Yang Ge Gary: The Trend of Asset On-Chainization under Stablecoin Pricing Methods

September 4, 2025 written in Singapore

In August 2025, global financial cities began to experience drastic market changes due to the impact of stablecoin waves. The promotion of Genius Act and Project Crypto, combined with wealth creation examples from Mstr and Circle, broke the equilibrium of interests in traditional finance. Stablecoins, coin-stock linkage, DAT, RWA, and on-chain asset management quickly became competitive hotspots in the new environment.

Essentially, the implementation of the stablecoin bill is the starting point for a comprehensive reform of the global financial chain. The second curve of Crypto growth will follow the application scenarios of stablecoins and the tokenization of various assets, combining the flexibility of Crypto finance with the historical experience of professional finance, resulting in differentiated development under different compliance frameworks in various regions.

####tl;dr

1. The essence of the Genius Act is to delegate the rights of currency issuance and settlement, thereby obtaining strengthened currency pricing power

2. Stablecoins have triggered a reform in the on-chain global financial and asset systems through changes in currency pricing.

3. The reform is rapidly dismantling the long-standing cartel alliances of traditional finance, bringing opportunities for interest restructuring amidst the chaos.

4. Trump successfully grafted his own interests onto the nodes of historical transformation, creating an incredible orthodoxy

5. The two directions of securitization of currency-stock linkage (Securitization) and tokenization (Tokenization) and market characteristics

6. Stablecoins, DAT, tokenization of stocks, RWA, and the industry characteristics and issues of on-chain asset management

7. The industry and cultural fragmentation after the launch of the second curve of crypto growth

*1.The essence of the Genius Act is to decentralize the issuance and settlement rights of currency, thereby gaining enhanced currency pricing power.

The irreversible trend of the decline in traditional dollar control was detailed in a previous article , along with the trade-off decision that the Genius Act aims to decentralize the issuance and settlement rights in exchange for a larger circulation of dollars. In fact, this move was further validated by the market within three months after the proposal of the Genius Act, as the relaxation of the issuance and settlement rights of the dollar allowed for a broader market application of dollar-denominated stablecoins in the form of shadow currencies, strengthening a wider pricing power; and the pricing power of currency is the manifestation of the consensus competitiveness of future on-chain finance, while the issuance and settlement rights will gradually fade into a common infrastructure, losing their moat barriers and competitive value.

The future currency war will be a competition of consensus in the application of currency, rather than a competition for the authority to issue and settle currency. This is a qualitative reform of traditional finance forced by on-chain finance, and it is clearly a concept that many countries and regions, as well as some traditional financial experts, scholars, and entrepreneurs, have not recognized or found it difficult to change. In other words, the M2 of future on-chain currency will gradually lose its original meaning, and the excessive issuance of a large amount of currency and tokenized assets will represent a kind of freedom. However, this freedom does not imply equivalent value; the real value will exist through the consensus of currency and token assets, reflected in their liquidity, purchasing power, interactivity, community recognition, and other substantial quantifiable market value feedback.

At a turning point of such qualitative reform, the flexibility of the paradigm shift concept is crucial. Many definitions from traditional economics, methods of market control, and forms of asset management will change. For example, M2 may lose its original meaning but could be corrected as a multiplier through liquidity value factors to obtain an effective circulation value of currency or assets, etc. Of course, various monetary and fiscal policies also need to undergo essential changes to adapt to the new methods of on-chain economic governance.

2. Stablecoins have triggered reforms in the globalization of financial chains and the on-chainization of assets through changes in currency pricing forms.

After Genius Act quietly ignited this new currency war, countries and regions around the world are competing to introduce their own stablecoin legislation. Although many of these bills are still based on the inertia of traditional currency financial rules, which will require time to iterate and adjust, the overall on-chain reform of the financial market has already begun.

Although 1 USD and 1 USDC( or other stablecoins ) may not seem to have much difference in pricing, the financial significance of the assets has changed greatly due to the fundamentally different nature of their monetary mechanisms. This is mainly reflected in the programmability, composability, market liquidity, ecological differentiated circulation, and the flexibility of financial derivatives of various assets.

Recently, friends from traditional finance have been asking about the characteristics of on-chain asset management done by CICADA Finance. I use the analogy of a "financial motherboard"; various financial asset strategies are quite similar to different algorithms of "financial chips". By selecting and plugging in asset management, a flexible financial portfolio is formed on the financial motherboard, while stablecoins play the role of "financial current" (Note 1) that connects the chips and the motherboard.

