Written by: Wu Says Blockchain
The issuance of RWA (Real World Asset Tokenization) for assets within China to overseas markets will no longer be in a gray area. On February 6, 2026, the People's Bank of China, in conjunction with eight departments including the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security, the State Administration for Market Regulation, the Financial Regulatory Bureau, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, and the State Administration of Foreign Exchange, released the "Notice on Further Preventing and Handling Risks Related to Virtual Currencies" (hereinafter referred to as the "Notice"). At the same time, the China Securities Regulatory Commission issued Announcement No. 1 of 2026, "Regulatory Guidelines for the Issuance of Asset-Backed Securities Tokens for Domestic Assets Overseas" (hereinafter referred to as the "Guidelines").
Caixin pointed out that compared to the regulatory guidance issued at the end of August 2025, which prohibited relevant domestic enterprises from conducting RWA overseas, this time the regulatory authorities have defined RWA directly and provided a clear regulatory framework.
Liu Yang (Zhongben Law) noted that the "Notice" clearly states, "This notice shall take effect from the date of publication," and simultaneously repeals the "924 Notice" (Yin Fa [2021] No. 237). He believes this is the first time in the history of virtual asset regulation that the system has been reconstructed in a "discard the old and establish the new" manner.
Spinach Spinach discussed RWA, indicating that this is not simply a "re-ban on crypto," but a systematic restructuring of rules. The regulatory authorities officially recognize RWA as a business form and begin to delineate its operational boundaries.
RWA is Formally Defined for the First Time, Establishing "Compliance Exceptions" for Domestic Businesses
The "Notice" formally defines Real World Asset Tokenization for the first time: RWA refers to activities that use cryptographic technology and distributed ledger or similar technologies to convert ownership, income rights, and other rights into tokens (certificates) or other rights and bond certificates with token characteristics, and to issue and trade them.
It also clarifies that conducting RWA and related intermediary and information technology services domestically is generally considered illegal financial activity, except for "related business activities conducted with the approval of the competent business authority in accordance with laws and regulations, relying on specific financial infrastructure."
Shijiu Jun pointed out that when considering Document No. 42 in conjunction with the "Guidelines," regulators are beginning to distinguish RWA from the traditional virtual currency framework and have provided a compliance path of "with the approval of the competent authority + relying on specific financial infrastructure" for the first time. This means that RWA is officially recognized as a business form that can be regulated, rather than automatically subject to a one-size-fits-all logic applicable to virtual currencies.
Will Awang (Web3 Lawyer) pointed out that Document No. 42 clearly distinguishes between virtual currencies, stablecoins, and RWA for the first time, forming a layered regulatory framework of "one-size-fits-all + dynamic assessment + licensing." The Chinese virtual asset regulatory system has begun to take shape.
Four Types of Regulatory Structures for Domestic Entities Conducting RWA Overseas
According to Caixin's analysis of Article 14 of the "Notice," domestic entities conducting RWA overseas are divided into four scenarios:
1) Real world asset tokenization in the form of foreign debt 2) Equity-type RWA based on domestic rights (especially asset ownership) 3) Asset securitization-like RWA based on domestic rights (especially asset income rights) 4) Other forms of RWA based on domestic rights
The first three categories correspond to traditional cross-border financing scenarios of corporate foreign debt, stock issuance, and asset securitization, while the remaining scenarios fall into the fourth category.
Will Awang summarized this design as a "mapping regulatory approach of same business, same risk, same rules," meaning that RWA is not a new system but is directly incorporated into the existing cross-border financial regulatory framework based on business attributes.
Clear Division of Responsibilities Among the NDRC, CSRC, and SAFE; Stablecoins May Incur Foreign Exchange Qualitative Risks
According to the "Notice," foreign debt-type RWA is regulated by the NDRC; equity-type and asset securitization-type RWA are regulated by the CSRC; the portion of funds raised overseas that is remitted back to China is regulated by the SAFE; and other forms of RWA are regulated by the CSRC in conjunction with relevant departments according to their responsibilities.
The "Notice" also states that "stablecoins pegged to fiat currencies have, in circulation, indirectly fulfilled some functions of fiat currencies."
Liu Yang (Zhongben Law) cautioned that this statement may be further extended in judicial practice to determine that the exchange of fiat currency and stablecoins constitutes "indirect foreign exchange trading," thereby increasing OTC and cross-border exchange risks. He believes the key lies in whether subsequent enforcement deviates, strays, or intensifies.
