Behind the RWA craze: stablecoins are the real infrastructure.

Author of this article: Lawyer Liu Honglin

Original Title: Without Stablecoins, RWA is Just Fooling Around

RWA has become a little girl who can be dressed up by anyone

The term RWA has recently been everywhere. From international financial forums to industry startup groups, everyone is talking about "asset tokenization" and "real-world mapping", as if anyone who doesn't say a few words about RWA is somewhat out of touch with the trends in the industry.

But the more intense the excitement, the more we need to calm down and clarify: what problems can RWA actually solve, and what basic conditions are necessary for its implementation.

Many people say that RWA is about "reconstructing" real-world assets on the chain, and Lawyer Honglin does not oppose this statement. However, the premise of "reconstruction" is to truly break the original information barriers and settlement processes.

In many RWA projects I have encountered, the so-called "asset tokenization" is actually just rewriting the data originally stored in Excel, ERP, or custodial institution systems onto the blockchain. However, the entire process remains the same: asset generation, value confirmation, profit calculation, investment distribution — all of these are still handled step by step by the project team's offline operations, and the blockchain is merely an "enhanced version of a report."

In this case, saying it "used blockchain" is indeed correct; but to say it "changed the logic of financial operations" is somewhat exaggerated.

What you call "asset mapping" is actually no different from creating a balance sheet in Excel. You can't just transfer asset-related information from a paper contract into a JSON file written on the blockchain and then claim that you have achieved "real-world asset tokenization."

You can record assets on the chain, but you cannot drive finance with the chain. Without breaking through this point, RWA will forever be stuck at version 0.1.

Two Standards for Identifying the Authenticity of RWA

Many people think that the core of RWA lies in "certification" - assets have a source, and there is registration on the chain. However, in reality, reliable data is just a basic prerequisite. What truly determines whether RWA has financial value is whether it can achieve reliable settlement, that is, whether the fund flow mechanism on the chain can operate.

Therefore, the value of RWA is divided into two layers: one is trustworthy data, and the other is trustworthy settlement.

First layer: Trusted data refers to whether the status changes of real-world assets can be recorded on the chain. This may sound very "technical," but it is essentially a transformation of business processes. External interfaces such as sensors, custodians, and oracles need to push information to the chain in real-time, automatically, and objectively when asset changes occur. This is the first threshold for RWA. Projects that can truly be called RWA must achieve "the chain knows as soon as an event occurs," rather than having the operations department upload a "report" at the end of each month.

In many RWA cases packaged by the news that we are aware of, several projects still rely on manual operations: various asset information is placed in a folder, and at the end of the month, someone clicks the mouse to generate an on-chain summary. This "post-upload" essentially amounts to "on-chain bookkeeping," which is far from the concept of "inherently trustworthy" in blockchain.

Layer Two: Trustworthy settlement is where the true value of RWA lies. In other words, whether the distribution of profits, return of principal, handling of defaults, and carryover of fees can be executed automatically, be immutable, and be transparent. To achieve this, there must be a currency unit on the chain, which means the participation of stablecoins.

Many projects overlook this point: data is available, and contract logic is in place, but during the settlement phase, it still relies on the finance staff to manually process payments or to "simulate" cash flow through third-party platforms. In this design, on-chain tokens are merely a symbol that "looks like an asset," but are not actual executable financial rights.

So we say that there are two fundamental criteria to measure whether a project is a legitimate RWA.

First, can your data flow be automatically put on the chain without relying on manual input?

You said you are working on new energy charging piles, is the power, switch on/off, and fault log of the pile written directly to the chain from the sensors? You mentioned accounts receivable financing, can the buyer's ERP system push the hash to the chain as soon as the invoice is issued? You talked about selling real estate rental income rights, does the rental flow have a custodian bank API for a second-level callback?

If these actions still rely on the operations team to collect and manually enter them, then "putting data on the chain" is a false proposition. You are not letting the system make judgments, but rather relying on "people making decisions on a whim"; in the end, it's still that centralized process, only the tool for "keeping the ledger" has changed to blockchain. With a fancier ledger, but it's still people at the bottom, with no reduction in reputation risk or tampering risk.

Second, can your capital flow be settled on-chain?

You said you issued a new energy charging pile revenue Token. When those charging fees enter the custody account, are they immediately split into N portions of stablecoins directly sent to the investors' addresses by the smart contract? You said you are doing accounts receivable financing. When the buyer makes a payment, can the contract immediately repay the principal according to the payment term, calculate interest, and deduct service fees? You said you sell real estate rental income rights. The moment the tenant clicks "confirm payment," is the rental stablecoin simultaneously transferred to the Token holder on the chain, and are the penalty fees and maintenance fees automatically deposited into the risk pool?

If these actions still require the finance lady to verify each transaction and manually transfer funds, then "on-chain settlement" is just a pipe dream. Funds go around in the background and then return to manual online banking, and the Token becomes a voucher - something you can see but cannot redeem.

Real RWA, to let money flow like data in a constant stream: verifiable stablecoin reserves, publicly available allocation formulas, and contract addresses that can be checked at any time. Otherwise, no matter how fancy you make the rights to the earnings sound, investors will still have to queue for loans, and financial efficiency will not see a qualitative improvement.

This is not the future we want.

RWA without stablecoins is just playing tricks

What we want is a truly functional structure: natively on-chain, able to operate automatically, and capable of real-time settlement. Once data is generated, it is automatically written to the chain and cannot be tampered with; once funds are triggered, they reach their destination automatically without human intervention.

RWA is not a more aesthetically pleasing table, but a new operating logic: data must be trustworthy from the source, and funds must be settled on-chain.

To achieve these two points, one is the need for blockchain technology as the underlying information, and the other is the need for stablecoins as a value carrier.

Many people talk about stablecoins, often stating that they can enhance the efficiency of cross-border payments, reduce costs, and replace banks. However, what truly determines their value in RWA is not these macro advantages, but rather their ability to make money truly "run" in the blockchain world. It’s not about waiting for monthly or maturity settlements, but rather that they can be programmed, called upon, and payments can be executed directly based on on-chain data.

The biggest significance of stablecoins is that they allow money to be programmed for the first time and to execute rules.

You can specify when it pays, to whom it pays, how much it pays, and even after what on-chain event it pays. It is not funds that wait for someone to click a button to move, but can flow automatically just like data.

With the application of stablecoins in RWA, the entire lifecycle of assets, from generation, profit distribution, to exit and recovery, can run entirely on the chain in the form of smart contracts. Otherwise, no matter how many institutions participate or how many audits endorse it, it is just another form of a centralized platform.

So we say: without stablecoin applications, RWA is just a scam.