On January 26, 2026, the news that China Pacific Insurance Asset Management Hong Kong and Hivemind Capital jointly established a $500 million RWA tokenization fund coincided with the market capitalization of tokenized gold and silver both reaching new highs, outlining a clear main line: offline giants are intersecting with on-chain assets in the same arena. At the same time, the market capitalization of tokenized gold climbed to $5.275 billion, and silver reached $440 million, with on-chain trading volume and derivatives activity rising in tandem, while OCBC Bank directly raised its gold target price to $5,600/ounce, forming a stark contrast with the recent weakening of Bitcoin prices. A new conflict has emerged: on one side, traditional asset management relying on regulatory-friendly regions like Hong Kong is entering the market, while on the other, crypto-native RWA protocols are accelerating their expansion; on one side, gold on-chain is solidifying its position as a "real-world safe haven anchor," while on the other, the Bitcoin "digital gold" narrative is being repeatedly questioned by the market amid high volatility.
$500 Million New Fund: Traditional Giants Compete for On-Chain Assets
● Institutional Entry Path: The $500 million RWA tokenization fund led by China Pacific Insurance Asset Management Hong Kong and Hivemind Capital was disclosed in a single public report on January 26, East 8 Time, marking the formal entry of large insurance asset management into the RWA track through Hong Kong, a financial center with relatively clear regulatory frameworks. Although specific investment targets and custody arrangements have not yet been publicly announced, the scale and participants themselves have already sent a strong signal to the market that "traditional long-term funds are no longer on the sidelines."
● Hong Kong as a Springboard: In a global environment of high debt and low growth, long-term funds such as insurance and pensions face the reality of nominal yields being eroded by inflation, necessitating the search for asset pools that offer both returns and controllable risks within compliance boundaries. Choosing a jurisdiction like Hong Kong, which is regulatory-friendly and maintains an open attitude towards tokenization experiments, allows for the utilization of local licenses and custody systems while also providing the opportunity to secure a voice in RWA infrastructure during a policy dividend period.
● Product Design Comparison: RWA products issued by traditional asset management typically emphasize KYC, compliant custody, and qualified investor thresholds, aligning more closely with existing fund regulatory frameworks in terms of information disclosure and risk assessment; crypto-native RWA protocols, on the other hand, lean towards a globally accessible liquidity pool that emphasizes strong composability, rapid iteration, and seamless integration with other DeFi Lego components. This difference in compliance and openness determines that the two may form layered services but will inevitably compete directly for high-net-worth and institutional clients.
● Linkage of Gold Bull Narrative: During the same period, OCBC Bank raised its gold target price to $5,600/ounce, emphasizing that the value of gold allocation continues to strengthen against the backdrop of rising government debt and geopolitical tensions. If similar RWA funds allocate part of their positions to tokenized precious metals or related underlying assets, it will create a narrative synergy with the bullish views of bank-affiliated entities on gold; conversely, if the fund prefers assets like government bonds and credit, it may compete with the traditional financial logic of simply being bullish on gold.
On-Chain Gold Surpasses $10 Billion: The Path of Safe-Haven Buying Migration
● Meaning of Market Capitalization Expansion: The current total market capitalization of tokenized gold is approximately $5.275 billion, and silver is about $440 million, which represents a significant increase from the early experimental phase that only had single-digit or billion-dollar volumes. This growth is not arbitrary; it reflects a planned migration of some risk-averse funds that were previously confined to offline ETFs, gold bars, and over-the-counter structured products towards on-chain programmable vehicles, seeking higher liquidity and composability premiums while pursuing asset safety.
● Rising Derivatives Activity: On the Hyperliquid platform, precious metal-linked PAXG and GOLD contracts have recently entered the top ten in trading volume, indicating that risk-averse funds are not only staying at the "buying spot tokens" level but are further amplifying their exposure through perpetual contracts and leverage. The activity of on-chain precious metal derivatives means that gold and silver are being incorporated into the same high-frequency trading and hedging system, sharing the same liquidity pool as mainstream crypto assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum.
● Signals from Whale Cases: According to a single source, a whale purchased 7,536 XAUT on-chain, recording approximately $2.3 million in unrealized gains as the market rose, with the entire process resembling a typical institutional trade: large position building, concentrated price range layout, and short-term visible profits being transparently recorded on-chain. Such capital behavior indicates that participants in the gold token market are no longer limited to early retail investors or crypto-native players but have attracted professional funds familiar with commodity and forex trading strategies.
