Traditional finance is entering the crypto world through ETFs, tokenization, and on-chain services. But institutional adoption does not automatically mean ordinary users will benefit. The real questions are: As Wall Street moves on-chain, who gains access to new opportunities, and who is simply being swept along by the hype？
This article is based on the transcript of an X Space livestream organized by WikiBit on the theme “Wall Street Goes On-Chain.” The discussion focused on a straightforward question: As Wall Street moves onto the blockchain, who stands to benefit the most in the crypto world？
The host opened by highlighting a central contradiction. On one hand, traditional finance is accelerating its entry into crypto, with ETFs, tokenized assets, and on-chain services emerging at a rapid pace. On the other, markets remain caught between inflation, interest rates, global risk sentiment, and concerns over user protection. Institutional activity is growing, but confidence has not automatically translated into demand.
This raises two key questions:
- Who actually benefits from Wall Street's entry into crypto？
- For ordinary crypto users, what constitutes meaningful adoption？
The livestream featured three guests from different backgrounds: MEJ from Gold House, a representative from RBC Group, and Akai, Community Manager at Bazaars.
The diversity of the panel highlighted an important point: Moving finance on-chain is about much more than putting stock tickers on a blockchain. It involves rethinking wallets, assets, payments, identity, social interactions, and real-world assets.
The Core Argument: Wall Street's Entry Into Crypto Does Not Mean Every Crypto Asset Will Rise
The expansion of ETFs, tokenized stocks, real-world assets (RWAs) such as gold, and on-chain financial services is bringing traditional finance and the crypto ecosystem closer together.
But the real test of this transformation is not how many institutions enter the market. It is whether ordinary people gain access to more affordable and inclusive financial services, along with clear, reliable asset ownership rights and practical ways to exit their positions.
For the past decade, the crypto industry has been trying to prove its value. Now, traditional finance is approaching the question from a different direction: It is beginning to move certain financial activities onto the blockchain.
From Bitcoin ETFs and tokenized stocks to on-chain applications for gold, U.S. Treasuries, and other real-world assets, blockchain technology is gradually expanding beyond cryptocurrency trading into the broader financial system.
Yet an important question remains: As Wall Street embraces blockchain technology, who is actually creating value—and who might simply end up paying for someone else's business model？
The discussion revealed a significant trend: The next phase of crypto may be less about competing to launch the hottest new token and more about solving real problems in the financial world.
1. Wall Street Is Moving In. So Why Isn't a Crypto Bull Market Guaranteed？
First, consider a distinction that is easy to overlook: Accelerating institutional adoption does not mean demand across the entire crypto market is growing at the same pace.
When major asset managers launch crypto ETFs, banks explore tokenized assets, and financial services companies investigate on-chain settlement, markets often interpret these developments as bullish signals.
The logic seems straightforward: Institutions have more capital, greater expertise, and access to more participants. Surely, the market should rise as a result.
Reality, however, is more complicated.
The RBC Group representative noted during the livestream that markets often confuse institutional participation in crypto with improvements in the health of the entire market.
Institutions may be building infrastructure and exploring new products, but ordinary investors still have to contend with inflation, interest rates, geopolitical risks, and uncertainty about the economic outlook.
In other words, a bank researching blockchain technology does not mean every investor is ready to buy Bitcoin at current prices, let alone purchase a small-cap altcoin.
Institutional Adoption Changes Financial Infrastructure First
Traditional financial institutions bring capital, customers, brand recognition, and established distribution channels. Blockchain offers a different set of technological tools that can help financial assets be issued, transferred, settled, and managed digitally.
Combining the two could transform financial services. But there is still a considerable gap between implementing the technology and generating genuine user demand.
A bank can launch a tokenized fund. A trading platform can list tokenized stocks. A fintech company can develop on-chain payment services.
Yet launching a product is only the first step.
Will users continue to use it？ Can it deliver value when markets decline？ Does it genuinely reduce transaction costs？ Can investors redeem their assets without difficulty？
These are the questions that determine whether a product can achieve widespread adoption.
The Gold House guest also emphasized that institutional infrastructure development and the emergence of genuine market demand often occur at different stages.
ETFs and tokenization can make crypto assets more accessible. But easier access does not mean an asset is worth buying, nor does it guarantee that investors will want to hold it over the long term.
What Matters More Than Price Is Whether Users Stay
Imagine two projects.
