Recently, the Hong Kong Investor and Financial Education Committee released a public risk reminder that specifically targets potential issues that may arise when trading tokenized funds in the secondary market, based on a single source. This document does not name any specific products or platforms, nor does it mention punishment clauses, making it more akin to a systematic investor education material. The committee categorized the risks of tokenized funds in trading into four types: the first is price difference/trading risk, clearly reminding that when trading tokenized funds on virtual asset trading platforms, the token price may be significantly above or below the net asset value of the underlying fund; the second is liquidity risk, warning investors that the trading depth and exit channels of these tokens on the platform may be much weaker than traditional fund shares; the third is price fragmentation risk, which refers to the structural disconnect that may occur when the price exists in parallel between the traditional fund pricing system and the token pricing system; the fourth is dependence on market maker risk, where price discovery and liquidity are highly reliant on individual market makers or trader behavior, and once they withdraw, both price and liquidity may deteriorate rapidly. Meanwhile, the committee urges investors to fully understand the underlying fund's investment objectives, strategies, operation methods, and related risks before entering the market, along with clarifying the tokenization arrangement itself—whether the transactions are settled on-chain or off-chain, as well as the associated settlement and counterparty risks. For the crypto market, this is not a "law enforcement knife," but rather a signal of "risk pricing correction": as an important category of real-world assets on the chain, the token price of tokenized funds is inherently driven by both the underlying fund's net asset value and platform supply and demand. Now that regulatory authorities actively emphasize the issues of premium and discount, liquidity, and market making dependency, the market is bound to adjust the regulatory and structural risk premium of such tokenized RWA, increasing the risk compensation requirements for RWA under the same risk budget, thereby raising the possibility of discounted trading and liquidity discount. In contrast, some funds and positions are more inclined to return to mainstream assets such as BTC and ETH, which are perceived as having the strongest liquidity and relatively mature pricing mechanisms.
Tokenized Fund Price De-anchoring Alert
Tokenized funds superficially still anchor to net asset value (NAV), but once shares are minted into tokens and thrown onto virtual asset platforms, the pricing logic shifts from "single NAV" to a dual-track system of "NAV + order book." The underlying fund calculates NAV according to traditional mechanisms, while the token price on the platform is determined collectively by liquidity, order book depth, market making arrangements, and short-term sentiment, with entirely different update frequencies and constraints. The committee's clear statement that "prices may deviate significantly from net asset value" exposes a reality: as long as the redemption mechanism is not entirely smooth and market making capital is limited, token prices on the platform may deviate from NAV over the long term, turning into a "shadow asset" priced independently by the supply and demand of on-chain funds, outside of traditional funds.
When prices tear away from NAV, the risk premium and expected return structure of tokenized RWA products will be rewritten. A discount means that holders passively incur an extra layer of "structural loss": they hold a basket of real-world assets on paper, but the market is willing to give a discounted price. This discount serves both as compensation for liquidity, market making, and settlement risks, as well as an "insurance premium" against market regulatory and structural uncertainties. Investors no longer solely focus on underlying cash flows and interest rates; they must also incorporate the uncertain return item of "premium/discount return" into their expected returns; a narrowing discount brings additional returns, while an enlarged discount erodes ticket interest, making the expected return curve of RWA more resemble a complex option rather than a simple interest rate spread trade. For professional funds, traditional arbitrage, hedging, and leverage structures are also forced to be repriced: theoretically, a premium can create price differences through fund subscriptions and token sales, while a discount would require the reverse operation. However, in the context of tokenization, redemption channels, on-chain and off-chain settlement paths, and counterparty constraints often make such arbitrage high-cost and uncertain transactions, and the basic "ETF arbitrage" logic is no longer risk-free. The result is that truly large-scale price discrepancies, leverage, and hedging structures on NAV de-anchoring will see decreased funds, and the remaining arbitrageurs will demand higher risk compensation, meaning this structural cost rise itself becomes an implicit discount to be accounted for in the pricing of tokenized RWA.
Price Fragmentation and Market Maker Dependency Risks
The committee explicitly separates "price fragmentation risk" and "dependence on market maker risk," highlighting a structural issue in tokenized funds that traditional funds do not face as prominently: the same underlying fund is divided into multiple "fragments" on different platforms and during different trading periods, with prices dictated by each platform's liquidity and market maker willingness, resulting in asset NAV remaining merely a reference point rather than a real-time anchor. Price fragmentation risk refers to the structural deviation accumulated from quoting differences between these platforms and time slots: some platforms may have marginal premiums to NAV, while others, lacking buyers, may exhibit deep discounts, even showing completely inconsistent prices at the same moment across different venues. For holders of traditional funds accustomed to a single exchange and singular market quotes, this "multiple quote system" means that what you buy and sell may be different "versions" of the same asset.
As prices are further handed over to market makers for quotation, the second layer of risk emerges: liquidity is no longer a natural public good but is instead sustained by the balance sheets of a few market makers. The "dependence on market maker risk" highlighted by the committee is particularly pronounced in the category of tokenized funds—once a market maker chooses to reduce their position due to risk control, compliance constraints, or capital costs, the market depth can disappear instantly; spreads and volatility can be amplified. What initially appeared as a mild price fragmentation between platforms can magnify into an untradeable deep discount when a market maker withdraws. For on-chain RWA tokens, this reliance on market maker liquidity is directly reflected in the relative risk premium and liquidity discount compared to BTC and ETH: despite being assets under the same RWA narrative, BTC and ETH currently feature deeper order books and lower dependency on a single market maker, making their pricing systems more transparent, while tokenized funds must pay an additional yield compensation for "multi-platform fragmented pricing + market maker withdrawal risk." The outcome is that, under the same risk budget, institutions are more willing to place liquidity and leverage on mainstream assets like BTC and ETH, viewing tokenized RWA as a "secondary liquidity pool" that requires additional discount trading, implying that each subsequent regulatory or market maker behavioral disturbance will first amplify sensitivity on these tokenized funds.