Will Awang pointed out that the "Notice" repeatedly uses the phrase "without the lawful approval of the relevant departments," which essentially reflects the "dynamic assessment" regulatory principle, reserving observation space for subsequent compliant business operations.
Asset Securitization to Be Implemented First, CSRC Clarifies Filing Path
The CSRC simultaneously released the "Guidelines" targeting the third scenario, namely the issuance of asset-backed securities tokens for domestic assets overseas.
It is defined as: using cash flows generated from domestic assets or related asset rights as payment support, utilizing cryptographic technology and distributed ledger or similar technologies to issue tokenized rights certificates overseas.
The core process outlined by Caixin is: domestic entities file with the CSRC, submitting a filing report and a complete set of issuance materials for overseas; the CSRC carries out the filing procedure and makes it public; and reports are required when overseas issuance is completed or significant events occur.
The "Guidelines" also set a negative list, including scenarios related to national security, criminal records, and ownership disputes.
Shijiu Jun pointed out that the "Guidelines" clearly establish "filing + overseas issuance materials + token plan explanation" as the standard process, allowing RWA to move from a principle level to an operational level.
Senior crypto lawyer Jin Jianzhi stated that after the CSRC clarified the filing and material submission requirements, the participation threshold and compliance costs have significantly increased, making it more likely to be driven by large financial or industrial entities rather than ordinary Web3 startup teams.
Overseas RWA Services Incorporated into Unified Risk Control System of Financial Institutions
Article 15 of the "Notice" clearly states that domestic financial institutions' overseas subsidiaries and branches providing RWA services must implement KYC, suitability management, and anti-money laundering measures, and be incorporated into the unified risk control system of domestic institutions.
Liu Yang pointed out that the document leaves compliance space for domestic entities conducting RWA overseas, primarily targeting the financial institution system, "this opening is reserved for financial institutions."
Secondary Market Still Unclear: Hong Kong Seen as a Potential Option
Caixin noted that the two documents do not specify which overseas exchanges RWA can enter the secondary market.
A senior figure in the Hong Kong cryptocurrency industry stated that since the process requires the CSRC and NDRC, the issuance must occur on compliant licensed exchanges; compared to platforms like Coinbase and Gemini in the U.S., licensed exchanges in Hong Kong align more with China's strategic considerations. Currently, Hong Kong has approved 11 exchanges, with only HashKey and OSL actively operating.
Lawyer's Reminder: RWA Closer to Securities Tokenization, Fundraising and Promotion Risks in Mainland Increase
Lawyer Liu Honglin pointed out that the regulatory context is essentially closer to "securities tokenization." The document places RWA at the forefront, fundamentally locking in the paths for mainland assets, funds, and audiences to raise funds under the guise of NFTs, digital collectibles, or RWA from a financial risk prevention perspective. He explicitly advises caution in conducting RWA consulting, issuance, promotion, or sales in the mainland and warns that the legal risks associated with OTC, cross-border funds, and KOL traffic significantly increase.
On-Chain Implementation Still Faces Practical Constraints: Token Standard Fragmentation and Wallet Compatibility Issues
Shijiu Jun further pointed out that even as the regulatory path becomes clearer, the actual on-chain implementation of RWA still faces significant technical and ecological constraints. The global RWA market is still in a phase of token standard fragmentation.
He cited Aave aToken and Lido stETH as examples, indicating that what is truly accepted by the market is not "defining a perfect standard first," but rather embedding the income mechanism directly into the on-chain interaction process, allowing assets to automatically complete interest calculation or share adjustment during transfers, pledges, and other operations.
In contrast, some bond-type token standards (such as ERC-3525, ERC-3475) have limited actual adoption due to their complex design and high wallet and application adaptation costs.
In the stock-type RWA scenario, the current mainstream approach uses a "on-chain share + Multiplier scaling" rebase mechanism, but due to varying wallet compatibility, asset display on the user end may still show discrepancies.
Shijiu Jun believes this reflects that the core challenge of RWA is not just regulatory approval, but whether stable income expression, asset combinability, and user experience can be achieved within the existing on-chain infrastructure.
Conclusion
In summary, multiple interpretations suggest that this round of Document No. 42 and the accompanying "Guidelines" do not represent a loosening of regulations for the crypto industry, but rather a clear structural redefinition: virtual currencies continue to be excluded from the financial system, stablecoins enter dynamic assessment, while RWA is formally incorporated into the traditional securities and cross-border financing regulatory framework.
This is not China embracing crypto, but rather accepting "tokenization" within its own financial institutional logic.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
