# Сопутствующие статьи по теме Equity

Новостной центр HTX предлагает последние статьи и углубленный анализ по "Equity", охватывающие рыночные тренды, новости проектов, развитие технологий и политику регулирования в криптоиндустрии.

6th Man Ventures Founder: Forget the 'Token vs. Equity' Debate, What Really Needs to Be Trusted?

Mike Dudas, founder of The Block and 6th Man Ventures, argues that the debate between tokens and equity misses the point: the real question is what deserves trust. He suggests there is no one-size-fits-all answer to whether a "dual token + equity" structure works. Instead, the core principle is trusting a team that is not only exceptional but also long-term oriented, committed to building a founder-led, enduring business like Binance. Dudas notes that for application-layer projects requiring sustained leadership, tokens often underperform compared to equity. Many DeFi 1.0 founders have left their projects, which are now maintained by DAOs in "maintenance mode," struggling with slow and ineffective decision-making. Pure equity isn’t always superior either—tokens enable functions like fee discounts, staking for airdrops, and access rights, which equity can’t easily replicate. He proposes a hybrid model: an equity entity operates on a "cost-plus" basis to serve a token-driven protocol, aiming not to maximize its own profits but to maximize the token’s and ecosystem’s value. This requires high trust in the team, as token holders lack strong legal rights. Ultimately, success depends on the team’s capability, credibility, execution, vision, and action. The best tokens will thrive by 2026 if teams communicate well, conduct buybacks, enable substantive governance, and direct value to the token through utility.

marsbit01/12 08:09

6th Man Ventures Founder: Forget the 'Token vs. Equity' Debate, What Really Needs to Be Trusted?

marsbit01/12 08:09

6th Man Ventures Founder: How to Find the Most Valuable Crypto Projects?

Founder of 6th Man Ventures discusses the viability of the "dual-token + equity" structure, emphasizing that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. The key is backing an exceptional, long-term-focused team committed to building a founder-led, enduring enterprise, similar to Binance’s Changpeng Zhao. He argues that for application-layer projects requiring sustained leadership, tokens often underperform equity. Many DeFi 1.0 founders have departed, leaving DAOs and part-time contributors in "maintenance mode," struggling with slow and ineffective decision-making. In contrast, equity isn’t always superior—tokens enable unique utilities like fee discounts, staking for airdrops, and access rights, which equity cannot easily replicate. "Ownership tokens" currently face limitations in product integration and legal recognition in the U.S. due to regulatory gaps. However, a hybrid model is proposed: an equity entity operates on a "cost-plus" basis to serve a token-driven protocol, aiming to maximize token and ecosystem value rather than corporate profits. This structure benefits token holders with a well-funded Labs entity for development and a core team heavily incentivized via token holdings. Success hinges on trust in the team’s execution and vision, as token holders lack strong legal protections. Ultimately, team quality, credibility, and execution determine value. Over time, consistent delivery and clear value accrual to tokens—through buybacks, governance, and utility—will allow the best tokens to thrive by 2026, even with equity/Labs entities.

marsbit01/08 08:59

6th Man Ventures Founder: How to Find the Most Valuable Crypto Projects?

marsbit01/08 08:59

15% Equity Threshold: Governance Revolution and Capital Reshuffle in Korean Exchanges

South Korea's Financial Services Commission (FSC) has proposed a major governance overhaul for major cryptocurrency exchanges as part of its "Virtual Asset Second Phase Legislation." The plan would classify large platforms like Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, and Korbit as "core infrastructure" and impose a strict cap on major shareholders' stakes, limiting them to between 15% and 20%. This move targets two key issues: excessive power concentration in the hands of founders or major shareholders, and the disproportionate privatization of substantial trading fee revenues. The proposal aligns exchange governance with traditional financial standards, similar to rules for Alternative Trading Systems (ATS) under the Capital Markets Act. If implemented, the four leading exchanges would face significant ownership restructuring. For instance, Upbit’s major shareholder holds 25.5%, Bithumb Holdings owns 73%, Coinone’s chairman controls 54%, and NXC holds around 60.5% of Korbit. Each would need to divest substantial stakes. The initiative aims to institutionalize the crypto market, reduce systemic risk, and potentially open doors for traditional financial institutions to enter. However, critics argue it may stifle innovation, violate property rights, cause management instability, and drive businesses to more crypto-friendly jurisdictions like Singapore or Dubai. The proposal reflects a broader effort to balance financial stability with industry growth, marking a pivotal moment in South Korea’s crypto regulatory landscape.

marsbit12/31 09:51

15% Equity Threshold: Governance Revolution and Capital Reshuffle in Korean Exchanges

marsbit12/31 09:51

Is RWA Entering the 'Equity Era'? The Backstory Behind Securitize, Ondo, and Coinbase's Simultaneous Moves

