以下转载 Ronald Leung 于原刊日期发表的评论。观点、邀请及产品资料反映发表当时的情况，并不构成投资建议、要约、回报保证，亦不代表产品目前可供使用。
A journalist friend asked me this week whether tokenised gold is regulated by the Hong Kong SFC.
I couldn't answer, unless it is a tokenised investment product. It depends on the legal structure the gold is held in.
Different structures sit with different regulators. Physical bars and gold instalment plans sit with Hong Kong Customs; gold ETFs and paper gold, being collective investment schemes and structured products, sit with the Hong Kong SFC. Tokenise any of them and the regulator follows the structure.
All four can be tokenised. Tokenising digitises one layer. It changes how the right moves; the right itself is unchanged.
Most people assume every tokenised product is the SFC's responsibility. That is unfair to the SFC — where a complaint concerns a product that is neither a security nor a virtual asset, it has no statutory power to assist or to enforce.
So the question is not which chain. It is how the legal rights and the risks change across the life cycle of a tokenised product.
The statutory basis for every column is on the chart — Cap. 615 and Cap. 571.
這星期一個媒體朋友問我，代幣化黃金受不受香港證監會監管。
我答不了，除非它是代幣化投資產品。要看那塊黃金以什麼法律架構形式呈現。
形式不同，本身的監管機構就不同：實體金條與供金會歸香港海關，黃金 ETF 與紙黃金等集體投資計劃及結構性產品歸香港證監會。代幣化之後，監管機構自然也跟着形式走。
四種都可以代幣化。代幣化只是把其中一層電子化，改變的是那份權益怎樣流轉，權益本身沒有變。
現時大部分市民容易將所有代幣化產品都歸類證監會負責，其實這樣對證監會都不公平的，因為很多時候非證券或虛擬資產產品的投訴，他們亦沒有法定權限去協助和執法。
所以要問的不是用哪條鏈，是代幣化產品週期裡的法律權益和風險的本質變化。
每一欄的條文依據都在圖上，第 615 章與第 571 章。
