September 23, 2026, the 12th Blockchain Global Summit, hosted by Wanxiang Blockchain Lab, was successfully concluded at the Shanghai Bund Waldorf Astoria Hotel. With the theme “Blockchain New Economy · Intelligent Chain Symbiosis,” the summit joined hands with ecosystem partners including diamond sponsor Qtum, strategic cooperation partner Wanxiang Innovation Power City, gold sponsors Frontier Technology Research Institute (FTI), Round Coin Technology (RD Technologies), Arkreen, Boundary Intelligence (Bianjie.AI), Blue Elephant Smart Connection, and the exclusive gala dinner sponsor Sui Foundation, bringing together guests from the fields of policy, finance, academia, technology, and industry. Together, they presented an annual event that ran through financial innovation and the forefront of technology, and gathered the industry’s insights and practical achievements. At the event, Dr. Xiao Feng, Chairman of the Wanxiang Blockchain Board and Chairman of HashKey Group and CEO, delivered a keynote speech titled “Asset Tokenization and 24/7 Trading — Blockchain Reconstructs the Global Financial Market.”

Ladies and gentlemen, hello!

After listening to so many presentations throughout the day, everyone has worked very hard. On behalf of the organizers, I would like to express my thanks to all the attendees.

Today’s guests’ sharing roughly follows two main lines: (1) Tokenization + 7×24 all-weather trading—this morning and afternoon, guests have discussed these topics from different angles and different aspects. (2) The relationship between AI and blockchain. I think discussing this topic is extremely valuable, especially now.

Today I want to share a topic related to the tokenization of financial assets and 7×24 all-weather trading. I’d like to approach it from this angle: when an international financial center makes such a huge commitment to tokenize financial assets and to carry out 7×24 all-weather trading, what impact will it have on other global international financial centers, and how should those other international financial centers respond? Up to now, public discussion on this topic hasn’t been much.

Last night Beijing time—during daytime on September 22 in the U.S.—the “2026 Twelfth U.S. Treasury Market Conference” was held in New York. This seminar is co-hosted by five institutions: the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The theme of the CFTC chair’s speech at this conference closely matches what I’m sharing today. I’ll briefly restate it for everyone.

The core gist of his speech is as follows: Under the impact of large-scale Tokenization, on-chain finance, and 24×7 trading, the changes to the U.S. financial system in the next decade will exceed those in the past several decades.

In the past few decades, what changes have taken place in the U.S. financial system? Over roughly the last 20 years, the main driver has been internet information technology. Professor Chen Long also mentioned this earlier this morning, so I won’t go into it again. Looking further back—from the 1970s to the year 2000—there was an iteration in the U.S. financial system and financial infrastructure, including the so-called trading, clearing, and settlement systems.

Today, many experts talked about the DTCC (U.S. Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation). This company was founded in 1999. It is not a company that was newly created to replace the old one; instead, it unified the custody, registration, and settlement functions that had been decentralized across the U.S. over the previous decades. The U.S. took nearly 25 years to absorb and merge the decentralized settlement and registration companies one by one, and finally completed the merger and formed the DTCC in 1999.

In the 1960s, because financial infrastructure couldn’t keep up with the development of financial markets, the New York Stock Exchange would close every Wednesday—it was mainly because there wasn’t enough time to clear. Back then, there were still paper stocks. When trading volume got larger, they had to move the paper stocks from Goldman’s clients to Morgan Stanley’s clients, but there wasn’t enough time to settle.

As everyone knows, Nasdaq announced it will conduct “23×5” trading on December 6 of this year: trading 5 days a week, 23 hours a day. This shows that financial infrastructure and the registration and settlement systems for stock trading have already undergone very significant changes.

Over the first 50 years, the U.S. financial markets and financial system underwent tremendous changes. But last night the CFTC chair said that the changes in the U.S. over the next decade would even exceed those of the past several decades.

What factors will drive the changes in the next decade? He mentioned three—tokenization (Tokenization), 24×7 all-weather trading, and on-chain finance (On-chain Finance). In his speech, he also mentioned a fourth item: Stablecoin (stablecoin). These four technologies will make the changes to the U.S. financial market in the next decade exceed those over the previous several decades. From this perspective, I will also discuss how these technologies may change the global financial markets.

First, the financial market system.

First, let’s review: theoretically, what structure does a financial market system have? In theory, it roughly includes five layers:

(1) Central banks.

