"CT Chinese · Crypto Circle Open Mic" is a monthly crypto audio interview program created by Cointelegraph's Chinese site, airing on the last Thursday of each month at 7 PM. The show invites core practitioners and observers from various fields such as blockchain, Web3, DeFi, stablecoins, the Ethereum ecosystem, and policy regulation to discuss industry hot topics, market dynamics, and in-depth perspectives in a relaxed and open dialogue atmosphere, presenting a more authentic, diverse, and cutting-edge crypto world to the audience.

This episode's theme is: The RWA Trend Has Arrived: The On-Chain Revolution Reshaping Financial Order.

Our guests include:

• Vincent, Founder of venture capital firm Initial Capital
• Oliver, Blockchain lecturer at Washington State University
• Teddy, Founder of Biteye/xhunt
• Aster, Senior trader from WEEX
• Xueqiu, a well-known KOL in the Chinese community

(The audio transcription has been processed by AI, with some content edited or omitted. For the complete audio, please visit the X platform.)

Host Eva:

Hello everyone, welcome to "CT Chinese · Crypto Circle Open Mic." I am Eva, an editor at Cointelegraph Chinese. Starting this month, our AMA segment will be adjusted to two sessions each month, held on the second and fourth Thursday evenings at 7 PM. Please mark your calendars so you don't miss the exciting content.

This episode's AMA theme is "The RWA Trend Has Arrived: The On-Chain Revolution Reshaping Financial Order."

Recently, the market for RWA—on-chain real-world assets—has been gaining momentum, with various real assets from traditional bonds, real estate to trade financing attempting to go on-chain. The boundaries between DeFi and traditional finance are becoming increasingly blurred, and RWA is becoming a hot track in on-chain finance, bringing new opportunities and challenges for investors and institutions.

Tonight, we are very fortunate to have several guests to discuss the current trends and opportunities in the RWA market.

They are Vincent, Founder of venture capital firm Initial Capital; Oliver, Blockchain lecturer at Washington State University; Teddy, Founder of Web3 research platform Biteye; Aster, Senior trader from WEEX; and Xueqiu, a well-known KOL in the Chinese community. Welcome everyone.

This year, RWA has become one of the fastest-growing tracks, with data showing its total value has grown to $28 billion, a year-on-year increase of 133%. The first question I would like to ask everyone is, what do you think is the core driving force behind this? We would like to hear from Vincent and Oliver first, from the perspectives of investment and market mechanisms, and then from Xueqiu regarding community or user demand.

Vincent:

I believe that every bull and bear market has important tasks to accomplish. Over the past four years, the main task of the entire crypto market has been compliance. After achieving compliance, the goal is to connect with traditional, large financial markets; otherwise, everyone is just playing in a small pool.

So, whether from the perspective of exchanges or well-known projects, there has been deep cooperation with important national regulatory bodies, including many interest alignments, ultimately to be able to "sit at the table." For example, we used to think of crypto as an underground track, but now everyone wants to come to the surface.

With compliance achieved, major projects have been recognized by the mainstream market, and now we need to start exploring more application possibilities. RWA is often discussed alongside stablecoins because previously, stablecoin companies issued more tokens, largely because their underlying assets were debts, primarily U.S. Treasury bonds. I see this as a significant trend in the regulatory cycle, leading to a result where, as this begins to surface and move towards compliance, various innovations that have been done in traditional finance can be replicated here, and on a larger scale.

If we didn't do RWA on-chain before, it was asset securitization; various offline assets have also gone through the path of securitization. The most successful example is real estate securitization, but we find that if we enter the cryptocurrency and blockchain track, there are many assets that can be tokenized.

So now, various teams are innovating in different ways, but I think the groundwork has been laid, leading us to today. By 2025, I believe the groundwork will be mostly completed. Various representative asset data is actively going on-chain, and I see this as the most important growth driver.

Oliver:

I remember back in 2019, I don't know if everyone recalls, when Musk initially stated that you could buy Tesla with Bitcoin, and shortly after, NIO also indicated that you could purchase with Bitcoin. At that time, we thought this would definitely be shot down.

Then, there was a branch of China Construction Bank in Malaysia that collaborated with an overseas brokerage, advertising that you could buy some offshore RMB bonds with Bitcoin. This might have been one of the earliest forms of RWA, but after the news broke the next day, it slowly fermented, and the People's Bank of China began internal consultations, and the matter eventually fizzled out. So, the earliest batch didn't get issued, which is something we learned during the domestic regulatory period.

