Author: AiPlot Research Institute

Focus: RWA / Digital Assets / In-Depth Analysis of Financial Infrastructure

Website: https://aiplot.com/?utm_source=aicoin

Recently, two discussions about RWA represent two typical sentiments in the market.

On one side, there is skepticism towards compliance and regulation: Why didn't the U.S. government stop crypto exchanges from launching RWA? Why didn't major exchanges fully follow up immediately? If tokenized stocks are as complex as traditional securities, how can exchanges launch them quickly?

On the other side, there is anticipation for financial innovation: While the U.S. stock market is closed over the weekend, significant news can still happen. As long as the market cannot trade continuously, information will accumulate and create price gaps when it reopens. The 24/7 trading provided by the crypto market may offer a new price discovery and risk management mechanism for traditional financial assets.

These two viewpoints are not contradictory. They point to a more accurate judgment:

The primary value of RWA may not be to allow investors to truly own stocks on-chain, but rather to allow the prices, risks, and liquidity of traditional assets to enter a round-the-clock digital financial infrastructure.

However, to arrive at this conclusion, it is necessary to distinguish between three different products: tokenized securities, stock spot tokens, and TradFi perpetual contracts. They are all related to the prices of real assets, yet they possess completely different legal rights, settlement methods, and risk structures.

1. What the NVDA Weekend Event Illustrates

According to market statistics, during the closure of the U.S. stock market, the NVDAUSDT perpetual contract once dropped about 4.2% compared to the previous closing price. In the subsequent 24-hour window, the trading volume of Binance's NVIDIA perpetual contract was approximately $360.35 million, accounting for 44% of the related trading volume on the top eight platforms; open interest was about $90.57 million, making up 30.1% of the top eight platforms.

Binance’s TradFi closed market page also shows that TradFi perpetual contracts are not affected by the closure of the underlying market and can continue to trade. At the time of page retrieval, NVDAUSDT still displayed hundreds of millions in trading volume, and other contracts related to semiconductors, indices, and stocks remained active.

This data does not prove that perpetual contracts accurately predict the next U.S. stock opening price, nor does it prove that the contract price is the true spot price of NVIDIA stock. However, it at least illustrates three things.

First, market participants are willing to express their expectations of stock prices using derivatives when traditional markets are closed.

Second, significant news can enter trading prices before the stock spot market opens, rather than waiting for the market to open on Monday.

Third, the liquidity of exchanges, the participation of market makers, and their risk management capabilities determine whether this "pre-pricing" has reference value.

2. TradFi Perpetual is not Tokenized Stocks and Should Not Be Confused

Binance’s official definition of TradFi perpetual contracts is very clear: they are contracts settled in USDT that track traditional financial asset prices, and traders do not directly hold the underlying assets.

This means the NVDAUSDT perpetual contract is not NVIDIA stock, nor is it a Token representing ownership of NVIDIA stock. Holders typically do not have shareholder voting rights or receive direct access to stock registration, corporate actions, or statutory dividend rights.

The distinctions between products can be understood as follows:

• Tokenized securities or fund shares: Usually attempt to express the rights of underlying securities or fund shares on a digital ledger, with legal rights depending on issuance structure, custody arrangements, and regulatory approval;
• Stock spot tokens or digital stock certificates: May be backed by real stocks or custody assets, but specific rights need to be checked against the issuer’s legal documents;
• TradFi perpetual contracts: Focus mainly on price tracking and margin trading, and do not equate to direct ownership of the underlying stocks.

Therefore, NVDA perpetual contracts are closer to "on-chain derivatives of traditional stock prices" rather than "RWA of the stocks themselves."

Nonetheless, this does not mean it is unrelated to RWA. It provides another layer of infrastructure in the RWA ecosystem: allowing the prices and risks of real assets to be expressed, traded, and hedged in a 24/7 market.

3. Why Traditional Finance Has Not Truly Achieved 7×24 Hours

The U.S. stock market is extending trading hours, with some trading venues attempting to provide longer pre-market and after-hours trading. But extending trading hours does not equate to a continuous all-day market.

The market still faces daily maintenance, weekend closures, holiday shutdowns, settlement time constraints, and asynchronous information across markets.

This leads to a structural problem:

Risk events do not occur according to exchange operating hours.

Companies may release significant news over the weekend, governments may announce policies during non-trading hours, and geopolitical events may occur while the stock market is closed. If investors cannot adjust their positions, they can only wait for the next opening. This causes new information to be released in a concentrated moment when the market opens, leading to gaps, liquidity shortages, and order congestion.

The long-running advantage of the crypto market precisely lies in 7×24 hours of trading, global participation, and on-chain settlement. TradFi perpetuals extend this advantage to price exposure of stocks, indices, commodities, and other traditional assets.

