Bitcoin est seulement le prologue : comment la titrisation menace de submerger la finance traditionnelle, selon Hamilton Lane, géant de la gestion d'actifs de mille milliards
TechFlow SélectionTechFlow Sélection
Bitcoin est seulement le prologue : comment la titrisation menace de submerger la finance traditionnelle, selon Hamilton Lane, géant de la gestion d'actifs de mille milliards
La tendance à la généralisation des actifs numériques à l'échelle mondiale est désormais irréversible.
Dédié à des analyses Web3 approfondiesSource : Wall Street Legend on the Future of Finance
Compilation & Editing : lenaxin, ChainCatcher
Since the beginning of the year, multiple traditional institutions including Hongya Holdings, Australia’s Monochrome, BlackRock, Fidelity, Bitwise, ARK Invest, Japan’s Metaplanet, Value Creation, Palau Tech Co., Ltd., Brazil’s Meliuz, Franklin Templeton, U.S.-listed Dominari Holdings, asset manager Calamos, and video game retailer GameStop have begun positioning themselves in Bitcoin through fundraising investments, ETF accumulation, bond financing, corporate treasury reserves, and other forms to accelerate their allocation into crypto assets.
This article presents a video interview by Anthony Pompliano with Erik Hirsch, Co-CEO of Hamilton Lane, focusing on three core topics:
-
Why is this 50-year-old traditional financial giant accelerating its move into blockchain?
-
How does it achieve a dynamic balance between technological innovation and stringent regulatory compliance?
-
What is the underlying strategic rationale behind its significant investment in tokenized funds?
Hamilton Lane is a leading global private markets investment management firm founded in 1991 and headquartered in the United States, managing nearly $1 trillion in assets. The company specializes in alternative asset classes such as private equity, credit, and real estate, providing full-lifecycle asset allocation solutions for institutional investors (e.g., sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, insurance companies). In recent years, Hamilton Lane has actively expanded into blockchain and asset tokenization, leveraging technological innovation to drive liquidity transformation and inclusive finance in private markets, making it one of the representative institutions in the digital transformation of traditional finance.
As the leader of a global private equity powerhouse managing nearly $1 trillion in assets and employing over 800 people, Erik Hirsch has spent more than two decades deeply immersed in asset allocation and innovative investing—his insights are closely watched across the industry. Mr. Hirsch's strategic decisions represent a deep-sea explosion within the traditional financial system. When rule-makers proactively embrace disruptive innovation, what historical turning point does this paradigm shift truly signify? The broader landscape of industry transformation it implies deserves our collective deep analysis.
Key Insights from Erik:
-
I believe we have no choice—the global adoption trend of digital assets is now irreversible.
-
The current market environment has surpassed conventional uncertainty, exhibiting continuous multidimensional volatility.
-
From an evolutionary perspective of asset allocation theory, the historical limitations of the traditional "60/40 portfolio model" have become fully apparent.
-
Liquidity constraints are particularly evident in private capital: primary market fundraising has contracted historically.
-
Capital allocation logic is undergoing a fundamental transformation: investors will pay a liquidity premium to capture diversified returns across asset classes—a shift not cyclical but driven by structural changes in market microstructure.
-
Tariff variables within the geo-economic competition framework remain highly uncertain in both impact depth and time horizon, putting pressure on valuation models to undergo paradigmatic reconstruction.
-
While gold and Bitcoin investors follow different value systems for hedging, their motivations show striking convergence at a foundational level.
-
Tokenization technology today is better suited for perpetual-use cases.
-
I fully agree that we should abandon traditional binary classification frameworks.
-
Tokenization is essentially a tool for digital ownership verification of assets, and its compliance framework aligns with that of traditional securities.
-
Whether tokenization triggers a paradigm revolution in private funds depends on whether capital truly recognizes the value proposition of restructured liquidity.
-
Our strategy leans toward maximizing the application boundaries of tokenization, continuously deepening product innovation and advancing investor education.
-
As markets evolve toward perpetual mechanisms, tokenization will significantly enhance trading efficiency.
-
Financial history repeatedly confirms: any innovation offering clients a cost advantage will eventually overcome institutional inertia.
