Author: Liu Honglin

In the past two years, due to work, I have frequently traveled back and forth between Shanghai and Hong Kong.

After making these trips often, I gradually developed a very specific feeling: both places are discussing blockchain and Web3, but it seems that what everyone is talking about isn't the same thing.

In Hong Kong, the discussions focus on investment, finance, licensing, and international markets; meanwhile, in Shanghai, people are more concerned about industrial scenarios, infrastructure, data security, and system capabilities, and whether these elements can ultimately be integrated into real businesses such as trade, shipping, and supply chains.

Both places are actively promoting blockchain, but the logic and paths of advancement are different.

The interaction between Shanghai and Hong Kong regarding Web3 today superficially seems to be a discussion about a new concept, but upon closer examination, it actually involves how the two core cities should reorganize their roles following China's economy entering a new stage.

Let’s start with Hong Kong. In recent years, Hong Kong has continuously pushed forward Web3, not because it suddenly became enamored with a particular technological concept, but because it needs to find new institutional tools for its next stage of development. The advantages Hong Kong has held for the past few decades ultimately revolve around a few things: rules, licenses, market interfaces, organizational capabilities of cross-border capital, and the professional service systems that have grown around these.

The problem is that international financial centers are not fixed. While traditional advantages still exist, if Hong Kong cannot continue to occupy positions in the new generation of digital assets, digital transactions, cross-border data, and new financial interfaces, its original advantages may easily turn into mere preservation rather than growth.

In June 2025, the Hong Kong SAR government released the "Digital Asset Development Policy Declaration 2.0," proposing to promote the relevant ecological development using the "LEAP" framework, emphasizing that under the premise of controllable risks and prioritizing investor protection, the relevant development should serve the real economy and financial markets. This statement is quite clear. What Hong Kong is aiming for is not to chase trends but to advance the functionality of its "international interfaces."

Shanghai's logic is different. In cities like Shanghai, advantages never stem from a single industry, but rather from simultaneously wielding ports, shipping, trade, the manufacturing base of the Yangtze River Delta, financial institutions, professional services, and headquarters economies. The real issue facing such a city isn't "is there a new concept?" but rather "is there a new industrial foundation?" Against the backdrop of external trade pressures, a retreat in real estate logic, and regional competition for new productive narratives, Shanghai must constantly seek new leverage points that connect globally while also integrating into real industries.

The significance of blockchain and Web3 for Shanghai lies not in telling a novel story, but in the opportunity to become the infrastructure for the next generation of trade collaboration, supply chain organization, data circulation, and cross-border services. This is why Shanghai’s policy expressions regarding blockchain in recent years have leaned towards infrastructure, industrial applications, and system construction.

In 2023, Shanghai proposed to build the "Pudong Digital Chain" city-level blockchain digital infrastructure system; by 2026, the "14th Five-Year Plan" further suggested building a national blockchain network hub in Shanghai, creating a high-performance blockchain computing cluster, deepening applications of "blockchain +" such as cross-border digital trade and supply chain finance, and establishing a Web3.0 testing ground.

When placing these two cities back in their respective contexts, many things align. The original function of Hong Kong was to connect with the world; Shanghai's was to organize its own industry. This division of labor established in the past was primarily based on traditional trade, traditional finance, and traditional professional services. Now that global trade methods, financial interfaces, and data flow modes are changing, this division of labor will naturally adjust.

Here, Web3 is not a starting point but more like a lens through which this adjustment is illuminated.

Therefore, what is truly worth discussing between Shanghai and Hong Kong isn’t "can we cooperate," but rather what roles each side should play in this matter.

The most scarce capability in Hong Kong is to first establish the rules and interfaces that the international market can understand, accept, and use; while Shanghai's most scarce capability is to integrate these rules and interfaces into the most genuine business chains on the mainland.

Hong Kong resolves the question of "can this be understood and accepted by the international market," while Shanghai resolves whether "this can operate within real businesses." One leans towards the front end, while the other focuses on the back end; one is inclined towards the window, while the other focuses on the hinterland. There is indeed competition on both sides, but in this regard, it resembles more a connection bridging the two.

For this division of labor to truly take shape, it’s not enough to merely have systems and statements; there must also be sufficiently large scenarios to digest. Any new system, without business volume to validate it, often ends up lingering in documents and meetings; conversely, any new technology, without mature rules and interfaces to support it, can easily result in fractured applications.

Hong Kong's advantage lies in international trade rules, commercial contract systems, cross-border professional services, and market interfaces; whereas Shanghai's advantage is in its vast real-world scenarios.