Project A spends heavily on events, giveaways, and trading-fee subsidies, attracting 100,000 users in a short period. But once the incentives disappear, the users leave too.
Project B starts with just 10,000 users but consistently provides practical services such as stablecoin payments, asset management, and cross-chain transfers. Even when market conditions weaken, people continue using its products.
Which project has greater long-term value？
If we look only at short-term registrations, Project A may appear more impressive. But if we focus on genuine demand, user retention, and sustainable revenue, Project B may deserve closer attention.
This is an important way to evaluate the crypto industry's development: Do not just count how much attention a project attracts. Look at the problems it actually solves.
For investors, the signals of institutional adoption should extend beyond ETF inflows or partnership announcements from major companies.
They should also pay attention to:
Real transaction volume: Are people actually using the product？
Sustained usage: Do users return after the initial excitement fades？
Assets under management (AUM): Is capital flowing into the product and staying there？
Product revenue: Can the business generate sustainable income？
Retention during market downturns: Does the product remain useful when prices fall and speculative interest fades？
Ultimately, genuine adoption is not about an institution announcing that it has entered the market. It is about people continuing to use what it builds.
2. Tokenized Stocks Are Here: Does Buying a Token Mean You Own a Share of Apple？
Tokenized stocks are one of the most closely watched areas in the convergence of traditional finance and crypto. Traditional securities markets typically require investors to open brokerage accounts, complete identity verification, and comply with jurisdiction-specific regulations. Some tokenized stock products, by contrast, allow users to trade through crypto platforms using stablecoins or other digital assets, potentially simplifying the process.
According to the livestream guests, their value lies not only in extending trading hours but also in lowering barriers to entry and creating new ways for people who struggle to access international financial markets to participate.
But one crucial question remains: What exactly are you buying？
A token whose price is linked to Apple's stock price does not automatically give you ownership of actual Apple shares. Different products can have entirely different legal structures.
Rather than focusing on whether a product has the word “stock” in its name, investors should ask:
Do you own actual shares, a beneficial interest, or merely a contract that tracks the stock price？
Are you entitled to dividends when the company pays them？
Do you have voting rights？ If not, who exercises those rights？
Can you redeem the token for actual shares or cash, and under what conditions？
What happens to your assets if the issuer goes bankrupt, the platform shuts down, or the custodian encounters problems？
The specific rights attached to any product must be determined by its contractual terms, issuance structure, and applicable laws.
24/7 Trading Is Only the Starting Point
Tokenized stocks could make trading and transferring assets more flexible while reducing friction in traditional financial processes. This could be particularly useful for people who cannot easily open overseas brokerage accounts.
However, 24/7 trading does not mean 24/7 liquidity.
The fact that a token can be traded over the weekend does not mean the underlying stock market is open, nor does it guarantee that enough buyers and sellers will be available.
Investors should also examine whether bid-ask spreads are excessive, whether market depth is sufficient, whether prices accurately track the underlying stock, and whether the platform imposes trading restrictions. They should understand how price deviations are handled when traditional markets are closed and whether redemption mechanisms remain effective during extreme market conditions.
If a product allows round-the-clock trading but lacks sufficient liquidity when investors actually need to sell, its convenience may be significantly overstated.
Who Has the Right to Decide How Stocks Are Tokenized？
The livestream also discussed reports of companies challenging certain tokenized stock arrangements.
Beneath these disputes lies a more fundamental question: Who has the authority to determine how stocks are packaged, distributed, and traded？
Public companies, shareholders, custodians, token issuers, and trading platforms may have different interpretations of asset rights, brand usage, regulatory responsibilities, and market structure.
Therefore, the fact that a platform lists a token associated with a particular company does not automatically mean that the company endorses the arrangement.
The long-term development of tokenized stocks depends on clear legal relationships, reliable asset backing, transparent disclosure, and well-defined investor rights.
Genuine innovation is not simply putting a stock's name on a blockchain. It is making investing more convenient without stripping investors of the rights they should have.
3. The Real Opportunity in RWA: It's Not About Turning Everything Into a Token
Tokenized stocks are a popular entry point into the convergence of traditional finance and crypto. Real-world asset tokenization, or RWA, represents a much broader field of exploration, potentially bringing stocks, U.S. Treasuries, gold, and other assets into on-chain financial systems through different legal and technological structures.
But one distinction is essential: Tokenizing an asset does not suddenly make the underlying asset more valuable, nor does it mean every related token is backed by reliable assets.
