No stablecoins for RWA - it's all just a scam.

RWA has become a little girl that can be dressed up by anyone

The term RWA has recently become ubiquitous. From international financial forums to industry startup groups, everyone is talking about "asset tokenization" and "real-world asset mapping," as if anyone who doesn't mention RWA a couple of times is somewhat out of touch with the trends of the industry.

But the more the heat rises, the more we need to calm down and clarify: What problems can RWA actually solve, and what basic conditions are needed for it to be implemented?

Many people say that RWA is about "reconstructing" real-world assets on the blockchain, and Lawyer Honglin does not oppose this statement. However, the premise of "reconstruction" is to truly break down the original information barriers and settlement processes.

In many RWA projects I've worked with, the so-called "asset tokenization" is actually a copy of the data that was originally stored in Excel, ERP, or the depository system. However, the whole process is still the same: asset generation, value recognition, income calculation, investment allocation - these are still gradually handled by the offline operation team of the project team, and the chain is just an "enhanced report".

In this case, it's true to say that it "uses blockchain"; but to say that it "changes the logic of financial operations" is somewhat exaggerated.

What you call "asset mapping" is actually no different from creating a balance sheet in Excel. You can't just transfer the asset-related information from a paper contract into a JSON file written on the blockchain and then claim that you have achieved "tokenization of real-world assets."

You can use the blockchain to record assets, but you cannot use the blockchain to drive finance. Without breaking through this point, RWA will always be stuck at version 0.1.

Two Standards for Identifying the Authenticity of RWA

Many people think that the core of RWA lies in "asset confirmation" - assets have a source, and there is registration on the chain. However, reliable data is just a fundamental prerequisite; what truly determines whether RWA has financial value is whether it can achieve credible settlement**,** meaning whether the fund flow mechanism on the chain can operate.

Therefore, the value distribution of RWA has two layers: one is credible data, and the other is credible settlement.

Layer 1: Trusted data, which refers to the ability to record changes in the state of real-world assets on the chain. This may seem "technical", but it is essentially a transformation of business processes. External interfaces such as sensors, custodians, and oracles should be able to push information to the chain in real time, automatically, and objectively when assets change. This is the first threshold for RWA. A project that can truly be called RWA must be able to "know on the chain as soon as an event occurs", rather than uploading a "report" to the operation department at the end of each month.

In many RWA cases packaged by the news that we are aware of, quite a few projects still rely on manual operations: various asset information is placed in a folder, and at the end of the month, someone clicks the mouse to generate an on-chain summary. This "post-upload" is essentially just "on-chain bookkeeping", which is far from the concept of "native trust" in blockchain.

Layer Two: Trustworthy Settlement, is where the true value of RWA lies. In other words, whether the distribution of profits, the return of principal, the handling of defaults, and the transfer of fees can be executed automatically, remain immutable, and be transparent. To achieve this, there must be a currency unit on the chain, which means the participation of stablecoins.

Many projects overlook this point: data is available, contract logic is in place, but at the settlement stage, it still relies on finance staff to manually process payments, or to "simulate" cash flow through third-party platforms. Under this design, on-chain tokens are merely a symbol that "looks like an asset," but are not actual executable financial rights.

So we say that there are two fundamental criteria to measure whether a project is a legitimate RWA.

First, can your data stream be automatically uploaded to the blockchain without human intervention?

You said you are working on new energy charging piles. Is the power level, switch on/off, and fault log of the pile directly written to the chain from the sensors? You mentioned accounts receivable financing; can the buyer's ERP system push the hash to the chain as soon as the invoice is issued? You said you sell real estate rental income rights; does the rental flow have a custodian bank API for instant feedback?

If these actions still rely on the operations team to collect and manually input data, then "putting data on the chain" is a false proposition. You are not letting the system make judgments; instead, you are relying on "people making decisions on a whim". In the end, it is still the same centralized process, only the tool for "keeping the ledger" has changed to blockchain. It's just a fancier ledger, yet it still relies on human intervention, with no reduction in credibility risk or tampering risk.

Second, can your funds flow be settled on-chain?

You said you issued a Token for the profits from new energy charging piles. When those charging fees are deposited into the escrow account, are they split by the smart contract into N portions of stablecoins that go directly to the investors' addresses? You mentioned that you do accounts receivable financing; when a payment is received from the buyer, can the contract immediately repay the principal according to the payment terms, calculate interest, and deduct service fees? You said you sell the rights to real estate rental income; at the moment the tenant clicks "confirm payment," does the blockchain simultaneously transfer the rental stablecoins to the Token holders and automatically deposit the penalty and maintenance fees into the risk pool?

If these actions still require the finance lady to verify each transaction and manually make payments, then "on-chain settlement" is just a pipe dream. Funds circle around in the backend, then return to manual online banking, and Token becomes a voucher for experience—visible but not redeemable.

Real RWAs should allow money to flow like data: verifiable stablecoin reserves, public allocation formulas, and contract addresses that can be checked at any time. Otherwise, no matter how fancy you make the rights to returns sound, investors will still have to queue for loans, and financial efficiency will not see a qualitative improvement.

This is not the future we want.

RWA without stablecoins is just playing tricks.

What we want is a truly functional structure: natively on the chain, capable of automatic operation, and real-time settlement. Once data is generated, it is automatically written to the chain and cannot be tampered with; once funds are triggered, they do not require human intervention and are automatically delivered.

RWA is not a better-looking table, but a new operating logic: data must be source-verified, and funds must be settled on-chain.

To achieve these two points, one requires blockchain technology as the information infrastructure, and the other requires stablecoins as the value carrier.

Many people talk about stablecoins, and they like to say that they can improve the efficiency of cross-border payments, reduce costs, and replace banks. But what really determines its value in RWA is not these macro advantages, but the fact that it allows money to really "run" in the blockchain world. Instead of waiting for monthly or expiration, it can be programmed, can be called, and can be directly executed based on the data on the chain.

The greatest significance of stablecoins is that they allow money to be programmed for the first time, enabling the execution of rules.

You can specify when it pays, to whom it pays, how much it pays, and even that it only pays after a certain on-chain event occurs. It is not funds that wait for someone to click a button to move, but rather it can flow automatically like data.

With the application of stablecoins in RWA, the entire lifecycle of assets—from generation, profit distribution, to exit and recovery—can run on-chain in the form of smart contracts. Otherwise, no matter how many institutions participate or how many audits endorse it, it is just another form of a centralized platform.

That’s why we say: RWA without stablecoin applications are just playing tricks.