The Science and Technology Innovation Board is coming, where will the STO go under the frequent policies?

特邀专栏作者

2018-11-14 03:48

This article is about 3928 words, reading the full article takes about 6 minutes

Anyone's personal efforts will appear insignificant in the face of the tide of the times, so one should follow the tide of the times at any time, otherwise it will only be buried in the torrent of the times, and explorers of STO (Security Token Offer

AI Summary

Expand

This article is from Digital China (ID: shenzhoushuzi_group), author: Sun Jiantao (CEO of Digital China, founder of Goopal Group), please indicate the author and source when reprinting.

In the previous article, I thought that STO (Security Token Offering), as a global financial practice, is developing in a good direction under the increasingly clear regulation. Hong Kong’s Securities Regulatory Commission issued relevant policies on digital currency in early November. It also proves this point. However, as a new thing, its development will inevitably not be smooth sailing. Any disturbance at the policy level (policy is the biggest risk STO faces) will bring about butterfly effects, and even some indirect policies, such as China's capital market. The establishment of the Science and Technology Innovation Board has caused many people to panic about STOs, and even believe that under the effect of the Science and Technology Innovation Board, China’s STOs will suffer heavy losses.In fact, the launch of the Science and Technology Innovation Board only has an objective impact on STOs, and we don’t know how many related measures will be introduced in the future. As the Sino-US trade war continues to ferment, it is unstoppable for China and the United States to restructure their bilateral relations and trigger changes in the world pattern. Coupled with the superimposed effect of the once-in-a-decade economic (financial) crisis in 2018, the global financial order is facing major changes. As a practitioner, "you can't just walk with your head down, but also look up at the starry sky",

Before studying the specific STO implementation path and detailed rules, we must first see the general trend of the times, otherwise it may be just doing useless work, and it may even be cleared overnight.We need to know why China launched the Science and Technology Innovation Board in order to better analyze and predict the impact of the Science and Technology Innovation Board on STO; we need to know,Although China has not yet issued relevant policies for STOs, China and the United States, as the world's two largest economies, tend to be consistent in their attitudes and practices towards financial regulation in some respects, that is, penetrating regulation rather than sandbox supervision;

We also need to know how to make the most favorable choice between penetrating regulation and sandbox regulation for practitioners who have entered or are about to enter the STO field. This is not only about future development, but even about the current life and death.

1. The origin of the Science and Technology Innovation Board and its relationship with STO

A week ago, on November 5, at the opening of the first China International Import Expo at the Shanghai National Convention and Exhibition Center, the chairman announced that the Shanghai Stock Exchange will set up a science and technology innovation board and pilot the registration system. This is an important move for China to continue to deepen reforms and expand opening-up under the wind of global capital being cold and the long-term trade war between China and the United States. It has a profound impact on China's capital market, and STO, as a financial practice, naturally Affected.

1. As a national strategy, the Science and Technology Innovation Board has an important additional attribute of top-level design. It will inevitably gather more resources and obtain green channels. Its expansion of direct financing and benefits for innovative enterprises will have a short-term impact on relatively grassroots STOs. The formation of negative.

At present, my country's capital market has formed a multi-level capital market system including the main board, the ChiNext Board, the New Third Board, and regional equity trading markets. Come make a big change. Fang Xinghai, vice chairman of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, publicly stated a few days ago that the China Securities Regulatory Commission is speeding up the implementation of the relevant rules of the Science and Technology Innovation Board, and that the Science and Technology Innovation Board and the registration system must be completed. Many business leaders, including Xiaomi Chairman Lei Jun, also expressed their support.

This kind of support from top to bottom, as well as the positive response from the Internet circle and the investment circle, are not available in the grassroots STO. It is conceivable that under the policy support, the two major attributes of the Science and Technology Innovation Board--content The high-end incentives for corporate innovation and the formal registration system will make it easier for cutting-edge technology companies to obtain financing and enter the capital market. This undoubtedly has a diversion effect on STOs with similar attributes.

2. As a financial practice of asset securitization, STO’s main function is to broaden financing channels, reduce financing costs, and enhance liquidity. This is very consistent with some of the original intentions of the Science and Technology Innovation Board. It is not a life-and-death relationship with the Science and Technology Innovation Board. , but a complementary relationship that can be integrated with each other.

Both the Science and Technology Innovation Board and STO are incremental reforms in essence. The Science and Technology Innovation Board aims to make up for the shortcomings of China's capital market in serving technological innovation. STO can not only provide capital support for blockchain-related enterprises, but also rely on the borderless attributes of blockchain and the inherent financial attributes of Token. Through the on-chain assets of off-chain assets, the global liquidity of traditional assets can be greatly improved. The capital market brings new opportunities. Both the Science and Technology Innovation Board and STO focus on providing better support for high-tech start-ups through the capital market, and there is no conflict between the two.

It’s not my speculation. Looking at recent domestic policies and trends, the People’s Bank of China released a 20,000-word research report on blockchain, which explained in detail what blockchain can do. This can even be regarded as a quasi-official voice before the introduction of relevant policies; people from the China Securities Regulatory Commission and even higher-level people have recently expressed their hope that more foreign capital will enter China's capital market in order to increase long-term funds and enhance liquidity; domestic Internet companies such as BAT Giants have already deployed the blockchain and even explored token economics... There are various indications that inclusiveness and strong regulation should be the main direction of future capital market reform and practice.

