Still alive, just in a different way of living.

Written by: Liu Honglin

Today in Hangzhou, I had coffee and exchanged ideas with the head of a leading NFT digital asset platform.

To be honest, before I went, I had a question in my mind: how many people are still seriously involved in the domestic NFT digital collectibles industry?

It's not surprising that I have this question.

In 2021 and 2022, digital collectibles were really hot in the country. At that time, various platforms, IPs, cultural tourism projects, and brands were getting involved. Many people were concerned about how much would be released, who would grab it, and whether it would appreciate. Users discussed prices in groups, project parties were busy with issues related to release, and platforms were also looking for new IPs and partners everywhere.

The hustle and bustle of the industry during those two years was visible to the naked eye.

By 2023, the winds have changed. Secondary trading, speculation, regulatory pressure, platform eliminations, and user rights protection all started to emerge together. Previously, everyone was talking about "how to grab it," but it gradually changed to "how to exit," "can we protect our rights," and "how long can this platform last."

In the following years, the voice of digital collectibles has been getting smaller. The once frequent project releases, platform funding, IP collaborations, and buying activities have slowly diminished. Many platforms no longer update, and many entrepreneurs have changed direction. Those remaining at the table are already few.

So, this exchange today is quite interesting for me. I originally thought that the industry had more or less dispersed. But listening to them talk about what they are still doing and the questions they are pondering made me realize that digital collectibles may not have completely disappeared; it’s just that that phase driven by grabbing, speculation, and emotions has ended.

The name of digital assets doesn't matter

Whether a project is called NFT, digital collectible, digital rights, membership certificate, or on-chain registration, it doesn't really matter. Now the RWA concept has become popular again, and some people are bringing this set of terminology back. But as names change back and forth, we still have to return to a fundamental question: why do users pay?

For example, if a cultural tourism project wants to create digital rights, I might first ask: is this right a ticket, or a type of future profit? How will users use it after purchase? Can it be transferred? When transferring, does the platform just register it, or does it also participate in matching and pricing? Does the user’s money go into the platform's account?

Once these questions are clarified, the boundaries and value of the business will naturally surface.

If what they are doing is essentially issuing tokens, facilitating trading, custodial services for user funds, profit promises, or constantly hinting that what has been bought will appreciate, this layer carries high risks in the domestic context. Dressing it up as digital collectibles, rights certificates, membership cards, or points doesn't change the nature of the issue.

However, if the business logic shifts to IP licensing management, brand marketing tools, or enterprise-level rights systems, where clients pay service fees and users receive identifiable, enforceable, and consumable rights, the matter returns to normal business logic.

If the platform sells appreciation expectations, earns transaction fees, and even continuously stimulates users to trade on an operational level, it is very close to a financialized product. Conversely, if the platform focuses on technical services, rights registration, IP management, redemption tools, and brand activity systems, with clients paying for services and users obtaining specific rights, then there is still room for serious discussion.

Returning to domestic digital collectibles, I believe that the concept and name used are not important. Whether it is called NFT, digital rights, or even RWA in the future, we must first see if it has become a financialized product.

The development of NFTs in mainland China over the past few years has actually been exploring two paths: one connected to IP, the other connected to consumer rights.

The IP line is relatively easy to understand. Cultural relics, art, original content, brand image, creator works inherently possess intangible asset value. Digital collectibles backed by clear authorizations, creator relationships, brand rights, and continuous operations have at least a real source of value.

The rights line is more challenging and tests product design further. Saying "rights" can mean very different things. For tangible rights like artwork, handicrafts, or collectibles, the biggest fear is that they’ll be turned into disguised shares or profit rights. If a painting is divided into many parts sold to users, and later on it’s indicated that profit will be shared after auctioning, this structure leans easily towards financialization. Whether the project party calls it co-creation of art or digital rights, as long as the primary reason for users buying in is to wait for future profit sharing, its nature changes.

Service rights and consumption rights are different. A scenic area can combine limited membership, exclusive routes, ticket rights, offline activities, and digital certificates. One brand can combine member benefits, coupon packages, qualifications for offline activities, and subsequent rights accumulated in user accounts. A creator can also combine works, fan rights, offline meet-and-greet events, and long-term membership relationships. If users can actually use what they buy, and platforms and businesses can truly fulfill their promises, then it is closer to consumer services rather than asset speculation.

