The current crypto world is becoming more and more interesting—big players are playing one set, retail investors are sticking to another, and it seems like the two sides can no longer come together.

The most obvious example is this wave of tokenized deposits. Schemes launched by institutions like Standard Chartered and Ant Group sound very advanced, but frankly, they are just traditional finance wrapped in the name of blockchain. Permission controls, access thresholds, centralized bookkeeping—deep down, it’s still the same old logic, just with a new technological shell.

Where is the real dividing line? A careful look reveals three points:

**Different access rules.** Private chains operate on permissioned systems—you need to be selected to join, and the right to record transactions is held by a few major nodes. Public chains are different; with just a computer, anyone can participate, anyone can become part of the network.

**Asset forms are also different.** Tokenized deposits are essentially digital versions of traditional deposits, backed by bank credit, and can be frozen at any moment. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and others are different—they are truly native digital assets that don’t require any intermediary guarantees, and your assets are entirely yours.

**The goals are different.** Private chains aim for "compliance and efficiency," to maintain the existing financial order. Public chains seek "decentralized trust," aiming to rewrite the rules of the financial game.

Why are big players so persistent with private chains? Ultimately, it’s about protecting their advantages. They hold the funds, licenses, and users, and don’t want to lose control. But once funds can move freely across borders, without middlemen, and beyond regulatory constraints, their core competitive edge becomes less solid.