Looking back now, with the emergence of some RWA, I think the first reason is that regulatory frameworks are gradually being established, especially the U.S. "GENUIS Act," which has established a paradigm of full reserves, audits, and compliance. Additionally, they are now strengthening on-chain dollar funding, which can drive some RWA compliance, custody, settlement information, etc.

Secondly, the maintenance of high U.S. Treasury yields is significant. Currently, we can see that the entire European market's government bonds have plummeted, whether in France or Germany, but U.S. Treasury yields remain relatively high, maintaining a high-risk-free rate. The on-chain dollar rates thus have a certain appeal, so when you issue some RWA, whether short-term or long-term, due to the underlying assets having higher yields, this type will still have a market. Some old money will also gradually come in.

Moreover, I believe that with the improvement of chain performance and settlement efficiency, it can slowly start to meet the settlement needs of RWA.

The rise of AI has actually been missed by the crypto circle. For instance, NFTs are hardly mentioned anymore, nor is GameFi or inscriptions. At this time, being able to combine some real-life assets for certain activities, RWA should be one of them. At least from a regulatory perspective, it is understandable or comprehensible, which will also support it to a certain extent.

Host Eva:

Compared to traditional financial markets, does the on-chain reality of assets bring investors a higher yield or better liquidity? Teddy and Oliver, could you help us interpret the actual situation of RWA in Web3?

Teddy:

I feel that the more important aspect of RWA going on-chain is its liquidity; people can buy it more easily. For example, you can buy it 24/7, whereas before, you could only buy it within a very small time window.

The first point might be some regulatory arbitrage; for example, something you couldn't buy before, now you can purchase it through a token format.

From a yield perspective, I don't think RWA yields are that great. I believe during the previous bear market, if U.S. Treasury yields were relatively high, there was some attraction. Besides that, I think other assets, like stocks, are easier to buy and sell. Other on-chain real-world financial assets, like credit assets, I feel their yields are not very high.

In the past, when we did fintech, achieving a yield of over 10% was already very good; going beyond that might mean the underlying assets are at risk. If I were to buy a high-risk, high-yield RWA asset now, I definitely wouldn't go for it.

Oliver:

Let me share some of my immature thoughts. Personally, I think the yield of RWA is still relatively important. Setting aside the crypto circle, where people no longer look at annualized yields of 8% or 10%, for traditional institutional funds, family offices, and private equity funds, they often seek a certain level of capital preservation. In this case, they might choose on-chain options.

On one hand, they might not be able to buy it in the traditional world; on the other hand, it might have some relative yield advantages on-chain compared to traditional options. For instance, domestic demand deposit rates might be below 1% now; if you can buy something on-chain that benchmarks U.S. Treasuries or something related, and suddenly get a yield of four or five points, that already seems very attractive.

Additionally, RWA provides many domestic companies with the space to issue bonds externally. Secondly, local government bonds are no longer being issued. Now, some good companies still face very high financing costs domestically, generally around 10-15%. However, if they issue RWA, they can use some receivables as a rigid repayment, and the cost of issuance might only be 6-7%. For them, reducing their financing cost from over 10% domestically is already a significant benefit.

However, for some traditional institutions, purchasing on-chain might yield slightly higher than U.S. Treasury rates, so I believe this area may have a certain market in the future.

Host Eva:

Now we see that almost all assets in the market are exploring going on-chain, but perhaps not all assets are suitable for tokenization. For example, real estate, which is a "slow asset" compared to the 24/7 trading speed on-chain. I would like to ask Teddy, Oliver, and Aster, which assets do you think may not be suitable for going on-chain due to liquidity, compliance, or valuation complexity?

Teddy:

If your asset's attributes are offline, then it is not very suitable for going on-chain. If your asset's nature is controllable on-chain, then it is more suitable. The earliest RWA was stablecoins, so the risk of stablecoins is actually unrelated to being off-chain or on-chain.

Government bonds and stablecoins have already proven to be successful tracks. Now, many on-chain assets are backed by government bonds, and stablecoins correspond to U.S. dollars in reality.

The third area I am particularly concerned about is stocks. When it comes to stocks, I believe it involves a lot of regulation. If you were to tokenize U.S. stocks, it would involve various regulatory issues, so it really depends on the regulatory framework. If it can operate in compliance, there could be significant growth.