At the very top is the central bank. The central bank is the “main valve” for funding—all money is issued by the central bank. And whether institutions cause trouble or macroeconomic problems arise, the central bank is always the lender of last resort.

A few years ago, U.S. interest rates suddenly rose. When interest rates rise, the price of U.S. Treasuries issued when rates were low falls. So the fall in the prices of Treasuries issued during low-rate periods caused paper losses on U.S. banks’ books. People have calculated that a few years ago, when U.S. interest rates suddenly rose, U.S. banks’ capital losses were close to $600 billion. After that, a blockchain company that many people are familiar with appeared: the stablecoin company Circle. Circle put more than $3 billion of reserves in Silicon Valley Bank. Since Silicon Valley Bank had already become insolvent due to losses on holdings of Treasuries, a run occurred—meaning that the more than $3 billion USDC reserves were about to go nearly to zero. Under the U.S. deposit insurance system, the compensation Circle could receive would be extremely, extremely small—only tens of thousands of dollars.

This loss isn’t caused by any one bank being poorly run; it’s caused by problems brought about by the overall rise in interest rates in the U.S. Finally, the Fed and the U.S. Treasury stepped in. The Treasury and the Fed announced that during this period, U.S. banks’ deposits would not be compensated according to the deposit insurance system—because for banks that close due to insufficient capital adequacy ratios, all depositors’ deposits are 100% protected and 100% paid out by the federal government. That’s what’s called the “lender of last resort.”

In 2008, why did Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs apply to become “bank holding companies”? Because after the “financial crisis,” liquidity on Wall Street became a problem. Financial institutions like Goldman and Morgan Stanley had to borrow and lend hundreds of billions of dollars in the financial markets every day through the repo and other mechanisms just to keep operating. But borrowing money also costs 24% interest, and that would put the U.S. capital markets in trouble. This wasn’t because Goldman or Morgan Stanley were poorly managed—it was because liquidity in the financial markets was completely gone; they couldn’t borrow money anymore. What should a financial institution that needs hundreds of billions every day for turnover do? The Federal Reserve stepped in. You’re an investment bank, so I can’t give money to you directly, but I can provide liquidity to banks directly. So these two companies applied in the morning to become bank holding companies, and they were approved in the afternoon. An hour later, the Federal Reserve provided them with hundreds of billions of dollars.

Not long ago, I discussed with a friend. When Silicon Valley AI was at its hottest, the friend asked whether the U.S. international financial centers would move from New York to Silicon Valley. I said it’s unlikely to happen. What would move isn’t the exchanges—exchanges are only the topmost and most visible layer. The truly bottom-layer things that can’t be moved are the Fed’s New York branch. Because the Fed’s open market operations and its processing of dollar flows are all done through the New York branch. Unless you also move the open market operation rooms of the New York branch, you would only have assets and no money.

(2) Financial institutions.

What financial institutions do is different from what central banks do. The central bank issues base money. Banks create money through capital adequacy ratios, turning the 1 unit they obtain from the central bank into 5 units, 8 units, and so on to spend. So financial institutions are creators of the money multiplier, and also creators of credit across all kinds of assets. By issuing a variety of financial instruments, they design different credit structures to improve capital efficiency and improve funding efficiency.

Why are U.S. Treasuries so popular? Why is the most conservative asset at the bottom layer for any financial institution to invest in U.S. Treasuries? Because buy $100 of U.S. Treasuries, and immediately you can pledge $100 of U.S. Treasuries to borrow at least $95. That’s a process of credit creation. Financial institutions are creating both funding and assets. And including the money market, capital market, and derivatives market—these five-layer structures together constitute the financial market system. What we’re talking about is that these five layers may undergo tremendous changes in the next decade. The CFTC chair’s comments refer to this financial market system.

Second, financial market structure.

What does a mature, efficient financial market structure look like? Basically, it can be divided into four quadrants/directions:

First, high-speed trading systems. Trade matching must be completed efficiently and at high speed. Clearly, fast execution requires a very large pool of capital and very deep liquidity; otherwise it’s impossible to complete trades quickly in accordance with traders’ intentions.

Second, an efficient settlement network. To evaluate whether a financial market is effective or ineffective, efficient or inefficient, the second thing to consider is settlement speed. Settlement of digital assets based on blockchain is “transaction equals settlement,” so transactions and settlement occur simultaneously. Therefore, all digital asset exchanges are naturally able to trade 24/7. Nasdaq’s existing payment clearing and settlement system can’t do 7×24 trading, so what it does first is “5×23-hour trading” starting on December 6 of this year. To achieve 7×24 trading, first the settlement currency must be tokenized. Banks close at 5 p.m. and on Sundays they’re closed as well. If you want 7×24 trading but do trading at night, on Sundays, and during public holidays, banks won’t provide institutions with funds transfer services. Therefore, an efficient settlement network obviously requires blockchain and the tokenization of money.