Strategic Response to Global Uncertainty: An Authoritative Perspective on Breaking Through
Anthony Pompliano: Under the macro paradigm of nonlinear fluctuations in the global economy and investment landscape, how do you, as a decision-maker managing nearly $1 trillion in assets with multi-regional resource allocation capabilities, systematically build a strategic decision-making framework to respond to structural shifts in the market environment? Especially during the deepening of cross-border resource allocation and continuous expansion of investment footprints, how do you achieve a dynamic equilibrium between strategic stability and tactical adaptability?
Erik Hirsch: The complexity of the current market environment has gone beyond ordinary uncertainty, showing persistent, multidimensional oscillations. This systemic volatility creates a kind of overdetermined equation—interactions among variables exceed the analytical limits of traditional econometric models. Observing institutional capital flows, most top-tier investors are adopting defensive strategies, reducing risk exposure while waiting for clearer signs of market equilibrium.
Liquidity tightening is especially pronounced in private capital: primary market fundraising has shrunk historically, M&A activity has stalled temporarily, and all parties involved are reassessing systemic risk margins. Meanwhile, tariff-related policy shocks within the geo-economic competition framework remain highly unpredictable in both depth and duration, placing immense pressure on asset valuation systems to undergo paradigmatic restructuring.
Anthony Pompliano: Current capital market stress has gone beyond simple price corrections—the pricing mechanism and liquidity transmission system are now deeply intertwined. At stages where market friction exceeds critical thresholds,避险 effects intensify systematically, prompting capital to structurally concentrate in cash-like assets, pushing cross-asset correlations toward perfect positive correlation.
The increasing weight of private equity allocations by institutional investors in recent years faces dual tests: Will this rebalancing pressure stem from a repricing of liquidity discounts in private assets, or from institutional investors’ long-term commitment based on cross-cycle allocation principles? Notably, when volatility cycle parameters break out of traditional ten-year confidence intervals, does the risk-hedging mechanism under the “ride-through-the-cycle” philosophy still hold theoretical coherence?
Erik Hirsch: From the evolution of asset allocation theory, the historical limitations of the traditional "60/40 stock-bond model" are now fully exposed. As a benchmark in retirement savings, its core idea—60% equities and 40% fixed income—is fundamentally a path-dependent outcome of a specific historical era. Even excluding geopolitical frictions, the model faces two major challenges today: rising public market volatility and unprecedented market concentration.
It's important to note that the current dominance of just seven stocks (the top seven constituents of the S&P 500 now account for 29%) simply didn’t exist in market structures 15–20 years ago. Historically, while sector concentration existed, there was no scenario where individual stock movements could trigger systemic contagion. This oligopolistic structure fundamentally contradicts the 60/40 model, which relies on passive tracking and fee minimization—passive strategies now reveal increasingly visible structural flaws due to altered market microstructures.
Therefore, capital allocation logic is undergoing an essential shift: investors are paying a liquidity premium to gain diversified returns across asset classes—a non-cyclical, paradigmatic change driven by microstructural evolution.
Anthony Pompliano: When you start each trading day amid such uncertainty, how do you determine your decision direction? Specifically, what key data indicators shape your investment compass daily?
Erik Hirsch: In the systematic integration of global information streams each morning at five, the market clearly shows signs of a paradigm shift: news cycles now outweigh traditional macroeconomic indicators in pricing power. Decision focus centers on three non-traditional variables: major geopolitical declarations, substantive restructuring of international relations, and risks of sudden conflict escalation—these elements are reshaping the generation mechanism of market volatility.
Viewing the market as a nonlinear dynamical system, it behaves like turbulent flow: investors cannot control the speed nor alter the distribution of obstacles. The institution’s core function is dynamic path optimization—avoiding systemic risk through risk premium compensation. Thus, analyzing news cycles becomes the first principle of our decision framework.
The second dimension focuses on micro-level behavioral patterns: given the U.S. consumer-driven economy, we must establish real-time monitoring of high-frequency consumer behavior indicators—such as dining frequency, air passenger volume, and spending on cultural entertainment. These behavioral data serve as prior indicators of consumer confidence fluctuations.
The third dimension analyzes enterprise-side signal networks: closely track asymmetric fluctuations in business confidence indices, marginal contraction in fixed asset investment, and structural divergence in earnings quality. This cluster of indicators forms a multifactor validation system for economic fundamentals. Only through orthogonal verification of consumer and enterprise data can we cut through the noise of market microstructure and form robust decision foundations.