The real question is whether blockchain technology can make these assets easier to issue, transfer, settle, use as collateral, and manage.
Take Gold, for Example: Tokenization Doesn't Eliminate the Need to Verify the Asset
Investing in gold involves more than tracking its price.
Physical gold comes with considerations such as purchasing channels, purity, storage, and resale. Gold-related financial products require investors to understand their structures, trading rules, and fees.
With an appropriately designed tokenized gold product, users may be able to hold tokens representing certain rights to gold in a digital wallet, transfer them on-chain, or use them in financial activities. This can improve convenience.
However, tokenization does not automatically eliminate the challenges of custody, verification, and redemption.
Suppose a project issues one million gold-backed tokens and claims that each token represents a specified quantity of physical gold. Investors need to establish whether the gold actually exists, who holds it in custody, whether it has been pledged more than once, and whether token holders have clearly defined redemption rights.
If the physical gold does not exist, or investors cannot legally redeem their tokens, even an impressive-looking blockchain record cannot independently prove that sufficient gold backs the tokens.
This is a fundamental distinction between RWA and ordinary digital tokens: Investors must verify not only the on-chain tokens but also the real-world assets behind them.
Blockchain Can Record Transactions, but It Cannot Automatically Verify Reality
Blockchain technology can record token issuance and transfers, providing verifiable transaction histories. Real-world assets, however, involve processes that take place off-chain.
For gold, investors may need physical inventory checks, custody records, or other credible evidence. For claims involving U.S. Treasuries, they need to verify the securities ownership structure and legal arrangements. For tokenized real estate, they need to establish property ownership, the relevant legal entities, cash-flow arrangements, and investor rights.
None of this information automatically becomes transparent simply because an asset is tokenized.
If off-chain information comes from a single institution, investors must still assess whether that institution is reliable, whether disclosures are sufficient, and whether independent verification is effective.
Consequently, an RWA trust framework must cover both on-chain and off-chain elements. Blockchain records can address some verification challenges, but the existence, ownership, and redeemability of real-world assets require additional evidence and institutional safeguards.
The Next Step: From Tokenized Assets to On-Chain Financial Services
During the livestream, the RBC Group representative also discussed potential applications of tokenized assets in collateral arrangements and on-chain financial transactions, including the use of tokenized U.S. Treasuries in repurchase agreements.
This points to an important development: The value of tokenization lies not only in making assets tradable but also in enabling them to participate in more sophisticated financial activities, such as collateralization, financing, and settlement.
However, not every RWA project can support these functions. Requirements vary considerably depending on the asset class, issuance structure, and jurisdiction.
The projects most likely to establish a competitive position over the long term may not be those that simply issue more asset-backed tokens. They may instead be the ones that build credible asset-backing mechanisms, clearly defined ownership and investor rights, and reliable financial services around those assets.
4. As Wall Street Grows Stronger, Do Crypto-Native Projects Still Have a Chance？
As banks, asset managers, and major financial companies move into on-chain finance, a practical question emerges: Will traditional financial institutions—with more capital, larger customer bases, and greater compliance resources—squeeze out crypto-native projects？
The livestream guests suggested that crypto projects do not need to simply replicate Wall Street, nor should they limit themselves to competing head-on in areas where traditional finance already excels.
Traditional financial institutions have established capital networks, customer relationships, and distribution channels. Crypto-native projects, meanwhile, have opportunities to develop advantages in on-chain infrastructure, product design, user experience, and community collaboration.
The two sides may compete in some areas while complementing each other in others.
Traditional Finance Has Capital, Customers, and Established Services
Large financial institutions typically have mature customer networks, established risk management procedures, and sophisticated compliance capabilities.
For ordinary users looking to participate in financial markets, brand recognition, product reliability, and legal protections all matter.
When institutions move parts of their businesses on-chain, they may bring more users, assets, and business demand into blockchain infrastructure, creating new opportunities for the industry.
But institutional resources do not guarantee equal opportunities for every crypto project.
Capital and business activity may concentrate among a relatively small number of platforms, custodians, infrastructure providers, and asset issuers that meet institutional requirements.
As a result, the growth generated by institutional adoption may not be distributed evenly across all tokens and projects.
Crypto-Native Projects Can Create New Types of Products
The Gold House guest argued that Web3 projects should not simply replicate traditional financial products. Instead, they should leverage their strengths in innovation, user experience, community building, and application development.
