I recently looked around RWA, and too many people are advocating this narrative, so I really want to complain. I think RWA has almost only disadvantages for the development of crypto:

The fundamental problem of this narrative at this stage is that capital comes to crypto because it can't find growth in the real world, but RWA wants to put this money on the chain and then return to the real world. This is simply funny.

Some people may argue that "RWA assets will inject a lot of liquidity into crypto", but I think this idea is wrong. The RWA asset issuer brings the "value" of the real world to the chain to let the leeks on the chain buy these products. The final value-added is the real-world assets, while the crypto native assets and the amount of funds on the chain are actually sucked blood in disguise.

There is also a saying that "on-chain assets need real income support and endorsement", which obviously does not consider the first principle. If the native crypto assets have value, it must be intrinsic value, and using RWA to guarantee yield means that this asset has no ability to create value. If the source of income for the entire crypto is RWA assets, it means that the assets in this industry have no value.

So in my opinion, the development of RWA will only hinder the innovation and iteration of crypto native assets. The strong are often self-reliant, and those who rely on others to start a business can only be paper tigers.