Written by: 0xngmi, DefiLlama

Translated by: Tia, Techub News

Figure claims to have $12 billion in real-world assets (RWA) on-chain and attempts to attract investors by exaggerating data. However, after thorough due diligence, we found minimal on-chain activity, with most assets merely being internal database mirrors and almost no trading. Meanwhile, they are trying to mislead the public by spreading rumors that DefiLlama refuses to list the project due to Twitter follower count. This article will break down the facts point by point, debunk false advertising, and explain how we ensure the provision of real, verifiable RWA data.

TLDR

Figure wants us to skip due diligence on them and is trying to discredit us to apply pressure. In this article, I will break down their claims point by point.

False Metrics of RWAs

In DeFi applications, anyone can verify TVL (Total Value Locked) through on-chain data and contract assets. However, this verification is impossible for RWAs, leading some RWA projects to exaggerate their TVL.

For example, when you visit rwa.xyz, you will see ZKSync ranked second in RWA value, with a significant gap from other chains. But I bet that very few readers of this article hold RWAs on ZKSync, so what’s going on?

According to their data, the largest asset on ZKSync has a market cap of $235 million.

But this token has only 11 holders. Moreover, since its creation 300 days ago, it has never been transferred or exchanged. All 31 transactions are merely the issuer minting coins to addresses or burning tokens, and all holding addresses are "dead addresses" with no transaction history, not even gas to operate.

The second largest asset has a market cap of $202.5 million, with a similar situation, having only 10 holders and no activity between addresses since its creation. The vast majority of RWA TVL on ZKSync is like this.

What does this mean? The issuer simply has an internal database and mirrors this database on-chain, with addresses showing no activity. Any new changes to the database are just pushed to the chain. I suspect these may not even be bearer assets.

Another similar case is when a company mints a token entirely owned by themselves and claims, "This token represents equity in a company, and we value this company at $500 million, so we request to be listed as an RWA issuer with $500 million TVL." This token is non-tradable, and no one owns it; the entire supply is just sitting in their own address.

I’m not sure if these companies are doing this to exaggerate metrics, claim they are collaborating with blockchain, or for other reasons. But when users think of RWAs, they usually think of purchasable stocks, tokenized real estate, or other financial assets that can be transferred/exchanged on-chain, which is clearly not the case.

DefiLlama's value lies in the trust users place in the reliable data we provide. If we listed these projects and said, "Look, ZKSync's RWA adoption rate is 10 times that of Solana," while in reality, people are trading and holding stocks on Solana, and ZKSync is just a mirrored database with no transfer activity, we would be misleading users, leading them to invest in ZKSync based on false assumptions, potentially resulting in losses.

Furthermore, TVL is also used to measure the market's trust in a project and the associated risks. In the case of an address minting and burning tokens to 11 empty addresses, there is no risk involved. If something goes wrong, the issuer can simply cancel the on-chain operations. This undermines the significance of TVL as a trust indicator.

Therefore, we place great importance on providing data that meets user expectations, allowing users to make informed judgments. We take user trust very seriously and strive for metrics that reflect reality.

This has also led some to believe that DefiLlama's RWA data is incomplete because their numbers are larger compared to RWA.xyz. The reason is that RWA.xyz lists all projects, while we intentionally do not list some projects to ensure more accurate RWA adoption rate data. Their method has led to years of data showing Provenance as the top chain for RWA adoption, far exceeding Ethereum and other chains (despite all institutional products being launched on other chains). They have now corrected this, but ZKSync remains their second chain for RWA adoption.

This is why we invest significant due diligence in RWAs: we verify everything on-chain and validate whether RWA endorsements are genuine.

Due Diligence on Figure

Figure claims to have issued $12 billion in RWAs on-chain, but our investigation uncovered some anomalies:

• They only have $5 million in BTC and $4 million in ETH on their exchange (with a 24-hour BTC trading volume of only $2,000).

• Their own stablecoin YLDS (which all RWA transactions should be conducted with) has a supply of only $20 million.

• Most RWA asset transfers do not seem to be operated by holding addresses.

• Most loan processes are completed in fiat, with almost no on-chain payments found.

So we don’t understand how $12 billion in assets is being traded when there are almost no assets available for trading on-chain. Are most holders not using their own keys, merely mirroring an internal database on-chain?

As part of our due diligence, we had extensive discussions with their team in a Telegram group. Later, they submitted a PR, and our developers asked many questions about issuance and the system… Among them was the mention of having $12 billion in TVL but a very small Twitter presence, which is strange, and we need more information to verify the data.

However, a long-time community member, who understands the entire due diligence process and our questions, went to Twitter to say that DefiLlama refused to list Figure because of their Twitter follower count. In the following days, I received many inquiries from large institutions and VCs privately asking DefiLlama and partners (then forwarding to me) why we refused to list Figure due to Twitter follower count.

It’s absurd; this person clearly knows the reasons for due diligence but fabricated lies to pressure us to skip the process so they could inflate metrics before their IPO. And now I can only write this article on Friday night to clarify: no, we did not refuse to list the project because of Twitter follower count.

Even more outrageous, the CEO of their partner chain even suggested that we charge listing fees, which is completely false. We have never requested or received any listing fees and have lost a lot of money because of this.

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。