Investors holding tokens of certain mainstream lending protocols are having a tough time now. Meanwhile, what about equity holders? They are doing very well.

The underlying issue is worth pondering: what was the original promise? Tokens were supposed to serve as superior forms of ownership and alternatives to equity, providing holders with real governance rights and profit rights. But what’s the result? The gap between reality and ideals is widening.

Regulatory uncertainty was once used as a shield—"The market is still exploring, let’s wait and see." But this excuse is no longer valid. Policy frameworks around the world are being refined, and market participants’ expectations are adjusting. The problem is that many projects’ token mechanisms are simply not well-designed, making it impossible to fulfill equity promises under clear regulatory environments.

Some private companies have taken shortcuts: issuing tokens, but the tokens themselves are almost decoupled from real rights, cash flows, and decision-making power. This is not innovation; it’s fundraising under the guise of Web3.

A true token economy should be more powerful than equity, provided that tokens have real economic backing—whether for governance, profit rights, or usage rights. Purely speculative tools, no matter how much technological packaging they have, cannot change their fundamental nature.