2026-01-14 13:29:45

After working in the RWA track for so long, my deepest realization is one sentence: most projects fall into the trap of "self-indulgence."

No matter how exquisite the asset portfolio is packaged, once on the chain, it attracts no attention. The final outcome? All become liquidity dead water, with trading volume virtually nonexistent. This is the reality.

However, recently I saw that after WorldAssets completed the RWAX upgrade, I believe the logic of this track has started to shift.

A large number of projects are still scratching their heads over the basic problem of "how to put assets on the chain," but RWAX has already entered a new stage of RWA 3.0. The difference is immediately apparent. From pure technical implementation of infrastructure to genuine market liquidity design and user ecosystem development, these are the real hurdles RWA needs to overcome. Projects still stuck in the 2.0 stage will likely need to put in a lot of effort to break through.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

TestnetScholar

· 01-17 12:27

It's really heartbreaking; many projects in RWA have indeed failed. Liquidity is dead water... so true, which is why so many on-chain assets go unnoticed. The RWAX upgrade this time feels like they've really figured out the trick, but the 3.0 claim is a bit exaggerated. We'll have to see if the ecosystem can truly be revitalized in the future.

View OriginalReply0

LightningLady

· 01-17 05:12

Honestly, I've seen this routine way too many times. Fancy packaging = the prelude to a rug pull, and the real truth is that liquidity is completely dead. Can RWAX really be different? It depends on how they continue to operate; just talking about 3.0 isn't enough, they need users to buy in. The 2.0 crowd just standing still there, in my opinion, they deserve it. They never even thought about how to truly get retail investors involved in this. Those project teams, always hyping up how awesome their concepts are, but when you check the trading volume... I won't even bother to say more.

View OriginalReply0

NFTRegretter

· 01-14 13:58

It's so heartbreaking. No matter how well-packaged an asset is, if it lacks liquidity, it's just waste paper. --- RWAX's move this time is truly different; others are still just talking on paper. --- Wait, is anyone really trading RWA? I feel like they're all dead. --- Self-indulgence haha, that's such an accurate description. 99% of projects have this problem. --- Liquidity is the key. Someone finally understands this in this sector. --- The main thing is ecosystem development, or else it's just a castle in the air. --- 3.0 sounds good, but is it just another hype? --- Many projects haven't thought through how to implement them; they just boast. --- The difference is indeed obvious, but whether RWAX can last depends on what happens next. --- Having suffered so many losses from RWA, I finally see things clearly.

View OriginalReply0

Liquidated_Larry

· 01-14 13:53

Honestly, reading this article is just saying that most RWA projects are just air. No matter how good the packaging is, if there's no liquidity, it's all pointless. I have deep experience with this. The recent upgrade of RWAX is indeed something; it's much better than those projects still struggling with "how to get on-chain." But I still have reservations; it depends on whether the subsequent ecosystem can really get off the ground.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketSurvivor

· 01-14 13:51

That's really heartbreaking; most RWA projects are just flashy but impractical PPTs. Liquidity death is really common, and it's not easy for RWAX to come out of it. The current issue isn't about going on-chain but whether it can truly come to life. The 2.0 batch is still exploring, and by then, they might all be out.

View OriginalReply0

probably_nothing_anon

· 01-14 13:48

Basically, liquidity is king. No matter how good-looking the skin is, it needs users to participate. RWA has indeed become competitive, but most projects are really just for fun. No way, are you still hyping RWAX? I've heard this kind of claim too many times. On-chain assets are easy, but convincing retail investors to trade is really difficult. The division between 2.0 and 3.0 feels a bit exaggerated; in the end, it's all about the data. Really, many projects are packaged like artworks, but once on-chain, they go silent. The term "liquidity dead water" is perfect; it hits the pain points of too many projects. It feels like the entire sector is waiting for that one truly breakout project to appear.

View OriginalReply0

SingleForYears

· 01-14 13:41

That hits too close to home. Most RWA projects just make really nice PPT presentations, and once on the chain, they become worthless tokens. Liquidity issues are indeed the bottleneck; it's not just a simple technical problem. RWAX's recent upgrade was definitely the right move; the ecosystem is the key. That group of projects still stuck in 1.0 really should do some self-reflection. Watching these projects with dead water-like trading volumes makes me feel anxious. But I also feel that the real opportunities are here; the elimination round has begun.

View OriginalReply0

MetaverseMigrant

· 01-14 13:38

Exactly right, this year I’ve truly seen through RWA. No matter how fancy the packaging, if there's no on-chain liquidity, it's just a decoration. Wait, can RWAX really solve the liquidity problem? Or is it just another round of marketing tricks? Actually, the most ironic thing is that the projects that hype the most tend to die the fastest. I’m optimistic about this direction, but honestly, most are still in repeat mode.

View OriginalReply0