In December 2025, HashKey passed the HKEX listing hearing, poised to become Hong Kong’s "first crypto asset stock". The article analyzes the crypto industry’s structural shift—"token issuance = IPO" is outdated, as Web3 projects adopt the "corporatization + equity financing + Token" model, with insights on drivers and IPO preparation.
On December 1, 2025, HashKey Holdings Limited officially passed the listing hearing on the Main Board of the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, with J.P. Morgan, Guotai Junan International, and Haitong International serving as joint sponsors. As a leading platform holding a Hong Kong virtual asset trading license and covering businesses such as digital asset trading matching, on-chain services, and asset management, HashKey is also expected to become Hong Kong’s “first crypto asset stock”.
For the industry, this is not just a milestone for a single company, but a landmark event:
The first batch of regulated crypto platforms in Asia is stepping into the mainstream capital market.
The signal behind this is crystal clear:
The crypto industry is undergoing a structural transformation. The narrative that “issuing tokens = going public” is already outdated. More and more projects are realizing that relying solely on tokens—without establishing a corporate entity, issuing equity, or considering the capital market—can hardly sustain the next phase of growth. The HashKey incident stands as the strongest practical proof of this.
As a result, a new question emerges for all projects:
Why are more and more Web3 projects beginning to consider IPOs? Why is the “corporatization + equity financing + token” three-track model becoming the new normal?
Next, we will start by examining the ongoing changes in this industry.
If you have still been following the old playbook from the last cycle over the past two years—
- Whitepaper + private placement talks + listing on an exchange
- DAO/foundation structure, and if all else fails, a shell company
- Everything revolving around tokens, with equity treated merely as a “shell”
Then you have probably already noticed:
It’s harder to secure funds in the primary market; valuations in the secondary market are unsustainable; and regulators are keeping a closer eye.
Conversely, you will see another type of project quietly shifting gears:
First, establishing a solid corporate entity and conducting formal equity financing;
Continuing to develop tokens, but focusing more on ecological incentives and liquidity;
Setting long-term goals beyond just “listing on a CEX”—aiming to build a company that can go public, engage in mergers and acquisitions (M&As), and operate sustainably.
These projects are progressing more steadily and are more likely to secure large-scale funding. This is not just a shift in market sentiment, but a fundamental change in the cycle structure.
Why Did Everyone Disdain Equity and IPOs in the Last Cycle?
Looking back, it’s easy to see how logical the mindset was back then:
-
Token issuance brought quick money
No prospectus, no roadshows for institutional investors, and no need for years of financial report history. A whitepaper plus logos of several top VCs was enough to attract funds.
-
Ambiguous regulation allowed “learning by doing”
Many countries initially had no clear definition of “what tokens actually are,” so project teams used “innovation” and “technological experimentation” as a shield to forge ahead.
-
DAO/foundation structures were appealing
No shareholders, only a community; no board of directors, only governance voting. This left enormous room for storytelling.
-
The illusion that “tokens = an upgraded version of equity”
Many founders genuinely believed that tokens were more advanced than equity—they could be traded, used as off-exchange collateral, and priced by the market more quickly.
In that environment, projects that honestly pursued equity financing or even considered IPOs were instead seen as “not knowing how to play the game.”
Why Are More Projects Proactively Considering Equity and IPOs Now?
The context of this cycle is different. If you still cling to the old logic, you will only become more passive.
-
Regulators have “made their stance clear”
Regions such as the United States, the European Union, Singapore, and Hong Kong have begun to classify some tokens directly under securities/regulated asset frameworks, requiring them to be managed as securities, payment instruments, or electronic currencies.
Regulators are increasingly unfriendly to the “no corporate entity, pure foundation + token financing” model—not by imposing an outright ban, but by making it clear:
If you are engaged in finance, payments, or asset issuance, do not use “we are just conducting technological R&D” as an excuse.
-
Money is flowing back, but this time it’s “finance-savvy money”
The funds entering this cycle are different from those in 2017 and 2021:
Many come from traditional VCs/PEs and mainstream institutional investors.
