On July 28, RWA leader Ondo abandoned public chains in favor of private trading networks, ten European banks jointly launched the RL1 cooperative chain, and CME sued CFTC to block on-chain perpetual contracts—these three pieces of news exploding simultaneously are not a coincidence, but a watershed moment for institutional infrastructure aiming for systematic “de-public chaining.” This article outlines the three trends behind these triple signals and gives four core judgments from the EXIO Research Institute.

First Signal — Ondo: RWA Leader Turns Away

Ondo Finance is not simply canceling a chain; it has publicly thrown out a complete logic.

In February 2025, the company announced the launch of Ondo Chain—a blockchain “designed specifically for institutional finance and tokenized real-world assets.” The vision is clear: a Layer-1 compatible with public chains and tailored for Wall Street. Eighteen months later, after completing the perpetual contract platform Ondo Perps, CEO Ian de Bode reached a public conclusion:

“Traditional blockchains are not the best tools for the speed and privacy required by institutional trading.”[1]

The alternative—Ondo Network—has a highly enlightening architecture. It completely separates trade execution from settlement: order matching and execution are completed within a private high-speed network, while final asset transfers are settled on a public chain. The private layer addresses the real concerns of traders (speed, confidentiality, and prevention of front-running), while the public chain retains the immutable settlement records necessary for auditing.

This is not “Crypto 2.0.” This is a structure that traditional exchanges have used for decades—central limit order books + blockchain settlement certificates. Ondo is simply publicizing a consensus that many in the tokenization field have privately reached: public chains are excellent settlement layers, but they are not, and may never become, competitive execution venues for institutional trading.

The numbers supporting this shift are equally critical. Ondo is not just a startup with a white paper—it manages $2.6 billion in tokenized US Treasury products (OUSG, USDY) and approximately $850 million in tokenized stocks (data source rwa.xyz). Its broker-dealer just received FINRA approval to engage in regulated market business for tokenized securities. When the largest tokenized RWA issuer in the non-bank system publicly states that “public chains are not the answer for execution layers,” the market must listen carefully.[1]

Second Signal — RL1: European Banks Are Building Their Own Railways

If Ondo represents a strategic turn for a single institution, then RL1 represents a collective bet by the entire European banking industry in the same direction.

RL1 (Regulated Layer One) officially launched on July 28, and is a European cooperative headquartered in Luxembourg. Ten founding members — ABNAMRO, Cecabank, Chartered Investment, Crédit Mutuel Alliance Fédérale, DekaBank, DZBANK, LBBW, Natixis CIB, SC Ventures and Seturion—have equal governance rights within the permissioned DLT network. This network aims to replace the current fragmented blockchain experiments in the European banking industry, establishing a single, bank-controlled network for tokenized assets, digital currencies, and settlements.[2]

The network infrastructure was initially built by the German fintech company SWIAT, and has completed over 50 transactions in production environments in the past three years, totaling over €700 million (approximately $808 million). More institutions, including NatWest, KfW, and L-Bank, are actively negotiating to join.[2]

RL1's significance goes far beyond another blockchain alliance. It clearly rejects the assumption of “public chains as generic infrastructure.” The founding document states clearly: RL1 exists to “overcome the current fragmentation of blockchain networks within the regulated financial domain and to create a neutral, member-owned pan-European DLT utility.”[2]

Key phrase: member-owned. Not permissionless. Not open access. Not decentralized governance by token holders. This is a cooperative—using the same legal structure as European banks when sharing ATM networks and payment clearing systems. Blockchain technology, bank-level governance.

RL1 also explicitly links itself with the European Central Bank's DLT initiatives—including Appia (wholesale CBDC settlement) and Pontes (DLT interoperability)—indicating that the infrastructure being built is positioned within the regulated track, not as a DeFi alternative.[2]

Third Signal — CME vs. CFTC: The Establishment Draws a Line

The third shot comes from Chicago, not Europe.

The world's largest derivatives exchange operator, CME Group, is engaged in an unusual legal battle with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). CME sued the CFTC in June 2026, challenging the agency's decision to allow Kalshi and Coinbase to launch crypto perpetual contracts.[4]

On the surface, this is a regulatory classification dispute: are perpetual contracts futures or swaps? But the essence reveals a structural dynamic similar to Ondo and RL1. CME does not believe perpetual contracts are bad products—it believes these products should not operate on infrastructure that CME cannot control.