Additionally, if it involves offline risks, such as corporate consumer credit, moving this onto the blockchain would be quite challenging in terms of risk control. The risk of asset failure does not depend on whether there is risk on-chain; rather, it hinges on what the underlying assets are off-chain. You need to be very clear about the assets behind it. Unlike a stablecoin, where you can see all its flows on-chain.

Oliver:

I completely agree with Teddy's views. I remember last month, when the Governor of the People's Bank of China was in London discussing with the Trump team, the People's Bank convened a meeting regarding stablecoins. Major banks and tech companies, including Xiaomi and JD.com, attended, and afterward, everyone was talking about issuing stablecoins. They would definitely issue Hong Kong dollar stablecoins. However, we internally assessed that the likelihood of this happening was quite low. If they suddenly issued a dozen Hong Kong dollar licenses, the market would only do one thing: short them. By taking advantage of the volatility of stablecoins, there would definitely be some stablecoin that would de-peg, and this would inevitably happen.

Now we can see that the entire stablecoin licensing in Hong Kong has basically shrunk to a very small range, possibly only issuing 1-2 licenses at the start. Additionally, many tech companies have already been absent from the next round of stablecoin license applications.

Issuing some Hong Kong dollar stablecoins or other sovereign currency stablecoins to do this is, to some extent, not feasible. In reality, the Hong Kong dollar itself is a stablecoin pegged to the U.S. dollar, but could the Hong Kong dollar face de-pegging risks? So I think that's the first point.

The second point is about stocks. As many of you may know, there was an incident with JellyJelly in March this year. At that time, the Hyperliquid protocol's treasury almost went bankrupt, so if many platforms pursue so-called on-chain solutions, there will also be risks of bankruptcy, which I think is a hidden danger.

The third point is that we can see that the RWA discussions in China are often more of a conceptual gimmick. We need to distinguish between real asset tokenization and mere hype.

For example, there are several types of assets that we can clearly identify as pseudo-propositions. The first type is those whose valuation and disposal heavily rely on offline scenarios, such as artworks, rare collectibles, and litigation rights. These depend on subjective judgments or court rulings. Therefore, even if they are made into RWAs, they cannot solve liquidity or value confirmation issues.

The second type includes assets with significant biological cycles. I remember that in March or February, a project called "Malu Grapes" was proposed as an RWA project in China. After we looked at it, we couldn't help but laugh. They were trying to issue grapes on-chain, but fundamentally, it lacks redeemability because the core value of RWA lies in its ability to be verified and realized. But what does the grape correspond to? Is it a bunch of grapes or a future harvest? How do you deal with it? If I buy an RWA, do I get a pound of grapes or something else?

Moreover, biological assets like grapes have a natural market loss cycle. What happens if they spoil? Does the token automatically get destroyed? How is the contract fulfilled? I think this type of asset lacks a sustainable liquidation logic.

The third type includes some non-standard credits or small bonds that Teddy mentioned earlier. For small and micro enterprises, if they issue RWAs for their receivables, no one will buy them. On-chain registration cannot replace credit management, so it is still necessary to find enterprises with strong credit backing to have any possibility.

The fourth type includes high-threshold assets, especially those involving data. For example, a state-owned enterprise's water company serving 5 million residential users has water usage data that could be considered an intangible asset and included in financial statements. However, this involves civilian data—does it have value? Secondly, if it involves medical or residential privacy data, can it be exported? Thirdly, there are some state-owned enterprise franchise rights that cannot be transferred or monetized. So if you try to package these things as RWAs, it is purely self-deception; everyone is happy, but it has no real effect.

Therefore, I believe that the assets that can truly go on-chain or have some hard valuation and strong cash flow are likely to be government bonds, money market funds, real estate, and gold. The others currently being promoted, in my opinion, are all pseudo-propositions.

Aster:

Actually, the two previous speakers have shared a lot, covering most of the points, but I would like to add a few more.

First, as many of the previous speakers mentioned, assets with insufficient liquidity are very unsuitable for going on-chain. We can look back at history; both artworks and real estate can be considered failed cases from our current perspective. Interestingly, artworks were once very popular in the form of NFTs. Many traditional and digital artists showcased their work in this space.

However, after a brief bubble, it quickly faded away. We can even say that the entire NFT sector has completely cooled off now. Why? It is precisely because of the liquidity issues that the speakers mentioned earlier.

But what is the advantage of being on-chain? On-chain, we have high-frequency trading 24/7, which is very unsuitable for these types of assets; real estate is the same.