They are accustomed to: equity valuation, board seats, exit channels (M&As/IPOs), information disclosure, and compliance.
If you cannot present a proper equity structure, corporate entity, or audited financial statements—only throwing a token economic model at them—they will either give you a small amount of “pocket money” or ignore you entirely.
-
Your project may no longer be a “pure on-chain toy”
Look at the current popular tracks:
- Stablecoins, PayFi, cross-border settlement
- RWA (Real-World Assets): Tokenization of bonds, funds, equipment, real estate, and accounts receivable
- DeFi infrastructure, clearing and settlement, custody, and compliance components
- AI + computing power, data elements, privacy computing…
These businesses share one common trait: they are all tied to “real assets,” “real revenue,” and “real regulatory obligations.”
In this context, if you still rely on the last cycle’s “pure token + foundation” ultra-light structure, financiers, regulators, and partners will grow increasingly hesitant.
-
Relying solely on token secondary market exits offers too little security
The secondary market is extremely volatile.
A single regulatory move or exchange rule adjustment can severely undermine a project’s valuation.
Many institutions are unwilling to tie their exits entirely to an uncontrolled secondary market.
Equity + IPO/M&As, at the very least, provide large investors with a predictable, negotiable, and actionable exit route.
This does not mean all projects must go public. Instead, several real-world cases this year have proven that:
The crypto industry is shifting from “token-only” to a multi-track model of “token issuance + corporate building + capital market access.”
The following trends best illustrate this shift:
- Star cases entering mainstream markets directly
- Circle: Completed its U.S. IPO this year, proving that “compliance + blockchain infrastructure” can enter the mainstream capital market.
- TRON (Justin Sun): Listed on NASDAQ via reverse merger, demonstrating that a “token ecosystem + corporate entity” can also pursue capitalization.
-
Continuous listing of infrastructure companies
Bitdeer, Core Scientific, Marathon, and Iris Energy—these mining/computing power companies have long been traded in public markets, showing that crypto infrastructure is naturally compatible with traditional capital markets.
-
Major Web3 projects accelerating “corporatization + equity financing”
Projects such as Animoca Brands, ConsenSys, LayerZero, and EigenLayer:
Though not yet listed, they are all improving their corporate entities, equity structures, auditing, and governance—clearly preparing for future capital market options.
-
“Lightweight listing” paths like SPAC and RTO gaining more attention
Some Web3 companies in sectors such as blockchain games, NFTs, and tools are exploring SPACs (Special Purpose Acquisition Companies) and reverse takeovers (RTOs), indicating that listing paths are becoming more diverse.
The crypto industry is no longer defined by “token issuance = going public.” Instead, it is moving toward a multi-track model that combines corporations, equity, tokens, and capital markets.
Projects that understand how to integrate this structure will have the opportunity to move to the next stage.
Why Will “Dual Focus on Equity and Tokens” Become the New Normal?
For projects, this is not just “one more option,” but two entirely different targets:
- Who does equity serve?
- Institutional investors: Addressing valuation logic, exit channels, and governance rights.
- Regulators: Providing a corporate entity, responsible party, auditing, and disclosure.
- Potential acquirers: Clarifying whether the acquisition targets a “project” or a “package of company + licenses + assets + team.”
- Who do tokens serve?
- Users and communities: Enabling use cases, incentives, governance participation, and network effects.
- Business growth: Driving marketing, ecosystem development, developer recruitment, and alliance building.
- Liquidity: Facilitating circulation, market making, collateralization, and on/off-exchange settlement.
Thus, you will see more and more projects adopting a “Dual-Asset Model”:
Equity serves as the “skeleton” of the company, while tokens act as the “blood” of the ecosystem. Their roles are clearly defined and not mutually exclusive.
Yes, but you must be prepared: this requires a “surgical-level” restructuring:
- First, establish a corporate entity: Determine the jurisdiction for the parent company, operating entities, and whether a foundation is needed (based on business scenarios and target markets).
