Efficiency: The Airport Authority Hong Kong’s Project Cargo (with a scale of HK$1.7 billion) utilized Standard Chartered Bank and stablecoins to shorten the accounts receivable settlement cycle from 3–6 months to 21 days, with the potential to further reduce it to 1–3 days in the future.  

2. RMB Internationalization: JD.com’s stablecoin may be pegged one-to-one to the digital renminbi (e-CNY), promoting its application in domestic scenarios.  

3. Compliance and Transparency: Mandatory reserves and audits enhance trust in the underlying assets.

The drawback is low retail investor participation, as KYC restrictions constrain the native ethos of crypto assets. SMEs need to await more open policies, but the potential on the B-side is substantial.

Meg Ma:I agree with Professor Sam’s viewpoint. The significance of stablecoins depends on your “level.” Retail investors feel excluded because they are not part of the game; large enterprises value efficiency and regard stablecoins as valuable assets. Hong Kong’s regulatory framework is paving the way for B-side settlement and RMB internationalization, not designed for retail speculators.

 

Q3: What are common fraud schemes involving RWA and stablecoins? Have you noted the Xinkangjia incident?

Lei Wang:We primarily assist clients with compliance and advise against non-compliant projects. A recent case involved a client wishing to issue RWA in Singapore backed by domestic equipment leasing revenues; we advised abandoning this approach due to high compliance costs and significant risks. The general public has limited exposure to RWA and stablecoins; these sectors are mainly being explored by listed companies and leading enterprises (for example, Circle’s stock price rose due to the RWA boom).

Fraudulent Schemes:  

1. Fabricated Assets: No genuine underlying assets; purely speculative tokens marketed as real-world assets (RWA) to attract investment.  

2. Forged Endorsements: Photoshopped documents from the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) or unauthorized use of association names, claiming to be “compliant RWA.”  

3. High-Yield Lures: Promising monthly returns of 50% or fixed yields, far exceeding reasonable ranges.

Risk Avoidance Recommendations:  

  • Verify whether the ownership of the underlying assets is clear and whether any fabrication exists.  

  • Prioritize projects within the SFC regulatory sandbox (four major categories) and remain wary of unlicensed projects.  

  • Monitor Web3 standardization initiatives in Hong Kong (such as the Ant Digital Technologies sharing session on August 7), which emphasize asset transparency; review audit reports.

While the Xinkangjia incident has not been studied in depth, similar cases frequently exploit high yields (e.g., 50% monthly returns) and forged endorsements (such as photoshopped SFC screenshots) to deceive individuals with limited awareness.

To Teacher Rong:Fraud involving domestic real-world assets (RWA) and stablecoins is rampant, with the Xinkangjia incident being a typical case. Approximately 85%-90% of RWA frauds are “pig-butchering” scams or Ponzi schemes, lacking genuine underlying assets and relying on information asymmetry for deception.

Modus Operandi:  

1. Forged endorsements: Xinkangjia claimed to invest in Dubai or Saudi Arabia and forged compliance registration certificates (such as short-term free registrations in Dubai) or documents from the Securities Commission of Pakistan (PS) to attract investors.  

2. Lure of high returns: It promised a monthly return of 50% (doubling in two months), which far exceeds the 3%-4% annualized yield of U.S. Treasury bonds and is clearly unreasonable.  

3. Cross-border money laundering: Funds were transferred from mainland China to Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands using stablecoins to evade foreign exchange controls, prompting the government to tighten regulatory oversight.  

4. Fraudulent registration platforms: The scheme impersonated Hong Kong associations or lawyers to provide endorsements and amplified promotion (such as through short videos and offline recruitment schemes) to prevent the Ponzi scheme from collapsing.

Case example: Two projects on the verge of collapse claimed to be investing in Dubai, but verification revealed that they had only obtained short-term free registrations.

Risk avoidance recommendations:  

  • Verify the underlying assets and the qualifications of the issuer, and be wary of projects operating without proper licenses.  

  • Any annualized return exceeding 10% should be regarded as fraudulent.  

