Under normal circumstances, it's fine for people to have different opinions on the same thing, but when you promote wrong logic and confuse concepts, I can't help but say a few words (this is just my personal opinion):

1. The author believes that all RWA assets must first be securitized, then digitized, and then tokenized. (The implicit logic is that all related tokens are securities, the#SECcase has not been settled, and the#XRPslap in the face is not loud enough)

2. The author believes that the advantages of the#RWAscheme are "nothing more than": increasing liquidity, simplifying the transaction process, and removing financial intermediaries. (I am really laughing to death. Macro liquidity is provided by the central bank, and the simplification of the transaction process is based on rapid confirmation of ownership. How high is the cost of financial intermediaries? Anyone who has done IPOs knows. Is this "nothing more than"?!)

3. The author cited a lot of examples from asset securitization in 1970 to ICO in 2017, all of which are based on the logic that tokenization is securitization. He does not want to refute it. It is equivalent to the insistence on promoting credit cards in China in the early 2000s, "Because Americans all use credit cards, how dare you use Alipay?" It is the same logic.

4. The author started to use examples of the information technology wave and concluded that "most of the efficiency improvements can be achieved by traditional financial technology, without the need for blockchain." I laughed my head off. They actually thought that blockchain is about improving efficiency?! It's Ownership and Decentralization! And anyone who has done international remittances knows that one takes a few seconds to arrive while the other takes a few days to arrive. How much higher is this efficiency than traditional finance? There is really no basic consensus...

5. The author believes that after reviewing the history of securitization and WEB2, "it is not difficult to find that most of the functions of RWA have been filtered out." I can't stop laughing. What is the function of RWA? The whole thing was about tokenization, and there was no business logic of an RWA case, no flow chart, and it suddenly has no function?

6. The author's understanding of assets is still stuck in the traditional financial world of cars and houses. On the one hand, he says that he is firmly optimistic about the future of tokenization, but on the other hand, he thinks that the market is not "as big as advertised." Schizophrenia? Have you ever calculated the volume of virtual assets and the volume of real assets? Is there any data? In the past 40 years, has the increase in traditional securities prices/valuations (especially stocks) brought about by low interest rates, low inflation, and more money printing been stronger than the increase brought about by the increase in real assets? Have you ever calculated it? (John 6:4)

7. The author believes that the real driving force of RWA is the black and gray industries. I am too lazy to refute it. The flow of currency can drive the volatility of an asset class. The underlying assets are of high quality and naturally have good liquidity. The low quality (black and gray industries) naturally have high volatility. Using something that can be measured by marketization to illustrate the driving force of a certain industry is like using the X axis to measure the Y axis. They are not in the same dimension at all.

8. Then the author started talking about the government and regulation, saying that "the resources needed to promote legislation are far from proportional to the size of the RWA market." This is another "logic that doesn't talk about dosage". How many resources did the European MiCA law mobilize? Please quantify it; how much did the RWA market contribute? Please quantify it again; how is the cost of implementing a bill market-oriented? Where did the lobbyists get the money from, who did they lobby, and how did they lobby? Not being able to see clearly the behavior of Wall Street represented by Blackstone, they are still condescending to criticize the domestic WEB3 "practitioners feel guilty when they see the police" and say that people are local dogs?

9. Finally, we talked about the "technical cycle". A bunch of terms were thrown out (zk, public chain, etc.), but there was no technical term or data. The conclusion was given directly: "Whether it is a public chain, an application layer protocol or an application, the real vitality must be reconstructed with the logic of #Crypto". Please reconstruct your own logic first. What is#cryptologic? Is securitization the same as#Cryptologic? Oh... It makes my head hurt...

10. Finally, it’s the summary. It’s said to be the most difficult article he has ever written. Wouldn’t it be a headache for you to read Python with the Bible in your hand?

11. I’m tired. I’ll write another #RWA-related opinion when I have time.

Original article: "Financial history, legal system and technology cycle: #RWA's trillion-dollar narrative does not stand up to scrutiny"