Real-world asset tokenization has been a promise repeated at every blockchain conference for the better part of a decade. Most of those promises stayed on slides. In January 2026, GCL New Energy, a publicly listed energy giant, finalized a strategic investment in Pharos, a high-performance parallel Layer 1 blockchain built by former Ant Group leadership, at a valuation of nearly $1 billion.\The deal did not follow the usual Web3 fundraising script. It went through regulatory disclosure procedures, the same standards that govern mainstream institutional capital. That process, and what it signals for where blockchain infrastructure is actually heading, is what we are here to discuss.\Joining us today are Wish Wu, Co-Founder and CEO of Pharos, and Jason Huang, Executive Director and President of GCL New Energy.\Ishan Pandey: Hi Wish, welcome to HackerNoon's "Behind the Startup" series. Pharos was founded in 2024 by a team that came out of Ant Group, one of the largest fintech operations ever built. What did working inside that system teach you about what blockchain infrastructure actually needs to do, and what made you decide the existing Layer 1 options were not sufficient?\Wish Wu: Working inside Ant Group fundamentally reshaped how I think about financial infrastructure. When we operate systems that process massive volumes of real transactions, payments, credit, settlement etc., and you realize very quickly that finance is not just about moving value, it's actually about coordinating state across multiple parties in real time, under strict performance and compliance constraints. What I've learned is that building an infrastructure, it must be deterministic, scalable, and deeply integrated with real-world systems.\ What we saw in existing Layer 1s was a mismatch between design philosophy and real-world requirements. Most were optimized either for decentralization experiments or retail-driven DeFi activity, but not for institutional-grade workloads. \Throughput bottlenecks, unpredictable latency, and lack of native compliance primitives made them difficult to integrate into systems that require reliability at scale. Many institutions also have extreme, scenario-specific requirements around privacy, speed, environmental efficiency, and operational customization. This insight directly informed the development of Pharos' Specialized Parallel Network (SPN), which allows institutions to run tailored parallel networks that meet these stringent demands while remaining fully interoperable with the broader Pharos ecosystem.\Ishan Pandey: Pharos claims 30,000 TPS with sub-second finality on testnet, and the architecture uses deep parallel execution with a dual VM supporting both EVM and WASM. For a traditional finance institution that has spent decades on systems like SWIFT or Fedwire, why does that throughput number matter, and where does the current generation of Layer 1 blockchains actually break down when institutions try to run real financial workloads on them?\Wish Wu: Throughput is often misunderstood as a vanity metric, but for institutions, it means capacity, predictability, and cost efficiency. Systems like SWIFT or Fedwire are not just messaging layers. They are built to handle high-value, time-sensitive transactions with strict guarantees. If a blockchain cannot match or exceed that level of performance, it simply cannot be considered a viable alternative.\Where current Layer 1s break down is in contention and sequential execution. Financial systems are inherently parallel, like thousands of independent transactions, portfolios, and strategies operating simultaneously. If your execution model forces those into a linear pipeline, you create bottlenecks and latency spikes. Pharos approaches this differently with deep parallel execution and a dual VM architecture, allowing heterogeneous workloads, whether EVM-based assets or WASM-based applications, to run concurrently. This is what enables not just higher TPS, but consistent low-latency finality under real load, which is what institutions actually care about.\Ishan Pandey: The RWA tokenization space has been declared the next trillion-dollar market for several consecutive years. The gap between the promise and actual on-chain liquidity remains wide. In your view, what has concretely held institutional asset tokenization back, and is it a technology problem, a legal problem, or something else?\Wish Wu: The gap in RWA tokenization has been about execution across many layers such as legal enforceability, data reliability, and market usability. On the legal side, institutions need clarity on ownership rights, jurisdiction, and dispute resolution. On the data side, tokenizing an asset doesn't solve the problem of whether the underlying data is accurate or auditable. And on the market side, even when assets are tokenized, they often remain illiquid because they are not integrated into active financial primitives.\So it's not purely a technology problem or a legal problem. It's always a systems integration problem. What's been missing is infrastructure that can bridge these layers seamlessly until tokenized assets can be trusted, verified, and actively utilized.\Ishan Pandey: Pharos has built ZK-KYC and AML compliance modules natively into the protocol layer. Most blockchains treat compliance as an application-layer concern, something developers bolt on top. Why did you make that architectural decision, and what tradeoffs does it create in terms of openness and composability with the rest of DeFi?\Wish Wu: We made the decision to build ZK-KYC and AML at the protocol layer because compliance, in an institutional context, should be a foundational feature. Treating it as an application-layer add-on creates fragmentation, inconsistent standards, and ultimately limits interoperability. \ By embedding compliance primitives natively, we enable a model where identity, permissioning, and privacy can coexist. Zero-knowledge proofs allow participants to verify attributes, such as accreditation or jurisdiction, without exposing underlying data. \This creates a more scalable approach to compliance that doesn't sacrifice user privacy. The tradeoff is that you introduce a more structured environment compared to fully permissionless systems.\Ishan Pandey: Turning to GCL New Energy, your company leads China's power-compute integration strategy and has already run pilot programs for energy revenue tokenization and cross-border settlement. What specific problem in your business were you trying to solve when you first looked at Pharos, and what did you find that existing financial infrastructure could not give you?