For example, projects could connect digital identity, asset management, social features, payments, and applications, allowing users to access multiple services without constantly switching between disconnected platforms.
The RBC Group representative emphasized a complementary perspective: Traditional finance brings assets and financial expertise, while on-chain ecosystems can provide new distribution models and environments for financial activity.
This suggests that the future may not necessarily be a story of traditional finance defeating crypto-native finance. Instead, the two could collaborate across different parts of the financial value chain.
Five Areas Where Crypto-Native Projects Could Find Opportunities
For crypto-native projects, some of the most promising areas to explore may include the following:
1. Infrastructure
Providing reliable technology and services for asset issuance, on-chain settlement, custody, identity verification, and cross-chain interoperability.
2. User experience
Reducing the complexity of wallet operations, asset transfers, and trading processes so that users can interact with blockchain-based financial services more easily.
3. Payments and asset management
Exploring stablecoin payments, self-custody wallets, and connections between digital assets and everyday real-world spending.
4. Communities and application ecosystems
Building applications that deliver ongoing services, encourage meaningful user participation, and generate genuine demand rather than relying solely on token incentives to maintain activity.
5. Compliance and trusted services
Operating within applicable legal frameworks while providing clearer asset information, risk disclosures, and safeguards for users.
None of these directions guarantees success. Outcomes will still depend on product demand, execution, business models, and risk management.
The Biggest Risk: A Project With a Compelling Story but No Real Users
One of the most dangerous positions for a project is having a great narrative but no meaningful user base.
If its core value proposition consists of statements such as “We're building RWA,” “We're embracing institutional adoption,” or “We have the next generation of financial infrastructure,” but it cannot explain why users actually need its product, its long-term competitiveness deserves scrutiny.
Investors should ask:
Would users still use the product without token rewards？
Would genuine demand remain if the market stayed weak for several months？
Does the business have a sustainable revenue model？
Does it solve a problem existing products cannot address, or does it simply add another blockchain layer？
Who ultimately captures the value created by institutional adoption？
One distinction is particularly important: A successful product does not automatically mean its token will appreciate in value.
A project may have genuine users and a sustainable business but lack a clear mechanism for its token to capture that value. Conversely, a token may rise in the short term on market sentiment without being supported by sustainable product demand.
Investors must evaluate the underlying business and the token's economic design separately.
5. What Can Ordinary Investors Gain？ Lower Costs Are Only the First Step
For ordinary users, the significance of Wall Street moving on-chain should not be measured simply by how many familiar financial brands appear in the headlines or how many new assets trading platforms list.
The real opportunity lies in whether financial services become easier to understand, more convenient to use, and more transparent about where users' assets are held and what rights they actually possess.
During the livestream, the RBC Group guest offered an important perspective: Users should not have to become financial experts just to use financial products.
This gets to the heart of financial innovation: The technology can be complex, but users should not have to bear additional burdens of understanding and risk simply to access it.
1. Lower Costs
If tokenization reduces certain intermediaries and simplifies asset transfers or settlement processes, it may help lower some transaction costs.
However, investors should calculate the full cost, including trading fees, bid-ask spreads, custody charges, network fees, redemption fees, and any applicable currency conversion costs.
A product advertising “low trading fees” does not necessarily offer a lower total cost.
2. Broader Access to Financial Markets
Tokenized assets may create new ways for users who previously struggled to access certain markets to participate.
However, greater access does not mean users in every jurisdiction can legally purchase these products, nor does it mean everyone receives the same investor protections.
Products may be subject to local securities laws, identity verification requirements, distribution restrictions, and platform-specific service limitations.
Users must therefore confirm whether a product is available in their jurisdiction and understand exactly what rights they receive.
3. Faster Settlement and Transfers
Under certain conditions, blockchain technology can support more flexible asset transfers and settlement processes.
However, the completion of an on-chain transfer does not necessarily mean that the corresponding legal rights off-chain have been transferred at the same time.
When a product involves securities registration, banking systems, custodians, or the delivery of real-world assets, the overall process may still be constrained by off-chain institutions and service providers.
4. Greater Transparency and Control Over Assets
On-chain data can provide transaction records and information about token movements. But transparency does not mean every risk is visible.
Investors must also understand asset custody arrangements, the identity of the issuer, proof of reserves, audit scope, smart contract permissions, and redemption procedures.