Third, reasonable credit creation. Either you add leverage to funding, or you add leverage to assets—or in other words, provide higher utilization efficiency for funding and assets. For example, if you accept a certain kind of funding/asset as margin and collateral, that is credit creation. Anyone who buys a financial asset hopes to be able to liquidate it at any time, and also hopes it can be used as collateral, margin, or hypothec for continued financing and leverage. This is a reasonable credit-creation system and a very important part of the financial markets.

Fourth, deep liquidity pools. You must have sufficient market breadth and depth. When you want to sell something, what you see is what you can get: the price quotes you see on the exchange are the prices at which you can actually execute—that is the best liquidity. If an asset looks like it is worth 100 units on paper, but during trading you lose 3%, then in reality it’s worth 97, not 100. But if liquidity is especially good and market depth especially deep, maybe it can be traded for 100, or even at 99.99.

These four aspects are the main four criteria for determining whether a financial market is a good one and whether it is mature.

Third, blockchain and distributed ledgers.

Looking back at the blockchain: the restructuring and innovation that today’s financial market system and financial market structure are facing are all based on blockchain’s new method of accounting. Up to now, tokenization can only be done on blockchain technology. And 24/7 trading and real-time settlement can only be achieved by this kind of distributed ledger—transaction equals settlement.

Blockchain is the third innovation in humanity’s bookkeeping methods. In the history of civilization of human society over thousands of years, bookkeeping methods have gone through three innovations in total:

The earliest bookkeeping method appeared around 3500 B.C., in what is now Iraq, in the Sumerian region of the Mesopotamian river system—the cradle of human civilization. There, a clay tablet from about 3500 years ago was excavated, and it turned out to be a ledger that did very simple bookkeeping: recording income and expenses.

Around the year 1300 AD, in the Mediterranean region of Italy, the double-entry bookkeeping method familiar to everyone today emerged. It didn’t just record income and expenses—it also recorded assets and liabilities.

Another 730 years or so later, in 2009, the third iteration of bookkeeping methods appeared: the emergence of the Bitcoin blockchain, which brought distributed ledger accounting to the world. In terms of bookkeeping methods, you can see that these once-in-a-millennium changes will indeed have impacts on the financial market system and structure, as the chair of the CFTC said: changes in the next decade will exceed those of the past fifty years.

Fourth, digital twins and tokenization.

Supported by blockchain technology, starting with fund tokenization in 2024, the financial market system has already begun its own innovation and restructuring on both the funding side and the asset side.

First, the funding side.

On the funding side, everyone has already discussed central bank digital currency (CBDC). Today the guests have also discussed stablecoins and tokenized bank deposits, and related topics.

Whether it’s central bank-issued digital currency (CBDC), tokenized deposits issued by banks, or stablecoins issued by private institutions—actually, they are all doing the same thing: tokenizing money. So we can refer to them collectively as “tokenization at the funding side.”

As for tokenization on the funding side, it actually appeared as early as 2014—USDT came out that year. Here, I especially want to explain stablecoins. Functionally, stablecoins are exactly the same as private digital cash. If you have 100 RMB in your pocket, when you take 100 RMB out of the bank as cash, that 100 RMB is already leaving the banking account system. Stablecoins are the same: once you mint 1 stablecoin, that 1 unit of stablecoin exists in your mobile wallet, like it’s put in your pants pocket. It has already left the banking account system. That’s the first feature.

The second feature is that holding cash usually earns no interest, and holding stablecoins usually also earns no interest.

The third feature is that cash can be used for peer-to-peer payments. You take cash to a shop to buy a bottle of soy sauce, hand the money to the shop, and the shop delivers the goods to you. That’s peer-to-peer payment, and it’s also transaction equals settlement. There’s no issue where you swipe a card and the merchant receives the money only the next day. When you pay me now, the money reaches my hands immediately.

Isn’t that just Bitcoin? Isn’t that just stablecoins? Functionally, stablecoins are digital cash, with their own unique value—just like right now we still need some cash and coins in our pockets. Stablecoins are cash. Bank deposits are not cash but bank money; central bank money is central bank money; bank money is bank money.

Second, the asset side.

