jakiro
Many years ago, there was almost a tacit “entry ceremony” for blockchain projects – first go to a certain offshore place to register a foundation, write “non-profit”, “open source”, and “transparent” in the white paper, and repeatedly emphasize “community governance” and “distributed autonomy” during roadshows.It’s quite like that with a foundation as an endorsement.But after ten years, you will find a more interesting and realistic trend: the foundation is no longer a “orthodox posture”, and the project team began to actively embrace the company system, and even directly put the tokens into the financial statements of listed companies.
Whether it is Conflux injecting core assets through Hong Kong-listed company Pioneer Pharmaceutical, or Tron’s small-cap company SRM Entertainment, which renamed “Tron Inc.” through Nasdaq, to Sui’s promotion of US stock companies to allocate huge SUI tokens for treasury management, the Web3 project has become popular and has achieved a new way of valuation cashing with the help of traditional capital markets.In this trend of “turning from ideal to trading”, Nasdaq took the initiative to apply for SEC and apply for listing tokenized stocks, and even gave the entire industry the last “compliance key”, ready to open the last false door between “crypto assets” and “mainstream finance”.
The ideal shell has been replaced by the shell of the capital market
On July 28 this year, US stock company Mill City Ventures III announced that it would complete a private placement of US$450 million, clearly stating that it would allocate a large proportion of the raised funds as SUI tokens and transform them into“SUI vault strategy”.On August 25, the company further announcedRenamed to “SUI Group Holdings” and change the transaction code to SUIG;On September 2, they disclosedHolding 101.8 million SUI(Converted to approximately US$332 million at the price of the day).This is an extremely clear path: put the “tokens” into the plate of “listed companies”, and use annual reports, audits, and shareholders’ meetings to carry the rights and responsibilities and assets that were originally placed under the name of the foundation but cannot be explained.It is worth noting that this is no longer the drama of “Sui Foundation acquired a listed shell”, but the listed company took the initiative to turn around and connect the SUI ecosystem through brand reshaping and asset structure adjustment – the path design is completely different from the “foundation master key” in the early years.
In early September,The Conflux Foundation initiates a governance proposal, preparing to authorize its ecological funds to carry out vault/financial cooperation with “listed companies” and proposes constraints such as lock-up periods of no less than four years..This is not a news gimmick of “announcing who acquires whom”, but a publicly writing “dealing with listed companies” into the governance process clearly means gradually moving token management, funding arrangements, and ecological support to a framework that is more inclusive by traditional finance.The foundation has found a more stable carrier in terms of fundraising, compliance, custody, and reputation endorsement.
And on September 8th, Nasdaq took a more critical step.Nasdaq took the initiative to submit an application to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which clearly seeks to approve the listing of tokenized stocks.The weight of this step is far more than “the exchange adds a new trading category.” Once the SEC finally approved, the thousands of existing listed companies on Nasdaq can theoretically complete the tokenization transformation of each share in a short period of time, realizing painless opening.This will be the first time that the US national market system has officially accepted the underlying technology of blockchain, which is equivalent to using institutional breakthroughs to truly break through the barriers between the traditional Wall Street financial system and the crypto world and move towards deep integration.Behind this, stablecoins have become the optimal settlement medium, and demand will grow explosively, reserve liquidity for tokenized stocks to land.The STO (Securities Token Issuance) exchange, which is exploring the edge of compliance, no longer needs to be limited to niche assets. Instead, it can withstand the compliance needs overflowing from Wall Street and may even become the “core hub” connecting traditional securities and crypto assets.
Back to the underlying logic: Why is the foundation leaving?
First, the structural conflict between profit and non-profit.
