RWA (Real World Assets) involves leveraging Web3 technology to tokenize real-world assets. In this article, we present insights from a seasoned RWA industry practitioner.
While the concept of RWA is not new, numerous projects are already tokenizing assets such as real estate, mining rights, bonds, and equities. Despite blockchain's potential to address traditional financial market challenges, few projects have achieved widespread recognition. Why is this the case?
Consider real estate tokenization as an illustration. Real estate holds substantial value, serving as an essential asset that retains its worth and generates income through rent. However, when blockchain platforms express interest in real estate, reciprocity isn't always forthcoming. Property titles do not typically display the name of a token holder, leading to complications in cases of default. The clash between blockchain idealism and real-world asset practicalities gives rise to unforeseen challenges.
1. The RWA Landscape Abounds with Questionable Projects:
Labeling any Web3 project as "dubious" is challenging. However, RWA differs in that it necessitates tangible real-world assets. RWA tokenization must embody both asset rights and ownership, with records securely stored on the blockchain. Otherwise, it risks being perceived as an unreliable venture susceptible to sudden disappearance.
2. RWA Fuses Legal Oversight with Code Audits:
In developed nations, consensus on real assets hinges on legal contracts, with disputes resolved in court. Conversely, in the crypto realm, consensus arises from blockchain records, with code logic arbitrating disputes. Therefore, assets are backed by either legal or code mechanisms. As crypto real assets emerge, these dual support systems must evolve and harmonize.
3. Lack of Standardized Approach to RWA:
An industry without standards is difficult to envision, yet RWA lacks universally accepted standards. While some may reference standards like ERC721 or ERC3525, these are primarily data standards and fall short of meeting RWA's complex requirements.
4. Relationship Between RWA Standards and Protocols:
Although industry standards and protocols share similarities, they are not interchangeable. Standards represent consensus guidelines that all stakeholders must adhere to, while protocols remain optional. In the absence of established standards, numerous teams vie for protocol dominance.
5. RWA's Potential Lies in Long-Term Evolution:
A decade ago, predictions suggested that online platforms would supplant offline counterparts. However, online realms possess inherent limitations. RWA projects and investors must exercise patience, focusing on niche markets rather than aiming to immediately supplant traditional financial markets.
6. RWA Development Demands Collaboration with Traditional Finance:
In finance, two fundamental elements are the source of funds and assets. If traditional financial institutions serve as the funding source for RWA, the latter must offer products with enhanced returns or reduced risks to secure their endorsement.
I envision RWA's evolution unfolding through a dual approach: Firstly, by offering high-liquidity assets tailored for blockchain institutions or users in emerging markets. Secondly, by providing niche assets that cater to the preferences of traditional financial investors. Presently, the RWA market remains relatively modest in comparison to traditional finance. However, as the market expands and traditional financial institutions embrace new technologies, the benefits of these innovations will become increasingly apparent. Looking ahead, financial assets will undergo tokenization in a manner that is both easier to regulate and more cost-effective. The future is promising, and I am excited to embark on this growth journey together!