To be honest, RWA project meetings are never lacking in capability—roadshows, forums, matchmaking events, one after another. The problem isn't with the meetings themselves; it's what happens after they end.

You'll notice a strange phenomenon: during the event, discussions are lively, asset structures are clear, technical solutions are mature, and funding parties all express interest. But once the meeting is over, everything begins to loosen.

Participants' identities become blurred. Who is responsible for what? After hours of discussion, no consensus is reached. How can we verify that the commitments made during the meeting are genuine? This information is scattered across various chat records, making it impossible to trace. Continuing to push forward with any task feels like starting from scratch to rebuild trust.

This isn't the fault of the project team; rather, the existing conference management system simply isn't designed for such scenarios. Traditional conference systems only handle registration, check-in, and exposure, which is far from enough for RWA projects. So, what are the real needs?

First, knowing who participated in the project is more important than anything else. Not just the list, but understanding their roles in the participation. Second, this participation information must be recorded in a structured way—who attended, who spoke, who made commitments, who followed up—these should be verifiable facts, not vague impressions.

The last point is crucial: the identities and roles of the same individuals across different RWA projects should be continuously recognized and reused, rather than reintroducing them as strangers for each new project.

The success or failure of RWA projects often hinges on that period after the meeting. Has true collaboration begun, or are everyone dispersing? Has trust been built up, and can participation continue?

Therefore, what this industry needs isn't more meetings, but a system that can turn meetings into genuine starting points for collaboration.