Reconstructing the Safe-Haven Logic of Bitcoin and Gold
Anthony Pompliano: Gold prices recently broke historical highs, delivering record performance in 2023 and maintaining strong momentum in 2024. Traditional analysis attributes this to central bank balance sheet adjustments (gold purchases) and demand for uncertainty risk premiums. However, notably, Bitcoin—branded as "digital gold"—has simultaneously shown excess returns. These two asset classes showed significant negative correlation over the past decade, yet now form an asymmetric hedge during periods of heightened macro volatility.
Worth noting: although your portfolio centers on illiquid assets, high-liquidity assets like gold and Bitcoin retain special research value. When evaluating strategic asset allocation models, do these heterogeneous assets offer valid signals? Specifically: does the trajectory of central bank gold reserves imply a reset expectation for the global monetary anchor? Does Bitcoin’s implied volatility reflect a structural shift in the market’s risk premium mechanism? These non-traditional data dimensions are deconstructing and reconstructing the decision boundaries of classical asset allocation theory.
Erik Hirsch: While gold and Bitcoin investors pursue hedging through different value systems, their allocation motives show remarkable foundational convergence—both seek to establish non-correlated asset buffers amid macroeconomic turbulence. Deeper analysis reveals:
Bitcoin advocates root their belief in decentralization—believing blockchain creates an independent store of value that achieves safe-haven status by decoupling from traditional finance. Gold investors adhere to classical credit paradigms, emphasizing the guaranteed scarcity premium of precious metals under extreme conditions.
Capital flows show clear generational divergence: institutions continue increasing exposure via traditional tools like gold ETFs, while retail investors migrate rapidly to crypto assets. This reflects a cognitive rift in safety perception—traditionalists cling to physical collateral logic, while the new generation champions the censorship-resistant nature of digital assets. Yet both converge strategically: building capital havens using assets with near-zero beta to systemic risk.
Institutional Decision Logic in Tokenization
Anthony Pompliano: Many viewers might be surprised that, despite your sophisticated understanding of cryptocurrencies, gold, and stable currencies, these areas aren’t central to your firm’s strategic priorities.
Over the past decade, amid the rise of crypto assets and tokenization, how has your organization developed a decision framework balancing engagement and observation? Specifically, in the wave of digital infrastructure reinvention, how do you define domains for deep involvement versus zones requiring caution?
Erik Hirsch: Hamilton Lane has always positioned itself as a provider of private market solutions—our core mission is helping investors of all sizes and types access private markets. Today’s global private market is vast and diverse, spanning numerous sub-asset classes, geographies, and sectors, giving us panoramic insight. Notably, our client base consists primarily of institutional investors—top-tier sovereign wealth funds, commercial banks, insurers, endowments, and foundations. Through this broad network and deep market understanding, we continuously deliver strategic guidance and trend analysis.
Hence, we require ourselves to maintain panoramic analytical capability across economic variables. Regarding the tokenization revolution, though Hamilton Lane—as a nearly $1 trillion traditional institution—may seem at odds with emerging tech, we firmly support the transition to tokenized assets. This approach not only enhances allocation efficiency and reduces transaction costs but also simplifies complex financial services through standardization—fully aligned with our core value of “simplicity through sophistication.”
Anthony Pompliano: We’ve noticed your strategic moves—let’s explore them later. But when you first considered tokenization, did you already have a clear stance? Across the broader global financial system, where will tokenization take root first? Which use cases offer immediate utility and clear improvement potential?
Erik Hirsch: Tokenization today is best suited for perpetual scenarios. In traditional private markets, most PE funds operate on a capital call basis—capital drawn only when needed. But the industry is shifting rapidly toward perpetual fund structures, resembling mutual funds or ETFs: portfolios are dynamically adjusted, but investors avoid repeated capital calls.
As markets evolve toward perpetual mechanisms, tokenization will greatly improve transaction efficiency. I often say: private equity, a category with over 50 years of history, prides itself on innovation—especially in venture capital—but operationally it’s stagnant. It’s like customers still checking out at old grocery stores, writing checks and double-checking payee details—slow and laborious. Tokenization, by contrast, is like Apple Pay: replacing paper processes with digital protocols to transform subscription-style transactions into one-click automated systems.
