The issue of boundaries for confidential assets is actually an unavoidable topic in tokenization.

Most people see tokenization as an upgrade in transparency. But think about it—completely transparent markets can actually cause problems. Why has traditional finance been able to operate for hundreds of years? Permission control. Ownership records are strictly protected, and execution details are never exposed. Only the right people see the right data at the right time, so the market can function normally.

What does blockchain do? It does the opposite. All transactions are exposed to the sunlight, and every balance can be traced, making everything from 0 to 1 crystal clear. This logic works during the technical experimentation phase, but when it comes to handling real assets and large sums of money, it immediately crashes.

The problem lies in this misalignment. Most chains enforce a fully open mode for assets, but in reality, confidentiality should be the default setting. The issuance, transfer, and settlement of assets can remain private on the network, only proving when verification is needed. This way, regulatory requirements are met without turning the market into a public ledger.

This benefits all parties. Issuers can protect their internal structures, investors avoid being constantly exposed, and regulators get the information they need. No one has to sacrifice anything.

Once this design is in place, the application scope of tokenized assets can break through the limitations of native crypto. Tokenized securities, funds, and real-world assets—these are not social tokens; they require discipline, not show-off.

Therefore, the goal is not to maximize visibility but to keep on-chain behavior aligned with the operation of existing markets. It is this consistency that can turn tokenization from a fantasy into a truly usable infrastructure.