In 2024, Shanghai Port’s container throughput reached 51,506,300 standard containers, exceeding 55 million standard containers in 2025, maintaining its position as the world's number one for 16 consecutive years. This figure truly indicates not just that Shanghai Port is large, but that Shanghai possesses enough cargo flow, document flow, warehousing flow, and fulfillment flow to test whether a new type of digital infrastructure really works.

Because of this, the most important connections between Shanghai and Hong Kong should not focus on nebulous concepts, but rather on the oldest, most solid industries of trade, shipping, and supply chains.

China is not an economy that develops new finance first and then seeks industries to match; the more common pathway is often to first identify the most solid industrial chains and then embed new systems and technologies within them.

For Shanghai and Hong Kong, what is most suitable to integrate with are not grand narratives, but rather segments such as electronic documents, bills of lading, warehouse receipts, logistics fulfillment records, trade authenticity verification, and supply chain collaboration. The challenges in these past segments are not mysterious: dispersed information, inconsistent standards, repeated verification, and high collaboration costs. When blockchain and trustworthy data systems are placed here, their role is quite straightforward: not to create a detached new world, but to enhance the credibility, standardization, and ease of collaboration of an aging business chain.

This is also why, when viewed among cities on the mainland, Shanghai is the most suitable to be the first pilot for integrating blockchain into industries. A pilot is never about who is the most proactive, but about evaluating a few key elements: is there a sufficiently large real scenario, is there a sufficiently strong organizational capability, and is there a sufficiently high potential for replicability.

Shanghai excels in these aspects. It has the most robust ports and trade scenarios, a complete range of financial and professional service resources, and strong government organizational and infrastructure construction capabilities. More importantly, Shanghai is not a city that can only make local innovations; it inherently has the ability to elevate local pilots into regional and even national models. Once Shanghai successfully tests a pathway for such issues, the spillover effects could be significant.

Thus, my understanding is that what Shanghai should strive for is not just a few blockchain projects or companies, but a larger role: the front-end gateway for mainland companies to connect with Hong Kong's new rule system.

If an increasing number of mainland companies want to leverage Hong Kong's rules and interfaces to conduct cross-border digital businesses, the first step may not be to directly go to Hong Kong, but rather to find lawyers, accountants, consulting firms, system service providers, parks, and platforms in Shanghai. Those who can translate rules into business, concepts into contracts, and techniques into system solutions will not only secure numerous projects but will gain a longer service chain.

The "14th Five-Year Plan" incorporates enhancing the internationalization capabilities of professional services such as law, accounting, and consulting into official documents; viewed in this context, it’s not merely an ordinary statement, but a preparation for future functional competition.

In recent years, the interactions between Shanghai and Hong Kong surrounding blockchain and Web3 have indeed taken some concrete actions.

In April 2025, the Shanghai Blockchain Technology Association settled in the North City High-Tech "Digital Transmission and Chain Valley," while simultaneously holding the "Shanghai-Hong Kong Web3.0 Innovative Development Scene Market" event; in September of the same year, Jing'an promoted relevant activities for "Shanghai-Hong Kong Collaboration: Co-Building the Web3.0 Ecosystem"; during the Hong Kong Web3 Carnival, the Shanghai Data Exchange also showcased its participation and proposed a new path for exploring the synergy between the Shanghai-Hong Kong data factor market and capital factor market. Looking at these actions alone, it cannot be said to represent a mature model yet, but at least it indicates one thing: the relationship between Shanghai and Hong Kong has evolved from mere observation to actively trying to move collaboration from "communication" to "scenarios" and "mechanisms."

Therefore, placing "Shanghai and Hong Kong's Web3 Dream Linkage" back into a larger context, it addresses not a narrowly defined emerging industry, but rather the urban division of labor and cross-border infrastructure restructuring in China in the next stage.

Hong Kong will continue to provide institutions and international interfaces, while Shanghai will continue to offer industrial scale and organizational capabilities; Hong Kong connects globally, while Shanghai organizes internally within China. If this division of labor can gradually establish itself in specific fields such as trade, shipping, supply chains, and professional services, then the so-called "Shanghai-Hong Kong Linkage" would not simply be a name for an event but could become a model for connecting global markets and restructuring cross-border industrial chains in China in the next stage.

Web3 is not the goal; it functions more like a mirror. Through it, one can more clearly see the respective functional boundaries of Hong Kong and Shanghai, as well as how the urban system in China is undergoing a reallocation of roles. Many things that seem new on the surface are often driven by older issues: urban function, institutional interfaces, local competition, and industrial organization.

Once these issues are understood, many things will naturally become clear.

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。