RWA is entering an "equity era," marked by a significant shift in focus from major players Securitize, Ondo, and Coinbase toward equity tokenization (Equity RWA). This synchronized move is not coincidental but is driven by clear regulatory direction. In December 2025, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins stated that the U.S. financial markets would migrate to blockchain within two years, a sentiment echoed by Nasdaq's plans for on-chain stock trading. Industry consensus is converging on an on-chain capital market future, with leaders from Maple Finance and Binance emphasizing RWA's potential to bridge blockchain with real-world assets. While private credit and U.S. Treasuries currently dominate RWA due to their regulatory clarity and stability, large institutions are now progressing toward equities. Each platform offers a distinct approach: Ondo provides tokenized stocks with liquidity directly backed by Nasdaq and NYSE-listed shares, targeting non-U.S. investors. Securitize is developing a fully compliant, native on-chain equity model where tokens represent direct shareholder rights. Coinbase is integrating stock trading into its platform, aiming to create a unified financial super-app for diverse assets. This collective pivot signals that on-chain equity is transitioning from an exploratory concept to a structurally significant component of the future financial system, representing a major milestone in RWA's evolution.

marsbit12/24 12:08

Is RWA Entering the 'Equity Era'? The Backstory Behind Securitize, Ondo, and Coinbase's Simultaneous Moves

marsbit12/24 12:08

Valuation at $1.25 Billion Post-SPAC Listing, Securitize to Issue "True Equity" On-Chain Stocks

Securitize, a major RWA (Real World Assets) platform, plans to launch native on-chain stock products by Q1 2026. Unlike synthetic or beneficial-rights models that track prices or represent indirect claims, Securitize will issue legally recognized shares directly on-chain, with tokens representing full shareholder rights including dividends and voting. These shares will be recorded on the issuer’s official cap table. Valuing compliance and integration with traditional finance, Securitize is an SEC-registered transfer agent. It has already tokenized over $3 billion in assets, including BlackRock’s $1.7+ billion BUIDL money market fund, and works with major institutions like Apollo, KKR, and VanEck. In October, Securitize announced plans to go public via a SPAC merger with Cantor Equity Partners II at a $1.25 billion valuation (ticker: SECZ). Backed by investors such as Morgan Stanley, BlackRock, and ARK Invest, the company is positioning itself as a bridge between traditional finance and decentralized systems, emphasizing regulatory alignment and institutional adoption.

Odaily星球日报12/19 08:37

Valuation at $1.25 Billion Post-SPAC Listing, Securitize to Issue "True Equity" On-Chain Stocks

Odaily星球日报12/19 08:37

Why Are Crypto Project Acquisitions Now Excluding Tokens?

Recent acquisitions in the crypto space, such as Circle’s purchase of Interop Labs (developers of Axelar Network), have sparked controversy by focusing on acquiring teams and intellectual property while excluding the native tokens. In the Axelar case, the AXL token and network remain independent, leading to a 15% price drop and community backlash. Similar patterns emerged in other acquisitions: Kraken’s Ink acquired Vertex Protocol’s team and tech but abandoned the VRTX token, causing a 75% crash. Pump.fun acquired Padre and invalidated its token without compensation, and Coinbase integrated Vector.fun’s tech without involving the TNSR token. These cases reflect a broader “acquihire” trend common in Web2, where companies acquire talent and tech but avoid equity or token obligations. In crypto, however, this often leaves retail token holders with no rights or financial benefits, as tokens are designed to avoid regulatory scrutiny as securities—offering utility or governance instead of ownership or profit-sharing. This has led to growing tension between project teams and token holders, exemplified by Aave’s recent governance proposal to assert DAO control over IP, equity, and revenue—highlighting the misalignment between token-based incentives and traditional equity structures. The trend raises fundamental questions about the value and rights attached to tokens in decentralized ecosystems.

marsbit12/18 01:12

Why Are Crypto Project Acquisitions Now Excluding Tokens?

marsbit12/18 01:12

Axelar Team Acquired, Token Abandoned: Circle's 'Take the Team, Not the Token' Move Sparks Heated Debate in Crypto Community

Circle, the stablecoin giant, has announced the acquisition of the core team and intellectual property of Interop Labs, the initial development team behind the cross-chain protocol Axelar Network. The move aims to advance Circle’s cross-chain infrastructure strategy and improve interoperability for its core products like Arc and CCTP. However, the acquisition explicitly excludes the Axelar Network itself, its foundation, and its native token AXL, which will continue to operate under community governance. Another contributing team, Common Prefix, will take over Interop Labs' former activities. Following the news, the price of AXL dropped sharply, falling 15% to around $0.115. The “acquire-the-team-but-not-the-token” approach has sparked intense debate within the crypto community. Critics, including VCs and industry figures, argue that the move unfairly disadvantages token holders, who supported the project early on but received nothing from the acquisition. Some have called it a “rug pull” and raised ethical and legal concerns, emphasizing the misalignment between team incentives and token holder interests. Supporters counter that this reflects standard market reality where tokens sit at the bottom of the capital structure—below debt and equity—and aren’t inherently entitled to proceeds in acquisitions. They see Circle’s decision as a rational business move that follows conventional corporate finance hierarchies. The incident highlights a recurring conflict in crypto: the ambiguous legal and economic status of tokens. While often treated as “quasi-equity” during bullish phases, tokens lack formal rights in events like acquisitions or liquidations. The Axelar situation underscores the need for clearer definitions and structures around token rights and incentives.