With blockchain technology on top, the asset side is also pushing forward tokenization. Earlier, the Hong Kong Legislative Council member mentioned that Hong Kong has already completed the tokenization of bonds totaling more than HK$70 billion.

Bond tokenization, fund tokenization, and derivatives tokenization already exist. The most important thing that has drawn huge attention from domestic financial regulators regarding derivatives tokenization is that before Longxing Storage was even listed on A-shares, the overseas decentralized exchange Hyperliquid had already started trading it. When Longxing Storage was listed on A-shares, the opening price was actually the same as the price at which Hyperliquid overseas had been trading it. So after A-shares opened, people found the two prices were extremely close. Many people exclaimed, “That’s it—pricing power for China’s assets has been transferred overseas so easily.” This created pressure for us: Do you follow along—do you do tokenization? If you don’t do it, Hyperliquid will. If you stand by and do nothing, the other side will keep getting bigger, and pricing power for financial assets will move there first—then it will, in turn, affect domestic asset pricing. This brings enormous pressure, and I think it’s also a kind of motivation.

So, with tokenization of the asset side underpinned by blockchain technology, and tokenization of the funding side and the asset side ultimately forming on-chain finance—i.e., an on-chain financial market system—there will be the ability to create a self-contained closed loop.

That’s also why the chair of the CFTC said in a speech last night that, under the catalysis of Tokenization, On-chain Finance, and 7×24 all-weather trading, the changes to the U.S. financial market system in the next decade will exceed those of the past 50 years.

Fifth, tokenization and 24/7 trading.

If an international financial center is the first to implement tokenization of financial assets globally, execute large-scale tokenization, and carry out 24×7 trading, what does that mean for other global financial centers?

First, liquidity.

This means other international financial centers will face liquidity loss. Whether your liquidity loss is 10% or 20%, in any case, your liquidity will be attracted away to the financial center that offers 7×24 trading. We know liquidity mainly has two indicators: first, whether the trading volume is large; second, whether the market depth is sufficient. During trading, are the market impact costs and bid-ask spreads smoothed out, or are they very large? These are requirements for liquidity.

Taking the U.S. market as an example: up to now, the NYSE and Nasdaq have only been open for five and a half hours of trading. But U.S. stocks are not traded only during those five and a half hours. Before the opening and after the close, the U.S. capital market still trades many stocks. These trades happen through ATS and dark pools. Imagine if the NYSE and Nasdaq themselves opened for 7×24 trading. Then those dark pool and ATS trades would flow back to these two exchanges. Previously, with liquidity fragmented across a dozen-plus dark pools and ATSs, now it’s as if the two exchanges themselves open for all-weather trading, and that liquidity naturally comes back. Once it comes back, I believe their trading volume—even during U.S. nighttime hours—will be greater than those of other countries’ financial centers and exchanges.

Besides that, once 7×24 trading begins, it will naturally attract other global investors as well. Investors who previously found it inconvenient to buy and sell, and had to wait until midnight to trade U.S. stocks, can now trade during the daytime locally. So liquidity gets siphoned away—everyone agrees on that. It’s just a question of how much it siphons away: different markets will have different proportions. But I believe that for other global financial centers, it will indeed cause liquidity loss.

Second, the liquidity situation.

Liquidity gets siphoned away. Everyone is willing to trade in markets with very good liquidity and liquidity that’s getting better and better—this is the simplest trading motivation.

No trader wants to trade in a market where slippage reaches 2%, while another market has only 0.1% slippage. If it’s 0.1% there and 2% here, why would I choose to trade in the 2% market? So liquidity also gets siphoned away.

Why can the U.S. easily produce listed companies with market values of $5 trillion? An unlisted OpenAI or Anthropic can easily be valued at $1 trillion and still raise money. That makes me think of a Chinese saying: “When there’s a large pool of water, big fish can be raised.” The same company—if it were listed on other capital markets, even if it earned the same amount of money, I’m sorry the company’s valuation would be lower than in the U.S. Because with a huge pool of capital, you can nurture big fish. You can’t raise big fish in a small water tank.

So, a very clear purpose for the U.S. to do tokenization and 7×24 trading is to prepare the funding capital needed for the future AI infrastructure in the U.S.—an amount on the order of $10 trillion. The U.S. hasn’t carried out anything like a serious national infrastructure project for decades. But now it faces a new infrastructure build cycle: AI infrastructure buildout. Starting with electricity, all the way to data centers, everything needs to be built. The funding scale required for these infrastructure projects over the next five to ten years may reach the level of $10 trillion, so it needs financing.

