Hainan Huatie's Web3 Attempt: Innovation or Risk?

Recently, Hainan Huatie has attracted widespread attention due to its Web3-related initiatives. On one hand, the price of its issued digital collectible "Wasp Brother" has soared; on the other hand, the company announced the completion of the issuance of the first batch of 10 million yuan non-financial RWA( real-world assets ) products. These actions are seen by some observers as a signal of "public companies entering Web3" and a typical case of "on-chain assets + equity dividends."

However, a careful analysis reveals that Hainan Huatie's operations are actually skirting the edge of legality and regulation. From digital collectibles to RWA projects, there are potential compliance risks.

Hainan Huatie's Web3 Attempt

Digital Collectibles Project

The "Wasp Brother" digital collectible issued by the company is not just an ordinary collectible; it is also tied to three consecutive years of "brand promotion revenue" rights. According to the official rules, users can activate and lock the NFT through a specific mini-program within a designated time, thereby becoming a "brand promotion ambassador" and receiving cash benefits linked to the company’s stock dividends for three consecutive years from 2025 to 2027.

The main features of this model include:

• Earnings are linked to company stock dividends.
• Need to reactivate eligibility every year
• The company reserves the right to interpret and cancel qualifications.
• Users who make statements that "damage the brand image" may lose their eligibility.

RWA Project

Hainan Huatie also announced a collaboration with a Web3 enterprise, completing the issuance of the first batch of 10 million yuan non-financial RWA products. This product digitally maps the "usage rights + operational rights" of the company's equipment, forming a structure similar to a "digital membership card," allowing users to transfer and circulate through on-chain operations.

Core features of RWA projects:

• Digitalization of usage rights, not asset splitting or securitization
• Does not involve ownership transfer, avoiding securities regulation
• Assets are recorded on the chain, but the realization of rights relies on offline processes.
• Adopting a "device leasing + Web3 rights card" hybrid model

Potential Risk Analysis

Despite the fact that these projects seem innovative, there are actually several issues:

1. The equity structure is unclear, and there is a lack of guarantee for profit distribution.

Whether it is the "dividend-equivalent income" from digital collectibles or the "equipment usage rights" from RWA, the ultimate realization relies on the company's unilateral commitment, lacking real legal contracts or support from smart contracts. In this model, user rights are not effectively protected.

2. The combination of speech control and profit incentives contradicts the spirit of Web3.

The company stipulates that user rights may be revoked due to the publication of unfavorable remarks. This practice is essentially a suppression of users' freedom of expression and is contrary to the principles of freedom and autonomy advocated by Web3.

3. RWA Structure Blurs the Boundaries of Financial Products

Although the current RWA structure avoids certain regulatory red lines, its nature is still close to "quasi-financial products". If the project further expands in scale or introduces more complex operations, it is likely to touch the boundaries of illegal financial activities.

Conclusion

Although Hainan Huatie's attempts in Web3 have sparked market discussions, the legal structure and compliance design they rely on have明显缺陷. For ordinary users, participating in such projects should be cautious, as the rights obtained lack legal protection. For Web3 entrepreneurs, they should avoid viewing this model as an industry benchmark and should put more effort into compliance, contracts, and governance.

In the process of exploring Web3 innovations, legality, transparency, and sustainability should be the fundamental principles. Testing the regulatory red lines is not equivalent to a real institutional breakthrough, and all parties involved should maintain a clear understanding of this.