Recently reviewing a bunch of RWA on-chain projects, the more I look, the more it feels like dissecting a succulent: it looks juicy on the outside, but only when you cut it open do you see where the juice comes from and where the cavities are. Many so-called "on-chain liquidity" is really just the excitement of secondary markets; when it comes to redemption, the terms are written more rigidly than smart contracts: window periods, limits, delays, fees, even "suspension in special cases"... You might think you can swap back to the underlying asset anytime, but in reality, you're just waiting in line for notifications.

Modularization and DA layers are exciting developers right now, but it's normal for users to be confused: no matter how modular the underlying layers are, the ultimate issue with RWA remains—the question of who makes the promise, how to redeem, and who to turn to if redemption fails. Anyway, my first look at RWA isn't at APY, but at the redemption clauses and liquidation pathways. If those aren't clear, it's just an illusion of liquidity.

What I’ve learned isn’t techniques, but that no matter how beautiful the on-chain writing is, where you can exit determines whether that ticket in your hand is actually money.