The Endgame of Issuance Rights: Who Controls Pricing Power Shapes the Wealth Structure

1. Issuance Rights Determine Pricing Power

Asset prices do not originate from trading but from issuance.

Price fluctuations in the secondary market are merely a rebalancing on top of a predetermined supply structure. What truly determines the distribution of holdings and risk structure is the issuance arrangement in the primary market.

• Under the IPO model, pricing power is mainly concentrated with underwriters and institutional investors. The book-building process determines the issuance range, and allocations are prioritized for institutions. Post-listing price volatility is based on this established distribution of holdings.
• Under the ICO model, pricing power shifts forward to project teams and early participants. Total token supply, private sale valuations, and unlock schedules all set supply pressure during the issuance phase. The price ceiling and potential sell pressure are partly embedded in the structure upon completion of issuance.
• Under the ETF model, pricing power is converted into control over capital flows. The creation and redemption mechanism links supply to fund inflows, so prices reflect asset allocation behavior more than single-entity decisions.
• Under the RWA model, pricing power shows a dual effect: underlying asset yields are determined by traditional markets, while on-chain liquidity affects trading prices and premium/discount levels.

Therefore, the core difference between issuance models lies not in technology but in who controls the initial distribution of holdings. Issuance rights set the boundaries for pricing power.

2. Decentralization and Re-Centralization Are Not Opposites

The evolution of asset issuance does not follow a single direction.

• ICOs represent permissionless and decentralized models
• ETFs represent compliant integration and centralization
• RWAs represent hybrid structures of regulation and technology

The market has neither fully embraced decentralization nor returned to traditional centralization, but continually adjusts between efficiency and order. Decentralized issuance boosts innovation efficiency but weakens risk control; centralized issuance enhances stability but raises entry barriers and compliance costs.

Institutional choices often depend on market phase and capital structure:

• When innovation demand outweighs stability needs, permissionless models are more active;
• When capital scales up and institutional participation rises, compliance frameworks become more attractive.

Changes in issuance structure essentially reflect changes in capital structure.

3. The Trend Toward Abstraction of Asset Forms

A long-term trend is emerging: assets are shifting from “physical forms” to “rights-based forms.”

• Stocks represent company ownership
• Bonds represent creditor rights
• Tokens represent rights within a network
• ETF shares represent exposure to asset prices
• RWA tokens represent yield rights to real-world assets

The physical carriers of assets are fading, while rights expressions are becoming increasingly abstract. Digitalization and on-chain solutions enhance divisibility, composability, and liquidity efficiency.

Future asset issuance may feature:

• Highly modular rights
• Programmable supply rules
• Fully digital settlement systems
• Compliance and technology co-designed

Assets are no longer just financing tools but become programmable institutional units.

4. Changes in Wealth Distribution Structure

The distribution of issuance rights directly impacts the structure of wealth distribution.

• In the IPO era, early gains were concentrated among institutions and insider investors;
• In early ICOs, retail investors could participate in issuance but faced significant information asymmetry;
• In the ETF phase, regular investors gained convenient access but saw diminished excess returns;
• In the RWA phase, returns align more closely with underlying asset yields, with lower volatility.

As frameworks mature and markets standardize, excess returns gradually shrink, with assets evolving from speculative tools to allocation tools. The openness of issuance rights determines the scope of early returns; the stability of issuance structure defines the magnitude of long-term volatility.

This is structural evolution—not merely a bull-bear cycle.

5. Potential Future Hybrid Models

Future asset issuance may not remain in a single form but could adopt combined structures, such as:

• On-chain issuance + compliant custody
• ETF wrappers + on-chain settlement systems
• RWA assets as DeFi collateral
• Stablecoins as foundational settlement layers

In such hybrid environments, issuance rights may appear in layered structures:

• Legal layer determines asset legitimacy
• Technology layer determines circulation efficiency
• Market layer determines price discovery

Different levels of authority collectively shape an asset’s lifecycle and risk boundaries.

6. Overall Course Conclusion

From IPOs to ICOs, then to ETFs and RWAs, asset issuance has undergone three phases:

• Phase 1: Institutional Centralization — highly permissioned issuance rights;
• Phase 2: Technological Breakthrough — permissionless issuance rights;
• Phase 3: Integration of Regulation and Technology — restructuring of issuance rights.

Asset issuance has not ended; it is continually being restructured. Technology changes tools, regulation sets boundaries, and capital shifts direction.

To understand asset markets, focus not only on price movements but also on issuance structure. Price volatility happens in secondary markets; structure forms in primary markets.

Mastering issuance logic leads to understanding pricing logic; understanding pricing logic allows for identifying risks and opportunities.