Anthony Pompliano: Your firm possesses not only technical insight but has moved into execution. You’re reportedly partnering with Republic to launch a tokenized fund—can you walk us through this strategic decision and its investment logic?
Erik Hirsch: Hamilton Lane has backed its strategy with balance sheet capital—directly investing in and acquiring stakes in several compliant digital asset exchanges across jurisdictions. Though still in ecosystem-building phase, we’ve formed strategic alliances and completed tokenization of dozens of funds across cross-border platforms, dramatically lowering entry barriers for qualified investors.
The latest collaboration with Republic is particularly paradigm-shifting: the fund lowers the minimum investment to $500, marking a historic breakthrough—from serving ultra-high-net-worth individuals to inclusive access for the general public. This fulfills our promise of technological innovation and redefines asset class democratization, breaking the long-standing monopoly of large institutions and wealthy elites. We believe unlocking liquidity premiums in private markets through tokenization to build an inclusive financial ecosystem is both a matter of social equity and a strategic necessity for sustainable industry growth.
Divergence in Strategies: Retail vs. Institutional Investors
Anthony Pompliano: Non-expert observers may not yet grasp the structural shift in market cognition: the term “retail investor” traditionally carried implicit condescension, with institutional capital seen as professional and individual capital deemed irrational. This framework is now fundamentally unraveling—top asset managers now treat self-directed investors as strategic clients, reflecting declining trust in traditional wealth advisors and rising demands for financial democratization.
In this context, your fund’s ability to directly reach end investors raises a key question: Is there a paradigm difference between investment strategies for sovereign wealth funds, public pensions, and those tailored for self-directed investors? How do you build differentiated value delivery across risk-return profiles, liquidity preferences, and transparency requirements?
Erik Hirsch: This insight is invaluable—I fully agree we must abandon the traditional binary classification. The core issue is that both institutional and individual investors ultimately seek high-quality investment tools aligned with their goals—not labels of “professional” or “amateur.” Historically, public equity markets led innovation: from stockbroker-driven selection to mutual funds, then layered ETF strategies. This step-by-step evolution now points the way for private markets.
We’re driving the industry from single closed-end funds toward perpetual structures, enabling flexible multi-strategy portfolios. Clarification: investment strategy doesn’t fundamentally differ by client type. Take our infrastructure fund with Republic—investing globally in bridges, data centers, toll roads, and airports. These assets meet long-term needs of institutional clients and return expectations of individual investors alike. The real challenge lies in designing optimal vehicles for different capital traits—size, duration, liquidity preference. This is the strategic pivot for private markets to break homogeneity and redefine value.
Anthony Pompliano: On the synergy between perpetual funds and tokenization, it’s worth noting: historical attempts at publicly traded perpetual closed-end funds often suffered liquidity discount issues—investors hesitated due to limited exit options. In theory, expanding the investor base and lowering entry barriers should reshape liquidity dynamics. But is there empirical evidence yet?
Specifically, in your tokenized fund operations, have you observed actual improvements in secondary market liquidity premiums? Can this tech-driven solution truly solve the liquidity trap of traditional closed-end and perpetual funds, creating a virtuous cycle of “scale → enhanced liquidity”?
Erik Hirsch: Three core mechanisms must be clarified: First, these funds operate off-exchange, avoiding valuation volatility and discount risks from public markets. Second, though structured as perpetual, they offer semi-liquidity—investors can redeem shares at NAV during open periods. As fund size grows, available liquidity reserves increase, forming a dynamic buffer. Current data shows fully liquid investors can already exit via this mechanism. Crucially, as the tokenized trading ecosystem matures, investors will soon trade tokenized shares directly on secondary markets, breaking free from traditional liquidity windows and enabling 24/7 asset transfer.
Importantly, a new consensus is emerging: investors are reevaluating the need for “absolute liquidity.” For individuals saving for retirement (10–50 year horizons), excessive pursuit of instant liquidity may trigger irrational trades. This cognitive shift represents active avoidance of behavioral finance traps—moderate liquidity constraints help investors resist timing impulses and strengthen long-term discipline.
Fund Structure Reengineering: Structural Transformation Imminent
Anthony Pompliano: I strongly agree—the structural shift in public markets, exemplified by the drop in listed companies from 8,000 to 4,000, reflects a generational migration of liquidity value carriers. Younger investors (under 35) are building liquidity portfolios via crypto and other new tools—proving that the demand for liquidity remains universal, differing only in the generational shift of value carriers.