The foundation is dressed in the guise of “non-profit”, but most project teams are entrepreneurs, not institutions that write academic papers.The essence of entrepreneurship is to create cash flow, to be motivated, and to retain people.However, the foundation is naturally not suitable for equity/option incentives, and it is not convenient to transparently attribute the income from “token appreciation” to individuals or operating entities.So we fall into a contradictory situation. In name, “public welfare organizations” are “commercialized in disguise”, and we must “sell at the right time” at the peak of the market to maintain operation.The later the stage, the more dilemma it becomes.
takeEthereum Foundation (EF)For reference, the financial report released in 2024 shows that EF inventory assets are approximately US$970 million, of which$789 million for crypto assets, the vast majority are ETH standard; compared with the disclosed in 2022$1.6 billion, in two yearsShrink about 39%(The result of the superposition of market volatility and expenditure).This does not mean that EF is “problem”, but it reminds us:The foundation’s finance does not equal ecological business capabilities, it does not mean that the commercialization and compliance of a chain can be implemented in a framework that can be solved by supervision.In reality, what drives the expansion of the Ethereum ecosystem is a group of corporate teams: L2 projects, infrastructure developers, development tools and service providers, not the foundation itself.
Second, the boundaries of governance efficiency and responsibility.
DAO’s vote is beautiful, but business competition waits for no one.A parameter upgrade, an ecological incentive, and a market window are often calculated in “hours”.The governance of foundations and DAO often involves process, canvassing votes, and then discussing; what is finally done is likely to be a “transfer version”.In contrast, the company system: the board of directors, shareholders’ meeting, and management each perform their duties, the decision-making link is clear, and if there is any problem, who will be responsible.Speed and Accountability, This is where the company system is naturally superior to the foundation.
Third, compliant identity and dialogue ability.
The regulatory requirements are never “being an idealist”, but“Who is responsible”, “How to calculate finance”, “How to custody customer assets”.For example, Hong Kong SFC’s license requirements for virtual asset trading platforms directly use the “company” as the application entity, and set standards and processes around custody, compliance, audit, and risk control.It is difficult for you to use the foundation to discuss licenses, bank cooperation, and entrusted supervision; if you talk to a listed company, the logic will be instantly connected.This is not the victory or defeat of technology, but the dialogue of institutional language.
If you put these three into the timeline, it will be more intuitive
2017, “Funda = Orthodox” in the ICO wave is almost an industry consensus;Around 2020The Tezos Foundation disputes over ICO$25 millionTo some extent, reaching a class action settlement also sounded the alarm for the “foundation shield”: Even if you call it a “foundation”, it does not mean that you can evade securities supervision.2022-2024In 2018, supervision from various countries has been improved one after another: the intensity of regulatory enforcement in the United States has increased, and Singapore and Hong Kong have introduced clearer licensing and prudential rules.arrive2025, SUI breaks through the link of “token-listed companies-financial reports-capital market”, and Conflux writes “cooperation with listed companies” into the governance agenda.The industry’s discourse power has changed from “foundation myth” to “company-based reality”.
At this point, you can probably accept a conclusion:The foundation is not “bad”, it just cannot solve today’s core problems.Projects require efficiency, financing, organizational incentives, dealing with banks, auditors, securities firms, and exchanges, and entering a valuation and risk control system understood by traditional finance.Foundations are “the container of vision” and companies are “the container of transactions”.When the blockchain project truly enters the stage of “deep coupling with traditional finance”, that container must be replaced.
Narrative changes, how should enterprises in the Wall Street era be laid out?
Looking back at SUI’s “corporate-based vault” route: it is not “technical companies to borrow a shell to go public”, butExisting listed companies take the initiative to move the asset side, brand side and governance side to SUI——First take money (private equity), then take coins (build positions), then change the name (brand merger), and finally make it clear in public disclosure“What we hold, what rules are measured, and how it affects the net value per share”.This gives institutional investors a familiar coordinate system:You are investing in a company, and part of the book assets are a certain public chain token.Therefore, the trust originally relied on the foundation to “endorsement” was replaced by audits, annual reports and board resolutions.This “from ideal to accounting” conversion is one of the most worth remembering industry nodes in 2025.
See againConflux: It did not directly follow the old path of “who and who”, but instead“Do financial cooperation with listed companies”Write it as governance authorization and set itLong lock-up periodThis type of “stable constraints that traditional capital can understand.”The value of this step is not about the “news title”, but about the“Ecological Treasury—Publicly listed companies—Lock-up period—Price arrangement”Four things are discussed in public governance.You procedurally admit:This type of cooperation is an important tool for ecological development, and at the same time, use long locks and governance processes to manage the risks of “short-term games”.For a domestic public chain, this is pragmatic.