● How Macro Sentiment Goes On-Chain: When OCBC Bank raised its medium to long-term gold target price to $5,600/ounce, this macro assessment did not remain solely in research reports but was materialized through the expansion of tokenized gold market capitalization, increased volumes of PAXG/GOLD contracts, and whale accumulation of XAUT, among other on-chain data. Risk-averse sentiment in the real world is ignited by inflation expectations, geopolitical conflicts, and debt pressures, subsequently transmitted through bank research and asset allocation decisions, ultimately evolving on-chain into deeper trading and more intensive price discovery.
Digital Gold Dims: Bitcoin Narrative Under Pressure
● Shift in Institutional Discourse: NYDIG stated in its latest research report that "Bitcoin's recent lackluster performance puts pressure on the digital gold narrative," directly hitting the core story that has been repeatedly reinforced over the past few years—that Bitcoin is the "digital gold" that hedges against currency depreciation and systemic risk. When prices fail to match expectations under macro positives and risk-averse sentiment, institutions begin to reassess the effectiveness and sustainability of this narrative.
● The Reality of Unrealized Losses: The paper losses of holding institutions are amplifying this skepticism. For example, MetaPlanet was forced to recognize approximately $679 million in assessment losses due to Bitcoin volatility, which is no longer just a numerical game of unrealized gains and losses on-chain but is directly reflected in the financial reports of publicly listed companies. For management responsible for explaining risk management to shareholders and regulators, the volatility of Bitcoin brings not merely opportunities but explicit capital market penalties.
● Re-comparison of Gold and Bitcoin: On one side, mainstream banks like OCBC are raising gold target prices, reaffirming its safe-haven attributes in a high-debt and geopolitically tense environment; on the other side, Bitcoin is performing weakly in the same macro context, dragging down the stock prices of related holding institutions, ETFs, and publicly listed companies. When investors re-compare the two, they are no longer solely focused on long-term scarcity narratives but are more concerned with short- to medium-term drawdown depths, regulatory visibility, and whether it will trigger additional audit and capital requirements.
● Relative Advantage of Scarcity Narrative: As gold gains new liquidity and programmable attributes on-chain, the traditional combination of "physical scarcity + on-chain efficiency" begins to exert positive pressure on Bitcoin's original "digital scarcity." Bitcoin's relative advantages once lay in not needing to custody physical assets, being globally transferable, and having a limited total supply; however, now, tokenized gold has also achieved global transferability and on-chain composability under the premise of visible custody and regulation. The question becomes: under the same on-chain form, which type of scarcity is more easily accepted by institutional balance sheets and regulatory rules?
Ethereum Faces Staking Queue: Divergence of RWA and On-Chain Rates
● Staking Queue and Risk-Free Returns: As of now, the staking activation queue for Ethereum has reached 3.12 million ETH, equivalent to approximately $9.01 billion at market price, with staking activation delays extended to 54 days. This means that even with a wait of nearly two months, there is still a large amount of capital willing to lock in future on-chain "risk-free returns," viewing staking yields as a sort of on-chain benchmark interest rate.
● Trade-offs in Configuration Choices: In a macro environment filled with uncertainty, investors are making a new set of asset allocation choices on-chain: on one end is the relatively predictable "on-chain bond-like rates"—i.e., ETH staking yields; on the other end are RWA tokens linked to real-world assets, including gold, government bonds, and credit. The former leans more towards risk pricing driven by technology and consensus, while the latter brings the interest rate curves and credit systems of the traditional financial world on-chain, together reshaping the yield spectrum of the crypto market.
● The Other Side of Leveraged Longs: The Bhutan Sovereign Fund previously faced about 10% unrealized losses from leveraging long positions in ETH, becoming a vivid example of the volatility risks under high-yield strategies. In contrast, staking ETH and holding RWA tokenized gold or government bonds seem more stable, but they are not entirely risk-free. The switching of funds among these three types of positions essentially involves weight adjustments among different risk factors (price volatility, smart contracts, off-chain credit).
● Differentiation of Risk Preferences: When RWA products offer predictable returns and compliance-friendly structures, and gain partial endorsement from institutions and regulators, they are likely to attract some funds that originally sought returns through ETH staking leverage and high-yield DeFi strategies. The final result may be a clear layering of risk preferences: at the bottom are RWA assets that are heavily regulated and offer more stable returns, in the middle are staking and light leverage strategies for mainstream assets like ETH, and at the top are active trading and crypto-native speculation aimed at high volatility and complex derivatives.