CME Chairman Terry Duffy clearly stated in a second-quarter earnings call: the exchange “has the complete technical and operational capability to launch perpetual contracts,” but “has not heard of customer demand for these products.” He described competitors' perpetual markets as “a system where I don’t have to pay.”[4]

The underlying implication is clear: CME wants perpetual contracts, but only within CME’s track, under CME’s rules, using CME’s margin framework—not on Hyperliquid, not on public chains, and not even on CFTC-regulated Coinbase. This lawsuit is a strategic positioning of defensive infrastructure, not a philosophical opposition to product design.

Meanwhile, DRW CEO Don Wilson—one of Wall Street's most respected trading veterans—posted a comment pointing out that regulators fundamentally misjudge the product's attributes. “Just because perpetual contracts have no expiration date, there is no reason to treat them as swaps,” Wilson wrote. “Economically, they are futures.” He called for: allowing perpetual contracts to trade in regulated venues, covering all asset classes—commodities, securities, and crypto—but must be paired with appropriate risk management frameworks.[5]

The disagreement between Wilson within Wall Street and CME speaks volumes. Both sides want regulated perpetual contracts. One side wants them to operate on existing exchange infrastructure (CME), while the other wants them to operate where the technology fits best (Wilson). No one is advocating for permissionless, native DeFi-style perpetuals. The debate is not “public vs. private”—but rather “which private infrastructure wins.”

Common Clue: Three Trends are Converging

Ondo, RL1, and CME together reveal three converging trends leading to a singular structural change:

Trend One: Execution layers are decoupling from settlement layers. The three cases share the same architectural principle: public chains are responsible only for final settlement (immutable records, audit trails), while execution shifts to private high-speed infrastructure. The execution/settlement separation design of Ondo, the permissioned network of RL1, and CME's existing market structure are essentially the same. This model is not new—it has been the operational mode of all major stock exchanges for decades—but applying it to blockchain-based assets constitutes a rejection of the minimalist approach of “everything on-chain.”

Trend Two: Governance overrides permissionless. RL1 is a cooperative. Ondo Network is operated by a centralized entity. CME is a publicly listed company with regulatory charters. None of the parties proposes DAOs, governance tokens, or community voting. When institutional funds decide to use blockchain, they bring their own governance models—more like a SWIFT board rather than Uniswap.

Trend Three: The role of public chains is shrinking to that of settlement utilities. If execution moves to private infrastructure, and governance remains in the hands of regulated entities, what remains for public chains? Finality of settlement. Public chains turn into notarization services—valuable, but commoditized. For those L1 tokens that rely on the narrative of “global settlement layer,” this is a nightmare scenario: if only the settlement function remains, fee capture will shrink significantly.

Historical Context: Quietly Advancing Infrastructure

What happened on July 28 is not surprising to anyone closely following institutional tokenization. This trend has been brewing for at least 18 months. Global market infrastructure operators and central banks have been developing DLT settlement platforms explicitly designed to be regulated and permissioned networks—not public chain bridging solutions. The European Central Bank's Pontes (DLT interoperability) and Appia (wholesale CBDC settlement) initiatives, multiple SWIFT-led cross-border DLT experiments, and DTCC's production-grade tokenization platform share the same architectural principle: blockchain technology deployments within existing regulatory boundaries, rather than on public networks.[2]

The announcement on July 28 merely made this quietly advancing infrastructure visible all at once.

What Does This Mean for the Tokenization Market?

The “post-public chain era” does not mean that public chains become irrelevant. It means that the role of public chains in institutional finance becomes narrower and more specific:

For RWA issuers: Ondo's turn sets a precedent. If the largest independent tokenized US Treasury issuer believes public chains are insufficient to support trading infrastructure, smaller issuers will follow suit. Tokenized assets may still be “issued” onto public chains, but their trading venues, supporting collateral systems, and constrained margin frameworks will increasingly operate on private infrastructure.

For exchanges and trading platforms: CME's lawsuit indicates that existing infrastructure will vigorously ensure that any new products operate in regulated venues with established risk frameworks on legal, political, and business levels. The CFTC may be opening the door to on-chain perpetuals, but the CME lawsuit reminds the market: opening the door and truly stepping inside are two different matters.

For public L1/L2 networks: the shrinking role debate is a challenge. If institutional finance only requires public chains to provide settlement finality, the addressable market is smaller, and fee capture is lower, the valuation premium of the “global settlement layer” needs recalibration. Ethereum, Solana, and other networks may find themselves competing for a “settlement only” role rather than the full-stack financial infrastructure role assumed by many investors when pricing.

