The sticky note is still stuck to the edge of the monitor, the "RWA = Stability" written last year is already curling up at the edges.

Now it seems quite ironic. Back then, I thought that putting real estate funds on-chain would allow T+0 trading and solve liquidity issues. But last month, a certain project changed its redemption window to "quarterly review"—what they'd review, who would review, and how long the review would take—none of that was specified.

The on-chain data looks great, TVL is soaring, but when you click that "Redeemable" button, instead of a transaction confirmation, you get legal clause 14.2.

In short, the assets are running on-chain, but the rules are still off-chain. You think it's a "unplug and go" charger, but it's actually a shared power bank that requires a reservation.

Recently, the group has been arguing fiercely about privacy coins. Some criticize regulatory overreach, others call mixer coins dirty money. I think these two issues are kind of similar: both are about where to draw the line. For RWA, it's about the right to redeem; for privacy, it's about the right to know. In both cases, they first hand you something, then tell you part of it is temporarily unavailable. Long-termism isn't about trusting slogans—it's about waiting to see how long that "temporarily" actually lasts.