\Jason Huang: From our perspective, as an energy operator, especially in new energy and distributed systems, we deal with fragmented assets, long settlement cycles, and increasingly complex cross-border value flows. Whether it's power generation revenue, carbon assets, or energy trading, the underlying issue is that value creation and value realization are often disconnected in time and across systems.\We had already explored internal and pilot solutions around revenue tokenization and cross-border settlement, but existing financial infrastructure was not designed for real-time, granular, and programmable asset flows. It works well for aggregated, periodic settlement, but not for scenarios where assets need to be fractionalized, dynamically priced, and continuously settled.\What we found with Pharos was it could support parallel execution and customized environments, which is important for us.\ Energy systems have very specific requirements around data integrity, latency, and operational isolation, and those are difficult to achieve on general-purpose networks. \The ability to align infrastructure more closely with real business workflows was a key factor in our decision.\Ishan Pandey: The investment in Pharos went through supplemental disclosure procedures, which is unusual for a Web3 deal. From GCL's side, what did that regulatory process reveal about the gap between how blockchain projects present their value and what public market disclosure standards actually require you to prove?\Jason Huang: The disclosure process was a useful study case because it applies a different, more rigorous standard than typical Web3 investments. Public markets require clear assumptions, risks, and verifiable pathways to value. Only vision and roadmap are not enough.\We can tell there's a gap between blockchain narratives and what institutional capital needs: proof of technical feasibility, integration capability, and real-world relevance.\For us, the process forced a focus on measurable impact like improvements in efficiency, reduced settlement friction, and practical asset-management use cases, and the process clarified what large-scale blockchain adoption in traditional industries actually looks like.\Ishan Pandey: The collaboration between Pharos and GCL New Energy covers new-energy asset tokenization, distributed energy trading, and carbon footprint tracking. Carbon markets have a credibility problem globally, with double-counting and verification failures well documented. How does putting carbon tracking on-chain solve that specific problem, and where does the trust in the underlying data actually come from?\Wish Wu: Carbon markets are a good example of where tokenization alone is insufficient. The core issue is not the ledger but the data integrity and verification. Double-counting and inconsistent reporting happen because there is no unified, transparent system of record. By putting carbon tracking on-chain, we can address part of the problem through creating an immutable audit trail, but the more important layer is how data enters the system. This is where collaboration with an operator like GCL becomes critical. As a real asset owner and energy producer, they generate primary data at the source. When that data is combined with verifiable reporting standards and anchored on-chain, you create a system where every unit of carbon can be traced, verified, and audited in real time.\Ishan Pandey: A nearly $1 billion valuation from a listed energy company is a very different signal than a round led by crypto-native VCs. Does that change your hiring strategy, your go-to-market, or the types of builders you want on Pharos, and do you think it changes how other traditional companies look at blockchain infrastructure investments?\Wish Wu: This investment reflects how institutions actually evaluate infrastructure. When public market capital operates under disclosure standards that require verifiable performance, clear use cases, and measurable impact, it will force a level of discipline, which is often missing in purely narrative-driven markets.\For Pharos, it does influence how we think about hiring and go-to-market. We are increasingly focused on building at the intersection of traditional finance and regulatory systems. That means bringing in people who understand not just Web3, but also how real-world markets operate.\Gradually, we believe it will impact how traditional companies see blockchain, they will begin to evaluate it as core infrastructure, something that can improve efficiency, transparency, and coordination across their existing operations.\Ishan Pandey: Final question for both of you. The criticism of institutional blockchain adoption is that it recreates the same gatekeeping structures as traditional finance, just with a different database underneath. How do you answer that, and what does success look like for this partnership in five years that would prove the critic wrong?\Wish Wu: If blockchain is used simply to replicate existing models, then the criticism holds. But if it is used to standardize access, improve transparency, and enable interoperability, then it can fundamentally expand participation. From my perspective, success over the next five years is not defined by how many assets are tokenized, but by how those assets behave. If tokenized RWAs can be freely integrated into financial primitives, accessed across jurisdictions with programmable compliance, and transacted in real time, then we've moved beyond digitization into true transformation.\Jason Huang: From our perspective, sectors like energy, compliance, safety, and asset verification are real constraints. But that doesn't mean the system has to remain as complex or fragmented as it is today. What we see is that blockchain, when applied properly, can shift things from institution-driven processes to shared infrastructure. Instead of multiple parties reconciling data and settling transactions separately, you have a common layer where information is consistent and value can move more directly. Over time, that naturally lowers barriers.\Looking ahead five years, we would expect to see more real usage, like energy-related assets being issued, traded, and settled in a more continuous and transparent way. Settlement cycles should be shorter, data more reliable, and participation broader across different types of stakeholders. If we can show that this infrastructure actually improves efficiency, strengthens trust in the data, and enables new ways for capital and assets to interact, then it's clear that this is a better system.\Don’t forget to like and share the story!