3. The reforms are rapidly dismantling the long-standing cartel alliances of traditional finance, bringing opportunities for interest restructuring amid chaos.

From Genius Act to Project Crypto, stablecoins and on-chain financial reforms fundamentally disrupt the inherent利益模式 of traditional finance. At other times in history, this would have undoubtedly triggered large-scale conflicts, yet this time the transition seems remarkably smooth and acceptable. Is it because modern financial laws have made competition fairer, or that contemporary institutions are more civilized compared to those in history?

Of course not. The reason is simple: the current global social development curve is too rapid, and the additional profits that can be obtained by enterprises that understand the trend and transform quickly far exceed the loss costs of sticking to the original interests and resisting together. The previous stage's financial cartel alliance has been quickly broken and abandoned by enterprises that transform swiftly. From Wall Street to the entire New York, this time, the whole chose the (+3, +3) model to enter a new situation for competition. This process of transformation will inevitably lead to a chaotic reorganization of the financial market within a certain period, and there will also be a large number of new asset and capital trading opportunities.

Over the past month, I have found that the degree of cartel consolidation varies significantly across different industries in the New York market. Although the financial industry has rapidly transformed under the influence of Genius Act and Project Crypto, many traditional industries (, such as real estate ), remain quite stubborn. Due to the monopolistic alliances' strict control over entry conditions and information flow, the trading environment in many industries is still very primitive, and many RWA assets are far from meeting the conditions for entering the current tokenization upgrade.

4. Trump successfully grafted his own interests onto the historical turning point, forming an incredible legitimacy

It is worth mentioning that the rapidly evolving cryptocurrency landscape is being driven by President Trump. Historically, pushing for reforms often carries high risks and significant opposition, and it is particularly exacerbated when personal interests are intertwined, making the situation even more incendiary. However, Trump's actions have indeed been remarkably astute, positioning themselves at a unique historical juncture, gaining an astonishing degree of correctness and legitimacy, and using the opportunities for benefit restructuring brought about by an inevitable industry trend to offset a substantial amount of negative resistance, resulting in a very special and non-replicable effect.

5. The Two Directions of Securities Linking Cryptocurrency: (Securitization) and (Tokenization), and Market Characteristics

The linkage between cryptocurrencies and stocks is an important topic in Q3 2025. Essentially, the linkage between cryptocurrencies and stocks involves two directions: one is to insert token assets into listed companies, forming a capital premium in the form of stocks; the other is to develop stock tokenization along the lines of existing policies, creating a 7x24-hour tradable stock token market. The former is the process of securitization (Securitization), usually managed by the securities regulatory commission of a country or region; the latter is the process of tokenization (Tokenization), typically managed by alternative asset management regulations of a country or region, some of which fall under the banking industry's regulation of currency or payments, while others belong to alternative securities regulation.

The securitization process of the coin-stock linkage evolved into a new term in Q3 2025, namely DAT(Digital Asset Treasury). This is a more flexible and universal process than ETFs, which allows token assets to be incorporated into publicly listed companies, resulting in a capital premium for their stocks. The success of DAT in first-generation cases like Mstr created a premium multiplier of 1.5x-2x(, peaking at nearly 4x), and has become the mainstream wealth creation method in major financial cities like New York and Hong Kong in the past six months. For the DAT market entering the end of Q3 and the beginning of Q4, the differences compared to the first-generation Mstr-BTC are: 1) the expansion of incorporated assets, which now begins to include other non-BTC token assets such as ETH and SOL; 2) in addition to the stock price premium multiplier caused directly by asset incorporation, financial instruments are beginning to be employed to create leverage for higher capital or monetary multipliers; 3) unlike Mstr, which has benchmark political and economic significance, the practices of small and medium-sized listed companies are mostly purely commercial, thus the risks of a Davis double whammy after obtaining a premium will be more pronounced.

The tokenization process of stock and cryptocurrency linkage is still in its early stages as of Q3 2025. The main issues include the following aspects: 1) it's too early for to C scenarios, and the current demand is not genuine; ( typically only involves increased trading duration and non-compliance tax evasion needs; ), it remains in the early stages of Infra construction and to B; 2) it's not friendly enough for small and medium-sized project participants, due to profitability issues caused by problem 1), currently only mature participants like Robinhood and Ondo Finance have the capability to support the early market; 3) the demand for Infra construction and to B is relatively concealed and lengthy, and independent business models struggle to profit on their own, requiring the formation of an industrial chain to achieve overall resonance, which needs a period of growth. Many entering institutions have certain erroneous assumptions about the early development of stock tokenization; at this stage, what is genuinely needed or in demand for development includes the following points: 1) achieving compliant pathways under different regions; 2) realizing large-scale stock tokenization asset issuance through low-cost purchasing/borrowing/holding of securities; 3) forming liquidity providers with substantial capital; 4) creating leverage multipliers and derivative markets through financial tools like lending; 5) providing a large number of high liquidity assets with alpha-exploitable value for the competitive token quantitative strategy market.