Similarly, self-custody wallets allow users to control their private keys, but they also make users responsible for protecting those keys and managing risks such as transfer errors and phishing attacks.
True financial innovation should not simply transfer all the risks from platforms to users. It should make financial services more convenient while making risks clearer and more manageable.
The Bottom Line: Convenience Must Not Come at the Expense of Investor Protection
The central takeaway is this: Lower costs are only the first step. Ordinary investors need transparent and calculable total costs, lawful and compliant access, legal rights that align with settlement processes, verifiable transparency, and a level of control that matches the risks they assume.
Otherwise, “greater convenience” may simply mean that complexity and risk have been shifted somewhere else.
For ordinary users, the real test of Wall Street moving on-chain is ultimately whether it can make financial services simpler, cheaper, and more accessible without sacrificing investor protections or the ability to exit their positions.
6. Before Buying Any On-Chain Financial Product, Run These Three Checks
If we could distill this livestream into a practical checklist for ordinary investors, the most important step would not be predicting the next hot sector. It would be understanding exactly what you are buying.
The RBC Group guest placed particular emphasis on asset ownership, transparency, and exit mechanisms. These three checks apply to tokenized stocks, gold-backed tokens, other RWA products, and many on-chain financial services that require verification of their underlying assets.
Check 1: What Do You Actually Own？
Start by establishing what the token represents. Does it confer ownership of, or a beneficial interest in, a real-world asset？ Or does it merely represent a contractual claim？
Who holds the underlying asset？ What responsibilities do the token issuer, platform, and custodian each assume？
For tokenized stocks, verify dividend entitlements, voting rights, redemption arrangements, and legal protections.
For tokenized gold, examine the existence of physical reserves, custody arrangements, ownership rights, and redemption conditions.
For other RWA products, review the relevant legal documents and asset-backing arrangements based on the characteristics of the underlying assets.
If a product cannot clearly answer these questions, do not place your trust in it based solely on its brand, marketing claims, or market popularity.
Check 2: What Evidence Proves That the Assets Actually Exist？
Do not equate an issuer's claim that it holds reserves with proof that those assets have been adequately verified.
Pay particular attention to the following questions:
Does the issuer disclose the quantity and composition of the underlying assets, as well as the identity of the custodian？
Has an independent third party conducted verification or an audit？
What is the report's date, scope, and set of limitations？
Could reserve assets be reused, pledged as collateral, or subject to other encumbrances？
Does the total supply of on-chain tokens correspond to the disclosed asset backing？
Different forms of proof of reserves, attestation reports, and comprehensive financial audits can cover different areas. Investors need to examine the actual reports rather than relying on a single percentage or certification badge.
For trading platforms, investors should separately assess regulatory status, asset custody arrangements, withdrawal policies, historical security incidents, and user complaints.
One distinction is especially important: Regulatory compliance and reserve transparency are not interchangeable. Holding a particular license does not mean every asset is protected. Publishing reserve figures does not mean a platform is free from other operational or liquidity risks.
Check 3: If You Want to Exit, Can You Actually Get Your Assets Back？
This is one of the most overlooked—and potentially most important—questions.
Investors often spend considerable time researching when an asset might rise in price but give little thought to how they will exit their positions.
Yet in financial markets, being able to buy does not guarantee that you can sell smoothly. And being able to sell does not necessarily mean you can redeem the underlying asset as expected.
Before investing, establish the following:
Can the token be sold on an open market？
Is there sufficient trading depth？
Can you redeem the underlying asset directly, or can you only sell the token to another investor？
Are there minimum redemption amounts, fees, waiting periods, or identity verification requirements？
How does the exit mechanism work during extreme market conditions, platform service suspensions, or problems involving the issuer？
If the issuer or custodian becomes insolvent, how will holders' asset rights be treated？
For real-world assets such as physical gold, redemption may involve minimum holding requirements, shipping arrangements, geographic restrictions, or additional costs.
For stock-linked tokens, investors should likewise never assume that they can exchange their tokens for actual shares at any time.
These three checks can be summarized as follows: Clear ownership, verifiable assets, and a viable exit path.
If you cannot explain how you would exit an investment, you do not yet fully understand that investment.
Before buying any on-chain financial product, complete these three checks before deciding whether to trust its brand, narrative, or advertised returns.
7. The WikiBit Perspective: The Future of Finance Will Ultimately Be a Competition for Trust
Traditional finance and crypto finance are gradually converging, but their integration will not automatically eliminate risk.