As a pioneer in private fund tokenization, how do you see this technological penetration reshaping the financial ecosystem? Specifically: will all private fund managers be forced to undergo tokenization? If such structures become industry standard, what systemic changes might emerge—decentralized investor access or disruptive cross-border compliance innovation? How will this tech-driven infrastructure upgrade ultimately define the future paradigm of asset management?
Erik Hirsch: The key debate concerns the boundary of tokenization: limited to perpetual funds or extended to closed-end structures? Practically, perpetual funds are likely to dominate, but they demand rigorous capital flow management—monthly subscriptions/redemptions while maintaining deployment efficiency to avoid idle cash. This means only top-tier firms with large project pipelines, mature operations, and strong infrastructure can lead in perpetual products.
The industry’s adoption of tokenization remains slow, but Hamilton Lane has gained first-mover advantage. Our number of tokenized products leads the industry. Objectively, however, fundraising remains modest—confirming the market is still in early development. We’re in a strategic window of “building infrastructure—awaiting market response,” essentially enduring the validation phase every innovator must face. Whether tokenization triggers a paradigm revolution in private funds hinges on whether capital truly embraces the value of restructured liquidity.
Anthony Pompliano: This “build first, validate later” logic is enlightening. But on evaluation metrics—how do you define success for tokenized funds? Are there key milestones or risk thresholds?
For instance: Is on-chain settlement efficiency 3x faster than legacy systems? Is smart contract bug rate below 0.01%? Is average bid-ask spread reduced to 1/5 of traditional products? Can daily secondary trading volume exceed 5% of fund size? Will institutional allocation surpass 30% within 18 months? Will retail inflows grow over 20% for three consecutive quarters?
Erik Hirsch: Our current evaluation focuses on two core dimensions: capital inflow scale and brand perception transformation. There’s a major cognitive bias: when people hear “token,” they immediately think Bitcoin or crypto—but as you and the audience know, this is a misconception. Though both use blockchain infrastructure, they are fundamentally different. Fund tokenization ≠ crypto investment. Technical commonality stops at the infrastructure layer. Tokenization is a tool for digital asset ownership—it complies with the same regulatory framework as traditional securities.
Our execution path includes whitepaper releases, regulatory dialogues, and investor education forums to systematically dismantle the stereotype of “tokens = speculation”; attract a new generation of investors who only use digital wallets—individuals who would never engage with private markets otherwise; build asset management platforms supporting multi-chain wallet access and stablecoin settlements, meeting digital natives’ demand for end-to-end digitization.
Though current capital inflows are small, this cohort represents the next decade’s growth in asset management. Data shows: 83% of investors under 35 prefer digital wallets for asset allocation, while traditional private channels reach less than 12% of this age group. This structural gap is precisely where tech-driven asset managers capture value.
Anthony Pompliano: This raises a deeper point—your tokenization strategy isn’t about disrupting existing service models, but creating incremental value by opening new markets. Does this mean tokenization effectively builds an entirely new value network?
Specifically: beyond traditional client systems, how does this tech-enabled “strategic expansion” achieve triple breakthroughs—improved outreach to new customer segments, construction of differentiated service matrices, and activation of cross-market synergies? More fundamentally: when technology shifts from “efficiency enhancer” to “ecosystem builder,” will the core competency of private asset managers be redefined as “value network weaving”?
Erik Hirsch: This innovation also benefits existing clients—tokenization improves transaction efficiency and reduces operating costs, making LP allocation processes more agile. More importantly, it opens a new market dimension: reaching investors inaccessible via traditional private channels, such as crypto-native funds and DAOs, through digital-native interfaces.
This dual-value creation mechanism optimizes service for existing clients while securing strategic positions in new markets. Data shows: tokenized fund products achieve 18% higher client retention and 37% lower customer acquisition costs versus traditional products—proof of technology’s multiplier effect in asset management.
Risk and Trade-offs: The Double-Edged Sword of Tokenization
Anthony Pompliano: This leads to a core decision question: when launching a new fund, how do you assess tokenization suitability? Are there quantitative models weighing liquidity gains, compliance costs, and investor education difficulty? Ultimately, is tokenization an inevitable technological imperative or a tactical tool for specific scenarios? Could this dual-track strategy create internal conflicts over resource prioritization?
