Recently looking at a bunch of RWA on-chain projects, what I want to focus on isn't "how large the assets are," but rather how the redemption terms are written: who can exchange back within what time window, and in case of freezing/default, whether they go through arbitration or just shut down. The so-called "liquidity" on the chain is often just a matching order book; if someone wants to redeem a large amount, it immediately turns into queues, discounts, delays... To put it simply, even if on-chain execution is perfect, if off-chain settlement doesn't keep up, it's all pointless.

These days, the "yield stacking" of pledge and shared security systems has been criticized as a scam, but I think it has the same flavor as RWA: both yield and liquidity can be stacked up, but when it comes to stress testing, it’s about which rules can withstand the pressure. Anyway, now when I see phrases like "redeemable at any time" or "stable returns," I first flip to the fine print at the bottom; if it's not clearly written, I just ignore it. That’s all for now.