  • Exercise caution when cooperating with platforms registered in Hong Kong to avoid being used for endorsement purposes, which may lead to the risk of subsequent regulatory accountability.

There are currently 700–800 Ponzi schemes in mainland China, with scales ranging from RMB 500 million to over RMB 10 billion. Recent frequent collapses are related to heightened regulatory pressure. Small and medium-sized enterprises should be vigilant against traps arising from information asymmetry.

Nick：We share a case of real-world assets (RWA) fraud in Henan Province, involving funds exceeding RMB 2 billion, primarily targeting elderly individuals (aged 50–60) who have disposable income and informational disadvantages.

Modus operandi:  

1. Pyramid marketing: After discovering the issue, victims, in an attempt to recoup their losses, assist the project promoters in recruiting new participants, thereby expanding the scheme.  

2. Fabricated compliance: Fraudulently using outdated screenshots from the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) (such as exchange application documents), digitally altered to serve as proof for real-world assets (RWA) or stablecoin projects, falsely claiming "legalization in Hong Kong."  

3. Lure of high returns: Promising dividends from investing in real-world assets (RWA) using stablecoins, which in reality constitutes a Ponzi scheme.  

4. Trap for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): An enterprise in Hangzhou (with an annual output value of tens of millions) was defrauded of RMB 3–5 million. The fraud gang pretended to provide RWA issuance services; while the process appeared formal, there was no substantive progress, as they profited from information asymmetry.

Risk avoidance recommendations:  

  • Verify the authenticity of SFC registrations and be wary of digitally altered documents.  

  • SMEs should assess the costs of RWA issuance (starting at several million) and beware of schemes that require no capital investment yet promise returns.  

  • Retail investors should stay away from high-yield RWA projects and prioritize compliant institutions.

During offline events hosted by Wave Labs, similar inquiries are frequently encountered; SMEs need to be vigilant against "predatory" fraud.

Sam：

Frauds involving real-world assets (RWA) and stablecoins fall into three categories:  

1. Fake licenses: The threshold for stablecoin licenses is high and limited to large banks or enterprises (such as Standard Chartered and JD.com). Claims that "retail investors can participate in stablecoin projects" are fraudulent. The yield from USDT (the 4%–5% interest rate differential from purchasing U.S. Treasury bonds) accrues to the issuer, with no returns for retail investors.  

2. Lack of compliance basis: There is no specific license for RWA; it relies on virtual asset service provider (VASP) licenses or other virtual asset licenses (costing over HKD 20 million). Claims of "compliant RWA licenses" are mostly fraudulent; there are only 20 licensed institutions in Hong Kong, and unauthorized operations are not permitted.  

3. High-yield trap: Xinkangjia claims a monthly return of 50% (doubling in two months) by packaging “crude oil spot derivatives,” which is clearly fraudulent. Any real-world assets (RWA) or stablecoin project offering fixed returns exceeding 10% is not credible.

Risk avoidance recommendations:  

  • Stablecoins are suitable only for B2B settlement (such as foreign exchange spreads); retail investors should not trust yield promises.  

  • For RWA projects, verify the authenticity of the underlying assets and check for registration with the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC); be wary of forged documents.  

  • Report fraud by calling 12315; protecting yourself may also earn you a reward (smile).  

  • Spend more time with family to help prevent elderly individuals from being defrauded.

 

Q4: Is RWA merely hype? What are the key compliance considerations for conducting RWA business domestically?

Wang Lei:RWA itself is not hype; it is an innovative model that tokenizes real-world assets to address financing challenges faced by small and medium-sized enterprises. However, due to the concept’s popularity, it is easily packaged as a gimmick for fraud. Since July 2023, Mankun Law Firm has served B2B clients. Many enterprises holding high-quality assets seek financing through RWA, but compliance costs are high, requiring caution.

Key compliance considerations:  

1. Asset selection: Ownership of the underlying assets must be clear, and their suitability for tokenization must be assessed (e.g., equipment leasing income).  

2. Fund channels: Domestic assets must be transferred cross-border through compliant financial channels (such as Hong Kong funds) by establishing a special purpose vehicle (SPV) structure.  