For the competitive landscape in Asia: RL1 model—bank-owned cooperative DLT networks—can be replicated in other jurisdictions. An open question facing the market is whether jurisdictions will build RL1 equivalents independently or connect to existing networks. Hong Kong’s Monetary Authority’s Ensemble project and its stablecoin sandbox are early indicators of direction in Hong Kong, but the race is accelerating.

Based on the evidence converged on July 28, the EXIO Research Institute believes that four core judgments are emerging:

1. The narrative that “institutions will come to public chains” has been substantively challenged. For at least the past five years, the dominant narrative in the crypto space has been that institutional adoption would occur through Ethereum, Solana, and other public L1s. Ondo's turn—as a native RWA leader in crypto—is the clearest negation to date. RL1 confirms this at the multi-bank level. CME's lawsuit reaffirms this at the exchange infrastructure level. Institutions are adopting blockchain technology. They just are not adopting the public chains that crypto investors have bet on.

2. The value chain is splitting into three layers. July 28 revealed a clear three-layer architecture for institutional blockchain: (a) execution layer—private, high-speed, institutional-grade (Ondo Network, RL1, CME); (b) settlement layer—public chains or regulated DLT providing finality (Ethereum, Solana, RL1 ledgers); (c) governance layer—cooperatives, bank-owned or exchange-operated (RL1 SCE, Ondo corporate entities, CME listed entities). The layers are decoupling, and the economic logic of each layer is diversifying.

3. Asia has a tactical window—but the window is closing quickly. The CLARITY Act in the US has been shelved, and European banks have begun to build infrastructure (RL1), leaving Asia with strategic choices: join existing networks, build regional equivalents, or attempt to bridge public and private infrastructures. The regulated exchange ecosystem in Hong Kong and the Monetary Authority's tokenization initiatives provide a first-mover advantage, but the RL1 model—bank-owned and cross-jurisdictional cooperatives—is a template that ASEAN and Gulf nations can replicate in 12-18 months.

4. The regulatory vacuum itself is an infrastructure opportunity. The failure of the CLARITY Act means that the US lacks a federal framework for tokenized securities and exchange registration. But a regulatory vacuum does not equal an infrastructure vacuum—just as Ondo, RL1, and CME demonstrate, private and alliance-driven infrastructures are being built regardless. For jurisdictions with clear regulatory rules (Hong Kong, Singapore, MiCA/DLT pilot mechanisms under the EU), this creates a dual-speed market: one track has legally certain regulated venues, and the other is private alliance networks.

Risk Factors and Outlook

The theme of the “post-public chain era” faces several hedging risks:

Risk 1: Public chain technology catches up. If the Ethereum L2 ecosystem or Solana's Firedancer upgrade can deliver institutional-level throughput and privacy (through ZK proofs) with competitive latency, the private network's execution layer advantage may narrow. The question is time: Ondo and RL1 are being built, while public chain upgrades are still in a 12-24 month roadmap.

Risk 2: Fragmented private networks create new interoperability issues. RL1 aims to solve fragmentation—but if each jurisdiction builds an RL1 equivalent (one for Europe, one for ASEAN, one for the Gulf), transferring assets across networks may require new bridging infrastructure, thus recreating the issues RL1 aimed to solve.

Risk 3: The regulatory pendulum swings back toward public chains. The current stance of the CFTC is favorable to on-chain perpetuals (Kalshi and Coinbase have been approved). If the CME lawsuit fails and the CFTC successfully establishes a regulated on-chain derivatives framework, the “only private infrastructure” argument will weaken. A CFTC victory will mean that regulated public chain products are viable, potentially reversing the Ondo/RL1 trend.

Risk 4: Liquidity of tokenized assets remains concentrated on public chains. Even if execution migrates to private networks, most tokenized asset liquidity—and thus price discovery—may still reside on public chain DeFi protocols (Uniswap, Curve, Morpho). If private execution venues cannot match the liquidity depth of public chains, the argument for “execution decoupling” may stall.

Conclusion

The events of July 28, 2026, will be remembered as the day institutional finance stopped pretending that it would migrate to public chains and began building its own railways.

This is not a bearish signal for tokenization. On the contrary, Ondo, RL1, and CME's progress validates the inevitability of blockchain-based financial infrastructure—the question is just who will build it, who will own it, and who will capture the economic value.

For the crypto industry, the message is uncomfortable but clear: institutions are moving on-chain, but they are bringing their own railways.

Note: The terms “signals,” “indicators,” and “trends” in this article are all market observation language used to describe observable industry development dynamics, and do not constitute any form of trading or investment signals.

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。