I've been pondering a question recently:

If you're not just sitting and writing articles, but actually raising your hand to vote in a board meeting to move certain regulated assets onto the chain, where is the biggest obstacle in making that decision?

It's not about computing power. It's not about transactions per second. Not even about encryption strength.

It's this sentence: If something goes wrong, can I confidently say that this choice is correct?

Once this thought pops up, the logic of certain projects completely changes. In the crypto world, some projects aim to "lower entry barriers," but there are others that go against the grain, focusing on "reducing decision-making costs." They sound similar, but are actually two different paths.

The former wants to grow the cake and attract more people to eat. The latter is thinking: how can we make responsible individuals dare to bet? And when it comes to regulated assets, it's a scenario where "if you slip up, everyone gets hit."

The people choosing which system to adopt are 99% not those who believe in the project's prospects. They are the ones who will have to explain at the audit meeting six months later, "Why did we choose this方案?"

This person has three layers of concerns in their mind:

**First layer: The backlash of transparency**

Blockchain = transparency. This phrase is true in many scenarios. But in the field of regulated assets, transparency often becomes a burden. When transparent, transaction behaviors can be linked and analyzed. When transparent, investment logic can be reverse-engineered. When transparent, every operation is tangible. For serious financial professionals, this is a nightmare.

**Second layer: Blurred boundaries**

Rules are fixed, but reality is dynamic. A system can run smoothly 99% of the time, but what about that 1% gray area? Once caught between rules and reality, accountability is often triggered.

**Third layer: Record of choices**

Every decision on the chain has a timestamp. When reviewed three years later, there's no room for maneuvering. This permanent traceability is unfamiliar and terrifying to traditional financial managers.

Projects that want to break through these three layers of fear need to simultaneously address privacy protection, flexibility, and compliance. This is not a technical issue; it's an institutional issue.