From a financial functionality perspective, it primarily addresses three issues:

• Expressing views during market closures;
• Timely hedging after risk events occur;
• Providing a continuously changing reference price for the next spot opening.

This innovation is in the realm of financial market time, rather than necessarily in ownership.

4. Can Perpetual Contracts Fulfill a "Price Discovery" Function?

Price discovery is not as simple as "which price moves first."

For a market to have price discovery capability, it must meet several conditions:

First, there must be enough buyers and sellers in the market, rather than a one-sided market driven by few funds.

Second, the market depth must be sufficient so that large-scale orders do not easily cause price distortions.

Third, price indices, marked prices, and funding rate mechanisms must be able to control extreme volatility.

Fourth, there must be stable arbitrage and hedging relationships between contract prices and underlying spot prices.

Fifth, during abnormal market conditions, there must be mechanisms for clearing, margin requirements, and risk preparedness to maintain system operation.

According to Binance's official explanation, TradFi perpetual contracts use USDT as margin and settlement. Given that there are no continuous spot prices during underlying market closures, the platform manages price risks in 24/7 trading using price indices, marked prices, and smoothing mechanisms.

Therefore, the contract prices during market closure are not a "real-time copy of the spot price," but are determined by the following factors:

• The most recent available spot price;
• Traders' expectations regarding new information;
• Long and short positions structure;
• Funding rates;
• Market maker quotes;
• The platform's marked prices and risk control rules.

This is why the 4.2% intraday low of the NVDA perpetual has informational value, but cannot be directly used to predict Monday's spot opening price.

It resembles an "instant vote of market expectations," rather than a guarantee on future spot prices.

5. Why Liquidity is More Important Than "Whether It Is On-Chain"

If an asset is tokenized but lacks buyers, sellers, and market-making capital, then it is merely a record on the chain, not an effective market.

This is especially true for TradFi perpetuals. Investors' willingness to trade over the weekend does not indicate that the contract possesses high-quality price discovery ability. Only with sufficient trading depth and arbitrage participation will prices not easily be amplified by single large orders, leveraged liquidations, or low liquidity.

The prerequisite for liquidity network effects is stable market rules, trustworthy price indices, clear product structures, and the ability to handle risk events. Otherwise, trading volume itself may be merely high-leverage speculation rather than healthy liquidity.

This indicates that the market is expanding from a limited number of BTC and ETH trading varieties to asset exposures closer to traditional finance. However, what is of greater interest is the relationship between trading volume and open interest, funding rates, spreads, and liquidation data, rather than simply looking at the nominal trading volume of a single contract.

6. Why Binance Did Not Fully Follow Up on RWA Immediately

A question arises: if RWA is a major trend, why didn’t major exchanges embrace it from the start? Why didn’t U.S. regulators directly intervene? There are indeed reasonable institutional explanations behind this.

First, RWA is not a single product. The regulatory frameworks applicable to U.S. stock tokens, tokenized fund shares, government bond tokens, commodity contracts, and stock perpetual contracts differ. Exchanges cannot use the same product template to cover all assets.

Second, exchanges must first address product responsibility and settlement responsibility. Directly listing spot-type tokenized securities typically involves issues like custody, stock registration, issuer relations, corporate actions, dividends, investor qualifications, and cross-border sales. Perpetual contracts can provide price exposure without directly transferring ownership of the underlying securities.

Third, regulators may not be concerned with "whether blockchain can be used," but rather whether the product bypasses requirements for security issuance, trading, and investor protection. As long as the product involves securities rights, public distribution, or investor asset custody, it will face more complex regulatory boundaries.

Fourth, exchanges need to wait for sufficient liquidity and risk management conditions. The pricing of stock perpetuals relies on indices, market makers, and clearing systems. Even if the product format can be launched, if the market depth is insufficient, the platform may face extreme volatility, mispricing, and user liquidation disputes.

Therefore, the lack of immediate promotion from exchanges regarding RWA does not necessarily indicate that they are pessimistic about it; it may also mean that different products require different legal and risk paths.

7. The So-Called "RWA Compliance" Must Be Decomposed into Product-Level Issues

"RWA compliance" is not a question that can be answered as a whole.

A more accurate approach is to examine the products one by one:

1. What Are the Underlying Assets?

Are they stocks, ETFs, fund shares, government bonds, gold, indices, or merely contracts that track the prices of these assets? The underlying assets differ, and so do their legal properties.

2. What Rights Do Users Obtain?

Do users obtain ownership, income rights, voting rights, redemption rights, or merely exposure to price fluctuations? If they only receive the profit and loss of the contract, the product cannot be described as directly holding the underlying securities.

3. Who Is Responsible for Custody and Performance?

Are the underlying assets held by compliant custodians? Is the token supported on a 1:1 basis? Is there a clear redemption and conversion mechanism from the issuer? Is the exchange responsible for issuing, custody, or contract performance?