3. Regulatory Engagement: Issuance in Hong Kong requires liaison with the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), with licensed institutions (such as those holding a Type 1 license) providing credit endorsement.  

4. Cost Considerations: The issuance cycle for real-world assets (RWA) spans several months and involves law firms, technology providers, and auditors. The costs are higher than domestic low-interest-rate financing, necessitating a careful trade-off analysis.  

5. Technical Standards: Reference should be made to Web3 standardization initiatives in Hong Kong (such as the on-chain asset standards developed by Ant Digital Technologies).

Projects of Interest: On August 7, an event hosted by Ant Digital Technologies in Hong Kong proposed three technical specifications for RWA, emphasizing asset tokenization and transparency. The Malu Grape RWA project on the Shanghai Data Exchange is a typical case study, and its compliance status warrants close attention.

Professor Rong stated:The domestic RWA market is overheated and subject to speculation. Warnings against “speculation” from media outlets such as China Central Television (CCTV) aim to cool down the market and prevent retail investors from blindly following trends. Compared to NFTs (where images were speculated up to RMB 100,000–200,000 in 2021–2022), RWA are more solidly anchored to physical assets; however, the concept has been amplified, fostering fraud.

Key Compliance Focus Areas:  

1. Asset Authenticity: Ensure the underlying assets are genuine to guard against fraudulent tokens with no substantive backing.  

2. Issuing Entity: Select institutions certified under the SFC sandbox regime and remain vigilant against unlicensed projects.  

3. Cost Assessment: RWA financing entails high costs; a cost-benefit comparison with traditional financing channels is required.  

4. Regulatory Cooling: The government has recently tightened RWA regulation, and policy developments must be closely monitored.

Projects of Interest: The Malu Grape RWA on the Shanghai Data Exchange and the Hainan Huatie RWA have attracted attention, representing directions for domestic exploration. However, given market overheating, a cooling-off period is necessary, and small and medium-sized enterprises must remain vigilant against predatory fraud schemes.

Nick：Real-world assets (RWA) contain speculative elements. In the Hong Kong stock market, RWA-related news often triggers share price increases (such as Longshine Technology’s charging pile RWA), but trading volumes raise suspicions of “PowerPoint financing.” RWA is a financing tool for small and medium-sized enterprises, similar to the explosive growth cycle in the asset management industry from 1998 to 2010, which requires favorable timing, location, and human resources.

Compliance priorities:  

1. Regulatory engagement: Domestic real estate-related RWA requires cooperation with government functional departments, and title confirmation is complex.  

2. Sandbox testing: The Hong Kong RWA sandbox requires 1–2 years for validation, and public fundraising remains distant.  

3. Channel construction: Compliant institutions (such as SFC license holders) can integrate supply chain finance assets through special purpose vehicles (SPVs).  

4. Technical support: On-chain and off-chain title confirmation requires blockchain infrastructure support.

Notable projects: The Airport Authority Hong Kong’s Project Cargo (with a scale of HK$1.7 billion) optimizes accounts receivable settlement through Standard Chartered Bank and stablecoins, reducing the cycle from 3–6 months to 21 days, with potential for further shortening in the future. Longshine Technology’s exploration of charging pile RWA in supply chain finance shows significant potential but requires validation.

Sam：The RWA market is overheated, but its technological and application potential cannot be denied. Warnings of “speculation” by media outlets such as CCTV aim at public opinion management to prevent retail investors from following the herd. Compared to NFTs (where images were speculated up to RMB 100,000–200,000), RWA is more substantive, with the potential to leverage industrial capital far exceeding early narratives, requiring a rational perspective. Compliance priorities:  

1. AML/CFT: Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing are core requirements for cross-border RWA.  

2. Asset authenticity: Preventing fake assets from being packaged onto the chain requires legal confirmation of ownership.  

3. Custody and risk control: Ensure security through KYC and on-chain segregation, referencing domestic blockchain asset on-chaining standards.  