A common misunderstanding in this is the transfer between users. Many people hear "transfer" and immediately think of secondary markets, speculation, and financial risks. This caution is correct, but we shouldn't lump all transfers together. After all, in reality, tickets can be transferred, membership rights might be conditionally transferable, and coupons can be transferred under certain rules. Digital rights merely put this matter into a system that is easier to record and track.

From a business compliance perspective, a more pertinent issue to focus on is: what exactly is being transferred, why transfer, and does the platform participate in pricing?

If the transfer involves clear consumption rights, service qualifications, or IP licensing items, legal analysis can revolve around contract rights, consumer rights, intellectual property licensing, and platform responsibilities. If the transfer involves future appreciation expectations, and the platform continuously stimulates trading with leaderboards, narratives of scarcity, and screenshots of price increases, then that is another matter entirely.

This is also why I am more optimistic about the cultural tourism and advertising marketing directions.

Cultural tourism has been competing for user attention in recent years. A city, a scenic area, or a museum simply relying on traditional tickets and one-off promotions makes it hard to establish a lasting user relationship. If digital rights can encompass membership services, activity qualifications, exclusive routes, commemorative rights, and second consumption coupons, at least it can create an extra layer of connection between users and projects.

Advertising and brand marketing are similar. In the past, advertising companies helped clients with communication, creativity, and conversion, and many projects ended once completed. If designed well, digital rights can turn into a tool for ongoing operations. Users can receive not only posters or discount codes but also a certificate of rights that allows for registration, usage, and participation in subsequent activities.

This path lacks the inflationary story stimulation from the previous two years. The profits may come from consulting fees, planning fees, technical service fees, interface fees, and operational fees, not from skyrocketing asset prices. But often, businesses that can sustain themselves in the long term do not rely on stimulation.

Survival still relies on real business

What platforms rely on to generate profit will determine the direction of their business.

If a platform mainly makes money from secondary trading fees, or from the rising prices of its own assets, it will find it hard to completely suppress speculative impulses. Rising prices and increased trading mean income goes up; this model inherently pushes the platform towards financialization.

If the platform primarily earns technical service fees from asset minting, registration, management, interface calls, and on-chain transfers, the logic changes. It doesn’t need a certain asset to grow from a few dollars to tens of thousands, nor does it require continuous stimulation for user transactions. It is more concerned about the abundance of real scenarios, the frequency of user usage, and whether businesses are willing to continue using this set of tools.

Therefore, from an industry compliance perspective, we cannot just look at project names to make judgments; we also need to consider the revenue model. Earning money from services is entirely different from earning it from asset prices.

As I have shared with many business partners before, the risks posed by commercial partners are something that practitioners particularly need to pay attention to.

The reason is that digital collectibles and rights-based assets need to land in cultural tourism, brands, advertising, and local projects, where the platform itself is often not the only main character. There will be advertising companies, marketing firms, cultural tourism operators, IP licensing parties, local platforms, and technical service providers involved. The platform might only provide underlying capabilities, while the partners responsible for designing rights, connecting clients, writing promotional copy, and deciding how to sell are the collaborators.

If partners understand the business and boundaries, this matter can be handled more stably. If partners still retain the mindset from previous years and immediately want to open trading markets, pull communities, and promote appreciation, the underlying platform will also be dragged down. Many risks do not lurk in the technical interface itself; they hide in operational plans and promotional narratives.

That is why these types of projects cannot just hand over a business plan; it is better to accompany it with legal opinions and risk control explanations. The documents do not need to be thick or complex but should at least clarify a few basic questions in advance: what are the rights, who will fulfill them, can users transfer them, can promotions claim profits, how involved is the platform, will user funds be settled on the platform, and who is responsible in case of disputes.

Moreover, if NFT and digital collectibles businesses are to develop in a standardized way in the future, registration, real-name verification, transfer records, tax handling, and platform responsibilities will become increasingly important. Ultimately, it must enter normal commercial order.

After today's discussion, my understanding of this industry has become simpler.

NFT digital collectibles are certainly not as hot as they were in 2021 and 2022, and it's hard to return to that state of constant releases and frantic buying. That phase has passed and may not be worth reminiscing about.

But if you ask me if it is still alive, my answer is: still alive, just in a different way of living.