4. Who Can Trade?

Is the product open to users in all regions? Are there investor qualifications, KYC, wallet whitelists, and geographical restrictions?

5. How Is the Price Generated?

How are spot prices, index prices, oracle prices, marked prices, and funding rates related? How does the platform prevent price manipulation and disorderly liquidation when the underlying market is closed?

6. Who Bears Losses in Extreme Situations?

In the event of a hacker attack, oracle errors, system failures, liquidity exhaustion, and rapid liquidations, are there insurance, risk reserves, and clear responsible parties?

Only by answering these questions item by item can one evaluate whether a specific RWA product is truly compliant, rather than judging solely based on whether "stocks or gold appear in the asset name."

8. Security Judgments of CEX and DEX Must Go Beyond Labels

It cannot be simply assumed that centralized exchanges are inherently unsafe and decentralized exchanges are inherently safe.

The main risks of CEX include platform credit risk, custody risk, balance sheet risk, and operational risk. Users depend on the platform to fulfill asset return, transaction settlement, and risk management obligations.

The main risks of DEX include smart contract vulnerabilities, oracle attacks, cross-chain bridge risks, clearing mechanism failures, and misuse of governance rights. Openly transparent code does not equal an absence of flaws in the system, nor does it guarantee someone will compensate after an attack occurs.

For TradFi perpetuals, the risks of CEX and DEX are compounded with the risks inherent to derivatives themselves:

• Leverage amplifies gains and losses;
• Funding rates may erode positions over time;
• Liquidity may decrease during market closures;
• Marked prices and spot prices may temporarily diverge;
• Low liquidity markets more easily trigger cascading liquidations;
• Exchange risk control rules directly affect forced liquidation results.

Therefore, the evaluation of RWA trading platforms should not just focus on "whether it is decentralized," but should also consider proof of reserves, audits, clearing rules, insurance or risk reserves, responsible parties, historical performance records, and the ability to handle extreme events.

9. The Long-Term Value of RWA May Come from Three Time Dimensions

The innovative value of RWA can be divided into three time dimensions.

First, Extending Trading Hours

The market continues to operate during traditional exchange closures, allowing investors to express expectations and manage positions. Stock perpetual contracts are the most direct products at this level.

Second, Reducing Trading and Settlement Friction

Tokenized securities, fund shares, and digital currencies can allow asset transfers, capital settlements, and collateral scheduling to operate closer to real-time. DTCC’s tokenization services and secondary trading of tokenized funds in Hong Kong belong to this layer.

Third, Restructuring Financial Portfolio Methods

When stocks, government bonds, money market funds, gold, and stablecoins can all exist in compliant digital form, they can be incorporated into the same set of fund management, collateral, and investment portfolio systems.

The first layer is more likely to generate short-term trading volume, the second layer is more likely to enhance institutional efficiency, and the third layer may lead to the long-term reconstruction of financial infrastructure.

Conclusion: The Primary Wealth Opportunity of RWA May Not Be "Purchasing Assets," But Mastering Round-the-Clock Financial Infrastructure

The case of the NVDA weekend perpetual contract showcases the most direct value of traditional assets entering digital trading infrastructure: the market is closed, but risk management and price expression have not completely stopped.

It also reminds us that RWA cannot be simply understood as "putting stocks on the blockchain." For investors, what truly matters is what rights the product provides; for exchanges, what is crucial is how to manage indices, liquidity, margin, and clearing; for regulators, what is vital are responsible parties, investor protection, and market stability.

• Tokenized securities address the digital expression of asset rights;
• TradFi perpetuals offer round-the-clock trading and hedging for traditional asset prices;
• Stablecoins and tokenized deposits resolve capital settlements in the digital market;
• Custody, clearing, and data systems provide the credit and operational infrastructure required for institutional adoption.

In the long run, truly competitive projects will not necessarily be those that are the earliest to announce "stocks on-chain," but rather those that can generate real data and revenue in the following areas:

Price discovery, market-making liquidity, collateral management, clearing settlement, risk preparedness, and cross-market data.

The U.S. stock market may close, but the market does not stop receiving information. The long-term value of RWA lies in gradually integrating this information, positions, and assets into a more continuous, programmable, but also more rigorously risk-managed digital financial system.

For more data and analysis, please follow Aiplot:

https://aiplot.com/?utm_source=aicoin

📖 Community Discussion:

Telegram:

https://t.me/+IIYMcJigBAo4Mjg1

​​​​​​​

This article's content only represents the author's personal opinion and does not represent the platform's stance. The viewpoints, conclusions, and suggestions in the text are for investors' reference only and do not constitute any investment advice related to this platform. The market carries risks, investments require caution.

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[email protected]，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。