Compliance Moat and On-Chain Natives: The Dual-Track Race of RWA
● Compliance Advantages of Traditional Asset Management: From a regulatory perspective, the RWA fund led by China Pacific Insurance Asset Management Hong Kong inherently possesses institutional advantages in KYC, custody, and information disclosure, allowing it to provide tokenized exposure that is more easily accepted by compliance teams for institutions and high-net-worth clients within the existing financial regulatory framework. It is important to emphasize that the current public information has not disclosed the specific investment targets and custody structure details of the fund, and the market can only infer its potential positioning from the scale and participants, without being able to conduct a detailed assessment of the underlying assets.
● Openness of On-Chain Native Protocols: In contrast, crypto-native RWA protocols have clear advantages in global accessibility, innovation speed, and on-chain composability. Any wallet holding crypto assets could become a potential participant, and protocols can launch new structures and yield strategies within weeks, seamlessly integrating with other modules like lending and derivatives. However, they also face regulatory uncertainties and trust gaps in verifying off-chain assets, needing to rely on third-party custody and audits to prove that "there are corresponding assets off-chain," and these processes currently lack unified standards.
● Possible Paths of Cooperation and Game: In the future, a structure of "cooperative division of labor and mutual checks" is likely to emerge around underlying assets like gold and government bonds: traditional institutions will be responsible for acquiring and custodying offline assets, bearing compliance and audit responsibilities; crypto protocols will be responsible for issuing on-chain certificates, building liquidity pools, and integrating the DeFi ecosystem. This can leverage the regulatory advantages of traditional finance while releasing the innovative efficiency of on-chain, but it also means that whoever controls the user interface and liquidity entry will hold pricing power and narrative authority, and the competition between the two will not disappear but will transform into a race for business models and data control.
● Reshuffling in Extreme Events: If extreme market volatility occurs in the future, or if a major audit and custody event exposes structural flaws in RWA products, then "who is more compliant, who is more transparent" will again become the core standard for investors judging safe-haven assets. The licenses and audit endorsements of traditional institutions may not offset off-chain operational risks in all cases; conversely, the transparency advantages of on-chain protocols may be weakened due to incomplete off-chain reserve information. Such black swan events could very well trigger a reset of the industry landscape, allowing players who can achieve transparency and robustness both on-chain and off-chain to stand out.
After Gold Goes On-Chain: Safe-Haven Rules Are Being Rewritten
In the current macro environment, the expansion of the market capitalization of tokenized gold and the simultaneous takeoff of institutional-level RWA funds signify that the narrative of safe-haven assets is migrating from offline vaults, ETFs, and over-the-counter products to the programmable on-chain world. Gold continues to serve as a reserve asset recognized by sovereigns and banking systems, while also beginning to participate in DeFi and on-chain settlement through tokenized forms, forcing a redefinition of the boundaries between traditional and crypto assets.
This has led to a new competition in safe-haven attributes between gold and Bitcoin: the former gains on-chain carriers and liquidity while maintaining its millennia-old historical endorsement, while the latter continues to digest the long-term story of "digital gold" amid price volatility and institutional unrealized losses. For funds, the choice is no longer a binary proposition of "gold or Bitcoin," but rather the allocation of their weights under different time dimensions, regulatory constraints, and risk tolerances.
Looking ahead to the next year, the implementation of regulations, increased transparency in reserve audits, and the entry of more sovereign and publicly listed institutions will be key triggers for whether RWA and precious metal tokens can truly enter mainstream asset allocation tables. If a unified approach to on-chain transparency, off-chain audits, and cross-border liquidity can be achieved within a compliance framework, the tokenization of real-world assets like gold has the potential to transform from a marginal innovation into a new infrastructure for the asset management industry.
For investors focused on this track, it is essential to closely monitor not only token prices and on-chain trading volumes but also subsequent information disclosures regarding products such as the China Pacific Insurance Asset Management Hong Kong RWA fund: the composition of fund targets, custody arrangements, and off-chain reserve audit results. These seemingly mundane details will ultimately determine whether RWA can truly assume the role of a "safe-haven asset" and who will hold the narrative power to rewrite the rules of safe-haven assets in the new round of global asset repricing.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
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。