If I open up a 7×24 funding market and capital market, obviously it would be more convenient for me to raise the $10 trillion needed for AI infrastructure. At the same time, only a 7×24 global, all-weather trading market could nurture AI companies with future market values reaching $10 trillion. Besides that, I haven’t seen any other second capital market in the world that has the funding-side foundation to nurture an AI company worth $10 trillion—only this one.

Of course it must reform too. One of the moves in its reform is 7×24 hours of global all-weather trading. Come on—everyone, welcome.

Third, the asset side.

If liquidity gets siphoned away—if capital gets siphoned away—then naturally, all issuers of assets will rationally choose to issue assets into markets with very deep “pools of water.” The asset side will also be siphoned. The capital markets that were the first to carry out tokenization and 24/7 trading will gradually become the global center for asset issuance, trading, and settlement. It’s a mutually reinforcing process.

Fourth, pricing power.

In this model, pricing power becomes even more concentrated. I mentioned the case of Longxing Storage earlier. That made everyone exclaim for the first time: a Chinese asset listed on China’s A-share market—its pricing power is not determined by people inside mainland China, but by Hyperliquid overseas. An exchange that nobody knows who governs, with no jurisdiction and no legal framework—a decentralized exchange. So further concentration of pricing power also means further strengthening of global financial market influence, which is a challenge we need to face.

Fifth, investors.

If financial assets are tokenized and can also be traded 24/7, then it means investors from other countries can invest in assets in this market more easily than before, because you don’t need to open a local bank account. If you want to invest in U.S. stocks today, you might still need a U.S. bank account and you have to exchange into U.S. dollars. But now you can use stablecoins to invest anywhere in the world—also during the day in Hong Kong. You can invest using stablecoins. Because in the New York Stock Exchange’s 24/7 trading proposal, the use of stablecoins as a trading medium and settlement tool has already been proposed. So the convenience for global investors to invest in U.S. equities will increase dramatically, and trading hours will also extend significantly.

If the U.S. builds an all-day, all-weather “financial supermarket,” then global investors would naturally be more willing to go there. Because this financial supermarket has an extremely complete inventory—you can buy anything you want, at prices that are also quite reasonable, and you can buy as much as you want. For innovations that haven’t been available elsewhere yet, they’re already put on the shelf there first. If there were such a supermarket, wouldn’t you go? From an investor’s perspective, the rational choice would definitely be to go to the all-weather financial supermarket with the fullest range of products.

Sixth, the settlement layer.

Also, there’s the DTCC mentioned by everyone—that is, settlement. Before that, people had always tried to build a trading market system that covers the globe and can trade 24×7, but it never succeeded. Why didn’t it succeed? Even if you buy an Asian exchange, a European exchange, and a U.S. exchange, the products traded on the three exchanges are different, and the settlement currencies are also different. If you buy Hong Kong stocks, you use Hong Kong dollars; in Europe you use euros; in the U.S. you use U.S. dollars. The underlying banking systems are also different. But now it’s different, because with stablecoins, tokenized bank deposits, and central bank digital currency, the problem of 24×7 settlement can be solved.

After tokenization of financial markets, the issue of how financial assets circulate globally is also solved. Just like Bitcoin: hundreds of exchanges around the world trade the same financial product—Bitcoin. They settle using stablecoins, using USDT and USDC for settlement. So from the standpoint of settlement technology, the problems facing a global financial market in both finance and technology basically disappear. At the same time, 7×24 trading of tokenized assets is also preparing for future machine trading. Do AI Agents need rest for trading? In the future, intelligent financial markets of AtoA and MtoM will certainly be 24/7 all-weather trading markets.

If we believe that in the future AI Agents can assist humans in trading, or even make trading decisions independently of humans, shouldn’t the capital market be transformed into a 7×24 trading market? If you want AI to trade, AI doesn’t understand dollars and RMB—it understands tokenized money. So shouldn’t you tokenize money? If you don’t turn money into tokenized money and make money programmable, machines can’t use it. Therefore, tokenized funding, tokenized assets, and 7×24 trading will all be in preparation for AI. Time is of the essence—this preparation should begin today.

Seventh, financial information.