When the term RWA first emerged, the earliest projects involved real estate. I even know several projects specifically focused on real estate RWAs, but after several years, they have gone through a couple of cycles and are still in disarray. They face the same problem as artworks: poor liquidity. History has proven to us that things with such characteristics are unsuitable for being on-chain.

In addition, some non-standard debt instruments are also unsuitable for going on-chain. For example, we see many financial derivatives, such as U.S. Treasuries and stocks, especially U.S. stocks, which have begun to be tokenized on a large scale, with traditional financial institutions participating and many testing the waters.

From the perspective of exchanges, recently we have launched a large number of tokenized stocks and platforms. Essentially, they are tokenizing U.S. stocks and issuing them on-chain. Even earlier than that, U.S. Treasuries were also tokenized. These two types are currently the most common forms of RWA and are widely used.

Additionally, there are some non-standard bonds, such as a company's debt. Can this be tokenized? It cannot, even though it is a standardized product, it is clearly not something that will be traded or circulated frequently, so it poses a problem. Therefore, things that do not have standardized pricing schemes are unsuitable for being on-chain. The artworks we mentioned earlier are one such example. Another example is private equity from a certain fund; can this be tokenized? It is also difficult because the assets of the fund are inherently opaque.

Another point is IP. This was also mentioned a couple of years ago, where the RWA of cultural IP was proposed but did not materialize. I think the reason is that its pricing is simply too opaque. The pricing of IP does not have a standard, making it inconvenient to establish a transparent pricing mechanism, which complicates the process of going on-chain.

Therefore, we ultimately need a pricing benchmark that is highly transparent and has a strong demand for high-frequency trading to be suitable for going on-chain. Currently, the assets that remain suitable for being on-chain are stablecoins, tokenized stocks, U.S. Treasuries, and some financial derivatives. Everything else is unsuitable for going on-chain.

Host Eva:

The three speakers just shared with us that some assets may not be suitable for going on-chain due to compliance issues, etc. However, we know that government bonds and real estate are slow assets. Now that they are already on-chain and the on-chain market operates 24/7, when the rhythm is misaligned, how should investors avoid falling into the "liquidity illusion"? How should we assess the actual value of these assets?

Vincent:

Having listened to the previous speakers, I mostly agree with their views. However, I have a slightly different perspective on what can be RWA-ized. Everyone certainly expects that once something is RWA-ized, it will have good liquidity, whether it is converting money to assets or assets to money; in short, there should be very good exchange efficiency.

However, in the financial market, it is still a multi-layered structure. For example, early-stage equity in the primary market is inherently illiquid, but does that mean there is no concept of shares or liquidity? Are there not various innovative structures now that are willing to provide better liquidity to the primary market? This certainly exists. The fact that an asset is illiquid is a characteristic, but it can be changed through various means.

One way, in the absence of on-chain options, is that most people chose ABS. In the U.S. financial market, particularly in the derivatives market, ABS is a huge market, encompassing various types of assets.

As mentioned earlier, it is difficult to achieve good liquidity for artworks and IP. For example, each of Monet's paintings is unique, but is there a relatively fair price for them? Therefore, in the art industry, another market called the print market was invented. The print market is essentially a derivative market of the original market, and it generates transactions. The print market can be seen as an IP licensing mechanism, but because prints are made in smaller quantities, ranging from hundreds to thousands, transactions occur. This is also why NFTs attracted attention in the previous cycle; their principle is quite similar to that of the print market.

I believe that any transaction that can be completed through electronic trading in the traditional financial market can theoretically be RWA-ized.

In the past ABS market, countless assets were tried, and the ones that remained were proven to be effective. In real estate, REITs have proven to be effective, which is why they continue to exist today. REITs represent a significant ABS market and are effective.

I think if we are to discuss this, we need to delve into a deeper issue, which is that there are two core fundamental principles in the financial market: one is liquidity seeking assets, and the other is assets seeking liquidity. Some liquidity cannot find investment assets through formal channels or within their risk preferences, so they continuously seek various assets, possibly pursuing high returns or regulatory avoidance. Thus, liquidity seeks assets. This is actually the core reason why the crypto market has developed so significantly, because even though we are constantly pushing for compliance in the crypto market, there is a large amount of liquidity that, to some extent, cannot find assets in the current very strict regulatory environment, and all this money is actually in the crypto market. So this is the first underlying principle.