marsbit12/17 10:05

Axelar Team Acquired, Token Abandoned: Circle's 'Take the Team, Not the Token' Move Sparks Heated Debate in Crypto Community

marsbit12/17 10:05

Circle Acquires Axelar Team but Excludes Token, How Should Token Holders Respond to Value Stripping?

Circle, the stablecoin giant, has announced the acquisition of the core team and technology behind Axelar Network's initial team, Interop Labs, to advance its cross-chain infrastructure strategy. However, the acquisition explicitly excludes the Axelar Network project itself, its foundation, and the AXL token, which will continue to operate independently under community governance. This has led to a sharp 15% drop in AXL's price. The move has sparked significant controversy, highlighting the ongoing debate over "equity vs. token" interests in the crypto industry. Critics, including VCs and industry figures, argue that the acquisition effectively abandons token holders who supported the project, calling it a "rug pull" and morally questionable. They emphasize that while the team and intellectual property were monetized, token investors were left with depreciating assets. Supporters, however, view it as a standard market practice, noting that tokens sit at the bottom of the capital structure in traditional finance, behind debt and equity. They argue that Circle’s decision reflects rational business logic, where acquirers prioritize valuable assets like talent and IP without obligation to token holders. The core issue revolves around the ambiguous legal and economic nature of tokens—often treated as "quasi-equity" during bullish phases but stripped of rights in events like acquisitions. The incident underscores the need for clearer definitions and structures for tokens to protect investors and ensure fairness in future deals.

比推12/16 15:08

Circle Acquires Axelar Team but Excludes Token, How Should Token Holders Respond to Value Stripping?

比推12/16 15:08

Circle's Acquisition of Axelar Sparks Controversy: Giant Wants the Team, Not the Token

Circle, the stablecoin giant, has announced the acquisition of the core team and intellectual property of Interop Labs, the initial developer of the cross-chain protocol Axelar Network. However, the deal explicitly excludes the Axelar Network project itself, its foundation, and its native token AXL. These will continue to operate independently under community governance, with another contributing team, Common Prefix, taking over Interop Labs' former activities. This "acquire-the-team, not-the-token" structure has caused significant controversy and triggered a 15% drop in the price of AXL. The crypto community is divided into opposing camps. The opposition, including VCs and prominent figures, argues the move is a de facto "rug pull." They contend it is unethical for the team and equity holders to profit from the acquisition while token holders, who funded the project's early development, are left with an asset that may now be worthless. Critics state this highlights a fundamental conflict between equity and token-based financing. Supporters, including investment chiefs, defend the move as a normal market behavior. They explain that in traditional capital structures, tokens sit at the very bottom, below debt and equity. In acquisitions, it is standard for higher-priority stakeholders to be paid first, and tokens have no inherent claim to proceeds. They argue Circle acted within existing commercial frameworks by purchasing only the most valuable assets—the talent and IP. The core conflict exposed is the ambiguous legal and economic nature of tokens. They are often narratively treated as "quasi-equity" during good times but are structurally relegated to having no rights in events like acquisitions. This case underscores the urgent need for the industry to define and institutionalize the rights and position of tokens within capital structures.

Odaily星球日报12/16 03:27

Circle's Acquisition of Axelar Sparks Controversy: Giant Wants the Team, Not the Token

Odaily星球日报12/16 03:27

The Game Between Tokens and Equity: Revealing the Fundamental Conflict Behind Token Economics

The article "The Dark Side of Altcoins" by Crypto Dan explores the fundamental conflict between company equity and token holders in crypto projects. It argues that most projects are essentially companies with tokens, creating a structural conflict where equity (backed by VCs and boards) inevitably captures value at the expense of token holders. This leads to tokens trending toward zero despite project success. Hyperliquid is highlighted as an exception because it avoided VC equity financing, directing all economic value to the protocol instead of a corporate entity. The piece explains that tokens cannot legally function like stocks without being classified as securities, triggering regulatory issues. The ideal structure involves no company revenue capture, value accrual to token holders via mechanisms like buybacks, and DAO-controlled economic decisions. However, true alignment requires no corporate structure at all, akin to Bitcoin or Ethereum. The core issue is structural: tokens fail due to design flaws like VC funding, private sales, unlock schedules, or company revenue retention. Solutions require investors to stop funding flawed models and support projects like Hyperliquid that prioritize tokenholder alignment through thoughtful design.

比推12/11 19:00

The Game Between Tokens and Equity: Revealing the Fundamental Conflict Behind Token Economics