4. Compliance consultation: Engage professional law firms such as Mankun Law Firm to assess project feasibility.

Projects to watch: The real-world assets (RWA) initiative involving Malu grapes on the Shanghai Data Exchange and Ant Digital Technologies’ standardization efforts show promise, while Longshine Technology’s RWA pilot for charging stations explores supply chain finance. Retail investors should exercise caution and avoid high-yield traps.

 

Q5: What is your outlook on the future of real-world assets (RWA) and stablecoins, and what are the key pitfalls to avoid?

Nick asks Professor Rang: Why are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) pessimistic about Hong Kong’s Stablecoin Ordinance?

Professor Rang:SMEs are disappointed with Hong Kong’s Stablecoin Ordinance because their expectations were not met. Mainland China imposes strict controls on outbound investment (reporting required for amounts exceeding RMB 5 million, with an annual individual quota of USD 50,000). SMEs have needs for cross-border capital flows and had hoped that stablecoins would ease restrictions and facilitate foreign trade settlements. However, the Ordinance effectively excludes Mainland China-related scenarios, and the know-your-customer (KYC) requirements are so stringent that SMEs cannot use these instruments, leading them to feel that the regime “does not concern them.” Given the challenging domestic economic environment, foreign trade enterprises were expecting policy support, but the Ordinance appears to favor large enterprises, which is disappointing.

Wang Lei:Real-world assets (RWA) and stablecoins serve as bridges between Web3 and traditional finance, with significant growth potential in business-to-business (B2B) cross-border settlements and SME financing over the next five to ten years. Hong Kong’s Stablecoin Ordinance and the RWA sandbox provide a compliance foundation, but high KYC thresholds make retail participation difficult.

Key pitfalls to avoid: Verify ownership of underlying assets and the qualifications of issuers; prioritize projects included in the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) sandbox; and be wary of promises of high returns (such as 50% monthly yields).

Sam：While RWA and stablecoins have substantial technological potential, short-term speculative hype should cool down. The primary focus in the future will be B2B cross-border trade and supply chain finance; retail investors should not blindly chase price increases. Hong Kong’s regulatory framework serves enterprise-level settlement services and may promote the internationalization of the renminbi.

Key pitfalls to avoid: Steer clear of falsehoods regarding “stablecoin yields” and “RWA licenses”; verify SFC registrations; report fraud by calling 12315; and spend more time with family members to help protect elderly individuals from being defrauded.

Professor Rang:RWA and stablecoins are complementary. Hong Kong’s overly strict regulations limit Mainland China-related use cases, and more open policies will be needed in the future. Strict regulation has been driven by fraudulent practices in Mainland China (such as the Xinkangjia case), and SMEs should proceed with caution.

Key risk-mitigation points: Be vigilant against forged endorsements and high-yield traps, verify the authenticity of assets, carefully select registration platforms, and avoid retrospective regulatory enforcement.

Nick：Real-world assets (RWA) are financing instruments, while stablecoins are payment instruments. They are poised to play a significant role in business-to-business (B2B) settlements (such as Project Cargo) and the internationalization of the renminbi. Within 5–10 years, they may become standardized investment and financing instruments.

Key risk-mitigation points: Verify the authenticity of Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) documents, assess issuance costs, and stay away from projects involving multi-level marketing schemes.

Meg:RWA and stablecoins are the “golden pair” of Web3, but retail investors are not at the table; institutional and business clients are the main players. The future requires balancing regulation with innovation, and small and medium-sized enterprises represent a market with significant potential.

Key risk-mitigation points: Do not believe claims of 50% monthly returns, engage professional law firms for due diligence, and protect your interests!

Robin Dong:Thank you to Instructor Sam, Instructor Rangrong, Instructor Nick, and Attorney Wang Lei for their substantive insights! From dual-entity structures to Hong Kong regulation, fraud traps, and the prospects for RWA, the session was packed with practical content and effective risk-avoidance guidance!

Please follow our guests and official accounts. Send a direct message to Meg or me with topics you would like to hear discussed. See you every Thursday at 7:30 p.m. Thank you all!