From Hornet Brother NFT to 10 million RWA: The Dual Controversy of Hainan Huatie

Recently, Hainan Huatie has become a hot topic in the Web3 community and the A-share market. On one hand, the floor price of "Huangfeng Ge NFT" skyrocketed from 200 yuan to nearly 15,000 yuan in just three days, attracting widespread attention in the digital collectibles space. On the other hand, the company announced the completion of the issuance of its first batch of 10 million yuan non-financial RWA (real-world assets) products, in collaboration with a well-known Web3 enterprise in the industry. This series of actions is seen by many as a new signal of "public companies entering Web3" and a model of "on-chain assets + equity dividends."

However, from a professional perspective, the seemingly innovative practices of Hainan Huatie, whether in NFTs or RWAs, are actually lingering in the gray areas of law and regulation. This should not be viewed as a compliance attempt worth encouraging; rather, it could become a typical case of risk outbreak in the future.

Analysis of Hainan Huatie's NFT and RWA Model

NFT: The true face of "Wasp Brother"

The "Hornet Brother" NFT is not an ordinary digital collectible, but is bound to the "brand promotion revenue" rights for three consecutive years. According to the rules published by the company, users can activate and lock the NFT through a designated mini-program within a specific time period to become a "brand promotion ambassador". From 2025 to 2027, for three consecutive years, they will receive cash benefits equivalent to the dividend amount of 50,000 shares of Hainan Huatie stock each year.

The core characteristics of this model include:

• The earnings are linked to the company's stock dividends.
• Must be reactivated annually to maintain eligibility
• The company reserves the right to interpret and cancel qualifications.
• Users making statements that "damage brand image" may result in disqualification.

Essentially, this is an unequal agreement of "code of conduct in exchange for profit rights", rather than a simple purchase of digital collectibles.

RWA: A New Attempt for Asset On-Chain

Hainan Huatie claims to have partnered with a certain Web3 company to complete the issuance of the first batch of 10 million non-financial RWA products. This product does not involve the transfer of ownership of the equipment, but instead "digitally maps" the "usage rights + operational rights" of the equipment, forming a structure similar to a "digital membership card," allowing users to transfer, consign, and more through on-chain operations while enjoying specific usage rights or benefits.

The key point of this RWA model is:

• Digitalization of usage rights, rather than asset splitting or securitization
• Does not involve the transfer of ownership, thus it is not subject to securities regulation.
• Assets are registered on the chain, but the rights redemption still relies on offline processes.
• Adopting a hybrid model of "device leasing + Web3 equity card" for market exploration

In short, these "digital cards" are more like "virtual leasing rights certificates" for engineering equipment, packaged as the new concept of "RWA", with ownership registration completed on-chain, and introducing transferability. Combining the brand communication mechanism of NFTs, Hainan Huatie has constructed a composite structure of "heavy asset operation company + on-chain digital rights + user promotion dividends."

Innovation or Boundary-pushing? Analysis of Three Major Issues

Although Hainan Huatie's approach seems innovative, there are actually multiple potential risks and issues.

1. The equity structure is unclear, and there is a lack of guarantee for profit distribution. Whether it is the "dividend equivalent income" obtained from NFT locked cards, or the "equipment usage rights" corresponding to RWA, the final realization is not based on real legal contracts or smart contracts, but completely relies on the company's unilateral regulations. This model is essentially the company "speaking for itself," and user rights lack legal protection.

2. The combination of "speech censorship + profit incentives" infringes on community autonomy. The company's rules clearly state that publishing unfavorable comments on social networks may result in the cancellation of eligibility for benefits. This practice of writing "speech control" into the NFT profit rules is essentially a systematic suppression of users' freedom of expression, which contradicts the principles of freedom and autonomy emphasized by Web3.

3. RWA structure blurs the boundaries of financial products, posing hidden risks Although the current approach temporarily avoids certain regulatory red lines, the structure itself is still very close to "wealth management products." If the project continues to scale up and introduces more complex equity combinations or trading mechanisms, it could easily be classified as "disguised issuance of financial products," and could even touch on the boundary of illegal public deposit absorption.

Reminder for Users and Entrepreneurs

For ordinary users:

• The purchased NFT does not represent property rights or equity certificates, but is merely a qualification for participation.
• Earnings may become invalid due to changes in the company's operating status or rules.
• All rights lack statutory guarantees and judicial enforceability.

For Web3 entrepreneurs:

• The practice of Hainan Huatie should not be regarded as an industry model.
• RWA projects should focus on compliance, contracts, and governance mechanisms.
• NFTs can be used for brand interaction, but cannot replace legal contracts and actual rights.

Conclusion

Although Hainan Huatie's attempt has attracted attention, its essence is a probe into the boundaries of regulation, rather than a true breakthrough of the system. As participants in the Web3 industry, we should pursue legal, transparent, and sustainable innovation, rather than cover up old unfair mechanisms with "Web3 packaging." True progress should be built on a solid legal foundation and user trust, rather than taking risks in regulatory gray areas.