These explorations of SUI and Conflux are essentially building a scattered “small bridge” for “crypto assets to connect with traditional finance.”The landing of the Nasdaq action has truly connected these small bridges into “main roads” that can be passed.“Tokens are included in financial reports—equity tokenization—mainstream transactions”The three are connected into a replicable industry paradigm. SUI breaks the problem “crypto assets enter entities”, Conflux explores “public chain compliance docking entities”, and Nasdaq adds the last link of “tokenized assets enter mainstream trading scenarios”.The integration of encryption and traditional finance has changed from case-based exploration to an implementation process supported by clear rules, which has also made the vague endorsement of the “offshore foundation” lose its irreplaceability, marking that the industry has truly entered the stage of “institutional framework + technological advantages”, and the flexibility and confidence in institutional participation will also be greatly improved.
A friend asked:ThatThe Ethereum Foundation is still here, and the Solana Foundation is still here, How can we say “the demise of the foundation”?What I want to say about “death” is not the dissolution of the legal entity, butThe protagonists of industry narrative.
In the Ethereum ecosystem, the increment you can truly perceive comes from a group of corporate teams – L2, Rollup, data availability layer, client and development tool companies, compliance service providers for KYC, and financial technology for clearing and settlement-Growth and employment occur in companies, not in foundation financial reports.The foundation will continue to do several public welfare things that “someone must do”: basic research, public goods funding, education and community, but it is no longer the protagonist of commercialization and capital markets, which is what I call “death”.
This “role replacement” has also changedProjects and capitalrelationship.Foundation era, what you invest in“Vision + Consensus”;In the era of corporate system, investing in “ability + cash flow”.The vision has not depreciated, but it must be loaded into a structure that can be audited and accountable.For entrepreneurial teams, this is a good thing:The incentives are clearer, the financing is smoother, and the business is more talkable.A better understanding of regulation and banking:Know who to look for, who to judge, who to punish.For the secondary market, the valuation anchor is also more stable:With annual reports and net value per share, there will be “clear fluctuations”.
The foundation is an ideal container for a generation of crypto people, carrying the romance of “autonomousness” and respect for “open source” in the early years.But the industry has crossed the stage of “only relying on ideals to move forward”.What we need now is the “institutional interface” that can connect with banks and audits, the “legal interface” that can install the incentives of the treasury and teams, and the “governance interface” that can enter the capital market and withstand the cost of failure.The company system just provides these interfaces.This is not the “end of the ideal”, but the “ideal to find a more suitable container”.
You may be worried: “Then is decentralization saying goodbye?” I am not pessimistic.Decentralization isNetwork structure and ownership structureThe problem is that corporateization isGovernance efficiency and external dialogueThe problem.The two do not conflict.On the contrary, the custody, accounting, disclosure, and risk management of tokens are placed in the order of the Company Law and the Securities Law.Anti-fragility of the networkPossibly stronger: bad debts, evil deeds, and transfer of interests, which are easier to be identified and punished.The direction of international regulation also emphasizes this:Explain “who is responsible” clearly, Let’s talk about how technology serves financial infrastructure.
For enterprises, through a compliant equity structure, they connect with institutional capital and improve the governance system, and build a solid “compliance base” for the Web3 layout; while Token incentives play the role of “activating the ecology and binding consensus”, but they are no longer the model of foundations’ disorderly issuance in the early years, but are a “ecological lubricant” that is deeply bound to corporate business and subject to compliance constraints.
The dual-wheel drive of Web3 companies can achieve the synergy of “1+1>2”: the compliance and financial strength brought by equity financing give Token incentives “confidence to implement”.The two together point to the mature form of “clear account books and healthy ecologically”, which also allows enterprises to neither deviate from compliance track in their Web3 layout, and can also seize the dividends of ecological innovation.
at last,Goodbye, Crypto World Foundation.
Hello, dual-wheel drive Web3 company.
