When official documents place “building a national blockchain network” on the same footing as “a nationally integrated computing-power network,” many people’s first reaction is probably the same old “good news for token issuance” or “putting invoices on-chain.”
But if you carefully weigh the interests involved, things are far from that simple.
The underlying logic this time is clear: the point is not that blockchain technology is especially mysterious, but that “data” needs a foundation where it can be traded compliantly, with ownership rights verified and settlements made.
In the past, the biggest pain point in trading data as a production factor was that once data changed hands, the cost of copying it was zero. Buyers worried about getting fake data, sellers worried about being ripped off, and matching platforms faced extremely high trust costs.
Once a national-level blockchain network is in place, it is essentially a decentralized, compliant ledger. On-chain nodes record ownership and usage credentials, while the off-chain computing-power network handles privacy computing and data processing.
For service providers that genuinely build infrastructure, the real opportunities lie in cross-border data flows and the settlement of data assets.
When data is treated as a production factor and enters the balance sheet, every step—from its creation and cleaning to the distribution of proceeds—requires tamper-proof records. The on-chain network serves as the underlying settlement layer, resolving how data-related proceeds are distributed across institutions.
As for risk-sharing in hard tech, it is about finding an exit path for long-term capital. If computing resources and data assets can be standardized and their ownership verified—and even if compliant RWA assetization can be explored—the efficiency of capital turnover could improve by an order of magnitude.
What is truly worth watching out for is the tendency to “overbuild infrastructure and underinvest in applications.” No matter how impressive the infrastructure is, without a high volume of genuine transactions, it can easily become an “information silo” that nobody uses.
To judge whether the policy can actually deliver, we only need to watch for two things: whether on-chain verification standards for cross-border data transfers are introduced, and which companies are the first to generate genuine settlement flows.
#国务院提出建设国家区块链网络
But if you carefully weigh the interests involved, things are far from that simple.
The underlying logic this time is clear: the point is not that blockchain technology is especially mysterious, but that “data” needs a foundation where it can be traded compliantly, with ownership rights verified and settlements made.
In the past, the biggest pain point in trading data as a production factor was that once data changed hands, the cost of copying it was zero. Buyers worried about getting fake data, sellers worried about being ripped off, and matching platforms faced extremely high trust costs.
Once a national-level blockchain network is in place, it is essentially a decentralized, compliant ledger. On-chain nodes record ownership and usage credentials, while the off-chain computing-power network handles privacy computing and data processing.
For service providers that genuinely build infrastructure, the real opportunities lie in cross-border data flows and the settlement of data assets.
When data is treated as a production factor and enters the balance sheet, every step—from its creation and cleaning to the distribution of proceeds—requires tamper-proof records. The on-chain network serves as the underlying settlement layer, resolving how data-related proceeds are distributed across institutions.
As for risk-sharing in hard tech, it is about finding an exit path for long-term capital. If computing resources and data assets can be standardized and their ownership verified—and even if compliant RWA assetization can be explored—the efficiency of capital turnover could improve by an order of magnitude.
What is truly worth watching out for is the tendency to “overbuild infrastructure and underinvest in applications.” No matter how impressive the infrastructure is, without a high volume of genuine transactions, it can easily become an “information silo” that nobody uses.
To judge whether the policy can actually deliver, we only need to watch for two things: whether on-chain verification standards for cross-border data transfers are introduced, and which companies are the first to generate genuine settlement flows.
#国务院提出建设国家区块链网络