Compliance Traps and Risk Prevention in Web3 Project Operations

In the Web3 space, many projects adopt seemingly clever operational strategies to evade regulatory risks. However, these practices may precisely become compliance pitfalls. This article will explore three common yet potentially dangerous operational models and analyze the associated risks.

Responsibility Attribution for Outsourcing Services

Some Web3 projects tend to outsource their core business, trying to downplay their operational attributes. However, regulators are concerned with the actual decision-makers and beneficiaries, rather than the superficial contractual relationships. If there is a vested interest or control relationship between the outsourcing party and the project team, regulators may view it as an extension of the project's operational unit.

In actual cases, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) determined that the outsourcing structure did not effectively isolate responsibilities by analyzing email records, operational trajectories, and personnel positions during an investigation of a certain project. Similarly, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission also stated that if the core decision-making is still controlled by the same actual controller, even if the business is outsourced, it will not be considered as independent operation.

Therefore, the project team needs to clearly define in the early design stage which functions can be outsourced, which must be undertaken internally, and disclose the responsible parties.

Regulatory Dilemma of Multiple Registrations and Distributed Nodes

In pursuit of a "borderless" image, some projects choose to register companies in regions with loose regulations, while claiming to deploy nodes globally. However, this practice is difficult to withstand the penetrating identification of regulations. Regulatory authorities are more concerned with the location of the actual controllers and where key activities occur to establish jurisdiction.

Recent cases show that regulatory authorities may assert jurisdiction as long as there are local users or infrastructure. Regulatory agencies in multiple countries and regions require the disclosure of "actual place of management" and "the actual residence of key management personnel."

Project parties should realize that, compared to building complex shell structures, clarifying the responsibilities of the actual controllers of the project and the distribution of regulatory obligations is more beneficial for reducing legal risks.

On-chain release does not equal no operation

Some technical teams believe that once a smart contract is deployed, it is disconnected from the project, attempting to evade responsibility through "decentralized delivery." However, regulators do not accept this view. They are more concerned about off-chain behaviors, such as who initiates marketing, organizes placements, controls circulation paths, and so on.

Recent cases have shown that even if a project claims that "on-chain contracts are public", if there are off-chain marketing activities and KOL promotions, it may still be considered a core operational behavior. Regulatory agencies have reached a consensus to list off-chain promotion and distribution paths as key review items.

On-chain deployment should be seen as the starting point of responsibility, not the endpoint. As long as the project team continues to promote Token circulation through off-chain activities, they will always be under regulatory scrutiny.

Conclusion

The logic of regulators is becoming increasingly clear: it is not about the complexity of the structure, but about the actual operations and beneficiaries. What Web3 projects truly need is clear accountability and control boundaries, rather than complex structural designs. Establishing a compliance framework with resilience and interpretability is key to reducing risks.