On-chain Settlement and Off-chain Delivery Concerns
Price is merely a surface issue; the "tokenization arrangement" referred to by the committee actually points to deeper settlement structures—whether transactions are settled on-chain or still rely on off-chain custodial and intermediary processes. On-chain settlement relies on blockchain network confirmations and smart contract logic, where settlement rules and fund flows are relatively transparent. Investors mainly face technological failures and contract design risks; meanwhile, off-chain settlement returns to traditional modalities, where timely completion of settlements depends on custodians, brokers, and registrars' operations and compliance capabilities, thereby amplifying counterparty risks and the time windows of "executed but unsettled" trades. For tokenized funds listed on virtual asset platforms, if investors cannot distinguish whether "on-chain transfers" sync with "underlying fund share changes," and who is responsible for reconciliation, they add another layer of settlement uncertainty that layers onto price volatility; such risk, of course, will be reflected in secondary market prices as discounts or higher risk premiums.
When the settlement structure itself becomes opaque, tokenized funds are no longer just "moving traditional funds onto the chain," but are viewed by the market as a complex combination of on-chain certificates and off-chain contracts. Operational errors, registration delays, and even changes in regulatory stances can all translate into additional "settlement uncertainty premiums." This directly influences fund allocation choices between different vehicles: on one end, staying entirely within traditional fund shares and familiar custodial systems, sacrificing some trading convenience for the stability of settlement rules; on the other end, moving towards on-chain native assets like BTC and ETH, which entail full on-chain settlement without reliance on off-chain custodians; in-between are various RWA tokens and dollar-denominated channels. If settlement risks are repriced by the market, these intermediate assets will need to yield more returns and accept larger discounts to offset investors' concerns about settlement and counterparty risks.
Reallocation of Roles between On-chain RWA and BTC, ETH
When the committee lists the price differences, liquidity, price fragmentation, and dependence on market makers as four major risks and highlights that "prices may significantly deviate from net asset values," the market is essentially reminded that the "NAV anchor" of on-chain RWA is not solid. Tokenized funds themselves represent an important category of real-world assets on the chain, and once these products are reassessed for NAV de-anchoring and liquidity structures, the entire risk premium narrative for RWA will increase systemically, naturally writing possibilities of discounted trading and liquidity discounts into the model. In the past, many portfolios treated RWA tokens as "additional yield" supplements and viewed BTC and ETH as the mainstream assets with the best liquidity and most transparent pricing to cushion overall volatility; after the regulatory education signal emerged, this division of roles began to loosen—yield supplements are now required to pay more in discounts and higher returns to mitigate new risk perceptions, whilst the "cushion" side naturally tends to concentrate towards on-chain native assets like BTC and ETH.
In the balance sheets of institutions and high-net-worth investors, this reallocation often manifests as a rebalancing of duration and liquidity preferences. On-chain RWA and tokenized funds require understanding the underlying fund's strategy, operations, and tokenization arrangements (including on-chain or off-chain settlements and corresponding settlement and counterparty risks). After the regulatory warning, they are more easily classified as positions that are "long duration + structurally complex": either extending holding periods for liquidity discounts or reducing positions, with the released risk budgets migrating to shorter-duration BTC and ETH positions with clearer exit paths. The result is that the same amount of risk capital demands higher return compensation and broader discount ranges on the RWA side, while on the mainstream coin side, it tolerates lower expected returns in exchange for deeper market access and transparent pricing. This change in the risk compensation structure represents the new equilibrium following the reallocation of roles between on-chain RWA and BTC, ETH.
Moderate Regulatory Signals from Hong Kong and RWA Prospects
From the committee's anonymous, non-penalizing risk reminder, it is clear that Hong Kong is sending a signal of "moderate regulation + investor protection": the regulatory side does not outright reject the pathways of tokenized funds and RWA but merely clarifies risks associated with price differences, liquidity, price fragmentation, and dependence on market makers, allowing the market to reprice risks itself rather than implementing a blanket closure. In the medium term, Hong Kong's path regarding RWA and tokenized products appears to build a dual-track structure between regulatory frameworks and market self-discipline: on one hand, through continuous investor education, it incorporates "understanding underlying funds and clarifying on-chain/off-chain settlement arrangements" into compliance and sales dialogue; on the other hand, it hands over the constraints of premiums/discounts, liquidity, and market making structures to product designers and platform self-evolution, aiming to narrow the gap with traditional fund trading rules. For crypto traders and institutions, the focus should now be on three sets of variables: the first is whether the premium/discount range for tokenized funds in the secondary market will elevate over the long term and whether structural de-anchoring occurs during periods of volatility; the second is the liquidity structure of related tokens, including whether depth is concentrated in a few market making accounts and whether turnover rates are significantly weaker than the underlying assets; the third is the risk price gap between these RWA tokens and BTC, ETH—whether yield premiums or volatility premiums continue to widen—as this will directly influence how future RWA narratives are perceived: whether regarded as "extensions of mainstream assets" or priced as marginal risk positions requiring higher risk compensation by the market.
Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin's on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
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。