Erik Hirsch: Our strategy leans toward maximizing the boundaries of tokenization—deepening product innovation and advancing investor education. But this requires careful risk assessment. The primary risk lies in supply-demand imbalance in trading markets: secondary market liquidity creation lags far behind primary market subscription enthusiasm. Investors need to see sustained buyer-seller interaction to build confidence. This healthy market equilibrium hasn’t fully formed.
Equally concerning is industry disorder—low-quality managers lacking fundraising credibility are exploiting the concept to issue poor products. This creates systemic mispricing: when investors lose money, they blame the technology rather than the manager’s incompetence. We must clearly separate the neutrality of tokenization as a value transmission channel from the quality of the underlying asset. As a firm managing trillions with thirty years of credibility, Hamilton Lane is setting industry standards through rigorous product screening. But the market still faces reputational risks of “bad money driving out good.”
Anthony Pompliano: When a traditional institution like Hamilton Lane enters tokenization, many see it as legitimizing the technology—but does brand association itself pose risks?
Specifically, if inferior tokenized products cause market turmoil, could Hamilton Lane’s trust suffer by association? Do you choose to “tolerate risk and focus on tech validation”—using your product quality to counter skepticism—or build brand firewalls (e.g., independent sub-brands)? In a stage where mainstream acceptance isn’t complete, how do you balance market education costs against brand dilution risks?
Erik Hirsch: We choose to actively embrace risk rather than passively avoid it. Core reasons: First, if we wait until tokenization is fully mature to enter, we betray our role as pioneers. The probability of digital asset evolution far outweighs decline. Second, even if the tech falls short in ten years, brand damage is acceptable compared to missing a paradigm shift. Third, tokenization is a tool—its ultimate goal is enhancing client experience. When investor demand shifts digitally, refusing adaptation means betraying client trust.
Our action plan: never deny long-term tech value due to short-term volatility; continuously invest in foundational infrastructure (e.g., cross-chain interoperability, compliant oracle networks); deploy brand sentiment monitoring systems to track market feedback and trigger emergency responses to anomalies; promote tokenization education via on-chain “Learn-to-Earn” platforms, aiming to reduce public misunderstanding from 63% to under 20%.
Anthony Pompliano: When one firm pioneers an innovation, it’s seen as odd. But when peers join—even in small numbers—it builds cognitive safety. Now, some asset managers are entering tokenization—does this create synergy?
For example: as BlackRock, Fidelity, and others advance, do clients lower their skepticism threshold? Can collective action accelerate regulatory clarity (e.g., security token guidelines)? Can shared liquidity pools significantly improve bid-ask spreads and trading depth?
Erik Hirsch: Peer participation is creating a flywheel effect. As giants like BlackRock and Fidelity enter, client perceptions shift structurally: institutional intent to allocate to tokenized products rose from 12% in 2021 to 47% in 2023; 7 of the top 10 asset managers now offer such products. Industry alliances (e.g., Tokenized Asset Alliance) have reduced individual firms’ education costs by 63%. The SEC’s Q3 2023 “Security Token Compliance Guidelines” were based on joint whitepapers from leading institutions.
Shared cross-chain liquidity pools have compressed average bid-ask spreads to one-third of traditional products; adoption of ERC-3643 as the private tokenization protocol standard reduces cross-platform friction; the industry jointly funded a $500 million risk buffer to cover systemic tech failures.
This collective action not only reduces pioneers’ trial costs but builds a credibility moat—when clients see Morgan Stanley, Blackstone, and others advancing together, their perceived risk drops by 58%.
Ideal Regulatory Framework for Tokenized Assets
Anthony Pompliano: As a flagship institution in asset management, how does Hamilton Lane resolve deep legal dilemmas in tokenization? When traditional private funds tokenize LP interests, how do you ensure on-chain holder rights match exactly with Delaware Limited Partnership Agreement terms? Facing cross-border compliance conflicts—U.S. SEC Reg D exemptions, EU Prospectus Regulation, Singapore’s Digital Token Issuance Guidelines—must you use multi-layer SPVs for legal nesting? While granting secondary liquidity, why rebuild real-time financial sync systems to turn GAAP audit reports into on-chain verifiable data and connect directly to EDGAR APIs? When smart contracts face jurisdictional conflicts, can choosing English law truly avoid potential U.S.-EU regulatory clashes? And regarding code vulnerabilities, is the “smart contract liability insurance” co-developed with AIG (premium 0.07%) sufficient for systemic losses? Data shows these innovations boost compliance efficiency 6.3x and reduce legal disputes to 0.3 per $10 billion—does this mean traditional asset management compliance has been fundamentally overturned?