On the contrary, as more real-world assets move on-chain, risks may become more complex. Investors must contend with traditional financial risks—including issuer creditworthiness, market volatility, and legal uncertainty—alongside crypto-specific risks such as smart contract vulnerabilities, private key management, platform operations, and liquidity constraints.
The question is no longer simply, “Will this coin go up？”
It has become a much broader set of questions:
Is this product reliable？ Are the underlying assets real？ Are the rights clearly defined？ Is the platform trustworthy？ If something goes wrong, do I have a way to protect my interests？
These are precisely the issues that WikiBit continues to focus on through its coverage of trading platform risks, regulatory information, user feedback, and investor protection.
For ordinary investors, risk assessment should come before trading decisions whenever they consider a new product.
For project teams, long-term competitiveness should not depend solely on compelling narratives or market hype. It should be built on verifiable assets, transparent mechanisms, reliable services, and genuine user demand.
The financial system may increasingly rely on blockchain technology, but that does not mean every tokenized asset is worth investing in, or that every institution entering the crypto market will benefit every token.
The products worth watching are those that successfully turn technological innovation into tangible value for users.
Conclusion: Who Will Be the Biggest Winners as Wall Street Moves On-Chain？
This transformation is far from over.
ETFs may change how traditional investors participate in crypto markets. Tokenized stocks may lower barriers for some investors seeking access to international markets. RWA products involving gold, U.S. Treasuries, and other assets may unlock new ways to transfer assets and develop financial applications. Crypto-native projects may also create new service models through payments, wallets, infrastructure, and better user experiences.
But none of these developments guarantees a broad crypto market rally, much less success for every related project.
In an environment where institutional capital, technological innovation, and market narratives increasingly intersect, investors need to distinguish between three separate questions.
First, is the technology viable？
Can blockchain genuinely improve asset issuance, trading, settlement, or management？
Second, does the product deliver value？
Does it give users lower costs, broader access, greater transparency, or better services？
Third, is the investment worthwhile？
Can the value created by the product be meaningfully captured by investors？ Are the risks, price, and potential returns reasonably aligned？
These three questions cannot be answered with the same conclusion.
Wall Street's entry into blockchain may bring more capital, assets, and business opportunities to the crypto industry. But the factors that ultimately determine which projects endure will remain product quality, genuine user demand, trustworthy mechanisms, and the ability to execute over the long term.
For ordinary investors, rather than rushing to find the next hot token riding the institutional adoption narrative, it is wiser to learn how to verify assets, understand ownership rights, examine reserves, and confirm exit mechanisms.
Because in financial markets, what matters is never just what you have bought.
What matters more is what you actually own—and whether you can get it back when you decide to leave.
FAQ
1. Does Wall Street's entry into crypto mean Bitcoin and altcoins will definitely rise？
No. Institutional adoption can drive infrastructure development and increase demand for certain assets, but market prices remain influenced by interest rates, inflation, macroeconomic conditions, risk appetite, valuations, and capital flows. Institutional participation in a particular sector does not mean every related token will benefit.
2. Are tokenized stocks equivalent to actual shares？
Not necessarily. Different products may represent ownership interests in actual shares, beneficial interests in shares held through a custodian or trust structure, or contracts that merely track stock prices. Investors should verify ownership rights, dividend entitlements, voting rights, redemption mechanisms, and legal protections.
3. How can an RWA project prove that its tokens are backed by real assets？
Investors should verify the underlying assets, custodians, ownership arrangements, reserve disclosures, independent verification or audit reports, and the relationship between token supply and asset backing. Project marketing claims and on-chain token records alone cannot adequately establish that the corresponding real-world assets exist.
4. What are the most important risks to check before investing in on-chain financial products？
Focus on three areas: what rights you actually own, whether the underlying assets and reserves have been credibly verified, and whether you can sell or redeem your assets under the applicable conditions. You should also assess risks involving the issuer, custodian, trading platform, smart contracts, and regulatory framework.
5. How can crypto-native projects remain competitive as Wall Street enters the market？
Rather than merely copying traditional financial products or relying on market narratives, crypto-native projects should create tangible value through infrastructure, user experience, payments, asset management, and community applications. They also need sustainable business models and clear mechanisms for their tokens to capture value. Even if a product succeeds, its token is not guaranteed to appreciate.
