After so many years of trading, I increasingly understand one principle—relying solely on cold wallets for physical isolation is simply not enough; the key is to design asset protection from a legal structure perspective.

In the past two years, there has been a clear trend in the blockchain space: regulation is loosening. Take a well-known payment coin as an example. In July last year, the court ruled that its programmatic sales do not fall under the category of securities, effectively removing the obstacles for exchanges to list the token. If regulatory authorities appeal again, the final ruling might be delayed until 2026, which actually presents a window of opportunity for the related tokens. Even more interesting, large asset management institutions are starting to enter with real capital—reports say several top firms have invested $500 million, betting on the stability of the project’s stablecoin and cross-border payment ecosystem. On-chain data also confirms this: institutional wallets’ holdings of this coin increased by 17% over a year, and such a level of investment is definitely not petty cash.

But that’s not all. Many people overlook a blind spot: cold wallets can fend off hackers but cannot prevent debt disputes, legal lawsuits, or inheritance issues. During the FTX collapse, many users’ custodial assets were directly frozen, but some investors holding cold wallet assets through offshore entities managed to preserve their holdings. This demonstrates the power of legal structure.

From a technical perspective, some public blockchains can process 1,500 transactions per second with almost zero settlement cost. What does this mean? When transferring assets on such chains through legitimate entities, the friction cost is extremely low. Combining legal separation with on-chain efficiency, asset protection can truly be airtight.

Ultimately, protecting assets is not a multiple-choice question; it requires a dual approach of legal and technical measures.