#RWA实物资产代币化 Recently, I’ve seen quite a few discussions about RWA tokenization, and there’s a detail that especially savvy investors should pay attention to: the DTCC model and the direct ownership model are actually two completely different approaches. Never confuse them.

Let’s clarify the differences—The DTCC model optimizes equity record-keeping within the existing indirect holding system, tokenizing your rights against the broker. Essentially, it’s still a multi-layered intermediary structure; whereas the direct ownership model tokenizes stock ownership directly, registered on the issuer’s register, significantly reducing intermediary roles.

What does this mean for us investors? In the short term, DTCC upgrades mainly improve operational efficiency and settlement speed on the institutional side, with retail users hardly noticing. The real point of interest is the direct ownership route—self-custody, peer-to-peer transfers, instant settlement, on-chain composability—these are the features that can enable innovative use cases.

Currently, both models are developing in parallel, not in a zero-sum competition. On-chain value should be captured by tokens, while off-chain value remains with equity—this logic is very clear. The future potential lies in token holders being able to directly own and control assets without relying on off-chain intermediaries, something traditional equity cannot do.

For those interested in participating in RWA-related airdrops, it’s recommended to focus on projects that adopt the direct ownership model and emphasize on-chain autonomy. More projects are starting to explore this direction, and early-stage interactions will generally have lower costs and barriers. Keep an eye on project descriptions regarding ownership models, as that’s a key indicator of the project’s innovative potential.