People with digital assets in the next five years will exceed those who own stocks

Asset ownership has always been exclusive in history, but blockchain is changing this; historical experience tells us that where you live, and what you already have, largely determines what you “can” have. .


        "But what about the public stock market?" You might say. “The New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ Stock Exchange have done a job of democratizing asset ownership! Anyone can invest in Amazon when they go public in 1997 and earn very well.” The so-called “democracy” "It is to make something available to everyone."

If you are an ordinary person living in mainland China, you know that not everyone can buy US stocks. If you are an ordinary person living anywhere in the US and Western Europe, you may have public stocks and real estate in your area, but there are few other options. You usually cannot own shares in stocks, real estate or startups in the international open market. As an ordinary Chinese citizen, 19 years ago, when you listed on the US stock market, you certainly could not participate in Amazon-related wealth investment activities - this right is limited to people living in the United States. Even in the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) generally enforces regulation to ensure that only certified investors (that is, those with total assets of more than $1 million or whose annual income can continue to exceed $200,000) can invest in private companies. Therefore, although ordinary Americans can invest in listed companies, they usually cannot own private companies that create new technologies and huge wealth—these companies are designed for investors who are already very wealthy.

Entering the era of bitcoin


          In 2009, Nakamoto created a new asset type that anyone can access, no matter where he lives or what assets he owns: Bitcoin (BTC), a distributed book that is not controlled by anyone. Encrypted token.

The title of the newspaper was written into Bitcoin's creation block to prove that Bitcoin did not exist before January 3, 2009; Nakamoto published the software to the world on January 3, 2009. Immediately after the creation of the World Bank, anyone who has access to the Internet and has a few dollars (or yen, euro, rupee, etc.) can get ownership of the Bitcoin blockchain.

Buy BTC by powering the network, buying on the exchange, or by peer-to-peer individuals. No one controls your access to Bitcoin. The distribution rules for tokens are completely transparent and reasonable in terms of fairness and inclusiveness. Although only a small part of the world's population has been difficult to obtain so far, you can look at this research on the ownership of digital assets in Korea and this research has BTC, which has not been adopted by all people, but from the first day, any People can own Bitcoin without the consent of others. The creation of Bitcoin represents a major change in the way technology and value are created, and has inspired the symbolic prosperity of the digital economy we have seen in the past few years. One measure of accessibility is the percentage of the population that owns something. In more than nine years, countries like South Korea and Argentina have taken ownership of bitcoin close to or beyond the ownership of stocks. (This number is hard to get, but you can look at this research and ownership of Korean crypto assets)

What about other cryptocurrencies?


Some BTC-inspired cryptocurrencies, such as Ether (ETH), have similar accessibility, fairness, and transparency from the start. When the Ethereum Foundation launched the token distribution event in July 2014, everyone could access and own the Ethereum network. BTC is required to participate in this investment, but anyone can provide any number of BTCs and does not require any form of exclusive access. Those who participated in ETH token investment activities have seen their ownership equity increase by more than 2,000 times in dollar terms (which greatly exceeds any venture capital investment within that time frame).

Many other token-based projects have taken a different approach and raised private funds from exclusive investors – they provided better deals for a small number of investors before the wider tokens were distributed, without letting They take on more risks. Filecoin is a well-known example of this approach. This approach goes against the idea of openness, fairness, and transparency that Nakamoto has proposed, but it may be necessary if you are an entrepreneur who wants to introduce tokens and encrypted networks that comply with US regulations.

Regulatory environment

Most regulators around the world, including the US Securities and Exchange Commission, have not yet defined how they will look at cryptocurrencies in the context of securities law. There is a strong legal argument that why some tokens that appear after the BTC are not securities, but in the past 18 months, many other tokens appear to be more like the "securities" defined by Howey Test. A highly centralized team that provides passive income to investors through tokens, these two features make tokens look more like securities than functional tokens or work tokens.

If regulators recognize (and provide clear guidance) about the differences between tokens with passive income, these tokens rely only on highly centralized governments, as securities tokens, giving holders the right to use existing numbers The token of service, or as a decentralized organization that allows individuals to participate in the contribution of the token, then the democratization of non-securities asset ownership will continue.

If the regulator determines that all blockchain-based tokens are just another form of securities, then the campaign will not proceed. This may have no small negative impact, as it allows the rich and institutions to own the benefits of the blockchain ecosystem and keep ordinary people away from the wealth creation activities in the industry.

Other possibilities?

Regulators either consider that all tokens are securities and stifle accessibility, or that regulators take a nuanced view of different securities and, in some cases, achieve accessibility. This will create many future possibilities.

One possibility is that regulations can be adjusted based on a more accessible spirit. Given that technology development often exceeds regulatory development, this may be a wishful thinking, but it is still possible. A useful feature of Ethereum is that it allows the creator of the token to transparently convert control of the code into a smart contract to comply with regulatory requirements. A more balanced approach to protecting consumers while also allowing for broader access to ownership, while meeting these two regulations may be a good thing for the blockchain. New standards that meet regulatory requirements are beginning to emerge, such as Harbor's R-Token standard and Zeppelin's TPL proposal. These can provide a powerful sandbox for testing and implementing new methods.

Another possibility is that more founders can use the completely anonymous Nakamoto line at the time of release to allow their tokens to maintain broader accessibility and avoid any regulatory risks. If the regulator actively withdraws and says that all tokens are securities, then this is likely to happen.


Due to the breakthrough of Nakamoto and the symbolic movement catalyzed by Bitcoin, the ownership of assets in our world will inevitably change. People who have never owned an asset can now own assets, and they will continue to own these assets due to the existence of the blockchain. In five years, I think more people in the world have digital assets, not stocks. Let's take a look after five years.

Article classification: NEWS
Portman Foundation(BTMM)
Address: 158 BEACH ROAD #14-03 GATEWAY EAST SINGAPORE (189721)
Official customer service