中国央行等八部门最新监管核心：重点关注 RWA 代币化资产风险

Background: a new joint notice, familiar framework, new emphasis

On February 6, 2026, the People’s Bank of China ( PBoC ) and seven other central government agencies jointly released 《中国人民银行 国家发展改革委 工业和信息化部 公安部 市场监管总局 金融监管总局 中国证监会 国家外汇局关于进一步防范和处置虚拟货币等相关风险的通知（银发〔2026〕42 号）》.

From the public summary carried by Xinhua via China News Service, the overall policy stance remains consistent: virtual currency related business activities are treated as illegal financial activities and are strictly prohibited in the mainland. The notable change is that the notice explicitly adds “RWA tokenization” ( Real World Asset tokenization ) into the core risk scope, alongside clearer language around RMB-pegged stablecoins and cross-border restrictions. You can read the Xinhua / China News Service coverage here: 8 departments jointly issue document to further prevent and address virtual currency related risks.

This matters because 2025 saw RWA tokenization become a high-frequency narrative globally—moving from “crypto native experiments” toward more institutional discussions around tokenized funds, bonds, and settlement infrastructure. The BIS has repeatedly framed tokenisation as a potential building block of a next-generation financial system ( under stricter governance than open, retail-facing token issuance ). See: BIS Annual Economic Report 2025, Chapter III.

What is actually being regulated: the “old topics” remain the baseline

Although industry narratives evolve ( RWA, stablecoins, onchain funds, etc. ), the Notice’s foundation is still aligned with earlier frameworks: it targets speculative trading, exchange and conversion services, ICO / token fundraising, and platform-style intermediation, especially when such activities create systemic financial risks, fraud exposure, or cross-border capital flow risks.

A Financial Times ( China ) recap distributed via Sina Finance describes the new notice as a continuation and refinement of the earlier framework, while highlighting the strengthened focus areas. Reference: Virtual currency regulation updated: effective from the date of publication.

For builders and users, the practical takeaway is simple: if a project’s business model looks like issuance + marketing + trading + liquidity creation, it sits in the highest-risk zone.

The key new focus: RWA tokenization is explicitly prohibited in the mainland

Why regulators focus on RWA now

RWA tokenization often claims to “bring real assets onchain” ( real estate, receivables, commodities, carbon credits, supply chain invoices, fund units, etc. ). In a compliant financial market structure, tokenisation can be framed as a technology layer for better reconciliation, settlement, and programmability.

But in an open crypto distribution model, “RWA tokens” can also become a new wrapper for quasi-securities issuance, disguised fundraising, or high-yield promises—and that’s exactly where fraud and retail harm historically concentrate.

The BIS has described tokenisation as potentially transformative, but also stressed that implementation needs credible money, governance, and integrity. See: BIS speech: “Tokenisation for the real world” ( Feb 2024 ).

What the Notice states (high-level)

According to the Xinhua / China News Service summary:

• Conducting RWA tokenization activities in the mainland is prohibited, including providing related intermediary information services and information technology services.
• Overseas entities and individuals must not illegally provide RWA tokenization related services to mainland entities.
• Any unit or individual must not go overseas to conduct RWA tokenization business without required consent / filing.
  Source: China News Service ( Xinhua ) coverage.

What this means in practice

If you are a project team, “RWA” is no longer a grey marketing label in China—it is now explicitly named and directly connected to prohibited activity. That affects:

• RWA token issuance and distribution
• “Token as proof of claim” structures marketed to retail users
• Any platform or service that provides RWA tokenization tooling, promotion, quoting, or matchmaking toward mainland users

Stablecoins: RMB-pegged issuance is singled out, with cross-border implications

The same Xinhua summary states that without approval, no unit or individual may issue stablecoins pegged to RMB overseas, and that mainland entities (and overseas entities they control) may not issue virtual currencies overseas. Source: China News Service ( Xinhua ) coverage.

This is consistent with a broader global regulatory theme: stablecoins are increasingly treated as payment and settlement instruments, not “just another crypto token”, and regulators focus on redemption, reserve quality, AML, operational resilience, and governance.

For global context, see the Financial Stability Board’s baseline expectations for stablecoin oversight: FSB: High-level recommendations for global stablecoin arrangements ( final report ).

A 2025–2026 reality check: “tokenisation” is rising globally, but “public token issuance” is still the red line

One reason RWA narratives gained momentum in 2025 is that tokenisation is increasingly discussed inside traditional finance as an infrastructure upgrade. Reports and policy papers emphasize efficiency, programmability, and improved settlement—while simultaneously warning about fragmentation, liquidity, and governance risks. For a high-level industry perspective: World Economic Forum: Asset tokenization in financial markets.

However, China’s regulatory logic draws a clear boundary: technology experiments do not justify open-ended token issuance, retail distribution, or trading speculation—especially when combined with “guaranteed yields”, “asset-backed claims”, or cross-border fund flows.

What users should do: compliance awareness + security hygiene

1) Identify “RWA token” red flags early

Be highly cautious if you see any of the following:

• “RWA” packaged with fixed income, guaranteed returns, or principal protection
• A token sale framed as “subscription”, “share”, “certificate”, or “onchain wealth product”
• Claims like “licensed overseas” used as a marketing shortcut
• Requests to send funds to personal addresses, OTC groups, or unofficial “service providers”

2) Understand that AML scrutiny is tightening globally

Even outside China, global AML / CFT expectations for virtual asset activities are becoming stricter—especially around stablecoins and cross-border flows. Reference: FATF targeted update on implementation of standards on virtual assets and VASPs ( 2025 ).

3) Separate custody safety from regulatory compliance

Using self-custody improves security and counterparty risk management, but it does not change whether a given activity is compliant.

From a pure security perspective, a hardware wallet helps keep private keys offline and reduces exposure to phishing and exchange account risks. For users who hold crypto legally in their jurisdiction, OneKey is designed for self-custody: it allows offline key storage and transaction signing, helping users control their assets without relying on centralized custody.

Closing thoughts

The February 6, 2026 Notice does not change the direction of China’s crypto policy—it reinforces it. The key update for the market is that RWA tokenization and RMB-pegged stablecoin issuance are now explicitly placed into the regulatory spotlight, making “RWA” one of the highest-risk narratives for compliance in the mainland going forward.

For builders, the safest approach is to treat “RWA token distribution + trading” as a strict red line for mainland exposure. For users, the priority is to avoid packaged “RWA yield” marketing, stay alert to fraud patterns, and maintain strong security hygiene—especially around private keys and signing behavior.