The second underlying principle is that "illiquid assets are seeking liquidity." The third and fourth issues we discussed earlier are actually about this. Many RWAs essentially cannot find liquidity or have insufficient liquidity in the traditional financial market, so they seek some liquidity through RWAs. Of course, there are many structural innovations, various regulatory and structural innovations, and everyone is trying hard. However, because the financial market is a fully competitive market, a certain group will eventually remain. This may come from the ABS market or may be native RWA assets; I think this is the state I observe.

I remember CZ said about a month ago in Hong Kong that "some things are meaningless to RWA," but I actually think this depends on the structure of the RWA.

For example, the previously mentioned grape example. It is certainly wrong to tokenize grapes as an RWA, but it is possible to tokenize a vineyard because a vineyard is already a tradable asset in the financial market, and initially, it was done through contracts, where vineyard owners traded rights with each other.

However, if now, for example, we all have these contracts and data, all assets, because this is also the advantage of blockchain, right? It is data transparent, it is clearly defined, and it is immutable. This allows these things to be presented online as some form of rights through blockchain, enabling those who might not have been able to invest in vineyards to share in the investment returns of vineyards.

Aster:

Vincent has already said a lot about liquidity, so I will add a few points. One is that RWAs need to be fundamentally tied to some physical assets, and these physical assets have their own markets. For example, if I am now doing tokenized stocks, then besides trading on NASDAQ and the NYSE, there is also an independent market for RWAs, and the prices of these two should be strictly anchored. However, because the physical trading market is not a 24/7 market, there will occasionally be price de-pegging during the intervals, but as long as the degree of de-pegging is not too large, it usually does not create a significant liquidity illusion.

However, in some cases, the on-chain price of an RWA asset and the price of its underlying asset may experience a serious de-pegging. If this happens, then regardless of whether you see a high price or high liquidity on-chain, it is purely an illusion.

Basically, we believe that when an RWA market is favorable, a token can be traded at its actual value or even at a premium. For example, if there is a U.S. stock priced at around $100, after tokenization, if the market is good, I might pull the price up to $120 or even $130.

However, once it approaches the opening of the U.S. stock market, you may encounter concentrated selling pressure, and the price may experience significant fluctuations in a short period. At this time, what appears to be high liquidity may actually lack sufficient depth; it may only involve a few market makers and not enough traders, resulting in temporary fluctuations due to insufficient depth.

Therefore, to avoid falling into traps, we need to constantly monitor the price of RWA assets in relation to their underlying anchored assets, or the degree of value anchoring.

We also need to pay attention to some of its clearing rules. For example, if the price becomes disconnected from the physical asset, or if there are delays in the redemption mechanism, we need to focus on compliance, transparency, and auditing. Generally, the better an asset performs in terms of transparency and auditing, the lower the risk.

This includes how to prove the real assets on the RWA platform, how to verify the holdings of the underlying assets, and whether there is a third-party audit on the platform. The better the compliance and the higher the transparency, the more reliable we can judge the real liquidity as traders or users.

In summary, high liquidity on-chain does not necessarily represent the real liquidity of the asset, because on-chain itself can generate higher volatility and higher premiums, which may lead to what we call a false liquidity phenomenon.

Host Eva:

After discussing so much about the market opportunities and investor returns of RWAs, you might also be curious about what impact they might have on the traditional financial system beyond providing a new investment method. For the next question, I would like to ask Teddy and Xueqiu to share their thoughts. What traditional financial rules do you think RWA will reshape?

Teddy:

I think the first rule is certainly regulation. How regulators view these new RWAs is crucial, and this may refer to U.S. regulation, as well as regulations in places like Hong Kong and even mainland China, although the latter is still relatively early, with the main focus being on Hong Kong and the U.S.

So once RWAs take off, there will definitely be significant regulatory changes. We can see that the U.S. has been frequently formulating regulatory policies recently, including regulations in Hong Kong, regulations on stablecoins, and regulations on asset types. I believe the impact on the industry is quite significant; regulatory policies will determine the direction of RWAs.

The second area may be in financial payments, which is also a very core aspect of RWAs. Currently, cross-border payments are all done through SWIFT, and RWAs will, to some extent, replace it. Recently, there have been many stablecoin chains, and some of these stablecoin chains have traditional financial institutions participating, such as Visa.

Xueqiu:

From the user's perspective, I think there are many things that RWAs can change. The concept of real-world assets on-chain is somewhat similar to the previous idea of everything being on-chain. Now, people are talking about tokenized stocks or real estate, and these large assets going on-chain may allow for mining like DeFi, providing a basic yield, along with potential future platform token yields. However, I believe that some enhanced RWA innovations may be too large, like tokenized stocks or real estate, and some entrepreneurs are developing smaller projects, including in the gaming sector. Funds have also seen operations to tokenize game skins, such as CS:GO and Dota skins, bridging Web2 and Web3 gaming.