- Transfer ownership of IP, code, data, and smart contract revenue from personal wallets/loose structures to the company or foundation.
- Formalize “verbal agreements” and “Excel records” with early investors, team members, and advisors into official equity agreements and token allocation agreements.
The key is not whether you have equity, but:
- Did you clearly explain from the start: Which part of the value belongs to equity holders, and which belongs to token holders?
- Have you avoided “double exploitation”: Where the same cash flow benefits neither shareholders nor token holders, and all actions are aimed at “market manipulation” and “cash-out”?
Frankly speaking: Whether the community criticizes you depends on whether you “clearly state what you are entitled to in black and white.”
Not all projects are suitable for an IPO.
If your project is essentially a tool-based protocol or protocol-layer infrastructure, the most practical path may be:
- Becoming an acquisition target for leading tech/financial institutions;
- Or becoming a “standard component” within the ecosystem of a upstream/downstream giant.
If your project is essentially financial infrastructure (stablecoins, RWA issuance, custody, clearing and settlement, compliance services), then the IPO path is well worth planning for in advance—but it is also a high-threshold, long-cycle journey.
What truly matters is: Starting today, build your project into an asset that “regulators can understand, institutions can invest in, and can be acquired or listed.”
- Transform your “project” into a “group of companies”
- Choose a jurisdiction for the parent company (Hong Kong/Singapore/Cayman Islands/BVI/EU, etc., based on business scenarios and target markets).
- Streamline operating entities, technical teams, and license application entities—avoiding messy ownership across different individuals.
- Clarify which business belongs to which company and which belongs to the foundation.
- Restructure your cap table (capitalization table): Plan equity and tokens together
- Who gets equity? Who gets tokens? Who gets both?
- Will future VC/PE investors receive equity or conditional token quotas?
- If an IPO is pursued one day, will the existing token structure create obstacles in regulatory reviews or prospectus filings?
- Build a “regulator-friendly” compliance system in advance
- Does your business involve payments? Does it accept public funds? Does it issue investment products?
- Do you need a registration-based license (e.g., MSB/VASP) or a permission-based license (e.g., certain CASP/VA/DPT types)?
- Can your AML/KYC (Anti-Money Laundering/Know Your Customer) procedures, sanction screening, and information disclosure withstand the scrutiny of future regulators and auditors?
- Preserve a “prospectus-ready” track record
- Financial data: Revenue structure, cost structure, reserves, and exposures.
- Compliance records: History of fines (if any) and rectification measures.
- Governance records: Procedures for major decisions and any disputes over governance failures.
These are not things to prepare only when you decide to pursue an IPO. Instead, they should be accumulated from every version of your financial reports and every major contract, starting now.
If your project:
- Has already issued tokens;
- Is undergoing or planning another round of equity financing;
- Is being asked by VCs: “What is your long-term path—IPO or acquisition?”
Then it is safe to say you are standing at a new crossroads:
Either quickly complete the entire framework of “equity + tokens + compliance + licenses + exit channels”;
Or continue to rely on the last cycle’s “pure token logic” until liquidity shortages and regulatory pressure catch up with you.
This article is not meant to dismiss tokens. On the contrary—tokens remain a key tool for Web3 to break through the boundaries of traditional internet and finance.
However, the truly large projects of the next cycle will never rely solely on tokens.
What you need to do is quickly upgrade your project from one that “only knows how to issue tokens” to a “company driven by both equity and tokens.”
In this way, whether the future holds an IPO, an acquisition, or building a long-term profitable cash-flow company, you will have choices.
Mankun has long focused on Web3, on-chain finance, and related fields. We can help you clarify, design, and formalize key issues such as:
- The rights boundaries of corporate entities, foundations, and tokens;
- Compliance milestones for equity financing and token financing;
- License requirements and regulatory obligations for business implementation;
- Feasibility of future M&As, listings, and expansion.
This enables your project to possess the ability to “operate smoothly with tokens while growing sustainably as a company.”
If you want to upgrade your project from a “team” to a “company” and move from tokens to the capital market, Mankun can help pave the way.