Xiao Lei, who has conducted extensive research in the fields of traditional securities and blockchain, believes that STOs will have more objects, but at present it is difficult to break away from the centralized exchange system, so the Science and Technology Innovation Board may increase regulatory authority’s attention to The attention of various digital assets may even use blockchain technology to assist supervision.Regarding Xiao Lei’s views, I agree very much. Both STO and Science and Technology Innovation Board are tentative, and they have played a positive role in providing support for high-tech start-ups in the capital market.

Although they diverge from each other and innovate in different ways, they are not the opposite ends of "life and death", but can coexist. The essential attributes of STO - asset securitization + securities tokenization may be introduced into the brand-new science and technology innovation board, and the model of "science and technology innovation as the body and STO as the use" is not a possibility.

2. Both China and the United States will choose penetrating supervision for STO

"Those who don't plan for the whole world can't plan for a moment; those who don't plan for the overall situation can't plan for a region." This military point of view on the battlefield is actually applicable to business. Although the launch of the Science and Technology Innovation Board and a series of related signs in China have had a great impact on STO, it must be known that, as a global financial practice, STO does not depend on the policies and practices of a certain country, so it is necessary to look at A global, high-level view of trends and trends.

Recently, just one heavyweight gave his interpretation and forecast on the current world structure and economic trend: Henry Paulson, chairman of the Paulson Institute and the 74th Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, said a few days ago that the situation between China and the United States It has entered a new stage of reconstruction. Although the overall "decoupling" of the economies of the two countries makes it unlikely that the economic Iron Curtain will come, risks still exist. The technological balkanization caused by the restructuring of the structure-that is, countries develop their own Advanced technologies and technical standards, further threatening global innovation and the competitiveness of enterprises in various countries, are already taking place.

If the decoupling of goods, capital, technology and people continues, a large part of the global economy will no longer allow the free flow of capital and goods. This is the most fatal blow to STO, because the asset securitization + securities tokenization of STO is actually to solve the problem of free circulation of assets. If it is restricted by policies, it will greatly affect the living space of STO projects.

We can see by looking at the regulatory policies of STO. In fact, the United States has penetrating supervision on STO and even the entire financial system: all projects that want to issue STO must comply with the relevant regulations or exemption regulations of the US Securities and Exchange Commission. It has made relevant regulations on investors and financing amount. This is very different from the sandbox-style supervision in places such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Hong Kong.

China has not issued relevant policies and regulations for STO so far, but from the country's emphasis on finance and its continuous strengthening of practices, it can be speculated that if STO is permitted in the future, it must be penetrating supervision rather than sandbox governance.

This means that for STO practitioners, if they want to develop between the two major countries of China and the United States, they must adapt to this penetrating and strict supervision, and must obey the policy and the national will behind it. For example, the current STO project in the United States is actually more of an exemption regulation. Once a stock exchange like Nasdaq really joins in, the rules of the game may change. China's Science and Technology Innovation Board does not rule out the use of securities tokenization as a pilot in the future.

It is also worth noting that in the past year, whether it is China's BAT and other Internet giants or Wall Street's commercial giants, they have already deployed one after another. Compared with the relatively grassroots start-up companies that started from the blockchain, these giants have indisputable advantages in terms of talents, users, funds, scenarios, etc. Board or STO comes first. Start-up companies starting from the blockchain field, if they want to carry out STOs in the two countries, they must not only consider the issue of penetrating supervision, but also identify their own roles-I am afraid that to a large extent, they will become Internet giants or capital A member of the predators territory.

3. STO opportunities under the sandbox mechanism

The economic crisis and capital winter ten years ago not only brought about major changes in the world's financial structure and order, but also triggered the renewal of the entire business world. The new generation of Internet led by Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Alibaba, and Tencent Giants have gradually replaced the older generation of giants such as Microsoft and IBM. Bitcoin was born at that time.

Therefore, for start-up companies in the blockchain field, it is not impossible to complete the transformation with the help of STO, a financial practice. Because in addition to the penetrating regulation of China and the United States, there is also a relatively loose and inclusive regulatory policy such as sandbox regulation.

The concept of "Regulatory Sandbox" was first proposed by the British government in March 2015. According to the definition of the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), a "regulatory sandbox" is a "safe space" in which fintech companies can test their innovative financial products, services, business models and marketing methods, while You don't have to be bound by the regulatory rules immediately when the relevant activities encounter problems.

It can be said that sandbox-style regulation actively and reasonably relaxes regulatory requirements, reduces regulatory barriers to financial technology innovation, and encourages more innovative solutions to proactively turn ideas into reality. This practice of the United Kingdom has triggered many countries to follow suit. Australia, Canada, Singapore, and Hong Kong, which has just issued a policy, all adopt this method.

For blockchain innovation companies, once the personal constraints are removed, they will have great explosive power, because compared with Internet giants and capital predators, they have a very special advantage, that is, a batch of blockchain technologies that have been baptized Talents, idealistic entrepreneurs, early potential investment funds, and deep-rooted blockchain thinking are exactly what non-blockchain practitioners do not have, and it is difficult to make up for it in the short term.

Welcome to Join Odaily Official Community