I have also seen KOLs on Twitter talking about putting parts of their bodies on-chain to develop an RWA project. I think the entire RWA ecosystem should provide a new direction for Web3. One aspect is to allow large funds to mine and combine with tokenized stocks to provide liquidity.

Additionally, some small entrepreneurial teams may have more ideas. Today, it could be gaming, and tomorrow it could be tokenizing an antique shop or other unexpected things.

I think innovation in this area is still important. With regulations becoming clearer and more friendly, and with more institutions getting involved, I believe there will be more support for innovations in this area.

Host Eva:

Thank you, Xueqiu. For our final question today, what milestones or trends do you think are worth paying attention to in the RWA market over the next 12 months? What type of breakthrough are you most looking forward to? Let's first ask Vincent to provide an outlook from the investment trend perspective, then Oliver to share insights from the market and trading aspects, and finally, Xueqiu to add observations and hopes from the community perspective.

Vincent:

Personally, since I trade in the market every day and we have a liquid fund, I think a 12-month cycle is a bit long. If we extend it to 12 months, is it likely that we will hit a bear market?

Let's not talk about the RWA market for now, because once you enter a bear market, looking back at the last bear market, all investment themes cease to be investment themes; every asset collapses, and everyone's confidence is lost.

However, at the bottom, things will start to push forward. So, first, I would think that if we extend it to 12 months, we are likely to encounter a bear market, and then we hope that at the bottom, there will still be many teams willing to try various ways to bring some successfully validated things from the ABS market onto the chain.

Next, at the bottom, we hope that regulations can be relaxed. The liquidity issues we discussed earlier, such as the insufficient size of the corresponding small pools for on-chain RWAs, are market depth issues. Because of the market depth issue, there may be violent fluctuations, but RWAs are related to physical assets, so we hope they can maintain price stability without large fluctuations.

Of course, large fluctuations are good for speculators, as they see opportunities to make money. But for those of us who genuinely want to work on these projects, we certainly hope that the value remains relatively stable.

So at the bottom, we will look forward to regulatory relaxation and more liquidity entering the RWA market, ensuring that this pool is not frequently breached. Currently, we only see stablecoins, and we are gradually seeing efforts from entities like Robinhood and NASDAQ to embrace tokenized stocks.

I believe these things are likely to happen within a year, but more innovations will need to see more financial assets going on-chain. For example, bonds; we hope to see not just stablecoins but also a foreign exchange market here. When important, large financial markets gradually go on-chain and achieve stable operations, I believe that will be a milestone.

After that, we need to see more ABs continuously going on-chain while also innovating to bring other assets that have not been in the ABS field onto the chain, as I mentioned earlier. I think there are several steps to this.

If we want to complete such a roadmap in 12 months, the time is certainly a bit short. However, the RWA market is likely to move in these directions.

Xueqiu:

The RWA market size has skyrocketed from $8.6 billion at the beginning of the year to over $20 billion now. I think over $20 billion is still a small amount of capital. From the community's perspective, I believe RWA is still in a conceptual stage, meaning the community may not care about what is being tokenized, whether it’s tokenized stocks or bonds; the community is not concerned about that. What the community truly cares about is whether RWA can create some wealth effects for everyone. They may be more interested in which platforms can emerge, whether those platforms will issue tokens, and whether they will generate wealth effects and bring more ways to play; I think that’s the case.

Host Eva:

Alright, through tonight's discussion, we can see that RWA is bringing traditional assets on-chain, creating a closer connection between DeFi and TradFi. It not only brings new returns and liquidity opportunities for investors but is also slowly changing financial rules, allowing capital to operate more transparently and efficiently. Of course, the development of RWA still has its pace, and challenges related to compliance and risk need to be monitored.

We would like to thank Vincent, Oliver, Teddy, Aster, and Xueqiu for their wonderful sharing. I would also like to remind everyone that our next AMA will be broadcast live again at 7 PM on the 25th of this month. We welcome everyone to follow the Cointelegraph Chinese channel; we look forward to seeing you there.

Related Articles: “CT Chinese · Crypto Open Mic” | Insights on Crypto Asset Rotation, ETH Strengthening and Altcoin Selection Strategies

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。