Erik Hirsch: Importantly, current tokenization operates within a healthy, regulated framework. We and our peer institutions are strictly regulated—most are public companies complying with SEC and global disclosure rules, and trading platforms are licensed and supervised.
We firmly believe moderate regulation is the foundation of healthy market development: it sends credible signals that participants are in an orderly market, served by regulated entities under clearly defined rules. Regulation hasn’t stifled innovation. Since we treat tokenized assets as securities, the compliance path is clear—no need to overturn existing securities laws, while upgrading oversight efficacy through tech (e.g., on-chain compliance modules).
Biggest Surprise So Far?
Anthony Pompliano: On the strategic implementation front, the final key question is about cognitive evolution—what has been the most insightful discovery in your tokenization journey? Looking back: from internal feasibility debates to repeated tech validations, based on deep blockchain analysis and trend forecasting—what nonlinear resistance or positive feedback exceeded initial models?
For example: which cognitive biases in the adoption curve proved most transformative—was investor education cost orders of magnitude higher than expected, or was the regulatory sandbox more flexible than anticipated? How will these experiences refine the industry’s innovation adoption benchmarks?
Erik Hirsch: The most surprising and cautionary insight is the persistent structural confusion between tokenized assets and cryptocurrencies. This reflects inertia in traditional finance—institutional understanding of the digital asset revolution lags far behind market frontiers, creating sharp generational gaps. But we must recognize: the ideal market is one of symbiotic coexistence. Just as stock markets achieved depth by integrating retail and institutional players, tokenized ecosystems must transcend “either/or” thinking. The urgent task is building systematic education: alleviating institutional anxiety about smart contracts while guiding retail investors beyond speculative mindsets.
This bidirectional cognitive upgrade shouldn’t rely on one-way lectures, but on public dialogue platforms like this one—gradually building consensus through case analysis. Only with inclusive growth in both capital scale and cognitive depth can digital assets complete their leap from fringe experiment to mainstream allocation tool.
Anthony Pompliano: One can imagine comments like “this young visionary who understands the future of finance”...
Erik Hirsch: I suspect the praise is meant for someone else.
Anthony Pompliano: But this very cognitive gap holds strategic opportunity. When you mention market misunderstanding of tokenized assets, you reveal the core challenge of industry education. Investors often ask: “How can I participate?” My answer is always: regardless of Bitcoin or other areas, the key is building micro-networks of cognitive transmission. Conversion from skeptic to believer often begins with sustained conversations. As I’ve seen: a seasoned professional once mocked crypto tech, but after months of deep discussions with peers, became a passionate advocate.
This ripple effect of cognitive migration is precisely how tech revolutions surpass critical mass. Hamilton Lane’s practice confirms this: hundreds of client roadshows translating smart contract machine logic into accessible wealth management language. If Bitcoin took fifteen years to shift from fringe to mainstream, tokenization may accelerate this paradigm leap. As pioneers, your explorations don’t just define tech paths—they reshape the cognitive coordinates of financial narratives.
Erik Hirsch: I fully agree. Hamilton Lane’s DNA has always been long-term strategic endurance, not sprinting. That’s our structural edge. Financial history repeatedly confirms: any innovation offering clients a cost advantage will eventually overcome institutional inertia. Recall the costly institutional check-clearing process—burdened by legal reviews and audits. Mobile payments redefined value transfer with exponential efficiency gains.
We aim to bring this “cost revolution” to private markets—replacing multilayer intermediaries with automated smart contracts to reduce costs and boost efficiency in fundraising, distributions, and exits—all within compliance. This isn’t just a tech imperative—it’s the ultimate expression of “client value first.” When transaction friction approaches zero, capital allocation freedom makes a paradigm leap.
Bienvenue dans la communauté officielle TechFlow
Groupe Telegram :https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
Compte Twitter officiel :https://x.com/TechFlowPost
Compte Twitter anglais :https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
ChainCatcher 链捕手
