Author: Go2Mars's Web3 Research

The real breakthrough is structural migration, not emotional venting; it is being accepted, not being pursued. The next stage of RWA is not the explosion point, but the entry point; not the traffic mouth, but the institutional mouth.

The hottest of 2025 will be HyperLiquid and Aster. There are many external explanations for why they will explode, with various angles that are very clever; however, to truly understand the essence of their popularity, we might need to view it from a product perspective. After interpreting it, can we derive this back to the RWA DEX? If so, how should we upgrade and derive? 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 explosion can be summed up in one sentence: They are not "better DEX"; rather, they are the "first to place the exchange's sovereignty on-chain." In simple terms, from a product perspective, it is not about performance, fees, or UI/UX, but rather: "Who controls the act of trading has undergone a structural change."

Why Did HyperLiquid Explode?

You have certainly heard these points: self-developed L1, high performance; CLOB works like CEX, with low latency and good depth, providing an excellent user experience; however, these only explain "ease of use," but do not explain "explosion." Through extensive research by Go2Mars PRI (Product Research Institute) on HyperLiquid, we reached a conclusion: HyperLiquid's true breakthrough is that it changed the "sovereignty of trading."

In traditional CEX/DEX, the boundaries related to trading, such as listing assets, delisting, risk control, liquidation logic, rule amendments, and halting trades, are all practically controlled by the platform, and the actual controllers are the platforms. In other words, "users involved in trading are just passive participants."

What did HyperLiquid do? It拆分了"exchanges' core power" into modules constrained by on-chain rules. The key is not "decentralization," but rather: Whether the rules can be unilaterally modified, and whether they can be artificially intervened in extreme situations; the core signal of HyperLiquid is: "even the system itself cannot arbitrarily change the rules."

Throughout the history of 2025 and beyond, a particular type of event frequently occurs: too many trading interventions under the guise of "compliance/risk control/risk management." The execution result of these events is that profits are rolled back, positions are liquidated, markets are paused, and rules are retroactively amended; this makes high-frequency/institutional/smart money realize for the first time: they bear "institutional risk," not market risk.

The essential attraction of HyperLiquid is "I only bear market risk, not the will of the platform." This is a qualitative change inherent to the product. Thus, HyperLiquid's explosion is not about user numbers, but rather: professional traders migrating, large funds willing to operate bare, strategies can be deployed long-term, and the system's predictability is extremely strong; this is the on-chain nature of "exchange credit."

Why Did Aster Explode?

We can be clear that Aster's explosion is different from that of HyperLiquid. Superficially, Aster appears to be: next-gen derivative DEX, modular, good UX, novel mechanism design, but in reality, none of these are core. The real point that Aster has hit is: "The abstract upgrade of trading behavior," summed up in one sentence: Aster does not sell trading, but rather "the encapsulation of trading capabilities."

Traditional exchanges provide users with: the right to place orders, the right to cancel orders, leverage; while Aster provides users with: strategy-level interfaces, conditional executions, risk structure templates, and behavioral combination permissions, in simple terms: users are not engaging in "trading," but rather: calling a set of "market behavior capabilities."

The reason Aster can explode is essentially due to: users have changed; most users are not novices, nor gamblers, but rather "strategy users/agents/automated systems," where trading behavior is no longer manual, but systematic. At its core, Aster is: providing "legal, stable, and combinable trading execution environments" for AI/Bot/Agent/Quant.

Inspiration from HyperLiquid and Aster's Products

Can such products continue? The answer is yes, of course, but it is not about copying. What can continue is not form, but rather three underlying logics: trading sovereignty must be verifiable, trading is not "page behavior," but "system capabilities," and exchanges themselves are "institutional products"; HyperLiquid actually addresses "institutional untrustworthiness," specifically addressing: Will the platform change the rules? Aster addresses "the inadequacy of abstract trading capacity," focusing on: Can trading be called upon by the system?

Previously, we at Go2Mars PRI published an article titled "Web 3 is Entering the Rule Generation Period," which discussed that the next phase of Web 3 is not an explosion point, but an entry point; not a traffic mouth, but an institutional mouth.

Thus, we have basically understood the fundamental reasons behind the explosive success of HyperLiquid and Aster, and can we use this logic to return to the RWA sector that has been hyped for over two years and explore the directional judgment of RWA exchanges?

Are There RWA Exchanges?

In a strict sense, "truly RWA exchanges" do not exist to date.

Why do the so-called RWA DEX/CEXs all "not resemble exchanges?" Because most are stuck on three issues: unclear legal responsibilities, non-closed loop for clearing and execution, and unnatural liquidity.

We will explain these three issues:

1. Unclear Legal Responsibilities: Who is the issuer, who guarantees authenticity, who is responsible for defaults? These are all unclear.