From the perspective of financial information, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission previously required that for Chinese companies seeking to list in the U.S., the U.S. side would be entitled to review the audit work papers of those companies. But audit work papers involve sovereignty; China is unwilling to provide them, and the U.S. insists on having them. Of course, we can’t give up the huge capital pool and asset pool of the U.S. dollar capital markets, because our national development still needs support from the U.S. dollar capital markets. In the end, the compromise between both sides is: U.S. regulators have the right to review the audit work papers of Chinese companies listed in the U.S., but the work papers cannot be taken to the United States—they can be reviewed in Hong Kong. That is the compromise result so far.

This relates to financial information. If you go to a tokenized trading market and say I want to issue stocks, the other party will tell you: we don’t issue traditional stocks anymore; everything is tokenized. If your country’s company comes to the U.S., or comes to a tokenized capital market like that 7×24 one—do you recognize tokenization? If you don’t, get out. Tokenized-stock information disclosure has its own new rules. Do you follow them or not? And even tokenized capital markets may impose new requirements on accounting standards. Do you comply or not? This involves many conflicts and collisions between different financial market standards.

Finally, the demand side must compromise, because the demand side has Power. Just as with the earlier issue of reviewing audit work papers—we need the U.S. capital market to finance us, so we can compromise and allow the review to be done in Hong Kong, if needed, by having the work papers reviewed in Hong Kong.

Eighth, the financial center.

Under such collision, conflict, and restructuring, I imagine that global financial centers will inevitably differentiate. The most optimistic scenario is that there is no impact—everyone goes their separate ways, each safe and sound on their own path—but that possibility is very small. Impact is definitely there, and conflict is definitely there; it’s only a question of how big the impact and conflict are.

A neutral judgment: acknowledge the effects and the result of this kind of conflict as “one superpower with many strong players.” Perhaps the world will end up with only one super financial center, or at least the position of the current super financial center will be further strengthened.

A pessimistic prediction is that it becomes unrivaled and other financial centers become less important—its position, role, and influence sink below where they are now.

Ninth, financial market model.

So, for other international financial centers, the risk you may face is real decoupling and separation—going your separate ways. If you don’t accept tokenization, if you don’t accept blockchain, and if you don’t accept 24×7 all-weather trading, then you stay in the old financial market system.

The world’s largest and core financial market system has been updated and replaced. I believe other international financial centers can’t bear this kind of “chain-breaking.” Almost no international financial center can withstand a decoupling-and-breaking chain of this magnitude.

Everyone knows the Hong Kong dollar is pegged to the U.S. dollar. People often suggest that because the Hong Kong market is so closely connected with the mainland economy, the Hong Kong dollar should be pegged to the RMB. How big is the offshore RMB market? It’s 1.5 trillion RMB. How big is the dollar market? It’s 5 trillion dollars. Which one should you peg to? Which pool of capital are you connecting to? Are you connecting to a 1.5 trillion pool, or to a 50-trillion-dollar pool worth hundreds of trillions of RMB? The logic is very clear and very straightforward.

So we shouldn’t decouple and break the chains. Therefore we must build a new system that combines the off-chain financial market system with the on-chain financial market system—participating in and building this new financial market system, rather than standing aside.

Sixth, U.S. tokenization and 24/7 trading.

(1) Money markets.

I’ve talked so much, and I’ve kept assuming there is one international financial center that will do all these things, and I’ve analyzed what impact this might have on other financial centers. For now, who is closest to having that “one” single place? So far, only the United States—only the U.S. is doing these things. Europe is still just discussing and debating. This morning, Professor Li Guoquan introduced Asian policies. Asia is fragmented—everyone is doing their own things, and no one is helping build a set of rules and standards to compete with another market system.

The Stablecoin Act, Stripe, and SWIFT each initiated a global stablecoin alliance; in the U.S., the four largest banks—J.P. Morgan, Citibank, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America—initiated an alliance for deposit tokenization, and 30 other mid-sized and small banks in the U.S. are also working on deposit tokenization alliances. In the money market, U.S. financial institutions are already in full swing.

(2) Capital markets.

On the capital markets side, the U.S. is the same—absolutely in full swing. I have a friend who toured from Silicon Valley to New York and came back. I asked him what it felt like going this year. He told me that in Silicon Valley, everyone is talking about AI. In New York, the heat around Web3, blockchain, digital currencies, and digital assets is exactly the same as a year ago. From outside, it may look like the U.S. only talks about AI, but actually in New York, when all institutions meet, they are still talking about Web3, blockchain, digital assets, and digital currencies. It’s just that the topics have shifted—from Bitcoin to tokenization, and from tokenization to Tokenization. We’ll watch this timeline unfold and see.

That’s basically my share today. Thank you, everyone!