# Сопутствующие статьи по теме Tokenization

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

Deconstructing the Power, Interests, and Betrayal Behind the CLARITY Act: How Can Retail Investors Hedge Risks and Seize Opportunities?

The CLARITY Act, a pivotal U.S. crypto regulatory bill aimed at ending years of regulatory uncertainty, has become a battleground between traditional finance and the crypto industry. Initially supported by major firms like Coinbase, Ripple, and Kraken, the bill sought to clarify jurisdiction—with the CFTC overseeing decentralized assets like Bitcoin and the SEC handling asset-like tokens. However, a Senate revision in early 2026 introduced harsh条款, including de facto bans on tokenized stocks, restrictions on RWA (Real World Assets), and stringent DeFi regulations requiring bank-like registration. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong publicly withdrew support, citing the elimination of stablecoin yield rewards (a key revenue stream), stifling of tokenization innovation, and unworkable DeFi rules. The bill’s impact is mixed: it offers散户 investor protections like mandatory custody of exchange funds but may cost them 3-5% yield on stablecoins. Institutions gain clarity for entering the market, while project teams face strict分类—easing compliance for “digital goods” but burdening “securities.” Key industry figures are divided: some urge pushing the bill through to avoid missing the legislative window, while others, like Coinbase, fear worse outcomes if flawed terms are locked in. For散户, the advice is to rebalance toward “digital commodity” assets (e.g., BTC, ETH), explore DeFi for yield if CEX rewards vanish, and avoid RWA investments due to potential liquidity risks. The act represents crypto’s “coming of age” into mainstream finance, with clarity itself being critical infrastructure—yet the fight over its shape continues.

marsbit01/18 03:14

Deconstructing the Power, Interests, and Betrayal Behind the CLARITY Act: How Can Retail Investors Hedge Risks and Seize Opportunities?

marsbit01/18 03:14

A 'Clarity Act': Why Has It Caused Such an Uproar in the Crypto World?

A historical perspective reveals that money has rarely been neutral—it inherently carries an expectation of return. From ancient Mesopotamia to modern banking, the principle that holding or lending money should yield compensation has persisted. Against this backdrop, stablecoins emerged, promising faster settlement, lower costs, and 24/7 availability within a borderless digital economy. However, the proposed U.S. CLARITY Act, combined with the already-passed GENIUS Act, seeks to prohibit stablecoin issuers from paying interest or rewards to holders, permitting only limited “activity-based rewards.” This has sparked intense opposition from both the crypto industry and banking sectors. Critics argue that the bill effectively reduces stablecoins to mere payment conduits rather than capital-optimizing assets, contradicting the historical function of money. Key concerns include unfair competition, as traditional banks can offer interest and rewards while stablecoin issuers are restricted. The bill also introduces ambiguities around decentralized finance (DeFi) and tokenized assets, potentially stifling innovation and pushing capital overseas. Prominent industry figures, including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, have withdrawn support, stating they would prefer no legislation over a harmful one. The bill currently lacks sufficient congressional support, particularly from Democrats, and faces skepticism for reinforcing existing banking structures rather than fostering healthy competition. Ultimately, the debate highlights the challenge of regulating a form of money inherently designed for efficiency and competition, urging lawmakers to create rules that integrate rather than isolate digital assets.

比推01/17 00:08

A 'Clarity Act': Why Has It Caused Such an Uproar in the Crypto World?

比推01/17 00:08

When Big Money Seriously Enters the Market, How Does the Liquidity Bottleneck of RWA Manifest?

When large capital enters the market, the liquidity bottlenecks of Real-World Asset (RWA) tokenization become evident. Tokenized assets, such as gold (e.g., PAXG, XAUT) and stocks (e.g., TSLAx, NVDAx), suffer from significant slippage and shallow market depth compared to traditional markets like CME. For instance, a $4 million trade in tokenized gold can incur up to 150 basis points of slippage, while traditional markets show negligible impact even at $20 million. Decentralized exchanges (DEXs) exacerbate the issue, with trades sometimes facing premiums as high as 68% or persistent slippage of 25–50 basis points. Liquidity shortages also destabilize market structure, causing price volatility and cascading effects like cross-platform liquidations, as seen with PAXG on Binance triggering $9 million in liquidations on Hyperliquid. These problems stem from structural constraints: high minting/redemption fees, slow redemption cycles (T+1 to T+5), and capital inefficiencies for market makers. Without deep, reliable liquidity, tokenized assets struggle to scale, hindering their use as collateral or in DeFi. The solution requires a new market structure that integrates off-chain liquidity, eliminates redemption delays, and avoids fragmenting liquidity across platforms. Tokenization itself isn’t flawed, but the current market infrastructure fails to support it at scale.

比推01/16 15:07

When Big Money Seriously Enters the Market, How Does the Liquidity Bottleneck of RWA Manifest?

比推01/16 15:07

活动图片