In 2025, the hottest topics included HyperLiquid and Aster. There are many explanations from the outside about why they became so popular, with various angles of approach, but the essence of their popularity may be easier to understand from the product perspective. After understanding this, can we derive it back to the RWA DEX? If so, how should we upgrade and derive it? This article aims to clarify as much as possible.

Understanding the Essence of HyperLiquid and Aster's Popularity

The fundamental reason for Aster and Hyperliquid's popularity can be summarized in one sentence: They are not “better DEXs,” but rather “the first to put the 'sovereignty' of exchanges on-chain.” In simple terms, from the product perspective, it is not due to performance, fees, or UI/UX, but rather: “the structural change in who controls the transaction.”

Why is HyperLiquid So Popular?

You have surely heard of these points: self-developed L1 with high performance; CLOB designed like a CEX with low latency, good depth, and excellent user experience; but these only explain "usability," they do not explain "popularity." Through in-depth research by Go2Mars PRI (Product Research Institute) on HyperLiquid, a conclusion was reached: The real breakthrough of HyperLiquid: it changes the “sovereignty of trading.”

In traditional CEXs/DEXs, the actual control of aspects related to trading such as listing coins, delisting, risk control, liquidation logic, rule changes, and transaction halts lies with the platform. The real controllers are the platforms, in other words, “the users participating in the transactions are merely passive participants.”

What has Hyperliquid done? It has broken down the “core powers of exchanges” into modules that can be bound by on-chain rules. The key is not "decentralization," but rather: whether rules can be unilaterally modified, and in extreme cases, whether they can be intervened by humans; the core signal of Hyperliquid is: “Even the system itself cannot change rules arbitrarily.”

Throughout 2025 and the preceding history, a certain type of thing often occurs: too many trading interventions under the guise of “compliance/risk control/risk management.” The result of this type of execution is that profits are rolled back, positions are liquidated, markets are paused, and rules are retrospectively modified, causing high-frequency/ institutional/ smart money to realize for the first time: they bear “institutional risk,” not market risk.

The fundamental appeal of Hyperliquid is “I only bear market risk and not platform will.” This signifies a qualitative change in the product itself. So Hyperliquid is not just about user numbers, but about: professional traders migrating, significant funds willing to trade naked, strategies that can be long-term deployed, and a highly predictable system, this is the on-chaining of “exchange credit.”

Why is Aster So Popular?

We can clearly say that Aster's popularity is different from that of Hyperliquid. From Aster's product surface, it looks like a new generation of derivatives DEX, modular, good UX, and innovative mechanics, but in fact, these are not the core. The real point that Aster has hit is: “the abstract upgrade of trading behavior,” summarized in one sentence: Aster sells not just trading, but “the encapsulation of trading ability.”

Traditional exchanges provide users with: the right to place orders, the right to cancel orders, the right to leverage; whereas Aster provides users with: strategy-level interfaces, conditional execution, risk structure templates, and behavioral combination permissions. In simple terms: users are not “trading,” but rather: calling a set of “market behavior abilities.”

The reason Aster can become popular is fundamentally because: users have changed; most users are not novices, not gamblers, but “strategy users/agents/automated systems,” where trading behavior is no longer manual, but systemic. Essentially, Aster is: providing “a legal, stable, and combinable trading execution environment” for AI/Bot/Agent/quantitative systems.

Insights from the Products of Hyperliquid and Aster

Can these types of products be continued? The answer is yes, definitely yes, but not just by copying; what can be continued is not the form, but rather three underlying logics: trading sovereignty must be verifiable, trading is not “page behavior,” but rather “system capability,” and the exchange itself is an “institutional product”; Hyperliquid essentially solves the issue of “institutional unreliability,” addressing whether the platform will change the rules? Aster solves “the insufficient abstraction of trading ability,” addressing whether trading can be called by the system?

Earlier, we at Go2Mars PRI published an article titled “Web 3 is Entering the Rule Generation Phase,” which mentioned that the next phase of Web 3 is not an explosion point, but an entry point; it is not about traffic, but about institutions.

Now that we basically understand the fundamental reasons for Hyperliquid and Aster's popularity, can we leverage this logic to return to the RWA sector that has been hyped for over two years and discuss the directional judgment of RWA exchanges?

Are There RWA Exchanges?

In strict terms, “real RWA exchanges” almost do not exist up to now.

Why do the so-called RWA DEX/CEXs we see now “not look like exchanges”? Because most of them are stuck on three issues: unclear legal responsibilities, lack of closed-loop clearing and execution, and unnatural liquidity.