2. Non-closed Loop for Clearing and Execution: On-chain transactions, off-chain non-performance, ultimately relying on law, and in the end, on-chain rules become ineffective, becoming completely absurd.

3. Unnatural Liquidity: No market-making, no continuous pricing, resembling "private equity shares."

Based on the research and historical review by Go2Mars PRI, we believe a "true RWA exchange" must possess: on-chain clearing rights > off-chain ownership, defaults that can be automated, and RWA itself being a "cash flow tool," not an "asset certificate"; we will clarify these three basic logics:

1. On-chain Clearing Rights > Off-chain Ownership: It is not "I have this asset," but: "When the rules are triggered, I have the right to execute a certain outcome." For example: rights of yield priority, rights to dispose of collateral, rights to allocate cash flow.

2. Defaults Can Be Automated: The execution of defaults here definitely does not rely on laws or courts, but through: pledges, collateral, risk pools, and advance compensation, placing the cost of defaults up front, rather than seeking responsibility afterward.

3. RWA Itself is a "Cash Flow Tool," Not an "Asset Certificate": What can be traded in RWA is not "houses/debts," but rather "the rights to order cash flows." The rights to order cash flows refer to the agreements concerning who gets the money first, how much they get, and the risks they bear. The key lies in the recombination of risks and rewards; the rights to order cash flows can be said to be of utmost importance in RWA.

So, based on current observations, are there any products that come close to the correct form? The answer is yes, but they are all still in the semi-finished phase, typically manifesting as: they're not called exchanges, nor do they emphasize RWA, but they're already doing: on-chain cash flow distribution, risk layering, automatic clearing; hence, the future true RWA exchanges might not even be called RWA exchanges.

For RWA and RWA exchanges, the challenge is not "putting assets on-chain," as that is a very simple task. What needs to be solved is "putting responsibility, clearing, and defaults on-chain." Can defaults, executions, and cash flow sorting be managed by programs?

Conclusion: The Endgame of RWA is Not "Assets on-chain," but "Institution on-chain"

When we look back at the explosion of HyperLiquid and Aster, fundamentally they are not about "creating a better exchange," but about accomplishing a deeper matter—turning the institution of exchanges into on-chain rules.

HyperLiquid solves the question: will the platform change the rules? Aster addresses: can trading be called upon by the system? The genuine challenge for true RWA exchanges is a more difficult question: can defaults, responsibilities, and cash flow ordering be managed by programs? If this question cannot be resolved, RWA will always merely be the "asset showcase layer"; if it is resolved, RWA will transform into the "institutional financial layer."

Over the past two years, the market has focused on "how to put assets on-chain"—properties, debts, bills, fund shares, entitlements, mining operations, power plants... but these are just superficial. The real value lies, not in asset certificates, but rather in the execution structures of cash flows. Who gets allocated first? Who bears the first loss? What are the conditions for triggering defaults? Will executions be automatic? Is clearing irreversible? These questions are fundamentally "institutional issues," not "asset issues." If defaults still have to go back to court, if performance still relies on human judgment, if clearing can still be negotiated and modified—then the so-called RWA DEX is merely a traditional financial product with a blockchain UI. That is not an upgrade, but a repackaging.

The true RWA exchange may not develop into a form we are familiar with. It may not necessarily emphasize "decentralization," may not highlight "rich asset varieties," and may not even be called "exchanges." But it must have three things: rules exist before assets, clearing rights take precedence over ownership, and the costs of defaults are upfront, rather than seeking responsibility afterward; when these conditions are met, RWA will not be "private equity shares on-chain," but rather a combinable cash flow market. At that time, the object of trading will no longer be "a certain project," but rather "a certain risk structure." It is not about "buying assets," but "buying a segment of cash flow allocation rights."

If we say that Web3 is entering "the rule generation period," then the mission of RWA is to transform the most core, most hidden, and most human parts of traditional finance—default handling and yield ordering—into verifiable, combinable, and executable program structures. When the institution itself becomes a product, when the clearing logic becomes an interface, when risk structures can be pieced together like Legos, only then will RWA truly become a new financial paradigm, rather than just a shell of old finance.

Perhaps, the true RWA exchange will not explode based on "asset scale," but will attract capital with "institutional credibility." Just as HyperLiquid attracted the migration of professional traders, the future RWA structural market will draw: capital unwilling to bear institutional risks, institutions seeking transparent risk structures, and AI/Agent/quant systems requiring programmable cash flows; when cash flows can be understood by algorithms, when defaults can be automatically executed, and when clearing can be pre-priced, that will be the true breakthrough of RWA.

Therefore, the question is not: Can RWA create exchanges? But rather: Who will be the first to fully write "responsibility, default, and clearing" into the on-chain rules? When that day arrives, RWA will no longer be a narrative sector, but will become the new foundational layer of institutional finance. Only then will it be 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。