Beijing establishes a clear regulatory structure on RWA

context: In 2013, Beijing declared that Bitcoin is not a currency and banned financial institutions from conducting Bitcoin-related business. In 2017, authorities shut down all Initial Coin Offering and closed domestic cryptocurrency exchanges. In 2021, all virtual currency-related business activities were classified as illegal financial activities, including services provided by overseas exchanges to PRC residents. From H2 2024 into early 2025, the global RWA (Real World Assets) tokenisation market experienced a wave of explosive growth. A number of new fundraising schemes emerged domestically under the banners of RWA, asset tokenisation and token economics. Market participants, without holding any financial licences, began issuing so-called RWA tokens to investors, using domestic commercial property rents, supply chain receivables and IP revenue rights as underlying assets, whilst promising high returns. In response, Beijing has banned stablecoin trading and explicitly established a regulatory principle for RWA: prohibited domestically, strictly regulated overseas.

The People's Bank of China released a notice on further preventing and disposing of risks related to virtual currency on 6 February 2026. CSRC (China Securities Regulatory Commission) also released regulatory guidelines for the offshore issuance of asset-backed security tokens backed by domestic assets, clarifying the securities nature of asset-backed security tokens. Equity RWA (Real World Assets) and asset securitisation RWA will be filed with the CSRC, establishing a clear regulatory path.

  • official definition and core regulatory tone
    • RWA refers to using encryption and distributed ledger tech to convert asset ownership or yield rights into tokens/bonds for issuance and trading
    • core tone: strict domestic ban, strict offshore regulation
      • distinguishes compliant RWA from illegal crypto
      • the tone is not 'encouraging development' but rather strict regulation based on 'look-through' supervision to see the financial essence
  • regulators categorise RWA into four types based on underlying assets and business essence, clarifying the corresponding competent authorities
    • foreign debt RWA
      • direct or indirect offshore 'foreign debt-style' RWA
      • regulated by the National Development and Reform Commission
    • equity RWA
      • offshore 'equity-style' RWA based on domestic rights (especially ownership)
      • filed and regulated by CSRC International Department
    • asset securitisation RWA
      • offshore 'securitisation-style' RWA based on domestic rights (especially yield rights)
      • unified regulation by CSRC Bond Department
    • foreign exchange and capital flow
      • other forms of RWA based on domestic rights (e.g., tokenised funds/securities)
      • account opening, cross-border payments and foreign exchange routing for all raised funds are strictly regulated by the State Administration of Foreign Exchange 
  • risk prevention and practical requirements
    • strict compliance process: requires strict approval/filing across cross-border investment, foreign exchange and data security
    • clear negative list: prohibits RWA involving major ownership disputes, national security risks, criminal records of controllers or assets banned domestically
    • preventing risk backflow: domestic entities cannot touch token trading to ensure risks do not spill over into the mainland
  • the role of the Hong Kong market
    • with strict limits on domestic assets going offshore, Hong Kong is the core RWA hub due to its compliance advantage and dual-track framework
    • Hong Kong law governs the RWA, making arbitration/litigation enforcement in the mainland easier than from western regions

Caixin evaluates market reactions and industry impacts across multiple dimensions

  • short-term capital stimulus and institutional rush
    • RWA concept stocks surged, while institutions like CICC Hong Kong, Ant and JD explored cooperation and restarted suspended offshore RWA projects
  • deterrent effect on 'inferior projects'
    • strict barriers closed the door on poor-quality domestic projects trying to evade regulations, preventing domestic funds from taking over bad offshore equity RWA
  • realistic financing costs and willingness
    • high-quality assets already have smooth, low-cost domestic REIT/ABS channels, whereas offshore RWA faces high compliance hurdles and double-digit funding costs, reducing refinancing appetite
  • Hong Kong RWA market shift
    • due to strict limits on domestic assets, the Hong Kong industry expects 2026 issuance to focus on 'offshore assets issued offshore'