Why don't we do issuance, fundraising, or discuss returns?

In all the discussions about Web3 and RWA,
The most often overlooked yet most important thing is not technology.
Rather, it's about the boundaries of roles.

In the GFM "Web3 & RWA" section, we repeatedly, clearly, and consistently made the same choice:

We do not distribute.
We do not raise funds.
We don't talk about profits.

This is not a conservative strategy.
Rather, it is an institutional media outlet operating within the current global regulatory environment.
Structural decisions that must be made.

I. The role of the media, not the role of the market.

In the context of Web3 and RWA,
Much of the chaos stems from a fundamental misalignment:

(Image caption) The sense of boundary of GFM

The media is mistakenly perceived as an extension of the publisher.

When the media begins:
• Explain why a particular structure is worth participating in.
• Evaluate the "potential returns" of a certain arrangement.
• Or it may imply that a certain path is "more efficient".

So, in terms of systems,
It has already evolved from an "information provider"
They slid into the roles of "promoter" or even "facilitator".

Once this line is crossed, there is no turning back.

GFM does not accept this role misalignment.

II. Why "issuance" is not a neutral act

In most judicial settings,
"Issuance" itself is not a technical action.
It is a legal act.

Regardless of the vocabulary used—
token, certificate, unit, share, point——
If any of the following elements are involved:
• External fundraising
• Commitment of rights or benefits
• Transferable participation structure

This will inevitably fall under the strict legal and regulatory framework.

(Image caption) Due to the seriousness of "issuance" as a legal act, GFM has chosen not to assume this role in order to avoid role misplacement.

GFM as a media outlet
They do not, and should not, assume this legal role.

III. Why it is more important to "not talk about returns" than "talk about risks"

In practice, we have seen a large number of projects spiral out of control.
It's not because of a clear promise of high returns,
Rather, it's because the explanation revolves around returns.

For example:
• "This isn't an investment, but it could pay off in the future."
• "We don't guarantee it, but the market will set the price."
• "The profits come from external actions and have nothing to do with us."

In the institutional context,
These claims do not constitute protection.
Instead, it forms the core of the risk narrative.

Therefore, the choice of GFM is:

Do not enter the revenue language.
Do not participate in the imagined benefits.
No revenue interpretation is provided for any structure.

Fourth, restraint is not relinquishing influence.

Many people ask:
If you do nothing, where does influence come from?

Our answer is simple:

Long-term influence comes from clear boundaries.

In a highly conceptualized, narrative-overloaded market
What's truly scarce isn't the volume of voice.
Instead, it is a trustworthy, neutral node.

GFM's influence comes from:
• Explain complex issues clearly
• Discuss the risks in advance
• Write down the things you can't do at the beginning.

This is not retreating.
Rather, it is the core value of institutional media.

V. What we can do (and only what we do)

In the "Web3 & RWA" section,
GFM is limited to operating within the following scope:
• Basic knowledge and institutional education
• International Cases and Institutional Comparisons
• Risk Boundaries and Correction of Misleading Narratives
• Clear distinction between technical, legal, and business roles

We do not provide:
Investment advice
• Revenue Forecast
• Issuance assistance
• Fundraising channels

VI. This is not a strategy, it is a bottom line.

Finally, we must make one point clear:

These three "no"s —
No issuance, no fundraising, no discussion of returns—
Not a phased strategy,
Rather, it is the bottom line of the rules for the GFM "Web3 & RWA" section.

Any behavior that deviates from this bottom line
All of these will directly undermine the reason for the column's existence.

(Image caption) Clearly defining boundaries is the value of GFM as an institutional media.

If Web3 and RWA are truly to enter into a long-term institutional structure,
It must first withstand understanding, scrutiny, and restraint.

In this process,
Someone is in charge of the construction.
Someone is in charge of the experiment.
And we choose to take responsibility—

Make the boundaries clear.

This is why we don't issue shares, raise funds, or discuss returns.