Entertainment as a Trade vs. Tokenization of Everything, How Will Regulation Respond to the "Attention Casino"?

The crypto world is playing out a schizophrenic drama, with RWA pursuing real-world value on one side and meme coins turning attention into stakes on the other. The two are not contradictory, but they can push regulation into a dilemma. (Synopsis: Cryptocurrency Analysis: Churches, Amusement Parks and Casinos – A Threefold Perspective of the Public Chain Ecology in 2025) (Background added: Nobel Prize economic winner Simon Johnson: Cryptocurrency crisis is coming) Financial markets are always pulled by two forces, including a solid belief in tangible value and a fanatical pursuit of intangible expectations. At this moment, the crypto world is interpreting this tug-of-war to the fullest. On the one hand, the wave of tokenization of real-world assets (RWA) is trying to create an anchor for this digital field that used to be called "on-chain casinos", tying the big ship of the real economy. On the other hand, the "entertainment is trading" model represented by pump.fun simplifies trading into a game that absorbs attention and dopamine, creating tens of millions of fleeting meme casinos that absorb huge amounts of capital. These two seemingly contradictory trends raise a central question: Are they fundamentally contradictory in terms of regulation? The answer may be more complicated than it seems. It's not a zero-sum game, it's more like two races with different goals at the same level of technology. How to use a unified legal framework to govern two very different financial universes? Attention Casino: When friction disappears, trading becomes the core of the instinct "entertainment is trading", not creating value, but eliminating friction. From the Telegram bot's one-click order, to the creation and trading of a new token in seconds on pump.fun, to the doomscroll-style immersive stream of information (infinitely swiping down), the ultimate goal is to strip thinking away from trading decisions and make it a near-instinctive reaction. Multicoin Capital's Kyle Samani analysis is right, it's like a "software as finance" deep rehearsal, the criterion is no longer the traditional value assessment, but whether the user "wants to come back and see if there is anything new." In the world of entertainment trading, the traditional logic of finance is completely overturned. Analysts were surprised to find that "the most profitable players are often willing to accept a 10% slippage just to get on the bus three seconds ahead." This quote accurately captures the essence of the attention market: time value trumps price value, speed and community consensus replace fundamental analysis. The rise of Memecoins and User-Generated Assets (UGA) is the ultimate expression of this logic. Their value comes from the shared beliefs and narrative power of the community, not from any quantifiable cash flow or physical assets. This is an attention black hole that perfectly financializes human FOMO, social competition and entertainment needs. When everyone becomes a casino chip, a banker, and a gambler in itself, the trinity. This situation is best explained. Everything can be RWA, but regulation is not so simple At the same time, RWA's narrative seems to be as calm as a 50-year-old middle-aged man sipping a thermos cup. The RWA Industry Development Research Report released in Hong Kong highlights that not "everything can be RWA". Successful tokenized assets must meet strict thresholds such as stable value, clear legal confirmation, and verifiable off-chain data. From U.S. Treasuries and commercial real estate to carbon rights and art, RWA's goal is to liberate high-quality assets in the traditional financial system that are illiquid and expensive to transact onto the blockchain. This path pursues trust, stability and efficiency. It tries to solve the long-standing dilemma of "trading air" and "tokens have no fundamentals" in the crypto world, transforming it from a purely speculative stage into an Internet of value that can serve the real economy. The entry of traditional financial giants such as Citi and Standard Chartered, as well as a dedicated blockchain platform designed for RWA transactions, show that RWA will be institution-led, premised on compliance, and an attempt to upgrade rather than subvert the existing financial order (in fact, it is almost becoming common sense). At the heart of RWA is prudent policy and long-term trust-building, contrasting black and white with the short-term high volatility of attention casinos. Regulatory dilemma: the difficulty of managing two worlds in law On the surface, these two trends seem to be able to develop peacefully on their own tracks. But in the regulator's office, the contradiction arises. When the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or any country's financial regulator tries to apply existing financial regulations to both worlds, the deep "regulatory schizophrenia" can escape the hospital at any time. Although the RWA process is cumbersome, the regulatory path is relatively clear. Whether it is tokenized funds or real estate interests, their economic substance is highly similar to that of traditional securities, or they cannot escape the jurisdiction of the ancient Howey Test. Inevitably, the core of supervision must revolve around how to match the registration, disclosure, investor protection and other requirements in the securities law to the structure of blockchain finance. The SEC's recent push for "Project Crypto" and the focus on compliant token standards such as ERC-3643 indicate that regulators are trying to lay a path for RWA. However, this set of logic applications can only stop when the platform launches meme coins indefinitely. Do tokens that are spawned by community memes, have no centralized management team, and whose value depends entirely on community sentiment constitute "securities"? Is it accurate to define its users as "investors" who expect profits? What they buy may be more like digital consumer goods, a kind of "ticket" to participate in social games. Let what is on the chain go to the chain, and what is Caesar goes to Caesar. The United States said that DeFi and meme coins are not illegal, and raised its hand. But what about RWA's tokens that quietly "run" on-chain, are fragmented by the new standard, repackaged and traded? Can it be managed? Different games, different rules This seemingly irreconcilable contradiction, we have to admit that they are not the same game at all. Treating "entertainment as trading" and "RWA tokenization" as conflicting is a misreading in itself. They are two games on the same technical venue (blockchain) with very different rules, goals and participants. RWA's game, which is essentially TradFi 2.0, is an upgraded version of traditional finance. Its players are institutions, high-net-worth clients and risk-averse investors, with the goal of improving asset liquidity, reducing transaction costs, and obtaining "stable returns" within a compliance framework, or at least expected to be stable. The "entertainment is trading" game is the Web3 Native group, which is a pure digital culture resident, and its players are the majority of retail investors and community participants, aiming to pursue high-risk speculative returns, social recognition and entertainment experience. Although the regulation is too difficult to manage, those who want to cultivate here will continue to operate more exciting casinos. As for touching the RWA's regulatory bottom line, that is the ability of casinos, we also know that casinos are legal in some countries and regions, and illegal in some regions, but no matter what appearance the casino uses, it will always be there, gambling is trading for entertainment, which is one of the essences of financial transactions. Related reports On-chain detective ZachXBT broke the news of "50x leveraged whale real body": habitual fraudster, arrested for stealing in two casinos last year Paul Krumman: Trump's bitcoin reserves are the largest R...