Let's explain these three issues separately:

1. Unclear legal responsibilities: Who is the issuer, who guarantees authenticity, and who is responsible for defaults? These are all unclear.
2. Lack of closed-loop clearing and execution: On-chain transactions, off-chain non-performance, ultimately relying on laws, resulting in on-chain rules becoming ineffective, which is a complete joke.
3. Unnatural liquidity: No market-making, no continuous quotes, more like “private equity shares.”

Based on Go2Mars PRI's research and historical review, we believe “real RWA exchanges” must possess: on-chain clearing rights > off-chain ownership, defaults must be automatable, and RWA itself is “a cash flow tool,” not “asset proof”; we will explain these three basic logics:

1. On-chain clearing rights > off-chain ownership: It is not “I have this asset,” but rather: “I have the right to execute a certain result upon rule trigger.” For example: rights to revenue priority, collateral disposal rights, cash flow distribution rights.
2. Defaults must be automatable: The default execution here must not rely on laws or courts, but rather through: pledges, margins, risk pools, and advance payments, front-loading the cost of defaults instead of pursuing accountability after the fact.
3. RWA itself is “a cash flow tool,” not “asset proof”: What can be traded in RWA is not “houses/debts,” but rather “the rights to cash flow sorting.” The cash flow sorting rights refer to the agreement on who gets the money first, how much, and how much risk they bear. The core lies in the recombination of risks and returns; cash flow sorting rights can be considered the most crucial aspect of RWA.

So based on the current outlook, are there products that are “close to the correct form”? The answer is yes, but they are all still in the semi-finished stage; they typically present themselves as: not called exchanges, not emphasizing RWA, yet are already doing: on-chain cash flow distribution, risk stratification, and automated clearing, so in the future the real RWA exchanges may not be called RWA exchanges.

For RWA and RWA exchanges, the solution is not about “asset on-chaining,” which is relatively simple, but rather about the institutional on-chaining of responsibilities, clearing, and defaults. Can defaults, executions, and cash flow sorting be controlled by programs?

Conclusion: The Endgame of RWA is Not “Asset On-Chaining,” But “Institutional On-Chaining”

When we look back at the popularity of Hyperliquid and Aster, essentially, they are not “creating a better exchange,” but rather accomplishing a deeper task—transforming the institution of exchanges into on-chain rules.

Hyperliquid addresses: will the platform change the rules? Aster addresses: can trading be called by the system? The real challenge for a true RWA exchange to tackle is a more difficult question: can defaults, responsibilities, and cash flow sorting be taken over by programs? If this issue cannot be solved, RWA will always be merely “an asset showcase”; if it is resolved, RWA will become an “institutional financial layer.”

Over the past two years, the market has focused on “how to on-chain assets”—real estate, debts, bills, fund shares, yield rights, mine, power plants... but these are just appearances. What is really valuable is not asset proof, but rather the structure for executing cash flows. Who gets allocated first? Who bears the first loss? What are the conditions for triggering defaults? Is execution automatic? Is clearing irreversible? These issues are inherently “institutional issues,” not “asset issues.” If defaults still need to go back to courts, if performance still relies on human judgment, if clearing can still be negotiated and modified—then the so-called RWA DEX is just a traditional financial product with a blockchain UI. That’s not an upgrade; that’s packaging.

The true RWA exchange may not grow into the form we are familiar with. It may not emphasize “decentralization”, may not highlight “a rich variety of assets”, and may not even be called an “exchange.” But it must encompass three things: rules precede the existence of assets, clearing takes precedence over ownership, and default costs are front-loaded rather than pursued post-factum; when these conditions are met, RWA will no longer be “private equity shares on-chain,” but rather a combinable cash flow market. At that time, the objects of trading will no longer be “a specific project,” but rather “a certain risk structure.” It will not be about “buying assets,” but rather “buying a certain cash flow sorting right.”

If Web3 is entering the “rule generation phase,” then the mission of RWA is to transform the most core, hidden, and human aspects of traditional finance, default handling, and revenue sorting, into verifiable, combinable, and executable program structures. When the institution itself becomes the product, when the clearing logic becomes the interface, and when risk structures can be pieced together like LEGO, RWA will truly become a new financial paradigm rather than a shell of old finance.

Perhaps the real RWA exchange will not explode based on “asset scale” but rather attract capital based on “institutional credibility.” Just as Hyperliquid attracted the migration of professional traders, the future RWA structured market will attract: capital unwilling to bear institutional risks, institutions wishing for transparent risk structures, and AI/Agent/quantitative systems needing programmable cash flows. When cash flow can be understood by algorithms, when defaults can be executed automatically, and when clearing can be pre-priced, that will be RWA's true breakthrough.

So the question is not: Can RWA establish exchanges? But rather: Who can be the first to thoroughly write “responsibility, default, and clearing” into on-chain rules? When that day comes, RWA will no longer be a narrative sector, but will become the new institutional financial foundation. And that, is the true upgrade and derivation.

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。