The token vs equity dispute has just begun: the policy window has opened, and the innovation trial period has started.

[BitPush] A recent interesting discussion in the crypto asset venture capital circle is how to divide the roles between tokens and equity. Jake Chervinsky, the Chief Legal Officer of Variant Fund, recently shared some thoughts that hit the pain points of the entire industry.

His core point is actually quite poignant: this debate has only just begun. Looking back, the strong regulatory environment during former SEC Chairman Gary Gensler's era basically forced all crypto projects into a dead end—development teams were compelled to pile all the project's value onto equity, while tokens became secondary. Back then, there was no way around it; the policy pressure was there. But now it's different; the policy environment is loosening, and new possibilities are presenting themselves. How to achieve true synergy between tokens and equity still requires a lot of trial and error and experimentation. And this golden period for experimentation is currently unfolding.

However, Chervinsky also emphasized that he does not have a bias towards specific projects like Aave, but rather wants to address a more fundamental issue—transparency. This is the key. Token holders must clearly understand what they own, what they can control, and what they absolutely cannot control. This is not a trivial matter.

Then we arrive at the most interesting part. How much is the Token worth and how to design a value capture mechanism, the imaginative space for this is enormous, far more flexible than traditional equity. Chervinsky believes that for a considerable period of time, it will be impossible to establish any standardized norms for Token models—just like there is a common valuation logic for stocks. This is reasonable, because Tokens themselves are a new thing.

His thinking is divided like this: Tokens should carry value on the chain, while equity should carry value off the chain. It sounds simple, but the logic behind it is very clear—where is the true innovation of tokens? It lies in granting ownership of digital assets with sovereign autonomy. In simpler terms, holders can directly own and control the infrastructure on the chain without relying on any off-chain intermediaries. This is the essential difference between tokens and traditional assets.

On the contrary, the value off-chain is different. Token holders cannot directly own or control off-chain income or assets at all—at this point, equity is the appropriate tool. Therefore, in most scenarios, this type of value should belong to equity rather than Tokens.

Of course, Chervinsky also acknowledges that different projects may choose different paths. Some projects may decide to adopt a single asset model and completely refrain from introducing an equity layer; others may directly view their Token as tokenized securities, waiting for the SEC to establish a new regulatory framework for such assets in the future. This kind of diversity is actually quite healthy.

Overall, the entire industry is at a critical turning point. The loosening of policies has opened a window, giving project teams more design freedom, but it also comes with higher transparency requirements. How to use tokens and equity, and how much to use, are questions that every project must seriously consider going forward.