In comparison, as of Q3 2025, the securitization process of stock-token linkage is closer to funding than the tokenization process, but it faces a shorter opportunity window; conversely, the tokenization process of debt-stock exchange is a long-term development direction, an important step in the asset chain integration process, and will open up a larger market for strategic quantitative financial assets.

6. Stablecoins, DAT, tokenization of stocks, RWA and the industry characteristics and issues of on-chain asset management

Stablecoins, DAT, tokenized stocks, RWA, and on-chain asset management can be said to be the five shining stars of the second growth curve of Crypto and asset on-chainization. Among them, stablecoins, DAT, and tokenized stocks have been discussed earlier and will not be elaborated further.

RWA is an interesting track. It was unpopular last year, but this year, despite becoming popular again, it has encountered more problems, mainly including: 1) most assets or even platforms that engage in RWA treat it as a fundraising tool, without considering issues such as post-issuance turnover purchasing power, exit problems, liquidity issues, income generation problems, market-making issues, and sustainability concerns; 2) there is no or inadequate consideration of the assessability of the fair value of RWA assets and the Oracle process; 3) apart from fundraising functions, there is no design for economic modularity and programmability or ecological construction, which is no different from the P2P and Crowd Funding concepts of Web2.

In the past few months, we have engaged with a large number of RWA partners. Abstractly speaking, RWA is essentially building a quasi-primary market for some non-standard assets. This issue is, in fact, a dilemma of do not impose on others what you do not desire for yourself. For assets that do not have sufficient consensus, purchasing power, and liquidity, it is indeed challenging to achieve full realization through RWA. The entire asset tokenization still needs to go through a process of standardization, fair valuation, marketization, and financialization of the assets themselves. The most difficult problem to solve for RWA assets is the liquidity issue of large mid-term tradable assets, which is the problem faced by structured financial structures and liquidity asset disposal institutions in traditional markets. Currently, there is still a lack of effective solutions in the crypto asset tokenization market regarding this issue.

Compared to the real estate, digital collectibles, and artworks that many people intuitively focus on, the actual RWA asset tokenization that is more suitable to be realized at this stage is Supply Chain Fi and PayFi, whose underlying liquidity asset characteristics support the feasibility of tokenized trading volume.

On-chain asset management is essentially a comprehensive track for classifying and managing various assets under the wave of stablecoins. It is fundamentally a systematic project that deals with the integration of liquid assets and liquid funds. From economic model design to platform products, and from asset selection to asset management operations, it is more complex compared to TradFi, requiring multifaceted professional actuarial and quantitative capabilities. CICADA Finance has rapidly iterated its on-chain asset management capabilities over the past six months of growth in its second curve, establishing new standards for on-chain asset management and welcoming communication and cooperation with different assets and ecosystems.

7. Industry Fragmentation and Cultural Fragmentation After the Launch of the Second Curve in Crypto

After the SECLaunchesProject Crypto in August, the rapid growth of the second curve of Crypto has accelerated further differentiation across the entire Crypto market. Various markets such as North America, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East & Africa have begun to show completely different differentiations.

The development of Native DeFi and stablecoin ecosystems is showing the strongest momentum in New York and the East Coast; RWA and the correlation between coins and stocks have opportunities in global financial cities, but each is influenced by its own policy peculiarities, which adds to the cognitive inertia of mainstream market practitioners, resulting in different interpretations; Africa, South Asia, and South America are developing more from the perspective of Supply Chain Fi and PayFi applications, which are actually the real mainstream emerging markets that have not yet been priced in by the Crypto Market, but have tremendous potential for future growth; Southeast Asia, on the other hand, has become a base for the continuation of the first curve's development, with centralized exchanges and narrative projects gathering here to form new purchasing power.

Different geographical contexts create different social environments, resulting in a fragmented and layered Crypto market. The global financial system faces disruptions in financial reforms and asset pricing methods across various dimensions, and stablecoins are merely the first step of this beginning.

Author: Yang Ge Gary

Date: September 4, 2025

Note 1: The concept of financial current is defined in detail in the article .